Lawsuit: Adjourned CorbinJc v. Department of Justice [2020] FCR 30

C

corbinjc

Citizen
Supporter
Statesman
CorbinJc
CorbinJc
Attorney
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
70
IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION
CorbinJc
Plaintiff
v.
Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Department of Justice has failed to charge players for multiple charges of assaults and other infractions of the law. One Evidence of an officer stating that the President ordered him to not charge, another of a SGT/Secretary ordering to not charge. Lastly of a Trainee Officer refusing to charge and an outlast of comments telling me to "Grow up" and "act like an adult" and then soon ignored all questions of if he had properly executed the charges.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The law of Democracy Craft should be upheld by the department of Justice, that is their job, it should not be an opinion thing, if their is enough evidence to charge or convict, they must do so, there is no room for corruption in the Department Of Justice


I. PARTIES
1. CorbinJc
2. Department of Justice

II. FACTS
  1. Plenty of evidence to charges
  2. Charges in previous cases show this was enough evidence from a precedent set
  3. Department of Justice Secretary has been called several times stating that evidence is not enough, disproving previous set precedents
  4. Defined as assault in DC Law:
Assault is the act of hitting a player, causing a loss of no more than 3 hearts; or putting them in a place of danger (such as pointing a weapon at them).
Per Offence: $40 Fine
  1. Department of Justice Secretary has been caught speaking his opinion about a murder, which is proven by coroner report, showing his bias in the incident
    https://imgur.com/a/3J1IDIs
  2. Here are officer statements stating Tox told not to convict due to lack of intent and evidence
    https://imgur.com/a/ivBnMIC
  3. Here is Constable “BubbaRc”’s opinion on if this was enough evidence to convict
    https://imgur.com/a/soLDrYX
  4. Numerous evidences of assault and intent to harm from alleged assaulters
    https://imgur.com/a/oPAqh0b
  5. In another case of assault- President Westray told officer Tylerray to leave it, and Vanquish_ap (a SGT) gave the okay to not charge the victims- with overwhelming evidence
    https://imgur.com/a/U6l4T9t
  6. Evidence sent to Matt_S0 and Tylerray that DoJ Secretary (Tox) claimed was not enough evidence to convict- https://imgur.com/a/mSgXZzi
  7. Within these incidences, you can see that Tox, Westray, Tylerray, and Vanquish_ap are all abusing power to varying extents, Any of these incidents can be easily justified under “Assault” which definition includes “putting them in a place of danger (such as pointing a weapon at them).”


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Abuse of authority
2. Refusing to charge with sufficient evidence
3.Proper justice sent to those who were let off the hook by corruption
4.Department of justice Secretary Tox be temporarily relieved from duties for further investigation into these allegations of corruption
5.Department of justice Sergeant Vanquish_ap be temporarily relieved from duties for further investigation into these allegations of corruption

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Criminal charges to be charged to those with enough evidence to do so
2. $500 attorney fees
3. $750 compensation of time and troubles
 
The State is ordered to appear before the court as the defendant in case CorbinJc v. The State. The defendant will be given twenty-four hours to respond or a default judgment will be made.


092A8AFC-655E-4FEC-91BF-A5AD586341E8.png
 
Your honour,

On behalf of the state, I will be representing them in this case. If possible, I would request a short 24-hour extension to the existing time to respond. I have very recently been appointed as Attorney General and thus this extension would enable me to settle in to the office and ensure the state is adequately represented.

I appreciate your consideration of this request.
 
The request has been granted. The court shall grant an extension of 24-hours from the time of your request. The court shall require a response by the time of 9:15 PM Eastern Time on the evening of November 9th, 2020.

092A8AFC-655E-4FEC-91BF-A5AD586341E8.png
​
 
Your Honour,

Apologies for any ambiguity in my extension request. I intended the 24 hours to be added to the previously existing deadline of 9th November at 1729hrs Eastern Time, renewing the deadline to 1729hrs on 10th November. Would this be something the court would be prepared to accept?

If not, I am gracious for the previously granted extension.
 
The court recognizes his clerical mistake in interpretation of the time frame. The court puts onto the record of clarification for the deadline for a response from 11/9/20 at 9:59 pm EST and changes it to 11/10/2020 9:59 pm EST.

If no response has been given at the end of the extension a default judgment shall be given. Thank you.

092A8AFC-655E-4FEC-91BF-A5AD586341E8.png
 
IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CorbinJc
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice (Attorney General representing)
Defendant

Case no: 8-11-2020

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The DoJ would firstly like to thank the plaintiff for raising his concerns, and would like to take the opportunity to advise other citizens that the DoJ has an internal dispute procedure available for all to use on the discord server.

2. The claims made by the plaintiff regarding bias and corruption within the DoJ are simply unfounded, and the evidence provided by the plaintiff and the DoJ substantiates this fact.

3. The DoJ, since conception, has upheld the law of the server to an admirably high standard, and continues to do so; as can be seen in the case brought before the court today.

4. The concept presented by the plaintiff, that the DoJ must simply apply the black letter of the law slavishly, is not one that holds up to scrutiny. Indeed, there is an innate need for the law to be applied contextually to obviate unjust outcomes.


II DEFENCES
1. The claims made by the plaintiff are conveniently without context. The DoJ presents that, when the claims made by the plaintiff are examined with regard to the facts of the situation, no bias nor corruption can be found to have existed within the DoJ.

2. The evidence submitted on behalf of the DoJ illustrates a dogged pestering by the plaintiff, towards the alleged offenders. This is something which the DoJ took into consideration when concluding not to fine Autumn, or her associates. Redacted areas of the text are for ease of understanding and to allow all readers to concern themselves with the key, relevant information.
Evidence 1 is related to messages on the 6th November, Evidence 2 related to the 7th November, and Evidence 3 to the 8th November.

3. The claims of corruption are simply unfounded, given no evidence presented by the plaintiff relates to the definition of corruption as laid out in the rules of DemocracyCraft.

4. The constitution of Democracy indeed grants the power of law enforcement to the DoJ, and the DoJ have, after taking consideration of all the facts, decided to not exercise this power regarding the alleged offenders.

DATED: This 10th day of November 2020 (GMT)
Evidence 1.png
Evidence 1.2.png
evidence 1.3.png
Evidence 2.png
Evidence 3.png
 
Both parties may now call upon any witnesses and provide any additional evidence in this case. If either party wishes to call upon a witness, they must respond to this case with a list of witnesses they choose to question, and the set of questions that they would like to ask each witness. If either party does not have any witnesses or additional evidence to share, they may reply noting that they do not have anything else to share.

Each party is asked to please respond within 24 hours or the court will continue without reviewing any additional evidence or witnesses.

092A8AFC-655E-4FEC-91BF-A5AD586341E8.png
 
Your honour,

I would like to thank the plaintiff for raising these questions with the DoJ through the court system, despite the plaintiff’s commendable playtime on the server, he must not have been aware of the DoJ’s internal measures to bring any such concerns to us prior to filing the present lawsuit, which has been unused by the plaintiff.

If it pleases the court, I will assess each submission of evidence by the plaintiff in turn, as to ensure a comprehensive rebuttal to his claims.

To start, in the first submission made by the plaintiff regarding a local chat conversation, it is presented that any messages within that frame are completely void of context, something which the court will see is a common theme throughout the plaintiff’s claim. As such, to make such a bold claim as the DoJ Secretary showing bias into an incident is a rather imaginative leap from the line “ugh we know she’s right too”, when no previous messages are shown. It cannot, by any stretch, be inferred from such a message that the DoJ Secretary has internal biases that affect their professional judgement. Should we accept the premise of the plaintiff’s evidence, the messages on the screen completely rebut his implication of bias. Should Tox have been talking about Autumn, it can still be seen that Vanquish was asking Autumn to come to spawn to be punished. I would urge the plaintiff to explain to the court how such messages would evidence any bias.

Combining the plaintiff’s submissions two, five and six due to their similarity, the DoJ must first submit some evidence. Redactions were made to ensure the court could follow the conversation at ease, without having to distinguish the key messages from the rest of the global chat.
The DoJ believes that the evidence submitted below, which is gathered from a three day period, shows that the plaintiff constantly pestered the alleged offenders, all of which was on global chat for DoJ staff to see. It is presented to the court that the DoJ is not blissfully unaware of what happens on the server, until the moment a coroner report or a /911 request comes in. Staff and the DoJ actively read the chat, as any engaged player would, and were aware of the killings of the alleged offenders and constant complaints in the global chat about Corbin following them. While none of this is illegal, the DoJ understood that these incidents could have an impact on inter-player relationships and influence later interactions. Tox, Vanq and the wider DoJ senior leadership team were aware of this past history, and decided that it was not the correct application of the law to fine Autumn.

Indeed, the plaintiff’s own evidence supports the DoJ’s position. It must be asked, why is it that the plaintiff was always with Autumn and their associates if they always assaulted him? I know that if I was constantly asked to leave a player alone, I would comply. Even if just for the simple fact of community spirit and to ensure others enjoy the server. It made me extremely sad reading the chats in evidence 1 that Webbier stated: “ima gonna leave [the server]”. I would urge the court to recognise that, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff did indeed follow the alleged offenders and that the DoJ were aware of the distressing situation experienced by the alleged offenders. I would like to think that players do not lightly claim that they will leave the server due to the actions of other players, suggesting to the court that these players were indeed concerned for a not insignificant amount of time about the actions of the plaintiff.

In the submission number four presented by Corbin himself, the messages of the alleged offenders are of them alerting the DoJ to Corbin’s presence, or telling the plaintiff to leave them alone and go their separate ways, as early as the 6th November. This simply adds to the DoJ’s argument that the plaintiff’s conduct was inciting the behaviour and that Corbin was looking to either get the alleged offenders fined, or to cause the lawsuit that brings you to reading this lengthy rebuttal. It must also be noted that in these images, the alleged offenders aren’t in the crouched position, implying an aiming of the weapon. Indeed one message shows that the alleged offenders are discussing gaining screenshots in case the plaintiff killed them; something which would not be said if they didn’t feel threatened by his presence.

Further, while there is no explicit past reference in DemocracyCraft common law to equitable principles, I believe the citizens of DemocracyCraft would benefit greatly from the court adopting the English law equitable maxim of ‘those must come to equity with clean hands’, implying that the aggrieved party must be truly and merely that, aggrieved. It is clear, to the DoJ, that by constantly following and being in close proximity with the individuals who are the alleged offenders, that the plaintiff was actively looking to provoke such a reaction. As aforementioned, the historical context to this case that the plaintiff conveniently chose to omit from his lawsuit: that of the dogged manner in which he returned to the alleged offenders for them to yet again feel, arguably justifiably given historical context, threatened and draw a weapon.

I’m sure the plaintiff will agree that, in jurisdictions across the world, it is not the police’s role to slavishly enforce the law in a contextual vacuum, but rather to apply the law in a dynamic and fluid situation, with an appreciation for all the facts leading to the situation they are faced with. It is presented to the court that this is simply what the DoJ was doing. No evidence presented today suggests any form of bias on the part of the DoJ or its senior leadership team.

With regards to point 5 of the plaintiff’s claim, this is also a non-start. I would not wish to insult the intelligence of such a well-regarded and active player such as the plaintiff, however, for the benefit of the court, it is common practice for the executive and it’s departments to liaise both horizontally and vertically. It will therefore be no surprise that President Westray became involved, having prior knowledge of the situation, to assist a trainee officer in the course of his duties.

Finally, the plaintiff’s claims of purported corruption only appear at the end of his claim. Corruption is defined in DemocracyCraft as “To use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures. By applying for a position or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves”. Nowhere in the plaintiff’s claim has he implied any officer has benefitted privately or corporately by not fining the alleged offenders, and therefore these claims for relief seem rather capricious.

The DoJ continues to exemplify professionalism and impartial justice, taking into account the true spirit of policing and acknowledging the facts that lead to any incident they are faced with. It is important to acknowledge that the constitution states the DoJ’s role is to lawfully exercise its “power” to enforce laws. The DoJ believes the constitution applied this phraseology to capture the essence of policing by consent, allowing for discretion to be used in deserving cases. Finding the plaintiff’s case successful would arguably lead to a recrudescent situation, whereby players may traverse the fringes of the law merely to get others in trouble. The DoJ believes this is not something conducive with an effective and just legal system and urges the court to recognise this.
 
Your Honor,
The plaintiff appreciates the Defendants kind words and thoughts, but many of these beliefs hold not to be true

The defendant states in his rebuttal: "t is clear, to the DoJ, that by constantly following and being in close proximity with the individuals who are the alleged offenders, that the plaintiff was actively looking to provoke such a reaction." In Evidence 1.0 (Listed below) You may clearly see that I, the plaintiff, was not acting in a provacatve manner. Evidence 1 shows one of the alleged assaulters aggressively telling me to meet them at "Warp 3", in so it seems a threatening manner. This evidence shows that the DoJ, in their previously quoted statement, were incorrect in their unprofessional allegations. The DoJ's sole purpose is not to morally enforce the law to what they believe on their opinion to be correct, but instead to follow the cold hard facts of evidence and the law, which the plaintiff believes failed to happen in this incidence.
Evidence 1:
https://imgur.com/a/S0HFMv8
In the argument of there not being enough to convict the pictures in Evidence 2(Below), the case of no intent shall not be valid. The alleged assaulter claimed innocent by Tox and the DoJ, for lack of intent shall not be valid. The alleged assaulter is holding a "Spas 12" Shotgun in the photo. In Evidence 3 (Below) you may see the plaintiff holding a spas 12 in the full standing position, and one in the crouch position. With most other firearms on the server, when crouched, a firearm may zoom in to a different view, and if a different weapon were to be used, no intent shall be valid. There is no evidence to not show intent in this encounter. Per DC law, assault includes the phrase "(such as pointing a weapon at them)". This instance a weapon can clearly be seen aiming at the plaintiff, and according to evidence 3, shotguns, such as the spas 12 used in this incident, do not require crouching to be aimed, and then fired.
Evidence 2:
https://imgur.com/a/JqozPk6
Evidence 3:
https://imgur.com/a/H5AKqhP
The Plaintiff formally thanks the Attorney General for his respectful words about him, but continues the belief that the Department of Justice was wrong in this instance, and the Secretary's job performance shall be audited, determining other alleged wrong cases of assault and other crimes.
 
The Court will now call upon the plaintiff to present their closing remarks for the court. Please make it know that no new information can be presented at this time.
 
Your honour,

Firstly, please accept my apologies for this further submission, however, the DoJ and myself personally feel this to be of critical importance to the court.

The evidence I have attached below shows the same messages as seen in evidence 1 of the plaintiff's latest submission. It must be noted that these messages were sent, and therefore the plaintiff's screenshot was taken, only last night and thus after this lawsuit was filed. This can be confirmed by my message to the plaintiff near the start of this log. It is presented that the plaintiff is attempting to, at best, mislead the court, and at worst, commit perjury. Following the cold hard facts, within the matrix in which they are presented, only leads to one outcome: the DoJ have acted lawfully. The fact that the plaintiff has had to attempt to mislead the court to show otherwise speaks to the true lack of substantive evidence he has based his claim upon. As stated in my original defence, the plaintiff continues to omit context in the attempt to further his argument which he knows is a fallacy.

I would urge the court to not consider the evidence submitted by the plaintiff on this basis.

Again, please accept my apologies for speaking out of turn, I do not do this lightly. I felt that this could not be ignored due to the attempt to make a mockery of this court.

perjury.png
 
The Plaintiff, is very ashamed of Matt_S0's, the state's, and the Department of Justice's continuation of trying to define my motives in a negative manner. That chat was provided to show intent and did not appreciate the accusations of I of trying to "make a mockery of this court". It is a very unprofessional manner and shows again the repeated patterns of the state, the attorney general, and the Department of Justice, in this case by attempting to decipher my motives in this case and disobey the terms of the respective judge Nacho, and the high Courts of Democracy Craft. I think an unprofessional manner is shown in this last post. I would like to thank the Court and Judge Nacho in his handling of this case. And as mentioned earlier by the defendant, any and all may feel free to contact me any time or any day about any issue, instead of acting out contempt of court and making unfounded accusations against me. Thank you again, Judge Nacho, and Attorney General Matt.
 
The outburst is accepted, however, the Attorney General must mind the respect of the chair and hold his tongue when it is not your time to speak. However, the information provided by the Attorney General will need to be reviewed by the court.

The court moves into recess for a minimum of 18 hours and will resume on 11/12/2020 at 8:30 AM EST.

092A8AFC-655E-4FEC-91BF-A5AD586341E8.png
​
 
After reviewing and looking over the information provided, the court moves to remove from the record and will not be taking the plaintiffs screenshots mentioned earlier into consideration as it will appear the screenshot has been taken after the creation of the lawsuit.

The court would like to remind both parties that you both are respected individuals within the legal field, it is asked that you remind yourselves that your are expected and required to speak nothing but the truth during a criminal trial.

With the clarification out of the way the court shall request if either party dose not have anything further we shall move into the closing statements, starting with the plaintiff.
 
Your Honour,
The plaintiff urges a reconsideration evidence. This evidence was not intended to deceive the court, but instead show the continued intent of the alleged assaulters. It shows it is not a one sided affair like the State claims for it to be. Again we want to thank the honorable judge Nacho and recently appointed AG Matt for their cooperation and participation in this lawsuit. We wish for the DoJ to hold their officers, Sgt's, and Secretary's accountable, and realize that regardless of the situation, the law is the law. We believe the evidence is clear here that at minimum, The secretary is incorrect in their claim that this was not assault. It is provable of a gun being aimed at me, and the law states that as a fault of assault, regardless of the context.
 
The court now calls upon the defendant for their closing statements.

092A8AFC-655E-4FEC-91BF-A5AD586341E8.png
 
Your honour,

Throughout this court case, the DoJ has been seen to exemplify not only professionalism but also the true nature of policing. The plaintiff initiated his claim stating that there have been abuses of authority and that two senior members of the DoJ were alleged to be corrupt - serious accusations. In the plaintiff’s closing statement he states that the Secretary of the DoJ was incorrect in not charging an assault. The drastic polarity of these positions shows that the plaintiff is aware the case he brought to the court is capricious at best, with little evidence to back up his actual claims for relief stated.

It is critical for me to stress that the initial allegations of corruption, of which the DoJ takes extremely seriously, were completely unsubstantiated throughout this entire process. Such unfounded claims damages trust between citizens and the DoJ. The DoJ strives to ensure officers are both externally and internally accountable, and could not be more grateful for all the hard work both Tox and Vanquish do.

As presented to the court, no abuse of authority has been evidenced throughout this process; indeed, the evidence provides an unfortunate factual matrix for the plaintiff’s case - that of pestering and a feeling of fear on the part of the alleged offenders. No assaults were charged due to the DoJ being aware of and acknowledging the contextual framework and poor evidence provided by the plaintiff. I would hope the court can find this position representative of justice, given the distressing statement that one of the alleged was considering quitting the server due to the pestering by the plaintiff. To close, I would remind the court of the final passage in the DoJ’s submitted defence, “Finding the plaintiff’s case successful would arguably lead to a recrudescent situation, whereby players may traverse the fringes of the law merely to get others in trouble. The DoJ believes this is not something conducive with an effective and just legal system and urges the court to recognise this.”

Justice must prevail, and I present to the court that the plaintiff’s unsubstantiated allegations and misleading evidence advanced by him are counter to justice in every way.
 

Verdict



Case No. 8-11-2020

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, Corbinjc alleged that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has failed to charge multiple citizens for assault and other infractions of the law.
2. Claims of corruption within the Department of Justice.
3. Was ignored by representatives of the Department of Justice.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, Department of Justice, represented by the Attorney General, claims that the plaintiff has submitted evidence out of context to the situation.
2. The plaintiff fails to provide evidence of corruption.
3. The Department of Justice after taking all information into consideration chose to not issue charges.


III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Plaintiff has failed to show sufficient evidence to prove corruption within the Department of Justice.
2. The Plaintiff appears to be the one harassing the individuals mentioned within the court.
3. The Department of Justice operated within their legal right to address concerns regarding the general public.
4. The Department of Justice followed proper protocol when reviewing evidence, and issuing charges.
5. During the case, the plaintiff has filed evidence under the impression to attempt to mislead the court into believing falsified evidence.
6. The court feels CorbinJC should remove from the job of a lawyer and be made to retake the legal tests needed to become a lawyer and urge the Department of Education and Commerce to take this into consideration.


IV. DECISION
The Court hereby adjourns this case in favor of the Defendant. The court moves to charge the plaintiff with "Perjury" and "Obstruction of Justice" in a total of 1 count for Perjury and 1 count of Obstruction of Justice.

The court orders the Department of Justice to:
(a) Charge the Plaintiff CorbinJC with "Perjury" and "Obstruction of Justice"
(b) Fine CorbinJC "$1000" for perjury
(c) Fine CorbinJC "$10" and "5-Minute Jail time" for Obstruction of Justice

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top