Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Rockefeller [2022] FCR 82

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Claxx77

Citizen
Legal Eagle Statesman Staff Popular in the Polls
Claxx77
Claxx77
Attorney
Joined
Mar 23, 2022
Messages
159
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth
Prosecution

v.

Rockefeller
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
Department of Education and Commerce started investigating the Rockefeller company for possible gambling fraud. Afterwards, DEC Compliance Team used the gambling machines of the Rockefeller company. They rolled the $50 machine 87 times but didn’t even win once. The winning odds for the machines were written on the wall and the winning odds for the $50 machine was 4/9. But the investigation showed that the winning odds for the $50 machine is 0/9 and the winning odds were less for the other machines than advertised.

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Rockefeller Company (Owned by asssailant)

II. FACTS
1. DEC Rolled $50 machines 87 times.
2. The company stated the winning odds for the $50 machine is 4/9.
3. DEC didn’t even win once after 87 times.
3. This showed that the company was lying about the winning odds.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

The defendant violated the law with fraud as they misrepresented how the gambling machines work.
1. White-Collar Crack Down Act
(1) Fraud shall be defined as;” an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.”
(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.

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

$4350 for the loss of the Department of Education and Commerce.
$5000 for fraud.



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 October 2022
 

Attachments

  • 1665415701062.png
    1665415701062.png
    654.1 KB · Views: 76
  • 1665416094843.png
    1665416094843.png
    534.6 KB · Views: 80
  • 1665416113820.png
    1665416113820.png
    483.5 KB · Views: 79
  • 1665416173726.png
    1665416173726.png
    469.5 KB · Views: 75
  • 1665416182060.png
    1665416182060.png
    288.4 KB · Views: 80
  • 1665416191684.png
    1665416191684.png
    104.4 KB · Views: 80
  • 1665416201010.png
    1665416201010.png
    110.1 KB · Views: 76
  • 1665416212976.png
    1665416212976.png
    123.8 KB · Views: 76
  • 1665416328611.png
    1665416328611.png
    125.3 KB · Views: 78
  • 1665416334610.png
    1665416334610.png
    119.4 KB · Views: 85
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 Commonwealth v. Rockefeller [2022] FCR 82.

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 defendant failed to respond within 48 hours. The prosecution requests default judgment.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Commonwealth v. Rockefeller [2022] FCR 82

I. PROSECUTION’S POSITION
1. The Defendant set up a casino with signs displaying odds stated at 4/9 for a particular machine.
2. The Department of Education and Commerce (DEC) performed an investigation into the casino machines.
3. The machine was played 87 times, and the outcome was 87 losses with 0 wins.
4. The interior of the machines were also investigated, and they showed clearly that there was at best a 2/9 chance of winning.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Defendant did not show up in court.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. While it is statistically possible that there could be a 4/9 probability event rolled 87 times to the result specified by the Prosecution, the odds of that happening are roughly 6 x 10^-21 percent.
2. For a criminal conviction, the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
3. In this case, an event that should have a lower probability than randomly choosing Bill Gates out of a bucket of every human being that has ever lived, and then putting him back and doing it again to the same result, has happened.
4. It is the opinion of the court that this is far beyond reasonable doubt.

IV. VERDICT
On the one count of fraud, I find the Defendant guilty.

I order that the Defendant be fined $9,350 by the DOJ.

The Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top