Lawsuit: Adjourned Vroomba vs Stratham

[seanboi]

Good evening your honor, I am seanboi from Aperture Law, here to represent my client, Vroomba.

On the 14th of July, a Claim of Inadequacy was filed against my client, incumbent mayor of Troutman. However, this is illegal. According to the Inadequate Mayors Act, a Claim of Inadequacy can be made if:

"The city/town does not meet the requirements of the respective settlement types."
"The city/town is seen as having little to no progress (determined by cabinet and approved by parliament)."
"A public petition is created to remove the mayor from their mayoral position and it receives 25 signatures."
"A Claim of Inadequacy is instantly started against a Mayor under these conditions: The mayor is inactive on the server for 2 weeks."

The Town of Troutman meets all town requirements and has had lots of progress recently. My client, Mayor Vroomba, has been on in the past two weeks from when this lawsuit is posted. There has also been no public petition. I am requesting that the court order the executive to end the Claim of Inadequacy against the incumbent mayor of Troutman.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,
Seeing as this is DoCR related, I will be calling the Minister of the DoCR to speak on behalf of the plaintiff's complaint. They can choose to represent the government themselves, or have another member of the government step in their place.

@Tracefais is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Tracefais , 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 Cooleagles Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[bharatj]

Good afternoon,

As the prosecutor, I will be responding to this lawsuit representing the government. The Inadequate Mayors act and seanboi himself in this lawsuit stated that a COI may be initiated if there is lack of progress, which is deemed by cabinet and approved by parliament. Since cabinet has deemed Troutman as having lack of progress, launched a COI (which cabinet has expressly been given the right to do in the Inadequate Mayors Act) and parliament approved the COI, which the law also expressly allows, so I do not see anything against the law done by the government. While we commend the steps troutman has taken to fight for its survival in terms of town progress, any steps for the towns progression have been made after the claim of inadequacy. In fact, prior to the COI, the towns mayor, vroomba, he not only refused to even begin the bank and quarry, but even requested the dismantling of the towns official status before flipping his opinion. We would also like to point out that seanboi, being the lawyer in this case representing the prosecution is a conflict of interest, and are insisting that he abstain from voting in troutmans trial.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

In fact, prior to the COI, the towns mayor, vroomba, he not only refused to even begin the bank and quarry, but even requested the dismantling of the towns official status before flipping his opinion.

Firstly, the Court finds this and its evidence very interesting and would like to hear a response from the plaintiff in regards to such.

The Town of Troutman meets all town requirements and has had lots of progress recently.

Secondly, the plaintiffs claim that the town has made "lots" of progress. The Court asks that the plaintiff also follow up on this seeing that both cabinet and parliament disagree. The Court asks that pictures, if possible, be posted along with their rebuttal of said progress.

We would also like to point out that seanboi, being the lawyer in this case representing the prosecution is a conflict of interest, and are insisting that he abstain from voting in troutmans trial.

Additionally, before I make judgement on this motion I'd like to hear from seanboi and any arguments they may have on the contrary to this claim. The Court asks the the plaintiff's lawyer also put this in their response.

Thank you, that is all for now.

 

[seanboi]

Good Evening,

Firstly, the Court finds this and its evidence very interesting and would like to hear a response from the plaintiff in regards to such.

My client completed the bank and quarry before the deadline. My client regrets saying that he wanted to un-officiate the town and is now against it. He says he only said it and wanted to quit is because nobody was helping him but that has now changed.

Secondly, the plaintiffs claim that the town has made "lots" of progress. The Court asks that the plaintiff also follow up on this seeing that both cabinet and parliament disagree. The Court asks that pictures, if possible, be posted along with their rebuttal of said progress.

Troutman has had multiple events bringing many people in to the town, so not much progress has been made physically but socially there has been a lot of progress. I can provide one picture.

Additionally, before I make judgement on this motion I'd like to hear from seanboi and any arguments they may have on the contrary to this claim. The Court asks the the plaintiff's lawyer also put this in their response.

There may be a conflict of interest and I have agreed to abstain from voting regarding this topic.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Morning,

Firstly, seeing that the plaintiff has no objections and is willing to comply with the Defense's motion, the motion is granted. Since the plaintiff has already agreed, I trust that they will follow through on this decision.

I can provide one picture.

Secondly, I am unable to see the picture you have posted. I am unsure of the reason behind it, but if you could just repost it, that would be ever so helpful.

Finally, I will now allow for any witnesses either party wishes to bring forth for testimony. If none, then we will move on to final arguments and/or closing statements.

Thank you, that is all for now.

 

[seanboi]

We will not be calling any witnesses.

 

[bharatj]

The government would like to call forth Tracefais as a witness.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Morning,
@Tracefais is hereby summoned to this court, they are given 48 hours to mark their presence. If they do not mark their presence within this time, the court will continue moving forward to closing arguments.

Once the witness has marked their presence in the court, the defense may begin their questioning. Immediately afterwards, if they so choose to do so, the plaintiff may cross examine the witness.

Thank you.

 

[Tracefais]

This lawsuit was filed on the grounds that a Claim of Inadequacy was started illegally when that is simply not true. Not only was a COI not fully determined at the date mentioned, but It is also expressly written into the law that little to no progress is determined by Cabinet and approved by Parliament.

The initial vote seanboi is referring to on July 14th was the first step of the COI process: Cabinet agreeing if there is sufficient evidence of little to no progress before getting approval from Parliament.

Cabinet determined there was sufficient evidence on July 14th, and Parliament agreed on July 19th [photo evidence: ]. The second step was to organize a hearing for Vroomba to defend himself and his town. That hearing occurred on July 22nd and the transcript can be found here. (link:https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/troutman-claim-of-inadequacy-hearing.13694/)

I'd like to ask that the Court rule in favor of the defense because the reasoning for this lawsuit is not only erroneous but also preemptive. The COI was not filed on July 14th because as of today, July 27th, it hasn't concluded yet. That vote was the first step of the process and Cabinet has the right to start a COI investigation at any time.

I also ask the Court to uphold all votes and progress since this lawsuit was filed so Cabinet can, in fact, continue and finalize this process.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Whilst the witness makes some good points, they were not called to court to act as their own lawyer. They were summoned in court to be given a direct examination by their counsel; then, a cross examination by the opposing counsel, if they so choose to do so. Respectfully, this court has very little past with how questioning witnesses should be gone about; therefore, the court understands the confusion in this process and promises a format will be laid out in the future.

Although, the plaintiff should be entitled to a cross examination, the court finds that it is impossible to deliver one when the direct examination was done incorrectly. Furthermore, the court also believes that it would do very little to change the current position this case is in.

Finally, the court will make a verdict.

~Verdict~

Plaintiff - The plaintiff came to the court arguing that a false COI had been made against the Mayor of Troutman. They argued that according to the law, all 3 of the listed conditions must be true for a proper COI to take place. Additionally, they came bearing evidence that the town had been active, not physically, but socially through events and so on.
Defendant - The Defense argued that as the law explicitly states, inactivity is brought up by cabinet and approved by parliament. They argued that since this did indeed take place, nothing illegal was done against the town of Troutman or their mayor.
The Court -

In regards to the law in question, The Inadequate Mayors Act, the following is stated,
A Claim of Inadequacy can be made against a Mayor under these conditions:
- The city/town does not meet the requirements of the respective settlement types.
- The city/town is seen as having little to no progress (determined by cabinet and approved by parliament).
- A public petition is created to remove the mayor from their mayoral position and it receives 25 signatures.
As mentioned above, the Plaintiff argued that for a proper COI to take place, all 3 of these conditions must be made true. Whilst, that is a fair argument based off of the verbiage of this law, this court is under the impression and interpretation that the law demands for at least 1 to hold true. Therefore, as long as 1 of these 3 conditions is true, in the eyes of the court, the process to begin a COI can take place.

The court reluctantly agrees with the idea that social events can speak towards the total activity of a town. In other words, due to the general usage of the word "progress", it can be argued that both physical and social additions/developments to a town can convey progress. However, the court finds physical progress, such as buildings, to have greater meaning.

Whether or not the social progress made was enough to save the town from a COI is not in their hands to argue, nor the courts to rule on. As the Defense argued, the law specifically states, "determined by cabinet and approved by parliament." Therefore, this would leave the current COI against Mayor Vroomba legal in this court's eyes; thus, meaning that the court will be ruling in favor of The Defense. No relief is to be delivered to either party; however, any halt in the COI process is to be lifted along with all its previous votes/progress upheld in the court's eyes.

Aftermath -

Although it is not in the court's power to order the following to be done, the court is more than allowed to a simple suggestion. If and when, the current mayor is deemed unfit from their position and removed from office, as the law states the following will take place.
The City/Town is now owned by the government. Cabinet and Parliament will make a joint decision on a further course of action, these are.
- Removal of the Town/City's Official Status
- Selling or Auctioning the Town/City to a new mayor
- Turning it into a Government City (Like Westridge)
- Giving the city to its Council or Co-Mayor
After reviewing this case and seeing the immense amount of care and effort this town has put forward, this court believes that the best course of action following would be to give it back to the Council and/or Co-Mayor. I believe that if not all, at least one of those members, truly cares about their creation and wishes to be part in its continuing growth. As I mentioned above, the legislative and executive branch are in their full legal right and capacity to overlook my suggestion; however, I have laid this court's opinion in front of them.

I would like to thank both the plaintiff and defense for their time and dedication to this case.
That is all, Court Adjourned

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Cooleagles