Lawsuit: Adjourned AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99

Status
Not open for further replies.
ko531 said:
Questions for Alexanderlove

1. Why did you not use the hospital at the Prison?
2. Was there anything inside the prison that made you scared or are you just scared of prison in general?
3. If you were so scared of prison as learn by the events that lead to FCR 98, why did you put yourself in a position to go back to prison?
4. How long was your sentence in the prison?
Click to expand...
1. I was unaware there was a hospital in the prison.
2. Objection, your honor. Compound.
3. I am unsure what you mean.
4. I was jailed for 50 minutes if you count the total time I spent in prison for the five counts of murder I was charged with (different sessions).
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Which crimes?


According to exhibit A, I was charged with a different number of murders. Do you wish to change your answer?

Do you wish to therefore change your answer to question 3?
Click to expand...
1. Murder

2. You were charged with Murder x2, resulting in a $200 fine and 20 minutes in prison. The plugin said otherwise since you had more wanted points.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
1. I was unaware there was a hospital in the prison.
2. Objection, your honor. Compound.
3. I am unsure what you mean.
4. I was jailed for 50 minutes if you count the total time I spent in prison for the five counts of murder I was charged with (different sessions).
Click to expand...
2 Did something in the prison make you fearful or did you already have that fear going in?

3. You claim in FCR 98 that your prison sentence "put in fear of my life and liberty, as well as my personal safety." so my question is, if you already know how scary prison can be why did you put yourself in a position to go back to prison?
 
YeetBoy1872325 said:
You were charged with Murder x2, resulting in a $200 fine and 20 minutes in prison. The plugin said otherwise since you had more wanted points.
Click to expand...
Objection
Perjury

Exhibit A states that I was charged with five counts of murder. Given an opportunity to correct himself, the witness instead chose to lie to the Court.
 
ko531 said:
You claim in FCR 98 that your prison sentence "put in fear of my life and liberty, as well as my personal safety." so my question is, if you already know how scary prison can be why did you put yourself in a position to go back to prison?
Click to expand...
I didn’t, I was put in prison without a fair trial. I was never supposed to go back to prison.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection
Perjury

Exhibit A states that I was charged with five counts of murder. Given an opportunity to correct himself, the witness instead chose to lie to the Court.
Click to expand...
I have a question. Mr. Love, were you fined $500 or $200?
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection
Perjury

Exhibit A states that I was charged with five counts of murder. Given an opportunity to correct himself, the witness instead chose to lie to the Court.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor,

Exhibit A says he was going to be charged with 5 murders but if you look in Exhibit B Alexander was actually charged with 2 murders and fined $200. This show that Yeet was telling the truth when making those statements and it is not perjury.

Edit: Spelling mistakes
 
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
​
Mr. Love and Mr. Ko, several questions are on my mind, particularly regarding the plugin functions related to player charges. The Amicus Brief submitted by Dr_Eksplosive provided some clarity, but to affirm a few facts, I will be calling @HellsideBurnton, the DHS Secretary, to answer some of my questions. Please bear with me during this time. All deadlines for questioning are frozen until I have completed my understanding.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
4. I was jailed for 50 minutes if you count the total time I spent in prison for the five counts of murder I was charged with (different sessions).
Click to expand...
1. Did you serve all 50 minutes of jail time before filing this lawsuit?
2. Were you scared of prison before being jailed?
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
​
Mr. Love and Mr. Ko, several questions are on my mind, particularly regarding the plugin functions related to player charges. The Amicus Brief submitted by Dr_Eksplosive provided some clarity, but to affirm a few facts, I will be calling @HellsideBurnton, the DHS Secretary, to answer some of my questions. Please bear with me during this time. All deadlines for questioning are frozen until I have completed my understanding.
Click to expand...
May it please the court, sir, that I am here to answer any questions in regards to this case.
 
Thank you. We will now move to a sidebar with all parties to avoid crowding the forum.
 
ko531 said:
1. Did you serve all 50 minutes of jail time before filing this lawsuit?
2. Were you scared of prison before being jailed?
Click to expand...
1. I am not sure.
2. Yes.
 
1721880207560.png
 
Court Clerk Transcript:


IN-GAME TRIAL

Location: Redmont Courthouse

Case: AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99

Date and Time: July 24, 2024 at 11:50 PM EDT

Presiding Judge: Unseatedduke1


Unseatedduke1: All rise for the Honorable Judge Unseatedduke1.

Unseatedduke1: Thank you.

Unseatedduke1: In the case of AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99, the court is now in order.

Unseatedduke1: Mouse, our court clerk will be taking notes and posting it to the forums afterwards.

Unseatedduke1: Representing the prosecution is Mr. ko531 and representing the defense is Mr. AlexanderLove vice versa.

Unseatedduke1: Plaintiff is AlexanderLove and defense is the Commonwealth. So we were in the middle of the case. This isn’t the beginning of the case. So we will kind of pick off where we left off. Mr. Ko, do you have any more cross questions for Mr. Love?

Ko531: Yes, I do. I'd like to call him to the stand.

Unseatedduke1: Alright, Mr. Love, please come to the stand.

Ko531: Now, just to inform the court before an objection is said, I will be asking some of the questions that were already asked on the forums before, an objection to questions already answered. This is just to give the court context because the questions I have left to ask are rebuttal questions. So just to give the court context, I will be asking some of the questions already asked on the forums. Alexander, how much time did you serve in prison for these charges?

AlexanderLove: I served 20 minutes in the penitentiary plus time cuffed.

Ko531: Now I just that is different than the time you just said on the forums you said 50 minutes.

AlexanderLove: I was charged with 50 minutes worth of murder.

Ko531: Worth of murder. Now, did you serve that? Did you serve all five murders before filing this case?

AlexanderLove: I am uncertain when it was served.

Ko531: Um, Your Honor, I'd like to motion for rebuttal evidence. I have evidence to answer that question. That Mr. Love is unsure. And I will gladly post to the forums if you grant this motion.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, breach of procedure as we are out of discovery and no new evidence may be submitted.

Ko531: Your, your, your honor. Well, I can't respond to that. I can't breach who procedure. This evidence will go to show whether or not those three extra murder charges are in the purview of this court because if they were charged after the filing of this case, they cannot be considered.

Unseatedduke1: Motion is denied and the objection is sustained. I stated when we began discovery that we will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial. So therefore, I will uphold what I said previously.

Ko531: Motion to reconsider. I was not aware of this evidence at the time of discovery. And I was only made aware after Alexander said on the court he was not sure when someone brought it to my attention.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko, what is the evidence exactly?

Ko531: It is evidence of Alexander Love asking Yeet Boy in game after filing this case what he was wanted for and why he had three murder charges and Yeet tells him he was wanted for three counts of murder and then says exactly who he was wanted for murdering, which aligns with his evidence in Exhibit A which says who he was charged or who he was wanted for murder. You could see it was the same three wanted points that he was not charged.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Love, response.

AlexanderLove: I yet again reiterate that discovery is to be used to discover this evidence.

Unseatedduke1: Sorry, don't let me Mr. Steve shop please have a seat or you'll be charged with contempt.

Ko531: May I continue, Your Honor?

Unseatedduke1: Yes, continue please.

Ko531: Your Honor, I yet again contend that discovery is to be used to find this evidence and the defense's inability to sufficiently investigate during the allotted discovery time should not serve as an inconvenience or a burden to introduce surprise evidence upon the plaintiff and upon the court this late in the trial.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko, I'm gonna deny the motion to reconsider. We called Yeet as a witness and you were able to ask the questions and we also did have discovery. I know this evidence can fly after discovery but again, you had Mr. Yeet as a witness and any questions you could have asked.

Ko531: Then I will after, I will reserve the right to call Yeet after Alexander is on the stand since Yeet is here and present.

Unseatedduke1: Absolutely.

Ko531: Okay. So you stated in FCR 98 which was filed before this case that you were scared of being in prison. I can pull up the exact quote if you want but I think you get the gist. Why would you put yourself into a position to go back to prison? Like you did in this day.

AlexanderLove: I did not put myself into a position to go back to jail. I was supposed to be given a trial. I was not necessarily going to be sent back to prison.

Ko531: Well, you weren't committing murders. Is that correct?

AlexanderLove: I plead my fifth right at this time.

Ko531: Okay. Well, if you see in Exhibit A he was wanted for five murders, even being Yeet Boy which is a cop. So you did put yourself in a position by committing these murders.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative.

Unseatedduke1: Sustained. Mr. Ko, get to the point.

Ko531: I will rephrase. So are you aware of the line in the standardized Criminal Code act where it's section 2.3 where it says when there's a continued threat to player safety or enjoyment due to the commission of crime, the prosecuting authority can impose punishment prior to trial. Are you aware of that point?

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor. Incompetent. This witness has not been tendered as a legal expert.

Unseatedduke1: Overruled. Answer the question, Mr. Love.

AlexanderLove: Yes, I'm aware of the law.

Ko531: So would you say that necessarily the trial does not have to come before the punishment.

AlexanderLove: I would contend that I was not a present and continuing danger at the time I was arrested and that there is no proof that I was.

Ko531: Now, one of the things you said when being asked during witness testimony is that you had a traumatic experience walking to the hospital after you got out of prison or hobbling since you had a broken leg. Why didn't you use the Why didn't you use the prison hospital?

AlexanderLove: I was unaware there was a hospital in the prison until after I had got out.

Ko531: So would you say that your traumatic experience comes more from your being unknowledgeable about the hospital in the prison than it comes from you breaking your leg in the first place.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko. Please rephrase the question.

Ko531: Would you would you contend that you hobbling is how I phrase this without it being argumentative? Like you just said would you contend that your mis-knowledge or you being unsure that there's a hospital in the prison was the reason to you having to hobble to a different hospital?

AlexanderLove: Well, I had no knowledge there was a hospital in the prison so naturally, I went to the hospital that I didn't know exists.

Ko531: Now would you contend that you're being unsure of this hospital is the Commonwealth's fault?

AlexanderLove: I would say it is as it clearly wasn't marked clear enough or wasn't prominent enough to be clear to people? Yeah, I was in my cell and in the mine, I didn't go anywhere else in the prison. I'm not in prison often so it's not like I'm an expert on what facilities are in the prison?

Ko531: Okay, well, I have no more questions at this time for Alexander Love. I do like to call Yeet.

Unseatedduke1: Alright, Yeet as a witness is here with us. You can type your answers please come to the witness stand.

AlexanderLove: Your Honor. Am I dismissed from the witness stand?

Unseatedduke1: You're dismissed.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko, you may begin your question.

Ko531: Do you recall Alexander Love the day after you arrested him for these crimes being contested in this case? Do you recall him asking you in game what he was wanted for?

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor hearsay.

Ko531: It goes directly to what he said to Alexander.

Unseatedduke1: Overruled. Answer the question, Yeet.

Yeet_Boy: I unfortunately do not remember.

Ko531: Again, Your Honor, I'd like to, I know you're probably going to deny it. But I'd like to motion with this rebuttal evidence as both witnesses are unsure and this is an important.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, breach of procedure. A motion to reconsider may only be filed once per issue.

Ko531: I'm filing a new motion for this rebuttal evidence because this evidence goes directly to show whether those three extra charges of murder are in purview of this case and can be decided on.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Love, your objection is overruled. I'll consider a new motion. Mr. Ko submit the evidence on forums, please.

Unseatedduke1: I'm only allowing this for the record because both witnesses don't recall the conversation.

Ko531: Because I'm submitting this evidence, I reserve the right to call Alexander Love back to the stand after this questioning to question him about this evidence.

Unseatedduke1: Continue with your questioning. Mr. Ko. I can see the evidence.

Ko531: Can you see the evidence on the forums? It should be the last thing posted in the FCR 99 case should be on page three. Let me know when you find that evidence.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, I move to strike the evidence from being admitted on the grounds of hearsay as the statements contained within are out of court statements.

Ko531: Hearsay only works for witness testimony about something someone else said. These are the direct evidence of this conversation. It can't be objected to hearsay.

Unseatedduke1: Overruled, Mr. Ko is correct.

Ko531: All right. Do you see the evidence? Waiting for Yeet to find this evidence. If you want Yeet I can DM directly to you if you can't find it on the phone.

Yeet_Boy: I saw it.

Ko531: You see it. Alright. Now. Would you say you can see the timestamp? I will let you know that this is my time. So this would be central standard time. So if you'd like to move when answering this question, change it to your timezone that is fine. What time are these messages said and on what date?

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor. Compound question.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko reword the question to just refer to either date or the date in general. You may change it to your timezone to keep it consistent, but what date and time did this conversation happen?

Yeet_Boy: Monday, July 8, 2024, at 3:40 PM Central.

Ko531: Monday, July 8. And if you look at the filing of this case, when was the case filed? Again, you can change it to your timezone to make it consistent or keep it the same timezone as you answered Central.

Yeet_Boy: I cannot see the time it was posted, only the date.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, relevance. I don't see how-

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko, can we get to the point, please?

Ko531: Alright. Then I'll just reserve the answer to Alexander. Yeet, if you look at both here I'll DM them both so they're at the same time or at the same place so you can compare them. So you don't have to keep flipping through forums. Give me two seconds.

AlexanderLove: Your Honor, I request that the materials being shown to the witness be shown to the entire court for fairness.

Ko531: I will tell you exactly what it is. It is the evidence that was just submitted and then it's going to be Exhibit A. I'm just doing this so the witness can see both at the same time instead of flopping between page one and page three of the forum.

Unseatedduke1: Go ahead.

Ko531: I'll DM it to him. Alright.

Ko531: So when you see yourself talking to Alexander about what he's wanted for, does that line up to the three murder charges that he was not charged for?

Yeet_Boy: Yes it does.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, speculation.

Unseatedduke1: Re-ask the question because I think I got confused there.

Ko531: Here who was wanted? I'll submit actually, who was Alexander wanted? Who did Alexander kill for the five murders he was wanted for, let me say it like that.

Yeet_Boy: Yeet_Boy x2, SML128 x1, BenTDM x1, MoonKnightZX x1.

Ko531: Okay, now when you told Alexander Love what he was wanted for, who did you say that he murdered or who's murder did you say he was wanted for?

Yeet_Boy: Yeet_Boy x2 and SML128 x1.

Ko531: Okay, now, does that line up? Would you say that lines up between the evidence that these would be the same murder charges?

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, speculation. It is unverifiable whether the three referred to in Ko’s exhibit are the same that were the three left over in this case.

Ko531: Your Honor, if you look at the date that this case was filed in this conversation, it was about a day apart. So it was very recent to each other. And I think it would be hell of a coincidence if Alexander Love was wanted for three people's murder that he already murdered a day prior.

Unseatedduke1: Sustained, it could still be speculation.

Ko531: Yeet, do you remember which three murder charges you're not charging?

Yeet_Boy: Yeet_Boy x2 and SML128 x1 were not charged when I arrested him.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, nothing pending. The question was do you remember? Not who.

Unseatedduke1: That is true. Sustained. Strike from the record.

Ko531: Okay, do you remember? Who are those three murder charges?

Yeet_Boy: I must go AFK. Please type the questions for me.

Ko531: Alright.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor, relevance. I don't see how this is leading anywhere at this point.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Ko, I'm inclined to sustain. Give me a good reason.

Ko531: It goes again to the purview of whether or not those three murder charges can be considered or otherwise only the two murder charges Alexander was charged with.

Unseatedduke1: Let's hurry up to the point.

Ko531: Who were the 3 people Alexander murdered that you did not charge Alexander with?

Yeet_Boy: Yeet_Boy, Yeet_Boy, and SML128.

Ko531: Okay, no more questions for Yeet but I would like to call Alexander back to the stand.

Unseatedduke1: Yeet, you’re dismissed from the witness stand. Mr. Love, please take the witness stand.

Ko531: Alright, Alexander. I'll ask you the same question as I asked Yeet, what time did this conversation take place in the screenshot?

AlexanderLove: 2:40 PM Mountain Time.

Ko531: Mountain Time on what date?

AlexanderLove: July the eighth, 2024.

Ko531: Now in Mountain Time and what date did you submit FCR 99?

AlexanderLove: FCR 99 was filed on July 6, 2024.

Ko531: What time?

AlexanderLove: I'm trying to find the time. I don't think it shows me.

Ko531: If you hover over the date, it will tell you the time.

AlexanderLove: 9:01 PM.

Ko531: Mountain Time?

AlexanderLove: Yes.

Ko531: Okay. So you were still wanted for the same three murders. So is it true that you're still wanted for the same three murders that you weren't charged with after you filed this case?

AlexanderLove: I am unsure of whether I served those specific three before or after.

Ko531: Yeet just testified that you were not wanted or he did not charge you with two murder counts of Yeet Boy and one of SML. If you look at the conversation, that's exactly what he's telling you you're wanted for. Are you saying it's possible it's a huge coincidence that you're-

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative.

Unseatedduke1: Sustained, Mr. Ko.

Ko531: Now Yeet testified to the three murders you were not charged with that lines up with-

AlexanderLove: Objection, counsel is testifying.

Unseatedduke1: Sustained, Mr. Ko.

Ko531: I need to give background information to ask this question otherwise it will not make sense on its own.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Love just heard. Mr. Yeet talk. He has plenty of background.

Ko531: Okay. Are you saying it's possible it's a coincidence that Yeet did not charge you with the same three murders you're wanted for two days later?

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative yet again.

Ko531: It's not argument. I'm asking him a question whether or not you believe it could be a coincidence and whether this evidence lines up. I'm giving background information.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Love answer the question.

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation. He's asking what I believe.

Unseatedduke1: Sustained.

Ko531: Would it be possible that it's a coincidence?

AlexanderLove: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation.

Ko531: I'm not asking what he believes. I'm asking about the possibility of an event that he was involved with. I'm not asking about his personal opinion. I'm asking about the possibility of an event he was involved with directly. It's his experience and his thoughts. It is not speculation.

Unseatedduke1: Overruled. Mr. Love answer the question and we'll go from there.

AlexanderLove: It is possible that it could be a coincidence.

Ko531: All right. I have no more questions.

Unseatedduke1: Mr. Love, you can return to your seat.

Ko531: I have no more clapping for any more witnesses.

Unseatedduke1: With no more questions from any of the witnesses, we will now move on to closing statements. The plaintiff may now provide their closing statements. During this time I ask everyone remains attentive and we avoid fireworks and such. Thank you.

AlexanderLove: May it please the Court, Your Honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen,

Unseatedduke1: Bailiff, please hold TheOfficialNate in contempt of court and have him jailed appropriately. Is twoloo here? Can Yeet do it? I don't know if Yeet can hear me. Somebody, thank you.

Unseatedduke1: Okay, I jailed him myself. Let's move on.

AlexanderLove: May I continue, Your Honor?

Unseatedduke1: Yes, please continue.

AlexanderLove: May it please the Court, Your Honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered here today in witness of this case of retribution. The Department of Homeland Security cares more about enacting retribution, and it does not want to adhere to democratic principles. The standardized Criminal Code is clear when it lays out if you're wanted for more than 30 minutes worth of crimes, you are to be given a fair trial in the jurisdiction of the courts prosecuted by the Department of Justice. You're not to be instantly jailed by the Department of Homeland Security no matter how they may spin it and no matter how they may spread the charges across multiple charges, no matter how they may spread it across multiple jail charges. The result is the same. I was jailed for crimes that I should have been given a trial for and I was denied this. This is a fundamental right of the people and the Commonwealth should adhere to the rights of the people. The constitution is strict. The law is strict and due process must be followed. The court today has an important decision in its hands. It must adhere to the principles of justice. But today, the court may end those principles once and for all if it rules against the plaintiff in this fundamental, crucial case today. We have heard from witnesses that A. emotional damage was caused. I was jailed and I was scared in jail. It was a riveting experience. The jail is dark, the jail is dangerous. The jail is scary. Fearing for my life and fearing other prisoners in jail and also suffering a dangerous fall in the unsafe prison mines that I was forced coerced to mine in, in order to get out of my sentence. My illegal sentence I had to mine and I fell in a pit and broke my leg. Once I got out of prison, I had to hobble to the hospital painfully on my one working leg and then by a splint with my own money when it was the Commonwealth's fault that I was in a position to fall in the first place. My emotions, my physical sanctity and my rights, my freedom. And today, the potential rights of all citizens of the Commonwealth are in jeopardy by a vicious, vindictive Department of Homeland Security. The court should rule in the favor of the plaintiff so the rights of the people may be protected. Thank you, Your Honor.

Unseatedduke1: Thank you. The defendant, the Commonwealth, you may now give your closing statements.

Ko531: Your Honor, the plaintiff and members of the court. This case is nothing but a cash grab by a loophole in the law Alexander himself is trying to exploit. One thing that he said in his closing statements that is false is he said that it is the court's jurisdiction for any crime that is wanted, that someone is wanted. If you look at the standardized Criminal Code act, it specifically says or jail time of over 30 minutes is imposed. As you can see, Alexander was only imposed for 20 minutes. Therefore, he did not have a right to a trial. Rights cannot be violated. He had previous knowledge to avoid these events. And it is the Commonwealth's belief that he purposely caused this as a cash grab. He said in witness testimony that he had prior knowledge that murder was illegal. He had prior knowledge of this law in question that issuing over, he had prior knowledge that the Commonwealth abuses their ability to jail people and avoid giving them a fair trial for their crimes. That is a quote. So he knew in his opinion, that the Commonwealth abuses their ability, he took advantage of their abuse, and he murdered five people trying to be arrested for 50 minutes of murder which would be in violation of that law. His plan failed when he was only arrested for 20 minutes because of his previous filing of FCR 98 bringing awareness to the DHS. Nowhere in law does it say that the DHS when arresting someone has to arrest them for all the crimes they have committed at that time. Now when it comes to Alexander's fall, the Commonwealth has done everything in its power to avoid this. If you check every ledge in the prison, you will see including around the mine, there are guardrails and fences and iron fences all around to prevent people from falling. He fell in the mine which we have no control over. We cannot control how prisoners mine in that and we're required by law to have that mine so we should not be punished for anything that happens inside, outside of our control. He describes a traumatic experience where he had to hobble to the hospital once he got out of prison, yet quotes tell more of him being unsure there was a hospital in the prison than there was outside the prison. The hospital was right next to the mine and he could've walked about 20 blocks to the hospital. Instead, he continued mining, got out of prison and caused his own suffering by hobbling to the hospital. This lawsuit is nothing but a cash grab and the plaintiff is trying to abuse a loophole in the law that he had full knowledge of and full knowledge to keep himself out of and he's trying to add on to that with a fall in the mines that he could have fixed himself pretty easily and the Commonwealth has done everything to prevent. So you should not find in favor of the plaintiff as he has caused his own damages and he recklessly misrepresented those facts in this court in order to get a cash grab. That is all. Thank you.

Unseatedduke1: We will now be in recess for 15 minutes as I come up with the verdict for this case.

MichaelMouseStar: All rise.

Unseatedduke1: We will return at 12:40 EDT. Mouse, tell them what time we will return. I'm gonna go to my office in deafen so I can write this.

AlexanderLove: 12:40 EDT.

MichaelMouseStar: Okay, the court is in recess. You may be seated.

MichaelMouseStar: As per Honorable Judge Unseatedduke1’s request, the court is in recess for five more minutes. 42. The court will be back in session in 42.

MichaelMouseStar: All rise. Can we kill that guy? Someone, can you please send him to Ohio. Thank you.

MichaelMouseStar: Alright, the federal court of the Commonwealth of Redmont is now in session. The Honorable Judge Unseatedduke1 now presiding.

Unseatedduke1: Hi, everyone. Welcome back. This was really stressful. I've never had to write a verdict so fast in my life. Let me review this one more time in my head. Okay. In the federal court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, verdict in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99. The plaintiff's position is on July 6, the plaintiff's rights were violated when he was jailed for five murders, which he argues is against the law since any sentencing exceeding 30 minutes must go through the Department of Justice. The plaintiff claims they have suffered a fall due to Commonwealth negligence while in prison. The plaintiff claims he was falsely imprisoned which led to his injuries and seeks multiple different types of damages as well as legal fees. The defendant's position is that the Commonwealth denies AlexanderLove was charged with five murders but affirms that he was sentenced to 20 minutes and paid a $200 fine for two counts of murder. The defendant argues that the plaintiff was not falsely arrested, and that his arrest was lawful. The defendant also contends that the injury the plaintiff sustained in prison was not due to the Commonwealth's negligence but rather the plaintiff's own action in the prison mine. The defendant raises counterclaims of fraud and filing a frivolous court case. The court opinion this ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public. The argument here is compared to that of FCR 98. But there are two different cases in many aspects. This case revolves around the standardized Criminal Code Act. The plaintiff claims they served more than the legally allowed summary offense time of 30 minutes. Summary offenses resulting in jail time of more than 30 minutes or fines of $2,000 fall under court jurisdiction and would require a trial. This is true. The plaintiff was wanted for five murders and if arrested for all five, they would be entitled to a trial. However, the arresting officer jailed the plaintiff for two murders which resulted in a fine of $200 and 20 minutes of jail time, meaning the plaintiff was not entitled to a trial. The plaintiff retained the remaining 3 wanted points and was charged for those later on. The question for the court is now is after we've determined that his right
to trial was not violated. The question before the court is now does the DHS have the authority to pick and choose which one and points an officer can apply when arresting someone with multiple wanted points? The court does not believe that the DHS has the authority to selectively charge individuals with certain offensives. If someone is wanted for multiple murders, they must be charged for all murders not selectively not charging one individual for all of their offenses, while charging another for all of their offenses would violate right 13 of the Constitution which states every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination, and in particular without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status. This did not happen in this case. On the contrary, Mr. Love was really given an advantage as he was not charged for all of his murders, as he should have been. Regarding the plaintiffs claims the right to a trial was not violated as they were only jailed for 20 minutes not over 30. The plaintiff was not kidnapped, they were lawfully detained and arrested. Therefore, emotional damages are not applicable. The plaintiff was not forced to work in the mine and by choosing to work in the mine they accepted the inherent damages. the law is clear. The court shall have jurisdiction all over all indictable offences alongside all DOC offenses and all cases, which result in summary offenses So murder whereby any individual as a combined fine of over $2,000 or jail time of over 30 minutes is imposed. The plaintiff did not have jail time of over 30 minutes In this case, the DHS charged the plaintiff with two murders resulting in 20 minutes of jail time, leaving the other three counts to be charged later. It was a loophole that they used and one that should not be used again in the future as it could violate citizens rights under right 13. Mr. Love's rights were not violated in this case So in the matter of fcr 99, the court rules in favor of the defendant with the following orders the DHS is ordered to investigate and instruct its officers to avoid selectively charging members of the public, staff to review the jail plugin and make sure that it does not state you are charged with blank murders before the person is jailed. The Federal Court thanks all involved. Thank you so much, our Bailiff and our court clerk for being here. Today. This court is now dismissed.


Summary of Verdict:

In the federal court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, case AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99, the plaintiff, AlexanderLove, claimed his rights were violated when he was jailed for five murders without a trial, which he argued was required for any sentence exceeding 30 minutes. He also claimed negligence by the Commonwealth for injuries sustained in prison.

The defendant, the Commonwealth, denied these claims, stating that AlexanderLove was sentenced to 20 minutes and a $200 fine for two murders, which did not require a trial. The Commonwealth also argued that the injury sustained was due to the plaintiff's own actions.

The court found that the plaintiff's right to a trial was not violated since he was only jailed for 20 minutes. It ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not have the authority to selectively charge individuals with certain offenses while ignoring others. This selective charging could violate constitutional rights. The court concluded that AlexanderLove's rights were not violated in this case.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant with the following orders:
  1. The DHS must investigate and instruct its officers to avoid selectively charging individuals.
  2. The jail plugin must be reviewed to ensure it does not state specific charges before a person is jailed.
The court thanked all involved and dismissed the session.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. On July 6th, the plaintiff's rights were violated when he was jailed for 5 murders, which he argues is against the law since any sentencing exceeding 30 minutes must go through the Department of Justice. The plaintiff suffered a fall due to the Commonwealth's negligence while in prison. The plaintiff claims he was falsely imprisoned, which led to his injury, and seeks compensatory, punitive, and emotional damages, as well as legal fees.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant denies that AlexanderLove was charged with 5 murders but affirms that he was sentenced to 20 minutes and a $200 fine for 2 counts of murder. The defendant argues that the plaintiff was not falsely arrested and that his arrest was lawful. The defendant also contends that the injury the plaintiff sustained in prison was not due to the Commonwealth's negligence but rather the plaintiff's own actions in the prison mine. Additionally, the defendant raises counterclaims of fraud and filing a frivolous court case.

III. THE COURT OPINION

  1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public. The argument here is compared to that of FCR 98, but they are different in many aspects. This case revolves around the Standardized Criminal Code Act.
  2. The plaintiff claims they served more than the legally allowed summary offense time of 30 minutes. Summary offenses resulting in jail time of more than 30 minutes or fines of $2,000 fall under court jurisdiction and would require a trial; this is true.
  3. The plaintiff was wanted for five murders, and if arrested for all five, they would be entitled to a trial. However, the arresting officer jailed the plaintiff for two murders, which resulted in a fine of $200 and 20 minutes of jail time, meaning the plaintiff was not entitled to a trial. The plaintiff retained the remaining three wanted points and was charged with those later on.
  4. The question before the court now is whether the DHS has the authority to pick and choose which charges to apply when arresting someone with multiple wanted points. The court does not believe that the DHS has the authority to selectively charge individuals with certain offenses. If someone is wanted for multiple murders, they must be charged for all murders, not selectively. Not charging one individual for all their offenses while charging another for all offenses would violate Right 13, which states: “XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.”
  5. Regarding the plaintiff's claim, their right to a trial was not violated as they were only jailed for 20 minutes, not over 30. The plaintiff was not kidnapped; they were lawfully detained and arrested, therefore emotional damages are not applicable. The plaintiff was not forced to work in the mine, and by choosing to work there, they accepted the inherent dangers.
  6. The law is clear: The Court shall have jurisdiction over all indictable offenses, alongside all DOC offenses, and all cases which result in summary offenses whereby an individual has a combined fine of over $2,000, or jail time of over 30 minutes is imposed. The plaintiff did not have a jail time of over 30 minutes in this case. The DHS charged the plaintiff with two murders resulting in 20 minutes of jail time, leaving the other three counts to be charged later. It was a loophole they used and one they should not use in the future as it could violate citizens' rights under Right 13.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 99, the court rules in favor of the defendant with the following orders.

  1. The DHS is to investigate the issue at hand and instruct its officers to avoid selectively charging members of the public.
  2. Staff is to review the jail plugin to ensure it does not state "you are charged with blank murders" before the person is jailed.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top