Lawsuit: Adjourned AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98

Status
Not open for further replies.
With no questions, we will move on. The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their closing statements. Note that after the plaintiff submits their closing, the defense will have 72 hours from that time to submit their closing.
 
Your honor, I request a four hour extension.
 
Granted
 
Your honor, I reiterate what I said in my opening.
 
Voluntary Recusal Statement

I, Judge Unseatedduke1, will be recusing myself from this case. The plaintiff, Mr. Love, is currently involved in a judicial hearing where he has engaged in judicial intimidation against me. Due to this, I cannot rule fairly and impartially. This case will be handed off to the SCR.
 
Defendant has 72 hours
 
CLOSING STATEMENTS

The Commonwealth affirms the arrest in question was illegal and considered tresspassing. We offered Alexanderlove the legally required compensation required by law. $50 per minute in jail and the return of the $300 from the fine so a total of $1800 total. Alexander has refused this settlement offer and has done nothing by try and turn this case into a money grab as seen by D-1 and D-2. This court should be able to see through attempt at a cash grab and not reward alexander with nearly the amount he is requesting.

Alexander argues his right to a trial was violated which is was not. the SCCA specifically says over 30 minutes of jail time. It does not say over 30 minutes of time spent incarcerated but jail time. When a criminal is in handcuffs they are not in jail therefore it does not count towards their jail time. With Alexander's sentence being exactly 30 minutes and not over 30 minutes then he never had a right to a trial according to the SCCA.

No rights of alexander were violated, We agree the arrest was illegal and offered the required amount to be payed as stated in the law. So far Alexander has refused which means he is willingly going on with the legal process and causing his own damages to legal fees and he is continuing this case as a cash grab. We ask the court to grant nothing but the required amount by law which is $1800.
 
Court is in recess pending verdict.
 
I have reconsidered my Recusal Statement and will be taking over this case.

Verdict pending
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT ​

AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98

I. PLAINTIFF POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, AlexanderLove, claims his constitutional rights were violated when he was jailed for 30 minutes without the right to a trial. He further alleges unlawful arrest, trespassing, false imprisonment, and emotional distress caused by excessive force during the arrest, requesting compensatory, punitive, and emotional damages as well as legal fees.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Commonwealth of Redmont, acknowledges the arrest was illegal and offered the required compensation of $1,800, which the Plaintiff refused. They argue the 30-minute jail time did not qualify for a trial under the law and dispute the claims of kidnapping, emotional distress, and legal fees, considering them exaggerated or unfounded.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This ruling is based on the evidence and arguments presented by the parties. At the time of this case, jail times exceeding 30 minutes required a trial. Since the sentence for three murders was exactly 30 minutes, no trial was required, and that claim is dismissed.

2. However, other claims are upheld. The arresting officer admitted under oath that he used a glitch to enter the Plaintiff's private property to make the arrest. This conduct is not only highly improper but also a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Commonwealth’s Charter of Rights & Freedoms, specifically:

  • Article XV: Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
  • Article XIV: Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
3. The officer's failure to secure an arrest warrant violated the Judicial Standards Act, and as an agent of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is held liable for these violations. The Plaintiff's claim of emotional distress is supported by the fact that the officer illegally entered his property and dragged him out of a three-story building.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 98, the court rules in favor of the Plaintiff.

  1. $1,800 in compensatory damages for the illegal arrest.
  2. $300 in compensatory damages for the wrongful murder fines.
  3. $15,000 in punitive damages.
  4. $10,000 in emotional damages.
  5. $8,040 in legal fees.
  6. The court directs the Department of Homeland Security to investigate the incident thoroughly and take appropriate measures to address any necessary training and disciplinary actions.
The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top