Lawsuit: Adjourned Zee's News v. Taelor

[Sprite]

Your honor,

I am SpriteTropical, and on behalf of Forsyth Law Co., I am representing Zee's News for this lawsuit.

Zee's News is a company that operates a Cafe and publishes News using the shops available in Hamilton Mall, more specifically hmall-11 and hmall-45. After learning about the destruction of Hamilton Speedway, my client went to the scene and tried to ask questions about its destruction for a news article. However, he claims that Taelor would not answer any of his questions, progressively got more angry and eventually hit the boiling point to where she evicted him.

However, Zee's News did not break any rules set out for renting the region. He wasn't even warned to stop or else he would be evicted. As such, he was unlawfully evicted given the fact he wasn't breaking any rules or offered any warning at all.

Due to this eviction, his business was disrupted, along with the economic livelihoods of his five employees. In order to make up for these losses, my client requests that a sum of 1,000 krunas be transferred to him from Taelor's balance.

 

[_Info_]

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

 

[Taelor]

OK So,
On Saturday, March 14, I was at Hamilton Mall which I had bought the day before. I had tore down the race track without knowing sprite had planned an event there so I was putting it back together for him.
ZeeOne was continuously pestering me about the track so I broke the elevator leading down to it so he couldn't bug me. He kept saying that he had "rights as a reporter" to be down there and it was a "public space" which it wasn't. And he wouldn't stop.



He kept bugging me so I told him if he kept it up I'd get him for trespassing. Which I did. He then let me know he had a shop in the mall, so I evicted him. Which, 1. the old Hamilton Mall rules even had a sign that said owners could evict at any time, 2. Those weren't my rules so it doesn't even matter.



He continued trespassing while Ian was on a seperate ticket and he tried killing me in my plot along with his friend Gill so I retaliated and killed them.
This led to them harassing me, Jocie, Ian and DoctorThunder7 by continuously trespassing and assaulting people. To which, I'd like to counter sue for harassment and spreading of false information about my building. He was saying I was going to tear down Hmall and such when I am not and continuously trespassed and assaulted. He even ended up jailed for one of the trespasses (POs werent on for the others). He also called me a moron and other derogatory terms.
Below I will put more evidence.

The writer job guide doesn't state anywhere that reporters get "special privileges"


Trespassing.


Him trespassing after he hit me with a blindness arrow.

Him saying I want to tear down Hmall when I don't. False information/slander.

Image of the message of him being jailed.

Files are full so will post more evidence in next post.

 

[Taelor]

More evidence because last post got full:

Him in jail.


Ian telling him to leave.


Him calling me a moron.


ZeeOne and Gill trying to trespass...again


ZeeOne admitting to what he did and it being wrong.

 

[_Info_]

Thank you @Taelor

Would @Sprite like to respond any points made by the defense?

 

[Sprite]

Your honor,

The defense's screenshots, from what I see, only prove that my client was trespassing, and was therefore punished for that. However, we are not here to determine whether or not he was trespassing, as most of the screenshots provided seem to do. We are here to determine whether or not he was unfairly evicted.

Nowhere in any of those screenshots of logs did the defense explicitly warn him to stop or else he would be evicted from his owned regions. The defense herself even said that the rule about landlord's disrection wasn't her's, and given the fact the mall was still in a transition period, my client was unaware or uncertain about the rules from the previous owner still applying with the new owner.

With that being said, it is abundantly clear that the defense unlawfully evicted my client. The rules were unclear given the transition between owners, and the rules weren't even made by the defense as stated in her previous reply, and with no previous warning, my client still had no way of knowing if they still were to apply.

 

[_Info_]

Your honor,

The rules were unclear given the transition between owners, and the rules weren't even made by the defense as stated in her previous reply, and with no previous warning, my client still had no way of knowing if they still were to apply.

Considering this statement, @Taelor What do you have to say?

 

[Taelor]

I'd like to point out the laws on the server:
"You're allowed to make your own [rules]. Nowhere does it state that I have to post them.
"Respect the wishes and rules of your renter" (pretty sure they mean landlord as it's under rules for tenants) - He was not respecting my wishes and rules, thus got evicted. I told him to leave me alone several times as you can see in my evidence. I gave him ample warning. It's more common sense that if I trespass you from my property, of course you're going to be evicted.

 

[_Info_]

I'd like to point out the laws on the server:
"You're allowed to make your own [rules]. Nowhere does it state that I have to post them.
"Respect the wishes and rules of your renter" (pretty sure they mean landlord as it's under rules for tenants) - He was not respecting my wishes and rules, thus got evicted. I told him to leave me alone several times as you can see in my evidence. I gave him ample warning. It's more common sense that if I trespass you from my property, of course you're going to be evicted.
View attachment 5218

If the rules were not posted how were they supposed to be aware of them?

 

[Taelor]

They were posted and it's still not a law that HAVE to be posted, nor is it a law regarding wrongful eviction. If there IS a law covering this, I'd like to see it.

 

[_Info_]

@Sprite Would you like to add anything more?

 

[Sprite]

While there is no law, it is still common decency to warn someone to stop what they're doing, or they will be evicted from one of their shops. My client was simply trying to get an answer to a question, wasn't warned about potentially being evicted, and had no way of knowing the rules on the rule board still applied given the transition period between owners. Moreover, the defense even stated herself that those weren't her rules-- so how was my client supposed to know?

 

[_Info_]

Although I do agree with the defense that a warning is common courtesy in a situation like this I would like to know, @Taelor why did you not just answer the questions he had instead of telling him to leave.

Furthermore, I find your responses to the player being represented here to be disturbing. "i can go ahead and let doc know to not give you the press release too if you keep bugging me".

"I dont give a F*** if your a reporter"

Would you like to comment on the responses listed above and why you would make them.

 

[ReaperEduardo]

I'm posting for Taelor because she can't get on the forums due to the problems with the host but she wanted me to say "Common decency is not harassing someone when they've asked you multiple times to stop, lying about the perms of your job, and then coming back after being trespassed and trying to kill everyone."

 

[_Info_]

Thank you for stepping in to represent the defense Reaper.

@Sprite Do you have anything more to add? If not, please make a final statement to the court.

 

[Sprite]

Your honor,

We are not here to establish if the defense was being harassed, even though they showed unequal aggression back towards my client. We are here to establish whether or not that my client was unfairly evicted.

My client was unfairly evicted. Especially considering the excessive verbal aggression displayed back to my client, the transition period of owners, the semi-obscured rule board, and no warning that he would be evicted if he kept it up, my client had no way of knowing that the aforementioned rule regarding eviction still applied with the new owner. Because of these factors, his eviction was clearly not fair.

 

[_Info_]

Thank you Sprite. Would @Taelor (@eduardo as representative) like to make a closing statement before I begin the review process.

 

[Taelor]

(I got my forum back) No thank you.

 

[_Info_]

Alright. I have reviewed the evidence provided.

The evidence provided does indeed implicate that the defense, had full rights to evict the plaintiff, ZeeOne.

I do feel that this situation could have been defused prior to the actions having to be taken my the defense but ultimately, that does not implicate that the defense was unjust and for evicting the plaintiff.

I will be ruling in favor of the Defense.

Adjourned.

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge _Info_