Writ of Requisition for The Dead

[xXLordLyonXx]

Lysander Lyon / Ministry of Justice
v.
The Dead (class)


Reason For Requisition:
The individuals listed in the attached evidence sheet have failed to log in for at least 30 days. This is cause for action under the Inactive Requisition Act, as the individual is legally dead. These times and balances have been acquired and verified through use of a script that pulled them from the database. Each individual retains their individual right to request their funds, as outlined in the Inactive Requisition Act, but the Ministry of Justice did not with to burden the Court with an extreme number of writs, so we have chosen to file this by naming a class. The class (the dead) are all individuals with a balance of more than $1,000 and inactivity of 30+ days.


Attached Evidence:
The spreadsheet provided shows all individuals have been offline long enough to be legally deceased, and have a balance greater than $1,000.

Writs of Requisition Justification

docs.google.com

 

[Westray]

Given the unprecedented nature of this request in asking for the requisition of over 1600 citizens through a single filing, the Court has a few questions before making a decision. These may be answered at any time, noting that a response will not be given to the requisition warrant until it is answered:

1. In the cited Inactive Requisition Act, §7 Court Procedure has explicit references to an "Individual" that is not in the plural. How do you reconcile with this wording and could you explain how this Act might allow such Court Procedure to involve more than one individual in a single filing?
2. The Inactive Requisition Act also states in §7(b)(i) that the filing "must include evidence of the individual having failed to log in for 30 days, and must demonstrate that there is some balance of more than $1,000 to be requisitioned." Given that previous requisitions have always included a screenshot of the individual's activity, why does the government believe that this spreadsheet suffices?
3. The notice clause of the Inactive Requisition Act, as mentioned in §5(d), asserts that upon obtaining the writ of requisition from the Court, the government is expected to publish an easily and publicly accessible notice with the individual's names. If this writ is granted for the over 1600 citizens, how will your government ensure that a notice document is clear to understand with such a high volume of people (and thus fulfill the law's language of "easily" accessible)?
4. If any of the individuals in this list happen to have re-appeared in the city during the drafting of this filing and the consideration of this writ, how will the government approach this? Will the government still requisition the balance of everyone on this list if they have shown up before the writ is granted?
5. If you are attempting to utilize the definition of a class defined in the Civil Suit Reform Act, I would note that §3(a)(iii) states that "If the Defendant is a class, the Plaintiff must prove each individual mentioned as part of the class contributed to the specific loss or injury." In what way has this class of Defendants (referred to as "The Dead (class)" in your filing) contributed to a loss?

The Court has genuine concerns about ensuring due process on requisitions. As noted in Article 1.7 of the Constitution, all citizens are afforded the right to "be secure against unreasonable search and seizure" subject only to "reasonable limits prescribed by the law." In order to grant a request of this nature, I am expecting an airtight case from the government in order to prevent any intrusion on these rights and deviation from the laws as passed by Parliament.

While we appreciate that the government has sought to not burden the Court with 1600+ individual writ filings, we hope that they can understand our obligation to uphold the laws as written and preserve the rights in the Constitution. Still, it is our intention that by offering the opportunity for the government to clarify this request, it would ensure that all facts are considered.

 

[RandomIntruder]

Staff hatting and saying that for 2, I can affirm that the data provided in the form of a sheet is accurate for the time of the filing of the writ.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

(1) The Civil Suit Reform Act expressly amends the legal system to allow for treating classes of individuals as one individual or entity, and as it was passed more recently than the Inactive Requisition Act, the older law should be read within the context provided of the newer.

(2) This has been addressed by the response to this case by an administrator. The data was provided and verified by an external party who has the explicit expertise to be able to do so, as a server admin.

(3) My government will publish the sheet with a section that enables for clear searching of the data. In slightly more technical terms, I will draft a forward-facing view of the sheet, so that anyone who makes a copy of the spreadsheet can easily put in names to search for matches. This will allow fully private search capability of the list of individuals for every citizen. The notice itself will be publicly and easily accessible, and individuals will be able to find names with the click of a few buttons.

(4) The easily accessible search function will be used beforehand by the government to check against who has logged in since the data was received. This information is recorded in channels in the Discord, and by comparing who has logged in with the list of names, we can and will remove the recently returned individuals from the sheet.

(5) I would suggest Your Honor has broadened the specific language of the Inactive Requisition Act in the question. “each individual mentioned as part of the class contributed to the specific loss or injury” - the Inactive Requisition Act contains a preamble that explicitly names what loss/injury the bill is rectifying. Quoted directly, “Citizens who never again log in will accrue taxes on their balances, and yet will never pay those taxes.” Each individual in this class has contributed to the specific injury of a sizable loss in tax revenue, which constrains our ability to offer proper services for the living, properly engage in foreign affairs, and more. We know each individual has done this, because each one meets the specified criteria in the law (as amended by the Death Act), and I have given this Court a legally-binding guarantee should you rule in our favor that anyone who has since logged in will be removed prior to balance pruning. Furthermore, the cause of action for the civil suit is specifically allowed by the Inactive Requisition Act. As it has been accepted in prior Writs, this cause of action should remain valid when applied to a class-based civil case.


We appreciate the Court’s respect for the Constitution. If the Court finds it necessary to recommend an additional restriction, we are prepared to discuss that with the Court at this time, but we do not believe our request to be in violation of Constitutional rights. We will ensure only individuals within the proper requirements are requisitioned. The injury is clearly alleged through the law, and these individuals can be treated as a class due to changes to the judicial structure by the Civil Suit Reform Act. And all individuals will be granted the normal process for requesting their funds if they should return to the server.

This Writ has been expressly structured so that it violates no freedoms, rights, or laws, while enabling judicial efficiency and full recourse for the citizenry.

(edited due to a message cutoff in copying over from Discord)