Lawsuit: Dismissed wdeerman v. The Government of Stratham

[wdeerman]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic

CIVIL ACTION

Date: 01/15/22​

wdeerman, representing himself


v.


The Government of Stratham


I. Description of Case

The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:


The illegal seizing of half of wdeerman’s balance of Karunas


II. Parties

1. wdeerman

2. Government of Stratham


III. Sequence of Events

1. The Pruning Tax Act was passed and signed

2. The law was illegally enforced and roughly 530,000 Karunas were removed from wdeerman’s player account.


IV. Claims for Relief

The Pruning Tax Act was illegally enforced due to the following two reasons, and if either one of these reasons are deemed valid, then the law was illegally enforced.


Reason 1:

According to Section 4. Subsection (3)(c) of The Pruning Tax Act “The DoE shall be the governing authority of tracking and enforcing this act.”


According to “Section 3: Ministers” of the “Executive Branch: The Cabinet” section of the Constitution of the Republic of Stratham, the DoJ is “Responsible for maintaining peace and order of the server by enforcing laws”, and the DoE is “Responsible for the overall performance of the economy, including government shops, business grants, jobs, exams, guides.”


According to the Constitution of our great Republic, the DoE does not have the authority to enforce laws created by Parliament. Law enforcement is the job of the DoJ. According to the Constitution, “Parliament can create, amend and remove departments & their powers as well as the positions within them”, but, “This can only be done through a constitutional amendment.” Therefore, considering that there has not been a constitutional amendment passed that allows the DoE to enforce laws, the The Pruning Tax Act is unenforceable due to the fact that the assigned enforcing authority of the law is a department that is unable to legally enforce the law.


Reason 2:

According to the Law Officiation Bill passed on November 5, 2021, “If a law involving DoJ Enforcement and Punishments is passed into parliament, It can not be enforced until it is added to the Rules and Laws page on forums, Found here https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/rules-laws.2289/.” Also, “This Bill would also include laws enforced and punishable by any other department such as the DoA's Animal Rights Laws”


Considering that the penalties described in the Pruning Tax Act are not present in the Rules and Laws page on the forums as of 1/13/2022, it was illegal for the government to punish wdeerman under the Pruning Tax Act on a date before 1/13/2022.


If the court would like, I have screenshots of the Property Laws and Economic and Employment laws sections of the Rules and Laws forum page from 1/13/2022.


V. Damages

1. 530,000Kr plus interest at the standard rate of 5% a week, returned to wdeerman

2. Legal fees to be assessed at the end of the trial

3. Returning of all other illegally seized assets under the Pruning Tax Act to their rightful owners

 

[Cherub54321]

@Dusty_3 is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Dusty_3 , does not acknowledge the case as a reply in 2 days, the case will close in the Plaintiff's favor.

Court is in Session

This case is presided by Judge Cherub54321 Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, as this is my department, I wish to be the government's representative in this case. I hold the lawyer requirement needed to represent in this case.

 

[wdeerman]

Your honor, l am aware that I may be speaking out of turn. However, I do believe that it is important for me to voice my concern that Matthew100x, as DoE Minister, may need to be called as a witness to testify as to the actions of the DoE in regards to the case. This could pose issues if he is also representing the defendant at the same time.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

Before we continue I would like to know from the plaintiff how the DoE minister could be required as a witness, and why their name was not included as a witness in the plaintiff's opining statement. I shall then make my decision as to if they are suitable to represent the government in this case.

 

[wdeerman]

Good evening your honor,

When proposing my concern, I was considering the possibility of the question being raised as to if the DoE actually ordered the enforcement of the punishment ordered under the Pruning Tax Act which would in turn require the DoE Minister to testify.

As to why I did not include the Minister as a witness, I made a honest mistake and was unaware that I needed to call witnesses in the outline of my case. I thought it was acceptable to wait until after the Defense's opening statement so I could assess what witnesses would be necessary.

 

[Matthew100x]

Why would I need to testify as a witness when I can just submit the chatlogs that pertain to the pruning tax as evidence?

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

I do not believe that the DoE minister would be useful as a witness considering that the question the plaintiff is expecting can be answered by screenshots or chat logs and would not require the minister to act as a witness. I therefore accept the DoE minister’s request to represent the government in this case, and expect the defendants reply in the form of a Motion to Dismiss or Answer To Complaint within 48 hours.

 

[Matthew100x]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic

MOTION TO DISMISS

Date: 01/17/21
​

Plaintiff

wdeerman


v.


Defendant

The Government of Stratham, DoE.


I. Motion To Dismiss

The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:

The interpretation for the Pruning Tax on the count of constitutionality and Law Officiation is wrong. Additionally, Ex Post Facto does not apply in this instance.

1. We can enforce economic laws and there’s no reason why the DoE should not be able to

The very first line of the constitution of the executive branch is “The Cabinet consists of all Ministers who collectively enforce all laws and run all government departments and thus the server”. All of the departments effectively enforce the law in one way or another. The DoH enforces health policy law, the DoPA enforces the law in regards to their events, the DoS enforces the law in regards to the election, the DoA enforces laws related to agriculture, wilds, and mobs, and the DoC enforce property law, DoJ enforces laws related to crime. There is no reason why the DoE cannot enforce laws related to the economy and why we must go through the DoJ to accomplish our constitutionally established job of “(being) Responsible for the overall performance of the economy”

2. The Law Officiation Act does not apply to the pruning tax.

Law Offication requires that “This Bill would also include (include meaning “It can not be enforced until it is added to the Rules and Laws page on forums”) laws enforced and punishable by any other department such as the DoA's Animal Rights Laws”. (Title II, Chapter 14, Section 1 Edit. (Parentheses Title II, Chapter 14, Section 1)).

The Pruning Tax is just that, a tax. A tax is not a punishment. Therefore, because this law contains no punishment, it is not controlled by the Law Offication act and does not need to be added to the Rules & Laws section of the website. This is because the Law Offication act requires that a law must be on Rules and Laws section of the forums if the law is “Enforced and Punished”.

Additionally, laws that have punishments have a section within them that lays out the punishment per offense. Examples are Title V, Chapter 7. Title V, Chapter 8. Title XI, Chapter 28. Title XI, Chapter 30. The Pruning Tax, which is Title V, Chapter 10, has no punishment per offense listed. Therefore it cannot be considered a part of a law that is "Enforced and Punished".


Finally, Ex Post Facto does not apply in this case. Due to this being a change in the economy, the provisions for normal Ex Post Facto (Title IV, Chapter 9, Section 2) protection are voided per the bill. Therefore the plaintiff derives no protection in his property through Ex Post Facto.

Spoiler: Ex Post Facto Law

Ex Post Facto (Title IV, Chapter 9, Section 2(Subsection 3, 4, 5)):
(3) A Bill cannot be made to effectively punish someone for something that was previously not illegal. A law can only apply after it has been passed by Parliament and signed by the Prime Minister. 'Old Cases' are effectively grandfathered into the new law and are legal.

(4) In cases of property law (items, plots, land, vehicles (both motor and mobs), pets, krunas, and banknotes) changes, Ex Post Facto protects you from any changes. However, all transactions of said property afterward a new law has been passed are considered 'New Cases'

(5) Sections (4 and 5) can be voided if, a new bill states that 'Old Cases' will not be grandfathered in, or a new bill makes changes to the economy of BusinessCraft, or a new bill makes changes to the Government of BusinessCraft.

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.
​

Chatlogs are posted below for clarity.

BREAK

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

Thank you both for your responses, in regards to the Motion to Dismiss I sustain it for the reasons given below.

Firstly it is my belief that as per the constitution the DoE is able to enforce economic laws, such as the pruning tax, as indicated by this line "The Cabinet consists of all Ministers who collectively enforce all laws". Although the DoJ enforce the majority of server laws other departments may enforce laws related to their departments, for example how the DoA enforces animal rights laws, and so the DoE is within their powers to enforce the pruning tax as well as other economy related laws.

In regards to the plaintiff's second point, the law officiation bill only applies to punishments, and given that the pruning tax is a tax, as stated in the Bill, it is not a punishment and is hence exempt from the law officiation act.

Although this case is dismissed, I would like to make a recommendation to the government about the pruning tax. In my eyes, it seems unnecessarily harsh, when you consider that many players make take breaks from the server for personal reasons, and I believe that it would be considerably improved if the percentage of the tax is reduced considerably, to a possible percentage of around 15%, or that players are able to claim a percentage of the money that was removed back upon re-joining the server. Additionally the enforcement of this act only appears to apply to specific individuals, and needs to be extended to all citizens or none at all.

I thank both parties for the work and effort they have put into this case.

Case Dismissed.

Court Dismissed

This case was presided by Judge Cherub54321