Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. V__D [2023] FCR 109

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nacho

Nacho

Manager
Manager
Justice Department
Construction & Transport Department
Oakridge Resident
Presidential Commendation Order of Redmont Impeached Staff
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
1,075
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We request the court to freeze V__d's current assets. As established within [2023] FCR 32 & [2023] FCR 58, we request the government to seize the funds identified as being stolen and hold them until the dispute over the funds has been resolved. We request the government seize the funds listed below until the conclusion of this case. I have provided a breakdown of the currently contested funds the defendant holds.

The Government also requests an extension of the filing of the case from 4 hours to 48 hours from the time of the acceptance of this emergency injunction.

Funds Embezzled: $5,000,000 (Exhibit A)
Company Balances: (Exhibit B-E)
 

Attachments

  • Exhibit B.PNG
    Exhibit B.PNG
    113.4 KB · Views: 212
  • Exhibit C.PNG
    Exhibit C.PNG
    45.8 KB · Views: 209
  • Exhibit D.PNG
    Exhibit D.PNG
    42.4 KB · Views: 191
  • Exhibit E.PNG
    Exhibit E.PNG
    52.1 KB · Views: 208
  • Exhibit A.PNG
    Exhibit A.PNG
    10.2 KB · Views: 198
  • Exhibit F.PNG
    Exhibit F.PNG
    58.1 KB · Views: 201
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

V__D
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
On December 25th, while wrongfully holding the permissions granted to him from his previous term as senator, unfined himself 5,000,000 dollars from the government account. He then distributed that money into Avalon bank, CreditRedmont, Quality Bank of Redmont, Discover Bank, and eb, in an attempt to hide the embezzled funds.

I. PARTIES
1. CommonWealth of Redmont (plaintiff)
2.V__D (Defendent)
3. Avalon Bank
4. CreditRedmont
5.eb
6. Quality Bank of Redmont
7. Discover Bank (witness)

II. FACTS
1. on December 25th V__D unfined himself $5,000,000.
2. V__D did not have the authority or permission to unfine themselves $5,000,000
3.V__D disbursed the illegally obtained $5,000,000 through Avalon bank, CreditRedmont, Quality Bank of Redmont, discover bank, and eb

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 Count of Corruption for using powers wrongfully left to him from his time in the senate.
2. 1 count of embezzlement for attempting to spend government funds as personal funds.
3. 5 Counts of Money laundering for attempting to hide the funds that were illegally detained in multiple accounts.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. The defendant be charged $5,000,000 to reconciliate the funds that they stole from the government.
2. the dependant be charged $25,000 and the exclusion from holding office for two months as according to the ‘Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act'.
3. The defendant charge $50,000, jailed 10 minutes and pay $10,000 dollars in punitive damages for embezzlement as according to the 'White-Collar CrackDown Act'.
4. The accused be considered a serial criminal offender if convicted of embezzlement, and the fines be doubled according to the ‘Standardized Criminal Code Act’.
5. The defendant be charged $5000 per count totaling up to $25,000 dollars and charged with punitive damages of $10,000 per each count totaling up to $50,000 as according to the “White-Collar CrackDown Act”.
 
Last edited:
The Emergency Injunction is hereby granted due to the amount and the fact that is the primary issue at hand.

I will issue summons shortly.
 
1703692031455.png

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

@v__d is required to appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. v__d. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Motion to Dismiss
This is a staff matter and therefore is not under the domain of RP as it involved a bug.
 
The Prosecution does not need to rebuttal as I will be rejecting the Motion to Dismiss given the powers used to provide the 5 million dollars were still used by a Government position and are shown across multiple business ventures.

With that, we will now move into Discovery. This will be lasting 7 days.
 
RelaxedGV said:
The Prosecution does not need to rebuttal as I will be rejecting the Motion to Dismiss given the powers used to provide the 5 million dollars were still used by a Government position and are shown across multiple business ventures.

With that, we will now move into Discovery. This will be lasting 7 days.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I haven’t filed my response yet.
 
To? Your Motion to Dismiss?
 
You have 72 hours to provide an answer to complaint.
 
Your honor, the defendant is non-responsive. I am letting the Court know Dragon Law Firm is no longer representing him, and a public defender should be appointed in our place. Thank you.
 
Even though this is after the deadline I will not charge with contempt.

I will appoint a Public Defender when one can be assigned.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Even though this is after the deadline I will not charge with contempt.

I will appoint a Public Defender when one can be assigned.
Click to expand...
Your honor, this is unorthodox and I severely apologize. The defendant has become responsive and the Dragon Law Firm has once more been retained. I request 24 hours to issue an answer to complaint as the original deadline was on a Court holiday.
 
You have 24 hours to provide an answer.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS facts one and two.
2. The defense DISPUTES fact three as the money was not stolen illegally, and even if it was, it was simply put into accounts in a strategic financial manner. Divesting a large sum of money into multiple banks and options is fiscally wise regardless of the situation and is not to be construed as "laundering" it.

II. DEFENCES
1. Corruption is "the act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else." v__d did not use a government position to give themselves any advantage as they were not a Senator at the time the $5,000,000 was debited from the Government's account. They did not have an official duty at the time. Therefore, the definition of corruption is inapplicable to this case.
2. For embezzlement to be valid, the assets would have to be entrusted to the person who embezzled them. v__d was not entrusted with these assets. The prosecution specifically states this in fact two of their original filing.
3. The Government tracks bank transactions with the DOC's FITA monitoring system. Therefore, the Government knew about all of the bank transfers with ease. These cannot be reasonably considered money laundering as v__d himself ran a bank and knew the Government could see those transactions. A reasonable person would not expect to hide money in this manner. Rather, these transfers were fiscally prudent and not an attempt to conceal these funds. Finally, the funds must be proven illegally obtained for money laundering to even be considered. For both of these reasons, all five money laundering charges are invalid.


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 3rd day of January 2024
 
Thank you, we will now be moving onto Discovery which will last 7 days. Should both sides agree we may end discovery early and move onto Opening Statements.
 
The defense motions to expedite discovery by four days, bringing it down to three days.
 
Is the Prosecution fine with this?
 
RelaxedGV said:
Is the Prosecution fine with this?
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
Prosecution would like to adhear to the previous aformentioned timeline and not expidite recovery.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Alright, discovery will continue as planned.
 
Your honor, I request an in-game trial.
 
Witness List
The defense will call the following people as witnesses:
  1. v__d
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defense motions to dismiss this case on the following grounds:
1. Sentencing 1 should be struck as this money was already returned. This 5 million should not be charged to the defendant twice if found guilty.
2. Sentencing 4 should be struck under rule 5.5 as the prosecution cannot prove the defendant has been convicted of embezzlement already twice before this. Serial crimes only apply on the third and subsequent offense of a given crime.
3. Charge 1 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 for lack of evidence this crime was committed while in office. It should also be dismissed under rule 5.12 as the prosecution does not have standing to prosecute people for corruption unless corruption was committed while in office, per the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act.
4. Charge 2 should be dismissed under rule 5.12 as only a party injured by embezzlement may litigate for embezzlement. As previously established, v__d did not work for the government and was explicitly not authorized to take (and thereby not entrusted with) government funds. Therefore, the definition of embezzlement excludes the Commonwealth from having any standing to pursue an embezzlement charge.
5. Charge 3 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 as the prosecution lacks any evidence to substantiate or support all elements of the crime "money laundering" as intent to hide funds is required. Simply depositing money into a bank is not an attempt to hide funds; it is a normal and fiscally prudent activity. This claim is therefore frivolous as well.


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 3rd day of January 2024
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

QUESTIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION
1. Isn't it true staff collected the $5,000,000 back from v__d?
2. Isn't it true v__d was not a Senator at the time $5,000,000 was unfined into v__d's account?


The defense maintains the right to ask up to three more questions of the prosecution via interrogatory at a later date.
 
Objection, Your Honor
Relevance. I object to Exhibit F on the grounds that it is a picture of a $10 balance of a random company (eb) that is not consequential to this case.
 
The Prosecution has 72 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
24 hours to respond to the objection.
Finally, the Prosecution has 48 hours to respond to the Interrogatory questions.

On the matter of an in game trial, would the Prosecution also like an in game trial?
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, Your Honor
Relevance. I object to Exhibit F on the grounds that it is a picture of a $10 balance of a random company (eb) that is not consequential to this case.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
The prosecution requested to seize the funds until the ending of the case from the defendant v__d, which included all his businesses including "eb" recover the $5 million that was taken and to prevent it from being distributed into more bank accounts.
 
Snowy_Heart said:
Your Honor,
The prosecution requested to seize the funds until the ending of the case from the defendant v__d, which included all his businesses including "eb" recover the $5 million that was taken and to prevent it from being distributed into more bank accounts.
Click to expand...
Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution failed to respond by the deadline and thus I motion to strike their remark from the record.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution failed to respond by the deadline and thus I motion to strike their remark from the record.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
I do ask for a leancy on this deadline. Its the begining of the school year and I only missed it by a few hours due to unforseen school affiliated irl circumstances.
Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

QUESTIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION
1. Isn't it true staff collected the $5,000,000 back from v__d?
2. Isn't it true v__d was not a Senator at the time $5,000,000 was unfined into v__d's account?


The defense maintains the right to ask up to three more questions of the prosecution via interrogatory at a later date.
Click to expand...
1. Yes
2. Yes
 
Alexander P. Love said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defense motions to dismiss this case on the following grounds:
1. Sentencing 1 should be struck as this money was already returned. This 5 million should not be charged to the defendant twice if found guilty.
2. Sentencing 4 should be struck under rule 5.5 as the prosecution cannot prove the defendant has been convicted of embezzlement already twice before this. Serial crimes only apply on the third and subsequent offense of a given crime.
3. Charge 1 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 for lack of evidence this crime was committed while in office. It should also be dismissed under rule 5.12 as the prosecution does not have standing to prosecute people for corruption unless corruption was committed while in office, per the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act.
4. Charge 2 should be dismissed under rule 5.12 as only a party injured by embezzlement may litigate for embezzlement. As previously established, v__d did not work for the government and was explicitly not authorized to take (and thereby not entrusted with) government funds. Therefore, the definition of embezzlement excludes the Commonwealth from having any standing to pursue an embezzlement charge.
5. Charge 3 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 as the prosecution lacks any evidence to substantiate or support all elements of the crime "money laundering" as intent to hide funds is required. Simply depositing money into a bank is not an attempt to hide funds; it is a normal and fiscally prudent activity. This claim is therefore frivolous as well.


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 3rd day of January 2024
Click to expand...

  1. Sentencing 1 should be struck as this money was already returned. This 5 million should not be charged to the defendant twice if found guilty.
Click to expand...
The funds were collected via a court approved emergency injunction issued by this court while the funds are disputed by the government. We indicated as such within the filing of the case within point 1 of sentencing and it is mentioned within the emergency injunction. This point within the motion to dismiss is also invalid per it failing to meet the requirements outlined within Court Rule 5.1.

  1. Sentencing 4 should be struck under rule 5.5 as the prosecution cannot prove the defendant has been convicted of embezzlement already twice before this. Serial crimes only apply on the third and subsequent offense of a given crime.
Click to expand...
As recommended within the sentencing guidelines issued by the prosecution, should the individual be charged with both counts of embezzlement the Prosecution have requested the court based upon the definition of serial offense outlined within Standardized Criminal Code Act. Sentencing 4 does not violate the rule as there is a clear basis for a claim that the individual could be charged with 2 counts of embezzlement which would constitute a serial criminal offense.

  1. Charge 1 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 for lack of evidence this crime was committed while in office. It should also be dismissed under rule 5.12 as the prosecution does not have standing to prosecute people for corruption unless corruption was committed while in office, per the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act.
Click to expand...
It is clear the individual utilized the powers awarded to him when he was a sitting senator to funnels millions out of the government. The prosecution has clearly provided evidence showing that the funds were unfined by the Defendant and the government is clearly indicating that this was a non-authorized appropriations of funds. Sufficient for a valid claim and valid evidence which was attached within the emergency injunction of this case. It's rather funny when the defense indicates that we cannot prosecute individuals of corruption when we are prosecuting the individual before the court in this moment of corruption. The prosecution aims to expand the definition of corruption to be included in and out of office, should the powers of a member of public office be abused by an individual it shall be considered corruption.

  1. Charge 2 should be dismissed under rule 5.12 as only a party injured by embezzlement may litigate for embezzlement. As previously established, v__d did not work for the government and was explicitly not authorized to take (and thereby not entrusted with) government funds. Therefore, the definition of embezzlement excludes the Commonwealth from having any standing to pursue an embezzlement charge.
Click to expand...
As outlined within [2023] FCR 59 - The government has previously prosecuted an individual for embezzling funds out of a government entity. The defendant has clearly taken these funds for personal gain as the government is declaring these funds to have not been authorized for use. The defendant was using powers awarded to him during his time in the senate for personal gain.

  1. Charge 3 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 as the prosecution lacks any evidence to substantiate or support all elements of the crime "money laundering" as intent to hide funds is required. Simply depositing money into a bank is not an attempt to hide funds; it is a normal and fiscally prudent activity. This claim is therefore frivolous as well.
Click to expand...
The individual did attempt to hide the funds from the government. Moving funds to various accounts falls within the definition of Money laundering as ""Any act to conceal funds illegally obtained, through commercial transactions, business deals, or any means otherwise." - Depositing funds into a bank account are considered a commercial transaction and the funds were obtained without approval by the government which makes it illegal.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

QUESTIONS FOR THE DEFENSE

1. Who approved the 5-million-dollar unfine?
2. After the defendant unfined himself 5 million dollars, did he deposit any money into discover bank?

The Prosecution maintains the right to ask up to three more questions of the Defense via interrogatory at a later date.
 
Snowy_Heart said:
2 counts of embezzlement which would constitute a serial criminal offense.
Click to expand...
Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The Standardized Criminal Code Act states "in which the perpetrator has already committed the crime twice" meaning only the THIRD or higher offense can be considered a serial offense. The prosecution is attempting to fool the Court in this matter.
 
Snowy_Heart said:
1. Who approved the 5-million-dollar unfine?
2. After the defendant unfined himself 5 million dollars, did he deposit any money into discover bank?
Click to expand...
1. No one
2. Yes, depositing money into a bank account is a normal and financially prudent activity
 
Your honor, the defense would like to additionally call the following as witnesses:
  • Nexalin, on behalf of Discover Bank
  • The Staff Team
  • MilkCrack in his capacity as President of the Senate
 
In response to the Objection, I will be overruling the objection to strike Evidence F. Currently with all of the evidence provided within the Injunction the amount sits at $4,456,743.11 this does not equal the $5 million at question. Given that unless evidence can be provided that eb was not included within this the evidence will remain.

On the Objection for Breach of Procedure it will be sustained given that the deadline was in fact missed, if an extension was asked for even a little after the 24 hours the situation would be different however that was not done.

On the Objection of Perjury, this will be overruled as by the image below the objection is of no grounds.

Finally in terms of the last Objection, I will also be overruling this as not only was Representative xEndeavour not acting within a staff capacity but also no matter the position it was taken from the matter at hand is that $5 million was taken out of the Government account without proper authorization. That is the question at hand and not whether a Senator can unfine.

Now for the Motion to Dismiss. This will be overruled as this as well is just relisting things from the earlier Motion with more detail and a few more reasons. Nothing of substantial substance was added between the two Motions to justify me sustaining this one or even warranting another Motion. I know this reasoning is short however I cannot add much given nothing much was added.

Discovery will continue with about 4ish days left (just under 4 days I believe).
 
RelaxedGV said:
Now for the Motion to Dismiss. This will be overruled as this as well is just relisting things from the earlier Motion with more detail and a few more reasons. Nothing of substantial substance was added between the two Motions to justify me sustaining this one or even warranting another Motion. I know this reasoning is short however I cannot add much given nothing much was added.
Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider
My motions to dismiss were very different. One alleged this is a staff matter and the other went into several rule 5 citations. I urge you, your honor, to read my motions more carefully. If you will not reconsider, I urge the Court to please specify detail as to why my second motion to dismiss was denied in greater detail. Thank you.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
1. No one
2. Yes, depositing money into a bank account is a normal and financially prudent activity
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
nothing pending. In answer number 2. Your honor the defense answered the question and proceded to offer information that was not relevent to the already answered question.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Motion to Reconsider
My motions to dismiss were very different. One alleged this is a staff matter and the other went into several rule 5 citations. I urge you, your honor, to read my motions more carefully. If you will not reconsider, I urge the Court to please specify detail as to why my second motion to dismiss was denied in greater detail. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I would like to apologize as I read the Answer the Complaint as your first Motion to Dismiss. With that I will still be overruling the Motion to Reconsider as all of the reasons listed are either not backed by proof (such as point one) or were proven wrong within this very Court Room (again point one).

Point two, should the Court rule in favor of the Commonwealth and charge the Defense with 2 counts of Embezzlement then that would be the two counts required for the serial charge to be placed.

Point three is supported and valid. Thus I won't comment on this further.

Point four, whether working for the Government or not the money was still taken out by permissions provided by a position that only those who work for the Government would have. Yes, this could have been a glitch in which case it would be a staff matter primarily. Given that the Staff Team has been called as a Witness we will wait before assuming this. Until then we will continue as such assuming there was no glitch and they had the appropriate permissions to do so. The Defense has also not proven that the Defendant was not working for the Government at the time.

The underlying argument both side must prove here is whether the Defendant was working for the Government at the time which has been failed to do so as of now.

Point Five, this also stands and thus is not a reason for rejecting the Motion.

The Defense also has 24 hours to respond to the Objection.
 
Snowy_Heart said:
OBJECTION
nothing pending. In answer number 2. Your honor the defense answered the question and proceded to offer information that was not relevent to the already answered question.
Click to expand...
Your honor, this is wholly relevant as it gives the Court a larger picture, IE, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The answer I gave was fully within the scope of the question as it all pertains to whether or not the defendant v__d deposited money in Discover Bank, and more importantly, whether he laundered it or not.
 
Snowy_Heart said:
OBJECTION
nothing pending. In answer number 2. Your honor the defense answered the question and proceded to offer information that was not relevent to the already answered question.
Click to expand...
The Objection will be overruled given the Defendant's attorney is not a Witness within this case. Nothing Pending according to the Objections Guide may only be used on a Witness. AlexanderLove is not a Witness and is simply the Defendant's Attorney.
 
Your Honor,
The plaintiff would like to skip the rest of discovery.
 
Discovery actually ended yesterday and I'd like to apologize to both sides for my delay in this. Had irl things going on.

We will be moving on from Discovery and into Opening Statements, the Prosecution has 72 hours to provide theirs.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Discovery actually ended yesterday and I'd like to apologize to both sides for my delay in this. Had irl things going on.

We will be moving on from Discovery and into Opening Statements, the Prosecution has 72 hours to provide theirs.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, I have been caught up completing school work. May I request a 48 hour extension. Thank you.
 
The Extension is granted you have 48 hours from this message.
 
Your honor,

Snowy has resigned from the DLA and as Solicitor General, I will be taking over this case.

Nothing like coming into the middle of a case as controversial and consequential as this one, but I will take a stab at it.

Circling back to the facts, the defense has affirmed 2 of the 3, that the defendant did take $5,000,000 from the government, and they did not have the permission to do so, that much is not contested. What is contested, is whether or not the sentencing is valid.

For corruption, it is defined as “To use a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.” The defense argues that the defendant did not use their government position for this as they were not a senator at the time. However, they still had permissions granted to that role otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to h fine, therefore they did use the government position, and I think nobody can argue that an instant $5 million dollars isn’t an advantage inconsistent with the role.

For embezzlement it is defined in the white collar crack down act as “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.” Your honor, this is exactly what the defendant did. They withheld government assets, in this case cash, for the purpose of conversion. As the defense stated previously the funds were spread out and diverted and converted. The assets were entrusted to the defendant, otherwise they would not have had permissions allowing them to fine/unfine.

Money laundering is defined as “Any act to conceal funds illegally obtained, through commercial transactions, business deals, or any means otherwise." The defense again has affirmed that the defendant did exactly this. They illegally acquired the funds, then spread those funds out through commercial transactions. Why would the defendant do this? Clearly to spread the money out and conceal those funds.

You see, it boils down to whether the sentencing is applicable to the actions that were performed, and but the letter of the law all seem to apply. To allow this act to go unpunished simply because some (previously mentioned $4,456,743.11) was recovered is a tremendous injustice to the magnitude of the crime committed. If this goes unpunished, every single person granted fine/unfine permissions that are crucial to the governments operations will be able to use the government treasury as their own bank account as long as they pay it back, which is NOT acceptable and would set a terrible precedent. Therefore I implore you as the judiciary to make this right and send a message to all criminals that this behavior is unacceptable, as I know you will.

Thank you for your time.
 
Thank you, the Defense has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
Your honor, I ask for a 48 hour extension due to the beginning of college and needing to get this posted in the weekend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top