Lawsuit: Adjourned AB6A5SI v. Department of Justice [2021] DCR 74

Status
Not open for further replies.
All I can say is I am very shocked and disappointed by this ridiculous objection. I am simply presenting my interpretation of the law, which is that murder is not allowed at a DPA sanctioned event. In my interpretation, murdering people falls under public nuisance. If giving interpretations that are found to be wrong is perjury, then by that logic anyone who loses a court case is guilty of perjury. It’s up to the presiding magistrate to determine whose interpretation is correct, but I am not at all guilty of perjury for presenting an interpretation of the law. Perjury is intentionally lying about the facts of a case, not disagreements over interpretations. This is a ridiculous attempt by the plaintiff to silence and intimidate me.
 
The objection is overruled as it is based on a difference in interpretation of the laws. This court is now in recess and I will have a verdict as soon as possible.
 

Verdict


AB6A5SI v. DOJ [2021] DCR 74

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The murder committed by the Plaintiff took place in the wild, so a murder charge is not legally applicable.
2. A magistrate, dygyee, pointed out the murder in chat, and the Plaintiff was then arrested, so his actions represent corruption, because a magistrate should know the law better.
3. Any accusation of murder by dygyee as illegal in the wild is hypocritical, because of dygyee’s own actions before the event being illegal if this were the case.
4. Sgt. GoldBlooded arresting the Plaintiff for their actions under a murder charge constitutes a false accusation, as a legal punishment was incurred, even though Sgt. GoldBlooded should have known that a murder charge cannot be levied in the wild.
5. The Plaintiff was wrongfully held in jail on two occasions for charges relating to this incident.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Public Order Act and the Saviour Act have the effect of extending laws into DPA-sanctioned events in the wild.
2. The Plaintiff’s actions, whether intentional or not, constitute a murder and also disrupting a DPA event.
3. The jailing of the Plaintiff was a measure taken at the behest of DPA employees in order to prevent the Plaintiff from causing further disruption to the DPA event.
4. The charge of murder was the fastest method to resolve this situation.

III. THE COURT’S OPINION
1. Neither the Public Order Act nor the Saviour Act have any mention of laws extending to the wild, DPA event or not, and as there is no other legislation to provide for this, most laws are still not applicable in the wild.
2. These acts, however, order that certain laws with specific relation to DPA events apply in the wild. The laws that do apply only do so for the duration of the event, and no longer, or in any other location.
3. A charge of murder cannot thus be levied in the wild, as it is not among the specified laws with exact relation to a DPA event.
4. A charge of public nuisance, or disturbing a DPA event, however, is applicable in the wild, as it applies to all DPA events, in any location, and is among the specified laws.
5. The words of one individual do not prove causation for a jailing, regardless of whether that individual is a legal professional or not. The responsibility for jailing in accordance with laws and regulations lies solely on the Department of Justice.

IV. VERDICT
The court rules in favor of the Plaintiff. I will grant a modified Prayer for Relief, however, given that it is the opinion of the court that a charge of public nuisance was legally applied.
With this in mind, the court hereby orders the following:
The Plaintiff be unfined a total of $400 by the DOJ:
- $100 for wrongful imprisonment
- $100 for fines
- $200 for legal fees

This case is hereby adjourned, and the court thanks both parties for their time.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top