Lawsuit: Dismissed Dartanman v. Government (3)

[Dartanman]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 01/11/23

Dartanman

v.

Government

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
The Government owes me money.

II. Parties
1. Dartanman
2. Government / Department of Economy
3. LilSumoVert

III. Sequence of Events
1. Executive Order #33 was passed into law
2. I applied for a 5000 kruna check, in accordance with Executive Order #33.
3. Very quickly, LilSumoVert sent me a message explaining that I "dont qualify" for the check.
4. I responded, explaining that the Executive Order says "All people who apply for this check will receive it within 10 days of applying."
5. Sumo said "No that wont hold up in court."
6. When I asked if I was receiving my check, Sumo said, "Not unless you get 16hrs of playtime."

IV. Claims for Relief
1. Executive Order #33 clearly states: "All people who apply for this check will receive it within 10 days of applying." This statement holds no qualifiers or requirements, apart from "applying."
2. While it is true that the Executive Order also says "The Government will be issuing checks for 5,000kr to everyone who applies and meets the following requirements
-/bcseen of 16 Hours," the order does not say that people who do not meet those requirements will not receive the check, and as mentioned above, it actually says that they will, by saying "All people who apply for this check will receive it within 10 days of applying."
3. I applied for the check, and it was denied.

V. Damages
1. 5,000 Krunas

Evidence:
Exhibit A [Executive Order #33]: https://www.mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/executive-order-33.17689/

Spoiler: Screenshot Of EO #33

Exhibit B [Conversation with Sumo]:

Spoiler: Conversation with Sumo

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.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

@LilSumoVert is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @LilSumoVert , 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!

As this is a case against the government, the Defendant may elect another government official to represent them or the Attorney General.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[IAmA_MoronXD]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 1/14/23

Dartanman

v.

Government

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. The EO clearly states the requirement to receive a check via the executive order.
2. A crisis would occur if anyone could apply for a check and get it.
3. According to the constitution the prime minister has the final say on all executive matters and decisions. According to this he has the right to issue out checks at his discretion.

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.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Plaintiff is given 48 hours to respond to the Defenses' Motion.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Dartanman]

Good evening, your honor.

This Motion to Dismiss is fundamentally flawed. The first point is merely a defense, claiming that the EO does not say what I argue it says. One cannot dismiss a case on the simple fact that they disagree with the opposing counsel - if that were allowed then nearly every case would be dismissed.

The second point claims that a crisis would occur if anyone could apply for a check and get it. First of all, I do not believe this is true. The Government's balance is far too high, and I find it unlikely - if not impossible - for a crisis to occur if many people apply for this check and receive it. Additionally, this is a defense - not a valid reason to dismiss this case.

The third point is the only one that even remotely belongs in a Motion to Dismiss. Regardless, the argument fundamentally flawed. Yes, the Prime Minister has the final say on executive matters and decisions - but not on the law that is passed, even through an Executive Order. In the same way, the Prime Minister has the power to tell the Department of Justice to stop arresting murderers, but a court could still find this illegal and order the Department of Justice to do their job properly, and likely punish the Prime Minister as well. In this scenario, the Prime Minister has essentially told the Department of Economy to disobey the law and deny my check. This case must be heard, or the precedent set will allow the Prime Minister to have tyrannical power -- able to enforce anything as the Prime Minister sees fit without being able to be challenged in court.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Firstly, my apologies for the late response; however, I believe I am ready to rule on the Motion To Dismiss.

To Begin, I want to first say that points 2 and 3 of the Motion To Dismiss are not under consideration. This court believes they are baseless points that do not have relevance to the actual point of this case. The point of this case is whether or not the verbiage of the Prime Minister's Executive Order suggests that anyone can apply for this check and expect money. Point 2, while it may be true that a crisis could occur if anyone and everyone receive a check, it does not in any way speak to the verbiage of the Executive Order. Point 3, was interesting as it in a way suggests that the Prime Minister has the power to disregard his own guidelines and verbiage and "issue checks at his discretion." I would disagree with that, as yes he can issue checks at his discretion, but within the parameters, he himself has set. Additionally, it is even arguable that the Prime Minister has the final say, as the Constitution also states that Parliament can override an Executive Order with a supermajority. With all that being said, I mainly am interested in Point 1 of what the Defense has presented.

"The EO clearly states the requirement to receive a check via the executive order."

Now, the Plaintiff argues that this is just a Defense and has no merit as it just states the Defense's disagreement. I disagree with this point for the following reason. Imagine that someone is on trial for collusion. The State presents a load of evidence to convict the defendant, and it is now their time to respond with either an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss. They elect to respond with a motion to dismiss and state that "they did not do it." In this scenario, that would have no merit. As their argument does not combat the evidence against them. A more meaningful motion to dismiss would be, "evidence B is inaccurate." That provides an actual argument that directly attacks the merit of the prosecution's case.
To bring us back to this case, this point does attack the merit of the case. It states that the Plaintiff's interpretation of the EO is wrong and inaccurate because it clearly states this. Anything on a motion to dismiss is going to be an argument, obviously. However, if it attacks the merit of the Plaintiff's case, whether this is by stating that the evidence is inaccurate or the case is frivolous in nature, it is a valid point to make on a Motion to Dismiss.

With all that being said, it is a point that I agree with. It clearly states that the "government will be issuing checks for 5,000kr to everyone who applies and meets the following requirements." Before it even states that "all people who apply for this check will receive it within 10 days of applying," it states what the requirements are. That being two things, you must apply and you must have a /bcseen of 16 hours. Had the lines been switched it is possibly arguable the other way around, but it all depends on the verbiage. Nonetheless, I am going to rule in favor of the Defense and will sustain the Motion To Dismiss.

If there are any questions, please feel free to ask.
That is all,
Thank You

CASE DISMISSED

Court Dismissed

This case was presided by Judge Cooleagles