Lawsuit: Dismissed Commonwealth of Redmont v. Redcliffe Casino [2023] FCR 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
ColonelKai

ColonelKai

Lawyer at Law
Judge
Public Defender
Supporter
Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle 4th Anniversary
Colonel_Kai
Colonel_Kai
Judge
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
152
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Redcliff Casino
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The defendant has breached White-Collar Crack Down Act by committing Gambling Fraud (§4.7).

The DLA, through multiple testimonies from Void, has evidence to believe that the percentages displayed on signs to the customers do not represent the reality of the slot machines which were present at the Redcliff Casino.

Through aforementioned testimonies, it is known that the slot machines had 4 out of 9 total slots filled with prizes, even though the chance percentages were displayed as "75%" and "90%" while such a layout would only grant the customers a 44.44% chance of winning.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Redcliff Casino

II. FACTS
1. The Redcliff Casino had their slot machines behind rooms that had signs that displayed "75% Chance of Winning" and "90% Chance of Winning"
2. All of the slot machines within both rooms only provided a 44.44% chance of winning.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. White-Collar Crack Down Act, Gambling Fraud (§4.7)
(7) Gambling Fraud shall be defined as " The act of fraudulently explaining how a certain gambling game works". Any party or entity which hosts a gambling game is required, to explain the game when asked.
The defendant has breached this provision as they have clearly misrepresented the working mechanisms of the said slot machines.


IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. $5,000 in punitive damages (White-Collar Crack Down Act, Punishments §8.2)

Screenshot_496.png
Screenshot_497.png

1676037927015.png

Screenshot_467.png
Screenshot_463.png
Screenshot_465.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 10th day of February, 2023
 
federal-court-png.12082


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

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Redcliffe Casino [2023] FCR 23.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​
 
Your honour, the required 48 hours has passed, and the defense has failed to appear before the court. The prosecution requests default judgment.
 
A default judgment will be entered.
 
Although the default judgment period has been entered, this Court believes that the Defendant is entitled to legal representation in this trial per the Constitution. Following the precedent of [2023] FCR 1 and the passage of the Save the Public Defender Program Act, until a Public Defender Program is created as specified in the Save the Public Defender Program Act, and a public defender can be procured for the Defendant, this case is in recess. If the Prosecution wishes to make any motions, they may do so in this thread.
 
With all respect, the prosecution team would like to request permission to object to the declaration of recess, and provide arguments as to why.
 
If you would like to file a motion to reconsider, you may, as I stated at the end of the instructions for recess.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Justification for Motion
Apologies for missing the allowance of a motion to reconsider, and thank you for the oppurtunity.

Your honour, due all respect, the Prosecution would like to ask the Honourable Court to reconsider the recess on the point of dispute regarding the two legal basis on which the recess decision was taken. To the understanding of the Prosecution, the two legal standings for the decision are as follows;

- Precedent of [2023] FCR 1
- Save the Public Defender Program Act's Passage

However, the Prosecution team believes that neither of these things are valid as;

I. At the time when the 48 hours allocated to the defense was expired, the Save The Public Defender Program Act was not signed into law, and as a matter of fact, at the time of writing this motion as presented to the courts, it is yet to be signed into the law.

II. The Precedent set in the case 2023 FCR 1 relies on two facts;

- Firstly, The Even Moderner Legal Board Act's Section 6, which was declared unconstitutional as of [2022] FCR 97.
- Secondly, the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 9 which states the following;​
Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.​
Click to expand...
This section of the constitution grants any citizen to a right to an attorney- however, this does not constitute a requirement to have an attorney. The Defendant had every right to an attorney, and they had the time between the filing of the lawsuit, the writ of summons and the 48 hours following it to excersize that right. The existance of a right does not constitute a mandate to exersize it. We would also like to bring the judge's attention to the fact that the same paragraph of the constitution entitles all citizens to a speedy trial, emphasising the avoiding of unneccesary delays.​

To bring our argument to an end; we believe that the legal standing on which the recess decision was taken does not have the necessary level of command to justify it.


DATED: This 18th day of February, 2023
 
The motion to reconsider is rejected. The Court does acknowledge that the Save The Public Defender Program Act has not passed the required referendum to be considered law, however the Constitutional element still remains. The reasons for the rejection of the motion to reconsider are as follows:
  • It is the opinion of the Court that an accused citizen does have the right to assistance of counsel, per the Constitution, Part IV § (32)(IX). To proceed with a default judgment without the Defendant's having any chance to have assistance of counsel would be in violation of their rights per the Constitution. The Court will not proceed to violate the Constitutionally provided rights of a citizen.
  • It is furthermore the opinion of the Court that the "speedy and fair trial" section allows for necessary delays such as those required to ensure that the Defendant's rights are not compromised. A speedy trial alone does not satisfy the Constitutional requirements, as it must be fair, too. It would not be a fair trial if Constitutional rights with regard to rights of the accused were disregarded.
 
Sorry I did not know the court went on. I was waiting for someone to contact me about what to do.
 
Your honor, I will be representing the Defendant in this case.

I request 36 hours to familiarize myself with this case and provide a plea.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Redcliffe Casino
Defendant

I. PLEA
The Defendant pleads Not Guilty to all charges in this case.

II. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY The Redcliff Casino had their slot machines behind rooms that had signs that displayed "75% Chance of Winning" and "90% Chance of Winning"
2. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY All of the slot machines within both rooms only provided a 44.44% chance of winning.

III. DEFENCES
1. The verdict of [2022] FCR 72 says that "the burden of proof is never on the accused, nor does it ever shift to the accused at any point."

Your honor, this means it is not the Defendant's job to prove that they are innocent, but the Commonwealth must prove that they are guilty.

2. I do not believe this evidence was obtained legally (if it is even relevant evidence), and an Objection based on Fruit of the Poisonous Tree will be filed shortly.

3. If the evidence is not struck, I will point out that while "Signs at the Slot Machines at the Time" contains a timestamp 10/21/2022 11:58PM, and "Testimonies" has many timestamps from 10/21/2022 11:53PM to 10/22/2022 2:30PM.

It is important to note, however, that the screenshot allegedly sent by Void in "Testimonies" does NOT have a timestamp (it has a timestamp for when it was sent, but not when the screenshot was taken).

The screenshot also shows no background -- only the inventory of some dropper is shown -- thus, it is possible that the dropper shown in the screenshot did not even belong at Redcliffe Casino, but was somewhere else entirely.

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 12th day of April 2023
 
Last edited:
OBJECTION
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

The Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
"XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

Your honor, there are only two possibilities:
1. The dropper-screenshot in question was not at Redcliffe Casino, and has no relevance to this case.
2. The dropper-screenshot was searched without probable cause, making this an unreasonable search, violating my client's Constitutional right against unreasonable search.

Thus, the Defense requests that the dropper-screenshot be STRUCK.
 
Does the Commonwealth have a response for this objection?
 
Your honor, it has been several days.
 
Your honor, as the compliance team leader, as well as the person in charge of this search, I would like to post an amicus brief if you will allow. Thank you.
 
I apologize for the delay, I have been out of town for the past day and a half, and I will make a response in a few hours once I am back home.
 
I will be granting the request for the amicus brief.
 
I am overruling the objection conditionally.

It is assumed that information given under a direct affirmation such as that in the screenshot is true unless proven otherwise. It would be beyond the scope of reasonable doubt to assume that someone would lie about an action taken in staff capacity.

With regard to the unreasonable search and seizure claim, I will be overruling this objection and the evidence will not be struck yet, provided that the Defendant is able to provide the warrant used in the search. If a warrant, or an explanation for the lack of one, is not provided within 48 hours, I will sustain the objection to the evidence and the screenshots of the searched droppers will be struck from evidence.
 
Amicus Brief:

Thank you for allowing me to post an amicus brief. In my amicus brief, which I will be keeping short, I will be bringing up two things. Firstly, that the search was in fact allowed and did not violate the laws or the constitution. Secondly, I will be highlighting a few key parts in my conversation with the staff member that helped provide the results to this search.

1. Despite the Defendant's claims that this search was unconstitutional, or against the law, this search was 100% legal. I would like to point out the Cool DEC Casino Investigation Act (linked below) which states that because there is no way for the DEC (now known as the DOC) to be able to get a warrant for casinos, because it's impossible to obtain probable cause, the DEC may search a casino with displayed odds.

2. The casino's displayed odds were listed at 90% for some slot machines, and 75% for the other slot machines. Even if the Defendant doesn't wish to trust the screenshots provided, using simple math you can determine that these odds must be false. Because the casino's slot machines used a simple dropper, which has 9 slots, the odds must equal any number divided by 9. For example if 8 slots were filled, the odds would be 8/9, or 88.8%, if 7 slots were filled, the odds would be 7/9 or 77.7%. Logically, this makes it impossible for the casino's odds to be 90% or 75%. A second part the I would like to highlight is that while the casino's slot machines had 4 slots filled with books, making the odds to obtain a book 44.4%, not all of the books were able to be sold for enough money to make your money back. Because of this, the chance of making a profit on the slot machine was not 44.4%, but rather 22.2% or 11.1%.

I would again like to thank the court for allowing me to post this amicus brief.

Cool DEC Casino Investigation Act: Act of Congress - Cool DEC Casino Investigation Act
 
In light of the amicus curiae brief, I will be overruling the objection of fruit of the poisonous tree. We will now be moving on to opening statements. The Prosecution may present their opening statements.
 
Banana said:
In light of the amicus curiae brief, I will be overruling the objection of fruit of the poisonous tree. We will now be moving on to opening statements. The Prosecution may present their opening statements.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, the Cool DEC Casino Investigation Act is unconstitutional and should be struck as such. The Act states: "There is no way for the DEC to get a warrant to investigate whether or not a casino has displayed false odds because warrants require probable cause."

This Act literally allows the Government to get a search warrant without probable cause. This is, literally by definition, an unreasonable search, which is against the Constitution.

The Defense believes that the law allowing the evidence to exist is unconstitutional. If this Motion is overruled, this will become the main defense of this case.
 
Your honor if the court may allow, I would like to add a small section to my amicus brief
 
Your honor, it has been over 48 hours since the prosecution was asked to provide an opening statement.
 
Additions to the amicus curiae brief will not be allowed, as it is the opinion of the court that by doing this, it could be allowing another non-party to attempt to act as an attorney for one party, responding to events in the case as opposed to the original issue.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Prosecution has failed to pursue this case, and thus it should be dismissed.
 
Because the Prosecution has failed to respond to this case even once since the proceedings resumed approximately two weeks ago, and has made no attempt to ask for an extension or provide any explanation, I am going to accept the motion to dismiss. When the Commonwealth attempts to prosecute, it must be prepared to at least make its claims, and it has a duty to respond. It has failed to do so, and thus this case is dismissed with prejudice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top