Lawsuit: Adjourned zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 75

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alexander P. Love

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Justice Department
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Legal Eagle Change Maker Popular in the Polls
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
Attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,182
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


zLost (Represented by The Lovely Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Constitution outlines clear duties to various government departments and agencies, delegating powers specifically to certain institutions. These barriers have been breached when a law regulating public transit fares was passed and signed into law. The Constitution clearly gives the duty to manage fares to the Department of Construction and Transportation, and this power must be restored to the Executive Branch.


I. PARTIES
1. zLost (Plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. Congress
4. The Department of Construction and Transportation

II. FACTS
1. The Congress and former President Twixted passed the Free Public Transport Act (link) on the 23rd of April.
2. This act altered the pricing for public transportation.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Constitution provides that "The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the... Management of Public Transport networks." Therefore, day-to-day operations such as pricing and fares are within the jurisdiction of the Department of Construction and Transport, and thus the executive branch and not the legislative branch.
2. While "management" is somewhat ambiguous, most public transport systems manage their own fares as part of their general operations, and thus it is reasonable to belief that "Management of Public Transport networks" includes fares and pricing.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Free Public Transport Act to be struck as unconstitutional.
2. The Lovely Law Firm will be assessing $7,500 from the Plaintiff for this case, and thus the Plaintiff requests $7,500 in legal fees.
3. As this significantly reduced tax income coming to the State, the Plaintiff has suffered from the inability of the Commonwealth to provide services it otherwise would with this lost tax revenue. The value and nature of these services are incalculable, and therefore the Plaintiff requests $75 for each day the law has been in effect. This is 85 days, and thus we request $6,375 in damages.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 29th day of August 2023
 
PwFVDhr.png



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM The Congress and former President Twixted passed the Free Public Transport Act (link) on the 23rd of April.
2. AFFIRM This act altered the pricing for public transportation.

II. DEFENSES
1. While it is true that the Constitution provides that "The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the... Management of Public Transport networks," the defense argues that pricing and fares does not fall within the purview of "management." At many companies, for example, a "manager" handles schedules and operations, but costs and pay are handled by higher-up authorities.

In this metaphor, Public Transport networks are companies, and Congress is the higher-up authority.

2. Furthermore, the Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to "impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes." This includes taxes paid to use Public Transport networks.

III. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
The Commonwealth and Plaintiff completely agree on "FACTS" and thus, the Commonwealth believes Summary Judgement is reasonable.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 13th day of September 2023
 
Does the plaintiff agree with the motion for summary judgment?
 
Matthew100x said:
Does the plaintiff agree with the motion for summary judgment?
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff would like to move to opening statements to allow for more articulation as to the interpretation of the law, and then proceed to summary Judgment immediately after that.
 
Does the defendant agree to this arrangement?
 
We shall now be entering an arrangement for opening statements followed by summary judgment.

The plaintiff shall now have 48 hours to post an opening statement. Kindly inform this court if you need an extension.
 
Your honor, due to an IRL emergency, the plaintiff requests a 48 hour extension.
 
Granted
 
Due to the decision made in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18 utilizing the Judicial Fix Act, enforcement of this constitutional amendment is in play (see Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18), therefore because this case involves a constitutional challenge, the Federal Court of Redmont can no longer over see this case (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act).

Given the circumstances, I am putting this court into a one week recess.
 
This case is now off recess. The plaintiff may now submit their opening statements within the next 48 hours.
 
I am informing the Court that I am no longer the Attorney General. @drew_hall is and I will no longer be involved in this case.
 
Your honor, may I request an extension? Lovely Law has just transferred ownership and cases need to be reassigned.
 
Your Honor, the commonwealth is requesting this case be attended to at this time. Any extension that would have been granted by this court to the Plaintiff in this case would now be void, as over 72 hours have passed since they filed a request for an extension, and the court has yet to even respond.
 
drew_hall said:
Your Honor, the commonwealth is requesting this case be attended to at this time. Any extension that would have been granted by this court to the Plaintiff in this case would now be void, as over 72 hours have passed since they filed a request for an extension, and the court has yet to even respond.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
The plaintiff is ready with our opening statements. We would like your permission to continue on with our opening statements.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

(Edited for grammar)
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry for the delay. The request for extension is denied given that it came 24 hours after the initial 48 hours expired. The Defendant may post their opening statements.
 
Good morning, Your Honor. Me, Anthony, and Drippzy_Tox will be taking the case on behalf of the DLA. We will have an Opening Statement up shortly.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss

The Commonwealth, while not wanting to dismiss the entire case, motions to dismiss the 3rd Prayer for Relief in the “IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF” section of the filing on the following grounds:

The Plaintiff is not entitled to the tax revenue that would or would not be collected by public transport fares. Tax revenue is not directly transferred to citizens, so this “lost tax revenue” did not have any bearing on the quality, or ability to give these alleged “services.” Tax revenue solely goes into Government accounts before being appropriated by said accounts.

DATED: This 5th day of October, 2023.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, Opposing Counsel,

While the DCT is charged with managing the Public Transportation network, they are not charged with managing fares or any other related taxes. They simply manage the operation, construction, and maintenance of public transport.

Under the Congressional Jurisdiction Summary in Part I, Section 2 of the Constitution, it is explicitly stated that Congress is the sole establishment that can “impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes.” The DCT has no power to collect taxes, therefore Congress is the only one with the ability to change the fares of the Public Transport system.

Furthermore, the Public Transport Act states in its reasons “If it is public, it should be paid for through taxes. The DCT is not losing revenue, but is instead receiving this revenue through the taxes levied from balances, businesses, and regions. Congress also has the responsibility to appropriate money to the Department through budgeting, so these taxes are still ending up in the Departments, such as the DCT, in the end.

DATED: This 5th day of October, 2023.
 
The plaintiff will have 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss. Please do not make opening statement arguments, kindly address only the arguments made in the motion to dismiss.
 
Neemfy said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss

The Commonwealth, while not wanting to dismiss the entire case, motions to dismiss the 3rd Prayer for Relief in the “IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF” section of the filing on the following grounds:

The Plaintiff is not entitled to the tax revenue that would or would not be collected by public transport fares. Tax revenue is not directly transferred to citizens, so this “lost tax revenue” did not have any bearing on the quality, or ability to give these alleged “services.” Tax revenue solely goes into Government accounts before being appropriated by said accounts.

DATED: This 5th day of October, 2023.
Click to expand...

Your Honor,
We would like to refute the dissmisal of the 3rd prayer of relief off the basis of:

1.While it is true that "taxes" go directly to the government the fees incured by using the public transit system can not be considered a "tax".
According to the taxation act the three types of taxes are as follows;
1.personal/corporate
2. purnning
3. Property
The fees paid for transportation do not fall into any of these three catagories.

2. Further more the definition of a tax based off of the oxford dictionary is "a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government" the term "Compulsory" used in that definition means "required by law." Players are not required by law to use or pay for public transit.

Based off of those two facts the lost income incured due to the changes created by the public transport act cannot be deemed a tax and as such should be considered a fee, or a payment to the DCT, which in turn would allow it to be held as prayer of relief.
 
OBJECTION
Relevance

These arguments, despite arguing the definition of a tax, still do not prove why the third prayer for relief should be dismissed. Their argument only alleges that the DCT is entitled to the "lost fees," which makes this argument irrelevant against my Motion to Dismiss.

Furthermore, the argument seems to question the definition of a tax rather than whether or not zLost is entitled to it, which seems to be more of an argument against the Commonwealth's Opening Statement. Based on these reasons, the Commonwealth Motions to Strike the response for directly not following the direction of the Justice.
 
Neemfy said:
OBJECTION
Relevance

These arguments, despite arguing the definition of a tax, still do not prove why the third prayer for relief should be dismissed. Their argument only alleges that the DCT is entitled to the "lost fees," which makes this argument irrelevant against my Motion to Dismiss.

Furthermore, the argument seems to question the definition of a tax rather than whether or not zLost is entitled to it, which seems to be more of an argument against the Commonwealth's Opening Statement. Based on these reasons, the Commonwealth Motions to Strike the response for directly not following the direction of the Justice.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
I am not making an argument on the opening statement at all.

The defense agrued in there motion to dissmiss
"The Plaintiff is not entitled to the tax revenue"

My response was to clarify and demonstrate that even though the plaintiff would not be entitled to "tax revenue" the fees and fares that the 3rd praryer cover, are not "tax revenue" and are akin to service payments. Therefore our client can be entitled to the fares outlined above.
 
I am unable to respond to the motion to dismiss due to the ongoing impeachment. I will be placing this case into recess until such a time when the impeachment is over.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Decision on Motion to Dismiss

Movant's Stance:
1. Wishes to dismiss the third Prayer for Relief on grounds that the plaintiff would not be entitled to tax dollars under normal circumstances.

Non-Movant's Stance
1. Fees are not considered a tax.
2. Taxes are compulsory and use of a bus is a choice and therefore not compulsory.

The Court's Opinion
1. There is plenty of decisions that indicate that the government must pay out damages to plaintiff.
2. Harm based on compensatory damages, as assessed by the initial complaint is due to the plaintiff because of a lack of services due to lost revenue from the lack of fares collected by the DCT, is unsubstantiated due to the establishment of other forms of government revenue collection as well as because Congress sets the budget with regards to services not necessarily in line with the creation of a budget surplus or deficit in mind.
3. That even though plaintiff's third prayer for relief is dismissed, that they may still be eligible for nominal damages as a result of finding an error with the law.

Can both sides kindly inform me whether they wish to call any witnesses within the next 48 hours?
 
Respectfully, Your Honor, witnesses will not be necessary. Both parties agreed to Summary Judgement after Opening Statements.
 
Neemfy said:
Respectfully, Your Honor, witnesses will not be necessary. Both parties agreed to Summary Judgement after Opening Statements.
Click to expand...
Much appreciated for the reminder. Can the plaintiff please inform me if the arrangement continues?
 
Your Honor, 72 hours have passed since you asked for a confirmation.
 
Yes your honor, it does. My apologies for the delayed response. The Lovely lawyer assigned to this case did not respond, and this will be taken care of within Lovely.
 
Your Honor, over 72 hours have passed. The Plaintiff did confirm the arrangement continues.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 75

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. That the Constitution provides "The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the... Management of Public Transport networks." Therefore, day-to-day operations such as pricing and fares are within the jurisdiction of the Department of Construction and Transport.
2. While "management" is somewhat ambiguous, most public transport systems manage their own fares as part of their general operations, and thus it is reasonable to belief that "Management of Public Transport networks" includes fares and pricing.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Pricing and fares does not fall within the purview of "management."
2. The Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to "impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes." This includes taxes paid to use Public Transport networks.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Management over Public Transportation network does include the pricing of fares.
2. Taxes indicate an involuntary payment whereas fares are voluntary, meaning that the power to "impose, amend, cease, and collect taxes" does not apply in this situation.
3. The plaintiff, though well meaning, is not entitled to collect government money spurring from the losses of the DCT.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court orders that the Act of Congress - Free Public Transport Act be struck as unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to unfine the Plaintiff $2,500 dollars in Nominal Damages for discovering the error in law.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to unfine the Plaintiff $500 dollars in legal fees (Capped to 20% of case value).

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top