Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. ko531 [2024] FCR 124

Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Attorney General
Justice Department
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Legal Eagle Popular in the Polls Change Maker
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
attorneygeneral
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,280

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont (Attorney General Dartanboy representing)
Plaintiff

v.

ko531
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
On or around August 21, 2024, ko531 was placed under arrest for the crime of Murder. Upon being arrested, ko531 told the arresting police "Ill pay you to let me go."

This constitutes the crime of Bribery under the Commercial Standards Act.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. ko531

II. FACTS
1. On or around August 21, 2024, ko531 was placed under arrest for Murder [Exhibit P-001].
2. Upon being arrested, ko531 told the arresting police "Ill pay you to let me go" [Exhibit P-001].
3. The Commercial Standards Act establishes the crime of Bribery as a DoC offense for some reason, giving the Courts jurisdiction [Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act].
4. Bribery is defined by the Commercial Standards Act as "The act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity" [Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act].
5. Police officers are "serving in a legal capacity" and thus, bribing one constitutes Bribery.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One Count of Bribery, for offering money or another item of value to influence an individual serving in a legal capacity.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:

Given the Defendant's position as a Public Defender (at the time), and their extensive history of crime, the Prosecution recommends:
1. A $10,000 fine
2. 10 minutes in jail

EVIDENCE

1729258777257.png

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 18th day of October 2024

 

Writ of Summons



@ko531 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. ko531

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
Present
 
In Accordance with new Court Procedures, we will now be moving into discovery. Discovery will last 72 hours. Please provide any evidence and/or witness lists to the courts.
Information about Discovery can be found in the Court Rules and Procedures.
 
Your honor, I believe the Discovery Period has ended.
 
Your honor, I am informing you that I am no longer the AG, and am not qualified to represent the Commonwealth.
 
My Apologies, we will now be moving onto to Defense's answer to complaint. @ko531 , you have 72 hours to provide your answer to complaint.
 

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

ko531
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense pleads GUILTY to the one count of Bribery, for offering money or another item of value to influence an individual serving in a legal capacity.


II. DEFENSE
I ask that the court lowers my sentencing after taking into account that this is my first count of bribery, this was 2 months ago and the fact that no damages were actually caused. The exact same thing would have happened if I never made such a comment to tusk.

The only reason my recommended sentencing is this high in the first place is due to the DOJ violating rights VII and XIII. They are using a completely unrelated criminal record to raise their sentencing to the maximum fine and maximum jail time. They are trying to punish me harsher than others for bribery which violates my XIII as I am being denied equal protection under the law. They are discriminating against me for my status as a criminal which violates my VII as criminals are guaranteed all the same rights and benefits as normal citizens.

III. COUNTER-CLAIMS
1. $2500 for violation of my XIII right: "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."
2. $2500 for violation of my VII right: "Criminals, although broke the law, are still citizens of the server and therefore entitled to their rights."


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 28th day of October 2024.

 
We will now be moving onto opening statements, the plaintiff will have 72 hours to submit their opening statements.
@Freeze_Line
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, we are here today because the defendant chose to break the law and is now attempting to downplay the consequences of their actions. A criminal record demonstrates not just the number of crimes an individual commits but also their willingness to engage in criminal behavior. To claim that a criminal record is irrelevant is unreasonable. All citizens are treated equally under the law, and any other individual in the defendant's position would face the same recommended sentencing.

Bribery is a serious offense that undermines the integrity of our legal system. If bribery were considered acceptable, it would corrupt trust in our institutions and lead to a breakdown of justice. The defendant has pled guilty, and since no rights were violated, the prosecution sees no reason not to proceed directly to a verdict. This sentencing is appropriate and fits this case, and we urge the court to hold the defendant accountable for their actions.

 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Just because a class of citizen is treated the same does not mean it cannot be discrimination. The DOJ Policy that tells prosecutors to take into account unrelated criminal records for sentencing is violating criminals' rights. Right VII affords criminals all the same rights as normal citizens therefore by treating criminals as a separate class and more harshly punishing them is unconstitutional. My criminal record does not include bribery and has no bearing in this case or in sentencing. I am being punished for crimes I have already served the punishments for. My sentencing should worry about the crime being charged and not past history. The case is about bribery so let the sentencing reflex bribery.

This policy only keeps criminals down. It is a cascading effect that each crime makes the following punishment worse. This makes it harder for criminals to change and only allows the government to profit of keeping criminals as criminals. We are citizens before criminals and sentencing guidelines should reflect as such.

I also want the court to understand I am not making these arguments as a cash grab but as a civil rights activist for criminals. I make these arguments so criminals in the future can't be kicked while already down. Time and time again courts have restricted the protected rights of criminals, and I can't just stand by any longer while my own rights are being violated.

 
My apologies, this slipped my mind. We will now move into the Plaintiffs Closing Statements as no witnesses were called. they will have 48 hours.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

The prosecution maintains that the defendant has committed a crime and is attempting to downplay its consequences. Punishment varies depending on the crime, but ultimately, it is the individual’s choice to commit it. If every crime carried the minimum penalty, offenders would lack deterrence.

The defendant argues that harsher sentencing makes it harder for criminals to change. But how does that even make sense? It is an individual’s choice to commit a crime, and if they disregard the law, they must face the consequences.

The government’s goal is not to profit from criminal activity but to discourage it. Criminals must understand that penalties will only escalate if they continue unlawful behavior.

A criminal record reflects an individual's willingness to break the law and highlights how little the law means to them. Would it be fair for someone who has committed one crime to face the same consequences as a repeat offender? Of course not. And why would a criminal repeatedly break the law? Because they believe they can get away with light sentences and continue their actions.

No rights have been violated in this case. As already stated, anyone in the defendant’s position would face the same consequences. The prosecution, therefore, urges the court to hold the defendant accountable for their actions and allow this decision to send a strong message discouraging future criminal behavior.

 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Each crime should go on a case-by-case basis. Unrelated criminal records do nothing but prejudice the judge and discriminate against criminals. This policy that is allowed for my sentencing is immediately putting guilt in the minds of all people following the case for no good reason.

Right VII clearly states that criminals are still citizens and are entitled to all their rights. Yet by treating me and my criminal history as a subclass of citizen in sentencing is completely against the idea of Right VII. At no point in this process should it be forgotten that I am a citizen, and have it replaced with the idea that I am a criminal but that is what the sentencing guidelines does. It makes every member of the case prejudice against me by filling their minds with the picture of me as a criminal.

The Commonwealth keeps bringing up the fact that they would treat everyone in my situation the same therefore it's not discrimination. The Commonwealth lacks the understanding of discrimination. Just because you treat a class of people the same amongst themselves does not remove discrimination. If the government were to enslave all Bedrock players, this would not be discrimination according to the commonwealth as we are treating all Bedrock players the same. The Commonwealth and the court must understand that I, along with every other criminal, am a citizen first. I should be treated as such instead of a criminal first.

Each case with its recommended sentencing should be based solely on the crime at hand. For the Commonwealth to say that it wouldn't be fair to charge someone the same for their first crime means the sentencing is no longer about the crime but about the person. I am now being punished for who I am and my actions which I cannot change. This policy allowing sentencing to attack the person and not the crime committed is the whole reason why it is discriminatory and a violation of rights.

The Commonwealth also claims that I am trying to get away with a light sentence and continue my actions. I plead guilty. I am accepting the punishment for the crime, but I am arguing the sentencing because as I already said it is not a punishment for the crime but for who I am. I am a first-time offender for bribery and that is where the sentencing should start.

 
In recess pending verdict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top