Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 40

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. I saw you invisible next to the bank vault door that was broken. After you fled the scene I looked in the vault and found places where I did not think it should be, or no gold blocks at all in some places.
2. I am attaching them to this post.

*In the second screenshot I did not say Dartanman's username with malicious intent.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
1. I saw you invisible next to the bank vault door that was broken. After you fled the scene I looked in the vault and found places where I did not think it should be, or no gold blocks at all in some places.
2. I am attaching them to this post.

*In the second screenshot I did not say Dartanman's username with malicious intent.
Click to expand...
I am striking these screenshots off the record since you are acting in a witness capacity and not a co-counsel capacity. Witnesses are summoned to provide testimony and not to present evidence such as screenshots, for these reasons I am giving you a warning to not present additional evidence again.
 
Aladeen said:
I am striking these screenshots off the record since you are acting in a witness capacity and not a co-counsel capacity. Witnesses are summoned to provide testimony and not to present evidence such as screenshots, for these reasons I am giving you a warning to not present additional evidence again.
Click to expand...
Your honor,

With all due respect, I feel as though I should be receiving this warning, not Mask3D_WOLF, as I asked her for those.

That being said, as a witness who has screenshots of what she saw, is it not considered acceptable for a witness to show us what they saw?
 
Very well, I will strike the warning made to Mask3d off the record but the screenshots will continue to be removed.
 
@Dartanman Please rephrase the question for it to more clear so the Staff Team can answer
 
@Mask3D_WOLF has a screenshot but I guess she is not allowed to provide it.

I will recreate a similar screenshot in a single player world to show you what I mean.

@Aladeen your honor, I also request I be allowed to do this tomorrow, as I'm out for the holiday today (I am sending this message on my phone).
 
You can rephrase the question at your earliest convenience
 
@Technofied Is it possible for a room in the bank vault to look something like this (specifically a gold block in that top-right corner) without anyone breaking any gold blocks inside the vault?
 

Attachments

  • 2022-09-06_11.05.28.png
    2022-09-06_11.05.28.png
    284.5 KB · Views: 87
@Technofied Would you please answer to this question at your earliest convenience
 
Sorry for the delay Your Honour,

I can confirm there it is possible for a block to be left in the top right corner of a room that is robbed, should a criminal choose to leave it there. It cannot be broken unless an individual breaks it themselves.

There is only one zone that has a block in the top right corner however.
 
Does the plaintiff have anymore questions?
 
I have no more questions, your honor.
 
The Defendant may now cross examínate
 
Your Honor, following the unfortunate resignation of RelaxedGV we will need some time to appoint a new prosecutor who will also need to familiarize themselves with this case. For that reason, we would like to request a 48h extension. Thank you.
 
Your honor, RelaxedGV resigned nearly 24 hours ago. The DLA should have been well-aware of this by now and the Plaintiff believes 48 hours is excessively large and takes advantage of a situation in order to infringe upon my rights to a speedy and fair trial under Section IV, Clause IX of the Constitution:

1662943785426.png


I strongly suggest you do not allow a 48-hour extension and require the Defense to cross-examine the witnesses (or state they wish not to) in a quick fashion.
 
I am rejecting the 48 hour extension requested by the defendant, however what I will do is give a 24 hour extension and depending whether you need more time from there I will consider granting the other 24 hours.
 
Your Honor, Senior State Prosecutor @Neemfy will be taking this case. While I still request that Neemfy gets the rest of the 24h allotted to us, I will leave it up to her to decide if she wants an additional 24h. Thank you.
 
Good evening, Your Honor, opposing counsel.

The Defense does not wish to cross examine the witnesses.
 
Your honor, I believe the Defendant had a witness of their own.
 
My apologies, the defendant may now question their own witness.
 
For @A__C : What is Department of Justice policy in the event of the an invisible person being found after the bank alarm rings, and gold blocks are found missing or altered in the vault?
 
OBJECTION
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence

This question suggests that gold blocks were missing or altered in the vault when there is no evidence suggesting this was the case.
 
Objection sustained, @Neemfy, please modify your question
 
For A__C: What is Department of Justice policy in the event of an invisible person being found in the immediate vicinity of the vault after the bank alarm rings?
 
The witness has 48 hours from now to respond
 
Neemfy said:
For A__C: What is Department of Justice policy in the event of an invisible person being found in the immediate vicinity of the vault after the bank alarm rings?
Click to expand...
We check to see if it is within a short timeframe of the bank alarm and if there are any gold blocks missing. Anyone found right outside or inside the vault during that time is considered robbing or having robbed the bank because we have no other way to get proof.
 
Does the defense have any more questions?
 
The Plaintiff may now cross-examinate
 
The Plaintiff has no questions, your honor.
 
Both the plaintiff and the defendant have 48 hours to present closing statements.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, Opposing Counsel,

Throughout this whole case, from the very beginning, the Plaintiff has claimed that being asked to dispute his bank robbery charge is a violation of Section IV, Clause V of the Constitution. However, the wording of the fifth clause only refers to the right to not produce self incriminating evidence in a court of law, Congressional hearing, subpoena, or impeachment trial. A ticket on Discord does not fall under any of the listed categories, and therefore their point against proving their own innocence is moot. Additionally, while the burden of proof is on the DOJ, it is completely unreasonable to expect to have a charge struck or changed without providing any proof in your favor.

In Mask3D_WOLF’s testimony, she states that she found the plaintiff invisible near the broken door of the vault, and that gold blocks in the vault looked amiss. No other players were found near the vault, invisible or otherwise. The Plaintiff cites KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont, however that case can only be used to determine the outcome of a very specific set of events. In this case, gold blocks were found missing/altered (according to Mask3D_WOLF), which delves further into providing proof for the robbery of the bank.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff, in his opening statement, stated that in these tickets Mask3D_WOLF provided screenshots of a floating gold block. When asked about this, Technofied confirmed that this can only occur if a criminal purposefully chooses to leave it there. It cannot be randomly generated there, so it can be presumed that the person who broke the blocks left it there. It can be further presumed that the person who broke these blocks is the person who was caught near the vault, invisible. Ergo, the plaintiff.

Finally, it is confirmed by the Deputy Secretary that official department policy in an event such as this is to arrest anyone found right outside or inside the vault, and charge them with Bank Robbery. It is unreasonable to expect an officer to have eyes on the bank 24/7 while online, therefore informed assumptions will have to be made in the case of bank robbery.
 
OBJECTION
Perjury

Your honor, the Defense claims that Technofied said it is only possible for the "floating" gold block to exist if a Robbery has taken place and that it cannot get there on its own. This is completely false. Technofied clearly said that if a robber leaves it there -- that is, does not steal any gold -- the block could stay there, but only in 1 room in the vault.
 
Objection overruled, however I will take this into consideration during the verdict.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

This case started after the Plaintiff came to the Department of Justice and asked that the Bank Robbery charge become a Bank Trespassing charge, as there was no evidence to support a Bank Robbery charge. The Department of Justice proceeded to show the Plaintiff the evidence that allegedly proved the Plaintiff guilty of Bank Robbery. The Plaintiff explained that this evidence was only sufficient for a Bank Trespassing charge, and even showed the precedent of KP56 v. Commonwealth to back up his claim. Despite this, the Department of Justice chose to ignore the law and continue with the Bank Robbery charge. This egregious disrespect for the law eventually became so clear, the Plaintiff realized he had no choice but to sue the Department of Justice.

It is also worth remembering that this case is not an attempt to prove the Plaintiff’s innocence, but it is to protect all citizens’ rights. The Department of Justice has failed to recognize two major issues. One, citizens are innocent until proven guilty. This is foundational to any legitimate justice system (see KP56 v. Commonwealth). And two, all citizens are protected from producing self-incriminating evidence (see Constitution, Section IV, Clause V). The Department of Justice ignored both of these requirements, insisting that unless the Plaintiff proved his innocence by providing chat logs, he would still be considered guilty of Bank Robbery.

Your honor, Department of Justice Deputy Secretary A__C said that Department of Justice policy in the event of an invisible person being found in the immediate vicinity of the vault after the bank alarm rings is to “Check to see if it is within a short timeframe of the bank alarm and if there are any gold blocks missing. Anyone found right outside or inside the vault during that time is considered robbing or having robbed the bank because we have no other way to get proof.” Whilst I do not believe the Deputy Secretary is guilty of perjury, I must insist that either A__C is incorrect, or the Department of Justice policy is immensely out of line with the law. We once again look to KP56 v. Commonwealth, where we not only see KP56 in the vicinity of the vault, but actually WITHIN THE VAULT DURING A BANK ROBBERY, AND EVEN HAVING A CONFESSION OF BREAKING THE VAULT DOOR. Still, the court found this to be insufficient evidence to charge KP56 with Bank Robbery.

Alas, even if A__C is correct and that merely being near the Bank Vault after gold blocks have been stolen is enough to charge someone with Bank Robbery, there is no evidence that any gold blocks were stolen, showing that in this instance, the Department of Justice violated both the law and their apparently illegal policy.

The defense’s Closing Statement also uses Mask3D_WOLF’s testimony. While hearing from witnesses is immensely important, it cannot be the primary evidence used to find someone guilty of a crime. If this were the case, anyone could be found guilty of anything as long as a police officer was willing to testify against them. Furthermore, Mask3D_WOLF’s testimony specifically says that she found places where she did not think it should be. Your honor, this testimony clearly leaves much room for doubt as to whether or not any gold blocks were actually stolen, or if Mask3D_WOLF merely believed this to be the case.

Finally, I will provide various quotes from different points of law, link them, and provide brief commentary.

1. Court Opinion of KP56 v. Commonwealth (Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20)
“In any legitimate justice system, including Redmont’s, the burden of proof in a criminal accusation lies on the prosecution. This means that the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt guilty of having committed a particular crime in order to be found guilty and punished for said crime.”

The Department of Justice has clearly not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff committed Bank Robbery, and thus, clearly the Plaintiff cannot be found guilty and punished for Bank Robbery.

2. Verdict of KP56 v. Commonwealth (Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20)
“I am not finding the Plaintiff definitively not guilty of bank robbery, I am ruling that there has been a standard of “guilty until proven innocent” in this case that has led to a premature charge of bank robbery.”

Clearly, the Court can see that if new evidence came to light proving the Plaintiff did rob the bank, there would be no problem charging the Plaintiff with that crime, however, without such evidence, the standard of “guilty until proven innocent” has already been found illegal by the court.

3. The Constitution, Section IV, Clause V (Government - Constitution)
Although the Defense is correct that Clause V specifically says “in a court of law, Congressional hearing, subpoena, or impeachment trial,” I believe it still applies to interactions with the Department of Justice, for two reasons. 1) Any incriminating evidence provided to the DoJ would almost certainly be used in court, thus providing it to the DoJ would be indirectly providing it to the court, therefore it is protected under this Clause, and 2) in the real world, countries that have this right have clearly interpreted it to be more protective than that, for example, the United States Constitution is worded in such a way that it could be interpreted to only apply in a criminal court case, but has clearly been found to protect citizens in civil cases, police interactions, and more.

There are more cases, but in accordance with the Court Procedures, I am not allowed to submit more evidence.

Alas, even if it is found that it is not illegal for the DoJ to request potentially self-incriminating evidence, it is abundantly clear that merely being present at the scene of a crime is not sufficient evidence to punish someone for said crime (again, I point out that in KP56 v. Commonwealth, KP56 was literally inside the Bank Vault during the Robbery). Now, in the current case, the Plaintiff was found outside the vault with no evidence of any money being robbed. This couldn’t be clearer – the Department of Justice cannot charge the Plaintiff with Bank Robbery.

The Plaintiff thanks the court, the opposing counsel, and all witnesses for their time.

DATED: This 14 day of September 2022.
 
OBJECTION
Perjury

The Plaintiff has once again stated that the DOJ has violated their right to not self incriminate, however Section IV, Clause V only applies to the court of law, congressional hearings, subpoenas, and impeachment trials. This Clause of the Constitution is not up for interpretation, and DOJ is simply not listed. Additionally, the real world does not have any direct bearing on the Constitution or this court case.
 
Neemfy said:
OBJECTION
Perjury

The Plaintiff has once again stated that the DOJ has violated their right to not self incriminate, however Section IV, Clause V only applies to the court of law, congressional hearings, subpoenas, and impeachment trials. This Clause of the Constitution is not up for interpretation, and DOJ is simply not listed. Additionally, the real world does not have any direct bearing on the Constitution or this court case.
Click to expand...
ANSWER TO OBJECTION
Your honor, this objection is absurd. I said. "I believe it still applies to interactions with the Department of Justice" and provided my reasons why.

The only way this could be perjury is if I didn't actually believe what I said, which is not the case. Plus, even IF it was the case, it would be impossible to prove.
 
The objection is overruled, this court is now on recess until the verdict is finished.
 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, Perjury is also defined as a "Strong misrepresentation of facts." Posing a belief as fact falls under this category.
 
Your motion is sustained, I will take it into consideration while writing the verdict.
 
Aladeen said:
Your motion is sustained, I will take it into consideration while writing the verdict.
Click to expand...
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, an argument simply cannot be considered perjury. If that were the case, every single lawsuit would result in the losing party being found guilty of perjury. I argued that Clause V applied in interactions with the Department of Justice. It is possible that the court may find that I am incorrect, but I believe I am correct.

Perjury is defined by the Perjury Act (Act of Congress - Perjury Act) as "Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government"

Since I very clearly believe what I said, and even provided multiple reasons to support this argument, there is absolutely no way that this can be considered Perjury, since I fully believe what I said, therefore I am not giving knowingly incorrect testimony.
 
Dartanman said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, an argument simply cannot be considered perjury. If that were the case, every single lawsuit would result in the losing party being found guilty of perjury. I argued that Clause V applied in interactions with the Department of Justice. It is possible that the court may find that I am incorrect, but I believe I am correct.

Perjury is defined by the Perjury Act (Act of Congress - Perjury Act) as "Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government"

Since I very clearly believe what I said, and even provided multiple reasons to support this argument, there is absolutely no way that this can be considered Perjury, since I fully believe what I said, therefore I am not giving knowingly incorrect testimony.
Click to expand...
your objection is overruled, by saying that I will consider it for the verdict does not mean it will be there, for example when you objected stating that the defendant had committed perjury I also said I would take it into consideration while writing the verdict.
 

Verdict



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 40

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

1. The Department of Justice broke their rights
2. The Department of Justice didn’t show any evidence to prove that the plaintiff robbed the bank

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff didnt take the adequate measures to report their problem to the DOJ.
2. The plaintiff’s rights have not been violated in any way.
3. The DOJ proposed a Public Advocate to the plaintiff and he refused meaning that he did not want to dispute the charge.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Department of Justice policy regarding bank robberies is that in a short timeframe since the bank alarm sounds there are any gold blocks missing, anyone found inside or right outside the vault will be found with bank robbery. However is this legal? The definition of bank robbery is “The act or instance of stealing from a bank.” So how does someone that is right outside of the vault door be charged with bank robbery if they have not stolen anything?
2. Innocent until proven guilty is one of the main bases of a democracy, and when someone is accused of committing a crime and then making them prove themselves innocent it does not make any sense. The Department of Justice should and must be the one that proves that a person is guilty of a crime.


IV. DECISION
1. I am rulling in favor of the plaintiff and I grant a full prayer of relief:

1. The Department of Justice must change the Bank robbery charge into a Bank Trespassing Charge.
2. The Department of Justice is now prohibited to require citizens to prove their innocence, and now the DOJ must prove that a person is guilty once such person opens a ticket.
3. $500 in legal fees

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top