Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Attorney General
Justice Department
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Legal Eagle Popular in the Polls Change Maker
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Attorney General
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,280
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On August 26, 2022, the Plaintiff was informed that there was an open Bank Robbery charge against him. Completely confounded as to why such a charge was placed, he opened a DoJ ticket. It is clear from the evidence provided by the DoJ that the only reasonable charge is Bank Trespassing, however they were adamant that they were keeping it as a Bank Robbery charge.

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanman (Plaintiff and also myself)
2. The Department of Justice (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Officer Mask3D_WOLF informed the Plaintiff that there was an open Bank Robbery charge against him.
2. The Plaintiff opened a DoJ ticket and was shown the evidence that had been collected, which was two screenshots. One showed beyond reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff was behind the "No Trespassing" signs, while the other was simply a screenshot of the inside of the Bank Vault.
3. The Plaintiff said that the evidence provided only seems to support a Bank Trespassing charge, so they should change the Bank Robbery charge to a Bank Trespassing charge.
4. Multiple times, the DoJ asked the Plaintiff to provide proof that they did not rob the bank.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DoJ produced no evidence that the Plaintiff committed Bank Robbery.
2. The DoJ repeatedly attempted to violate the Plaintiff's rights by requiring that the Plaintiff prove their innocence to not be charged. This is entirely unreasonable, as it is the DoJ's job to prove guilt, not the citizen's job to prove innocence.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The DoJ changes my Bank Robbery charge to a Bank Trespassing charge
2. The DoJ commits to not requiring citizens to prove their innocence to change a charge, and only charge criminals with the crimes they have evidence of.
3. $500 in legal fees, as I have my own law firm, and the time I am spending on this case is time I could have spent with clients had the DoJ simply cooperated with the law.
($500 is my law firm's standard for this kind of case -- see KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20 -- a very similar case to this one where I charged $500)

Evidence:
I have no evidence to submit that would prove my innocence, as in a free society, I am assumed innocent until proven guilty.
That being said, I have two screenshots from within the DoJ ticket that should show I exhausted every possible measure outside of court to deal with this charge, apart from 100% proving my innocence, as again, citizens are not required to prove their innocence. The DoJ is required to prove guilt.

Exhibit A: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/751247541450047582/1012833336701501440/unknown.png

Exhibit B: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/751247541450047582/1012833520017747999/unknown.png

Additionally, in the original case in the District Court, there was an Emergency Injunction preventing the DoJ from acting on the open Bank Robbery charge. At this point, I have already been punished for Bank Trespassing, and there is no open charge against me. For this reason, I do not believe an injunction is necessary.

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 27 day of September 2022
 
federal-court-png.12082

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

The Attorney General, or anyone else who is legally allowed to represent the state, is required to appear before the court in the case of the Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor 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.​
 
Your honor, Solicitor General @Neemfy will represent the commonwealth in this case. We will still reply in the allotted time unless otherwise dictated in this thread. Thank you.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Commonwealth does not dispute this fact.
2. The Commonwealth does not dispute this fact.
3. The Commonwealth does not dispute this fact.
4. The Commonwealth does not dispute this fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiff failed to provide any information regarding his charge over a misinterpreted clause of the Constitution. As seen in Supreme Court precedent xxTigOldBittiesxx and LTSlade v. The Department of Justice, this is not an acceptable way to resolve a charge with the DOJ. There is no possible way the DOJ can resolve a charge if the appellant does not dispute it.
2. The plaintiff claims that the burden of proof is upon the DOJ, not the accused. The Commonwealth does not disagree with this, but we must look deeper. Although the burden of proof is upon the DOJ, when they have met the burden, the burden of proof shifts to the accused. The DOJ has met the burden of proof by providing the evidence (claimed by the Plaintiff) and has opened the possibility of a counterclaim, indicating the shift of the burden of proof. The Plaintiff refuses to dispute the charge, therefore the burden of proof has been met and still stands.
3. While the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is a common facet of law, it is not codified anywhere within legislation nor the constitution.
4. Because the Plaintiff is withholding evidence to avoid self-incrimination, the Department of Justice and the Courts must act on what is available to them, which is proof of the Bank Robbery collected at the time of the crime, and the facts of this case.
5. The Courts have jurisdiction over bank robbery when the accused is appealing in Court. Thus, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth will prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt within this case.

Links:
xxTigOldBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [SCR 16 2021]
Criminal Jurisdiction Act

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 29th day of August, 2022.
 
Due to the fact that this case fits the criteria for summary judgement, as none of the facts are disputed by the Defendant, however both parties need to agree for a summary judgement. If at least one of the parties wishes to continue with the case, we will move forward with opening statements. Both parties have 24 hours to respond as to whether they wish to continue the case, or move to a summary judgement.
 
The Commonwealth would like to continue the case.
 
Your honor, I agree for a summary judgement.

EDIT: I was forum-sniped! Neemfy responded before me.
 
Because the Defendant wishes to proceed with the case, we will move to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement, followed by the Defendant who will have 48 hours to post their opening statement from when the Plaintiff posts theirs.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good evening, your honor, opposing counsel.

There are several things that must be addressed:

1. The Commonwealth claims, "The Plaintiff failed to provide any information regarding his charge over a misinterpreted clause of the Constitution. As seen in Supreme Court precedent xxTigOldBittiesxx and LTSlade v. The Department of Justice, this is not an acceptable way to resolve a charge with the DOJ. There is no possible way the DOJ can resolve a charge if the appellant does not dispute it." Your honor, the aforementioned case's verdict is very clear. It says, "It is the opinion of the court that the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs should have been shared with the Department of Justice via a departmental ticket." Your honor, I am not using evidence that I withheld from the Department of Justice. The Commonwealth is vastly misrepresenting the outcome of [2021] SCR 16.

If citizens are expected to provide proof of innocence to fix an illegitimate charge, then chaos can ensue, as the Department of Justice would essentially be given free reign to charge anyone with anything at any time, and require the submission of chat logs, screenshots, and any other evidence a citizen may or may not have in order to prove their innocence.

2. The Commonwealth claims, "Although the burden of proof is upon the DOJ, when they have met the burden, the burden of proof shifts to the accused. The DOJ has met the burden of proof by providing the evidence (claimed by the Plaintiff) and has opened the possibility of a counterclaim, indicating the shift of the burden of proof." Your honor, I disagree. The accused never has the burden of proof in a criminal trial. Once again, the requirement of proving your innocence is absurd. It is directly against the principles of fundamental justice, and therefore against the Constitution (see my third point). Additionally, even if the burden of proof does shift after the DoJ has met the burden, it is worth pointing out that the Department of Justice has not met the burden of proof. Your honor, the facts of this case, which the Commonwealth has affirmed, only place the Plaintiff outside of the Bank Vault. If merely being near the vault is sufficient evidence for Bank Robbery, then surely being near the Bank is sufficient evidence for Bank Trespassing. Again, this is absurd.

3. The Commonwealth claims, "While the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is a common facet of law, it is not codified anywhere within legislation nor the constitution." Whilst I do not believe Neemfy has committed perjury in this statement, I do believe Neemfy is wrong. Your honor, the Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, "XIV. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

For emphasis - the liberty and security of a person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of fundamental justice. Thus, this right is in the Constitution. This right has been recognized by the court multiple times, such as in the following cases, further creating precedent recognizing this right.

Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION KP56 (Solid Law Firm representing) Plaintiff v. Commonwealth of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On May 23, 2022, the Plaintiff was arrested and apparently fined for the...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net

Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Fieldmarshall [2021] FCR 61

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth of Redmont Prosecution v. Fieldmarshall Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT The defendant was in the bank vault at the...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net
(Interestingly enough, both of these cases are also about the difference between Bank Robbery and Bank Trespassing)

4. The Commonwealth claims, "Because the Plaintiff is withholding evidence to avoid self-incrimination, the Department of Justice and the Courts must act on what is available to them, which is proof of the Bank Robbery collected at the time of the crime, and the facts of this case." Your honor, the claim that this is "proof of the Bank Robbery" is factually false, as already affirmed by the Commonwealth, the only evidence in this case shows the Plaintiff outside of the Bank Vault, which is not sufficient to prove Bank Robbery. For this reason, I recommend you find the opposing counsel guilty of one count of perjury.

5. The Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, "V. No citizen is to be made to produce self-incriminating evidence in a court of law, Congressional hearing, subpoena, or impeachment trial." Your honor, the Commonwealth has previously made the argument that this right does not protect citizens from submitting potentially self-incriminating evidence to the Department of Justice, but this is likely not the case. By providing such evidence to the DoJ, it would almost certainly be used in court after appealing the charge. Thus, it would be indirectly providing self-incriminating evidence to the court, and is thus protected by the Constitution.

Thank you for your time.

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 30th day of September, 2022.
 
Thank you to the Plaintiff for posting their opening statement, the Defendant now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
In response to the Plaintiff’s recommendation:
I do not find the Defendant guilty of perjury, as this case is to determine if the Plaintiff truly robbed the bank or not. Just because the Defendant thinks the Plaintiff should be guilty of bank robbery, this doesn’t mean that they lied to the court even if the Plaintiff never robbed the bank.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

I will be responding to each point of the plaintiff’s opening statement in order.

1. While the cases are slightly different in makeup, the premise is the same. The Plaintiff in xxTigOldBittiesxx and LTSlade v. The Commonwealth did not make a DOJ ticket before suing, so the DOJ was not aware of any potential wrongful charges. In this case, the plaintiff did make a DOJ ticket, but refused to provide any reasoning or even dispute the charge. The Department of Justice is unable to just remove a charge simply by request of the accused.

2. This argument is simply absurd. The burden of proof shifts in every criminal case, that is just a fact. Furthermore, the burden of proof is met when sufficient evidence is provided to convict, and then opens the charge to counterpoint. The DOJ met the initial burden of proof through evidence of the accused crime, thus meeting the burden of proof. The plaintiff did not make a counterpoint, so the burden of proof remained met.

3. The Commonwealth acknowledges that presumption of innocence can be interpreted in the Constitution and through past court precedent. However, presumption of innocence only extends so far, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, such as proof in this case, is what is required to complete the principle.

4. While I have been cleared from the Perjury charge, I would like to address this. By “proof of the bank robbery,” it was implied to be evidence of the crime at the time and interactions between the plaintiff and the Department of Justice.

5. While it is true that the Department of Justice / The Commonwealth could use proof provided in a ticket, to provide proof in a Discord ticket is expressly not written in the clause, therefore the fifth clause does not apply, whether or not it could be used in court in the future. Additionally, a dispute of a charge is a blatantly denial that they committed the crime. Any evidence in their favor that the accused provides would not be able to used against them in a logical manner.
 
Thank you to the Defendant for their opening statement. Both parties now have 48 to list all of their witnesses or state that they have none.
 
Neemfy said:
the plaintiff did make a DOJ ticket, but refused to provide any reasoning or even dispute the charge
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Perjury

Your honor, the Defendant claims that I "did make a DOJ ticket, but refused to provide any reasoning or even dispute the charge" however, I did provide several reasons:

1. The evidence "Looks like Bank Trespassing to me" [Exhibit A]

2. The chatlog says the Bank is being robbed "when the bank door is broken" and "It has nothing to do with whether any money was stolen" [Exhibit B]

3. "I didn't cause [the 'floating' gold block] to occur" [Exhibit C]

1664752477533.png

1664752565731.png

1664752815678.png
 
The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff opened a ticket, but didn't dispute the charge, however it is pretty clear from the evidence that the Plaintiff did in fact dispute the charge of bank robbery. Because of this, I hereby find Neemfy guilty of perjury and order the DOJ to fine him the minimum of $1,000.

A reminder that both parties have approximately 42.5 hours left to send their list of witnesses or state that they have none.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

1. In Evidence Exhibit A of the initial filing, the plaintiff is asked if he would like to dispute the charge, and he refuses to answer. While this is not a no, this is also not a yes, and therefore not an official dispute.
2. In the Objection, the plaintiff used evidence not possessed by Defendant at that time. Therefore, by definition, it is not perjury, because perjury is the act of deliberately lying or strongly misrepresenting facts.

Additionally, the Commonwealth would like to request a sidebar chat with the Judge.
 
The request for a sidebar chat is hereby accepted. A group chat with all parties will be created in discord.
 
The Plaintiff wishes to call Officer Mask3D_WOLF (arresting officer) and Owner Technofied (staff capacity) as witnesses.

Additionally, your honor, I have a question regarding evidence:
If a witness is in possession of material evidence of the case, am I able to ask them to provide it?

EDIT: Your honor, I accidentally called Officer Mask3D_WOLF the arresting officer, but this is not quite correct. While she did later arrest me after I turned myself in for Bank Trespassing, I was not arrested during the interactions that this case covers. Officer Mask3D_WOLF only informed me of the charge and provided the evidence described in this case filing.
 
Last edited:
The Commonwealth calls Mask3D_WOLF as a witness.
 
Dartanman said:
The Plaintiff wishes to call Officer Mask3D_WOLF (arresting officer) and Owner Technofied (staff capacity) as witnesses.

Additionally, your honor, I have a question regarding evidence:
If a witness is in possession of material evidence of the case, am I able to ask them to provide it?

EDIT: Your honor, I accidentally called Officer Mask3D_WOLF the arresting officer, but this is not quite correct. While she did later arrest me after I turned myself in for Bank Trespassing, I was not arrested during the interactions that this case covers. Officer Mask3D_WOLF only informed me of the charge and provided the evidence described in this case filing.
Click to expand...
2 things before I file witness summons. Number 1 is that you can’t call a staff member as a witness if you would like them to answer a question as a staff member. You would need to call the staff team. So would you like me to call Tech as a citizen or the staff team?

Also responding to the question about evidence. If a witness has evidence that you do not have, you will need to get it subpoenaed unless the witness is willing to provide it themselves during questioning.
 
dygyee said:
2 things before I file witness summons. Number 1 is that you can’t call a staff member as a witness if you would like them to answer a question as a staff member. You would need to call the staff team. So would you like me to call Tech as a citizen or the staff team?

Also responding to the question about evidence. If a witness has evidence that you do not have, you will need to get it subpoenaed unless the witness is willing to provide it themselves during questioning.
Click to expand...
I will call Staff Team, then.
 
federal-court-png.12082

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

Mask3D_WOLF and the Staff Team (Using the staff account) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72 as witnesses.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin question both witnesses. The Defendant will then have a chance to cross-examine both witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act​
 
Present.
 
Present
 
Now that both witnesses are present, the Plaintiff has 48 hours to post all of their questions for both witnesses unless one of the questions relies on an answer that is given by a witness.
 
For Mask3D_WOLF:
1. What did you see that caused you to charge the Plaintiff with Bank Robbery?
2. Was there any evidence that proved the Plaintiff was ever inside the vault?
3. Was there any evidence that proved the Plaintiff stole money from the bank?
4. If you still have them, will you please provide the two screenshots used to as evidence to charge the Plaintiff?

For Staff Team:
1. 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? That is, is it possible for this to occur without anyone actually stealing any money? (Picture attached)

Note for dygyee: This picture was made in a singleplayer world. It is a recreation of a screenshot sent in the DoJ ticket as evidence. This picture itself is not evidence.
1665063375149.png
 
The witnesses have 48 hours from when the questions were asked to answer them to the best of their ability.
 
1. Respectfully, I did not in fact charge Dartanman with bank robbery where charging is defined as administering punishment and creating a criminal record. However, assuming he is talking about the open charge, Dartanman was found right next to the vault with the alarms saying there was a bank robbery in process and with the door mined in a 2x1 configuration (two blocks tall, one block wide.)

2. Not that I am aware of, but see #1.

3. Not that I am aware of, but see #1.

4. Apologies, I do not have those as of now.
 
Dartanman said:
For Mask3D_WOLF:
1. What did you see that caused you to charge the Plaintiff with Bank Robbery?
2. Was there any evidence that proved the Plaintiff was ever inside the vault?
3. Was there any evidence that proved the Plaintiff stole money from the bank?
4. If you still have them, will you please provide the two screenshots used to as evidence to charge the Plaintiff?

For Staff Team:
1. 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? That is, is it possible for this to occur without anyone actually stealing any money? (Picture attached)

Note for dygyee: This picture was made in a singleplayer world. It is a recreation of a screenshot sent in the DoJ ticket as evidence. This picture itself is not evidence.
View attachment 28763
Click to expand...
Gold blocks spawn in the bank at the reset time in their allocated places.
Gold blocks exist there until broken.
 
The Defendant now has 48 hours to post all of their questions for the witness
 
It has been almost 63 hours, and the Defendant has failed to post their questions to the witnesses. We will be moving on to closing statements. The Plaintiff will have 48 hours to post their closing statement, followed by the Defendant who will also have 48 hours.

I also hereby charge Neemfy with 1 count of contempt of court for failing to respond within the allotted time, and order the DOJ to punish Neemfy appropriately.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

I suppose I will talk about the Commonwealth's opening statement.

1. As already proven via Objection and evidence, their first argument is false. I took actions well beyond what is considered reasonable to change the Bank Robbery charge to a Bank Trespassing charge.

2. The DoJ did not meet the burden of proof that I committed Bank Robbery. According to the DoJ member who collected the so-called "evidence" there was not any evidence that:
a. I ever stole anything from the Bank Vault or
b. I was ever even inside the Bank Vault

3. The Commonwealth claims to acknowledge the presumption of innocence, however continues to allege Bank Robbery, despite there being no proof I was even inside the Bank Vault.

4. I have no response as this was primarily a response to a recommendation of a perjury charge.

5. There are implicit protections in the Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects citizens from producing self-incriminating evidence in court. It does not specify whether such production must be direct or indirect. If one can reasonably believe such evidence would be used in court, it is protected.

A summary of what happened:
1. I was found outside of the Bank Vault.
2. I was informed there was an Open Charge of Bank Robbery.
3. I opened a ticket to lower it to Bank Trespassing as there was no evidence I stole any money or even went inside the vault. (The DoJ member who collected the so-called "evidence" agreed that there was no evidence I stole anything or was even inside the Bank Vault).
4. The DoJ refused to lower the charge.

Finally, my single argument that has been made repeatedly:
Given that there is no evidence I stole from the Bank or was even inside the vault, I cannot be charged with Bank Robbery.
 
Thank you to the Plaintiff. The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

1. The Department of Justice is not omniscient. Bank robbery, in its current state, is near impossible to gain evidence for due to how the game itself works, there are no workarounds. Evidence must be gained based on assumptions, and evidence that logically proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. The DOJ found the plaintiff, outside the bank vault, right after the door had been broken. It is illogical to assume anything else was occurring other than a bank robbery at the time.

3. The Fifth Clause of the Rights and Freedoms Section explicitly lists those places where you are not compelled to produce the evidence. A DOJ ticket is not one of those places, so it simply does not apply, whether it could lead to indirect use in court. By this logic, saying anything anywhere anytime after hypothetically committing a crime could be protected under the Fifth clause, which is completely unreasonable.
 
Does the state have any proof that the Defendant was right outside the vault right after the vault was broken. If so please provide it within 48 hours. If not, please state that you don't.
 
dygyee said:
Does the state have any proof that the Defendant was right outside the vault right after the vault was broken. If so please provide it within 48 hours. If not, please state that you don't.
Click to expand...
It was in Mask3D_WOLF’s testimony.
 
Thank you to the Defendant. A verdict will be posted as soon as possible, this court is now in recess.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT/FEDERAL/SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff was charged with Bank Robbery despite never robbing the Bank, or even being inside the vault.
2. The Plaintiff disputed this charge by creating a ticket with the DOJ.
3. In the ticket, the Plaintiff asked to see the proof of him robbing the bank, but failed to get any proof from the DOJ. Instead the DOJ asked for proof that he didn't rob the bank.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Commonwealth didn't dispute any of the facts, however stated that the burden of proof shifted to the Plaintiff/Appellant to prove his innocence since the original burden of proof was met by the DOJ.
2. Also if you require concrete proof, it is almost impossible to catch someone robbing the bank, and you will only be able to catch them trespassing.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. First and foremost, the burden of proof is never on the accused, nor does it ever shift to the accused at any point.
2. Because of this, it is up to the Commonwealth to prove that Dartanman did in fact rob the bank instead of trespassing.
3. The burden of proof states that they must prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. This doesn't mean that the Commonwealth needs a video of someone destroying a gold block, if there was evidence of someone inside the vault that could be considered proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. The Commonwealth has no proof that the Defendant ever entered the vault, or that part of the vault was broken by the Defendant.


IV. DECISION
1. The Commonwealth has failed to meet the burden of proof, which is on them, to prove that Dartanman robbed the bank. Because of this I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant, and order the DOJ to change Dartanman's bank robbery charge to bank trespassing, and pay Dartanman $250 in legal fees.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top