In The Circuit Court of The Stratham Republic
Right,
After carefully reviewing this case and what has been shown I will discuss the Motion to Dismiss, the counter arguments and my final decisions.
MTD;
Point 1:
I find myself after careful analysis agreeing with this point raised by defence counsel. The items listed by the plaintiff to which they seek damages for have no substantial basic to show they were in fact part of the property before hand. Having looked at the evidence there isn’t a factual basis to which can be alluded that the plaintiff had put these items down to which the defendant supposedly broke. Furthermore from looking at Evidence 3 the unclear logs and it showing the breaking and placing to which shows they from the dates the defendant had originally placed them and then broke them suggesting they where the owners of said items in question.
I also take into question the usage of ‘The tenants and Landlords Rights Act”. The pontiff raises Section 5 subsection 2 which the court had to figure out the true meaning of which section due to the numerical lack of clarity, the plaintiff also refers to Section 7(4) and (4a) which refers back to Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 categorises what must meet the apartment standards which are definitive listed objects without room to speculate to anything else so the basis to which would see damages with the reference to the law is incorrect and doesn’t match to what they plaintiff is alleging.
To conclude on this point the onus to prove that said items not listed within Section 4 of the referenced act is on the plaintiff and without unequivocal evidence to show the accused can not be held liable especially when said presented evidence doesn’t match what is to be claimed.
Point 2:
On the raising of the issue of evidence 3 I do concur with the obscurity of the provided evidence. This is not of natural obtainment from a standard player and I find the supply of which extremely distressing to the point to which I could see this being in huge breach of players constitutional rights under Section 5.3. I had also raised this in chambers with both counsels present along with a senior staff member and the agreement of this court with senior staff of the procurement without a written court warrant of such to compel staff to supply the evidence themselves within the court is extremely distressing.
Point 3:
On the Ex Post Facto rule provide by the Ex Post Facto rule Act within reference to Section 4(a), the rule in itself is quite clear to its intentions and applications and from this not much needs to be said to which the law stands and protects the defendant.
The Response to the MTD;
Point 1:
The expression of the breaking of the items I do extremely take into care. Reading through the logs and the listed items and from the reading on the law in question along with the protection taken by the landlord there is limited scope to actually protect the assets within a defined property. The lack of a substantial backing to show that the items in total from the evidence provided was of the origins of the plaintiff do not meet the necessary requirements in order to overrule the motion. This is in two parts 1, being the act itself and 2, being the unlisted items. The act only caters for the listed items as they are the only listed items that any apartment would be compelled to have and the only output to that is signage as listed by the act but without clear evidence to suggest the items where in the apartment or them being listed within a property rental sign to safeguard them then there isn’t much from a legal standpoint that can be achieve. Date matching and the listing of what has been taken doesn’t match the plaintiff defence. I can concur with one aspect of this pointing two items not being fully accounted for however you run into the problem of not listed the specified item within the original position go the lawsuit and rely on a piece of evidence in question on two grounds 1; its validity and 2; its actually substance within holding the defendant to account.
Point 2:
I wont reiterate points of the evidence 3 in question especially after the discussion held within chambers with both counsel which was also mentioned before. However I will note further action on the obtaining of such evidence will need proper measure as discussed and will be set up. Due to the perception or potential constitutional breach on a players legal rights I see no hold in this response point.
Point 3:
This is a serious point raised by the defence counsel and the to understanding. The Ex Post Facto Act give way to both protections and protections within areas such as these based on the failings or loopholes of old laws. The intention as set in Section 3: “(1) To prevent citizens of Stratham from being prosecuted retroactively with legislation that was passed after an act was committed”. Within the section relevant to the area we are talking about, Old Cases are grandfathered into the new law and are legal. Meaning that things done before a law is passed are deemed legal and not able to sued or prosecuted upon as it was not yet law and one cannot haven’t broken a law if it wasn’t yet law. The Tenants and Landlord act fails to mention that old cases would not be grandfathered in as stated here: “(b) If a bill states that Old Cases will not be grandfathered in Ex Post Facto will not protect you”. Moving to the point raised by the plaintiff, with reference to “(c) If a new law makes something illegal and does not grandfather in Old Cases, you will have a one-week grace period to remedy it before you can be punished.” Before the act from our laws there was no legal basis for anyone to sure anyone for stolen property. This would more on fall under staff rules and handled by them so therefore there could not give rise to making something illegal within the eyes of Stratham law. To also add the Tenants and Landlords never in its commencement section referenced such in relation to the ex post facto act thus giving way to it being grandfathered in naturally via the law.
Concluding remarks and Verdict of the Motion to Dismiss
After careful consideration I will dismiss this case on the grounds present with prejudice. I think my substantial explanation above covers the grounds in why this is and I think also highlight the difficulty and the fails of laws regarding this area.
Case dismissed. 
