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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unseatedduke1 said:
Please do so within the next 24 hours and keep it brief.
Click to expand...
Thank you Your Honour,

Regarding Exhibit A, the plugin will inform the player being cuffed that they are being charged with all present wanted points against the player. However, officers must either manually select charges within the jail bus or press the select all (Emerald Block) to jail the player. Manual selection of charges is done in many circumstances, such as but not limited to:
- To avoid jailing a player for a disputed wanted point (in discussion within a ticket)
- To avoid exceeding the maximum sentence of 60 minutes for murder charges
- To ensure that the suspect is not jailed for a wanted point that was generated for a charge that does not result in jail time

In short, while the plugin asserts that the suspect is being charged with all present charges against them, all charges may not be carried through at present due to reasons such as the ones listed above.
 
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

I will try to keep this as brief as I can to respect your time, so here are some general Minecraft mechanics I believe I can provide information on.

In Minecraft, there is a feature known as “jumping”. Without any effects, the player can jump onto surfaces that are generally around one block high. In the submitted evidence, D-2, the prosecution shows that there is an iron bars block which is one block tall. Therefore, it could be possible that a player jumps onto those bars using the jumping mechanic of Minecraft, and then hurt themselves. I can conclude with my expertise that jumping is a fundamental and intentional mechanic of Minecraft, and therefore it would be possible to be hurt by falling off of a ledge.

I thank the court for their time.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

I will try to keep this as brief as I can to respect your time, so here are some general Minecraft mechanics I believe I can provide information on.

In Minecraft, there is a feature known as “jumping”. Without any effects, the player can jump onto surfaces that are generally around one block high. In the submitted evidence, D-2, the prosecution shows that there is an iron bars block which is one block tall. Therefore, it could be possible that a player jumps onto those bars using the jumping mechanic of Minecraft, and then hurt themselves. I can conclude with my expertise that jumping is a fundamental and intentional mechanic of Minecraft, and therefore it would be possible to be hurt by falling off of a ledge.

I thank the court for their time.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"
 
ko531 said:
Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor
Breach of procedure

This isn’t a valid motion, it’s just a rebuttal.
 
ko531 said:
Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"
Click to expand...
Let me Clarify. This is a
MOTION TO STRIKE
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor
Breach of procedure

This isn’t a valid motion, it’s just a rebuttal.
Click to expand...
Sustained. Mr. Ko, please rewrite and submit a new motion if you like.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor.
Relevance.

These are random pictures in the prison and are not relevant to this case. I already stated I fell within the prison mine, so these locations are not at all relevant.
Click to expand...
Overruled.
 
The plaintiff has 72 hours to present their opening statement.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

I will try to keep this as brief as I can to respect your time, so here are some general Minecraft mechanics I believe I can provide information on.

In Minecraft, there is a feature known as “jumping”. Without any effects, the player can jump onto surfaces that are generally around one block high. In the submitted evidence, D-2, the prosecution shows that there is an iron bars block which is one block tall. Therefore, it could be possible that a player jumps onto those bars using the jumping mechanic of Minecraft, and then hurt themselves. I can conclude with my expertise that jumping is a fundamental and intentional mechanic of Minecraft, and therefore it would be possible to be hurt by falling off of a ledge.

I thank the court for their time.
Click to expand...
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"
 
Mr. Love 24 hours to respond
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Mr. Love 24 hours to respond
Click to expand...
Your honor, it is not unfriendly for a brief to favor one side or the other; by nature, they usually do. This brief added a unique and valuable perspective on a major issue. There is no reason to strike a brief just because the defense doesn't like it; they can dispute its contents in their opening/closing statements later in the trial.
 
ko531 said:
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"
Click to expand...
Denied. I will take note of your argument but the brief provided insight.
 
Opening Statement

May it please the Court,

Your Honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered in witness of this case, this is a case of retribution over rights. A hostile police force is more focused on retribution via trying to find loopholes that circumvent the rights of the people. Remember, retribution over rights. That is the de facto slogan of the Department of Homeland Security. I was formally charged with five murders, as seen in the evidence, and then deliberately jailed for two to try and circumvent the very clear right to a trial laid out in the Standardized Criminal Code Act, and by extension, the Constitution itself. In fact, the DHS has made it official policy for officers to jail for a max of two counts of murder when someone is wanted for more. Whether served consecutively or separately, the charges added up to more than 50 minutes. Jailing any amount of that is a violation of the SCCA.

Their intent is incredibly clear: they wanted to violate my rights and attempted to find what they thought was a 'smart' loophole. This is even more clear when they refused to drop the other three charges, meaning I would be eventually jailed for them. Had they dropped 3 and jailed for 2, it possibly would be legal, but they want to both have their cake and eat it too. Because I was illegally jailed, I was therefore kidnapped / falsely imprisoned by Yeet_Boy, and by extension, the Commonwealth as he was acting as an agent of the DHS. Denying my right to a trial and due process is possibly one of the most egregious things the Commonwealth could do. Are we still a free democracy, or can the government impose harsh penalties with very little recourse? It is time for the Court to decide whether this trend will continue or not, and equally harsh punitive damages should be imposed.

To top all of this, I fell in a prison mine I shouldn't have had to be in in the first place. The justice system includes a dangerous mine with long falls, one such pit catching me by surprise and resulting in a broken leg that I had to get splinted. The pain, suffering, and emotional trauma from breaking my leg and being trapped in a dark prison mine is haunting, as I will testify to in this trial. The Commonwealth is responsible for this as it wouldn't have occurred if I wasn't subjected to illegal jail time.

The plaintiff requests the Court award it the full amount of remedies requested to preserve and protect the civil rights of the people. Thank you.
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
Thank you Your Honour,

Regarding Exhibit A, the plugin will inform the player being cuffed that they are being charged with all present wanted points against the player. However, officers must either manually select charges within the jail bus or press the select all (Emerald Block) to jail the player. Manual selection of charges is done in many circumstances, such as but not limited to:
- To avoid jailing a player for a disputed wanted point (in discussion within a ticket)
- To avoid exceeding the maximum sentence of 60 minutes for murder charges
- To ensure that the suspect is not jailed for a wanted point that was generated for a charge that does not result in jail time

In short, while the plugin asserts that the suspect is being charged with all present charges against them, all charges may not be carried through at present due to reasons such as the ones listed above.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I would like to note this brief and affirm its contents as fact. With that being said;

Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 I would like to raise this objection for perjury again.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I would like to note this brief and affirm its contents as fact. With that being said;

Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 I would like to raise this objection for perjury again.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

I have been informed that I was incorrect about the jailing pluggin. I have never worked in the DOJ or work with this pluggin. But Perjury is defined as "The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court." At the time of saying this I did not believe it to be false. I was so confident that I tried to call a witness to uphold my side of the story. Even though what I said was incorrect (which Im sorry about), I have not committed perjury as when saying it I did not know it to be incorrect.
 
ko531 said:
I have never worked in the DOJ
Click to expand...
Your honor, if this is the case, I motion for ko to be thrown off this case as he is not legally able to act as counsel for the Commonwealth. I also object on the grounds of perjury.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, if this is the case, I motion for ko to be thrown off this case as he is not legally able to act as counsel for the Commonwealth. I also object on the grounds of perjury.
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase. I have never worked for the DHS now that the name has changed. I was thinking of the old name. My apologies
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I would like to note this brief and affirm its contents as fact. With that being said;

Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 I would like to raise this objection for perjury again.
Click to expand...
Sustained. Mr. Ko, as counsel for this case, you are duty-bound to ensure that your statements in court are truthful. You have made false statements to the court. I trust this will serve as a reminder for you to verify information with reliable sources before presenting it in court.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, if this is the case, I motion for ko to be thrown off this case as he is not legally able to act as counsel for the Commonwealth. I also object on the grounds of perjury.
Click to expand...
Overruled. Mr. Ko, please ensure you carefully proofread any statements or documents you present in this court.
 
The defense has 72 hours to present their opening.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Sustained. Mr. Ko, as counsel for this case, you are duty-bound to ensure that your statements in court are truthful. You have made false statements to the court. I trust this will serve as a reminder for you to verify information with reliable sources before presenting it in court.
Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider

It does not matter what my duties are. The law specifcally says that I must give knowingly incorrect testimony. What I have done here does not meet the definition of perjury as I have not given false information knowingly. You can not charge me with perjury for not meeting my duties. Again I am sorry for giving the false information but I did not know it to be false at the time of saying it therefore it is not perjury.

Perjury is not only about false statements made in court, it is knowingly false statements. By charging me with perjury you are going outside the definition written in law and creating your own.
 
ko531 said:
Motion to Reconsider

It does not matter what my duties are. The law specifcally says that I must give knowingly incorrect testimony. What I have done here does not meet the definition of perjury as I have not given false information knowingly. You can not charge me with perjury for not meeting my duties. Again I am sorry for giving the false information but I did not know it to be false at the time of saying it therefore it is not perjury.

Perjury is not only about false statements made in court, it is knowingly false statements. By charging me with perjury you are going outside the definition written in law and creating your own.
Click to expand...
Response, your honor?
 
ko531 said:
Motion to Reconsider

It does not matter what my duties are. The law specifcally says that I must give knowingly incorrect testimony. What I have done here does not meet the definition of perjury as I have not given false information knowingly. You can not charge me with perjury for not meeting my duties. Again I am sorry for giving the false information but I did not know it to be false at the time of saying it therefore it is not perjury.

Perjury is not only about false statements made in court, it is knowingly false statements. By charging me with perjury you are going outside the definition written in law and creating your own.
Click to expand...
While ko may or may not have known this fact, he is an agent of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, which includes the DHS, did indeed know that charges can be selected. Therefore, the body he represents made a knowingly false statement. Negligence to check one's facts as counsel does not excuse perjury, especially in this instance.
 
ko531 said:
Motion to Reconsider

It does not matter what my duties are. The law specifcally says that I must give knowingly incorrect testimony. What I have done here does not meet the definition of perjury as I have not given false information knowingly. You can not charge me with perjury for not meeting my duties. Again I am sorry for giving the false information but I did not know it to be false at the time of saying it therefore it is not perjury.

Perjury is not only about false statements made in court, it is knowingly false statements. By charging me with perjury you are going outside the definition written in law and creating your own.
Click to expand...

Overruled. You knowingly made statements in this courtroom that were not based on accurate information. If you were unsure of the facts, you should have disclosed that rather than making statements without standing. Your testimony was incorrect and deliberately misleading. I must also point out that the Commonwealth was aware of this information, and you are representing the Commonwealth in this matter. I am not deviating from the law; I am upholding it. Your false testimony was a breach of court integrity. I also encourage you to be more respectful.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Overruled. You knowingly made statements in this courtroom that were not based on accurate information. If you were unsure of the facts, you should have disclosed that rather than making statements without standing. Your testimony was incorrect and deliberately misleading. I must also point out that the Commonwealth was aware of this information, and you are representing the Commonwealth in this matter. I am not deviating from the law; I am upholding it. Your false testimony was a breach of court integrity. I also encourage you to be more respectful.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, Im putting this on the record

At the time of the statement I believed it to be true, I was not unsure as I believed it to be true so there was nothing to disclosed. I did not deliberatley mislead anyone as the testimony I gave I believed to be the truth. You have failed to show how I knowlingly gave this false testimony therefore you should not be able to charge me with perjury.

It also does not matter what the commonwealth may have known as you are charging me individually with perjury not the commonwealth therefore the only thing that matters it what I know and what I believed to be the truth.

At the end of the day you are deviating from the law since even though my testimony was false, it was not knowlingly false and therefore not perjury
 
OPENING STATEMENTS

Your Honor

You will see that this entire case is nothing but a cash grab and the plaintiff Alexander has purposely done this actions on purpose. Alexander knew before committing these murders that it was illegal. He knew that the law says any act sentencing over 30 minutes is court jurisdiction.. He knew that the commonwealth has regularly not been aware of this law and subsequently ignored it. He knew all of these facts before committing his first murder, this is seen by both FCR 98 and Alexander's answers to the interrogation. He even murdered a cop forcing that said cop to arrest him.

As you can see Alexander has caused his own damages as he knew exactly what would happen by doing this. Not only did he know this he used this knowledge to create the damages being argued in this case. As seen in The_Donucticus v. GER, as an organization, et all [2022] SCR 18 when you cause your own damages then you are no longer entitled to prayers/claims of relief. For this reason nothing should be granted and this cause should be found in favor of the defense. Alexander had all the knowledge in the world to avoid this but yet he caused it.

Alexander also talks about the DHS purposely not charging him with all his murder charges at the same time. With this arguement the DHS is damn if they do and damn if they dont as by charging all of the murder charges they would be violating aleaxander's right to a trial. The law never says the DHS has to charge crimminals with all there crimes all at once. No rights were violated as Alexander never served more then 30 minutes of jail time.
 
Since no witnesses are being called, we will move to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Since no witnesses are being called, we will move to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.
Click to expand...
IMG_7272.jpeg
 
My apologies, Mr. Love. I overlooked that. I will issue the witness summons shortly.
 
1712719404002.png


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@YeetBoy1872325 and @Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the court in the case of AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​
 
Present, your honor. A lawyer from Dragon Law Firm will conduct my examination.
 
Present ur honer
 
@Alexander P. Love You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to both witnesses at the same time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.
 
ORDER VACATING PERJURY​

Upon thorough deliberation and review, I have decided to reverse the perjury charge against Mr. Ko. While I encourage Mr. Ko to triple check his information in the future he didn't knowingly provide false information.

Unseatedduke1
Judge
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
@Alexander P. Love You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to both witnesses at the same time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I went to work for a nine hour shift right after you sent that, then slept for a while because I was tired. Just got started for the day on legal stuff. I feel 24 hours is a bit short considering real life, and while it is a little late, I do request a 24 hour extension from the original deadline.
 
@YeetBoy1872325

1. Why did you arrest me?
2. When I was placed in cuffs, what crimes was I charged with?
3. Combined, how long of a jail sentence do those crimes add up to?
4. How long did you jail me for?
5. Did you clear any of the wanted points that you did not jail me for?
6. Did the DHS historically jail people for all wanted points at once provided it was below 60 minutes of jail?
 
Alexander P. Love said:
6. Did the DHS historically jail people for all wanted points at once provided it was below 60 minutes of jail?
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Speculation and Argumentative

This questions is asking about the historical practices of an entire department something that Yeetboy can not answer about as he is not the entire department. He can only speak to his own experiences and thoughts.

This is also Argumentative as it is not about seeking an answer but trying to state an arguement for the historical practices of the DHS on the record by just having the witness answer true or false.
 
ko531 said:
OBJECTION
Speculation and Argumentative

This questions is asking about the historical practices of an entire department something that Yeetboy can not answer about as he is not the entire department. He can only speak to his own experiences and thoughts.

This is also Argumentative as it is not about seeking an answer but trying to state an arguement for the historical practices of the DHS on the record by just having the witness answer true or false.
Click to expand...
I will rephrase the question to address speculation. As for argumentative, that isn't what argumentative means. Argumentative is when a lawyer asks a question to antagonize or argue with a witness. All questions are designed to state arguments; that is why they are asked in Court by lawyers, who are there to state a case.
 
Yeet, question six is rephrased as follows:

In your experience and from your perception, did the DHS historically jail people for all wanted points at once provided it was below 60 minutes of jail?
 
Alexander P. Love said:
@YeetBoy1872325

1. Why did you arrest me?
2. When I was placed in cuffs, what crimes was I charged with?
3. Combined, how long of a jail sentence do those crimes add up to?
4. How long did you jail me for?
5. Did you clear any of the wanted points that you did not jail me for?
6. Did the DHS historically jail people for all wanted points at once provided it was below 60 minutes of jail?
Click to expand...
1. You were wanted for committing crimes.
2. Murder x2.
3. 20 minutes.
4. 20 minutes.
5. No.
6. I do not know, I am only a Recruit.
 
Questions to the Witness

AlexanderLove
  1. How did you feel when you found out you were being sent to jail rather than given a fair trial?
  2. Can you describe how being imprisoned made you feel?
  3. Is it safe to say you were scared while in prison?
  4. Where did you fall?
  5. Why were you in the prison mine?
  6. Did your fall cause you to break your leg?
  7. If so, did breaking your leg cause a great deal of pain and suffering?
 
Avaneesh2008 said:
Questions to the Witness

AlexanderLove
  1. How did you feel when you found out you were being sent to jail rather than given a fair trial?
  2. Can you describe how being imprisoned made you feel?
  3. Is it safe to say you were scared while in prison?
  4. Where did you fall?
  5. Why were you in the prison mine?
  6. Did your fall cause you to break your leg?
  7. If so, did breaking your leg cause a great deal of pain and suffering?
Click to expand...
1. I was outraged and then saddened that a fundamental right of mine was being taken away. I was then scared at the thought of being thrown in a cell with violent criminals.
2. It made me fearful for my own safety, and also lonely. I was confined and deprived of my freedom. It made me feel hopeless.
3. Yes, very.
4. I fell in the prison mine.
5. The mine was the only way to regain my freedom quickly. I was motivated by fear and boredom to get out quickly.
6. Yes.
7. Yes, it hurt a lot. When I got out of prison, I had to hobble to the hospital to get a splint which also hurt and took a great deal of time. I will never forget that traumatic incident.
 
ko531 said:
OBJECTION
Speculation and Argumentative

This questions is asking about the historical practices of an entire department something that Yeetboy can not answer about as he is not the entire department. He can only speak to his own experiences and thoughts.

This is also Argumentative as it is not about seeking an answer but trying to state an arguement for the historical practices of the DHS on the record by just having the witness answer true or false.
Click to expand...
Overruled Mr. Love reworded the question. Edit: Overruled because of argumentative aspect but again Mr. Love please reword the question.
 
Your Honor, May I begin cross examination as it has been over 24 hours?
 
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...
@YeetBoy1872325 Please answer this follow up question in the next 24 hours.

Mr. Ko you may begin.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top