Lawsuit: Adjourned Divine59 v. The Department of Justice [2021] DCR 31

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alexander P. Love

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Justice Department
Supporter
Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle Statesman Order of Redmont
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
Attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,380
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Divine59
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Divine59 had given drugs to a police officer for free and was later arrested on charges of trafficking and was issued a fine of $150. He is a victim of wrongful imprisonment due to the fact that drug trafficking is the selling or trading of drugs which is not the case of the situation. He did not accept any trade or money from the officer, and therefore should not have been penalized.

I. PARTIES
1. Divine59 (Plaintiff)
2. Department of Justice (Defendant)
3. 218218consumer (Witness)
4. AlexanderLove (Council)
5. Arelixvi (Co-Council)
6. baole444 (Arresting Officer)

II. FACTS
1. In Exhibit #1, the Plaintiff (Divine59) had asked people on the server who wanted drugs for free. A Police Officer had direct messaged Divine59 asking about the type of drugs he had and if he had heroin.
2. In Exhibit #2, The Officer had asked the price of the drugs and Divine59 clearly stated in the chat that he does not charge for these drugs.
3. After the Plaintiff had given the drugs to the officer, he was arrested under trafficking charges and was fined $150. As seen in Exhibit #3, the officer had fined him $150.
4. According to 218218consumer, who had made the law, he stated in Exhibit #4 that he should have made the law more specific, proving that even the law's author acknowledges that this is a valid complaint against the Department of Justice.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Drug Trafficking and Possession Legalization Act, Section 3, Clause 2 states that "A new crime, 'Drug Trafficking', shall be defined as 'Trafficking of illicit substances.'" However, there is no legal definition in the Redmont Legal System to define 'trafficking'.
2. The English definition of trafficking is the dealing or trading of something illegal, in other words, involving the transfer of goods or money in exchange for the 'illegal' substances. The Plaintiff (Divine59) was not dealing or trading drugs. He was legally possessing them and was giving drugs away for free which was made known to the officer. Despite this, the officer still imprisoned him with these charges.
3. With the Plaintiff giving away the drugs for free, he was not dealing or trading drugs. He did not get anything in return from giving these drugs. He was simply giving these drugs away which is not an illegal action.
4. 1. The Drug Trafficking and Possession Legalization Act, Section 3, Clause 2 states that "A new crime, 'Drug Trafficking', shall be defined as 'Trafficking of illicit substances.'" However, there are no legal provisions in statute that declare any substance to be illegal.
5. It is also commonly accepted that drugs are legal given the rolling pardon on drug trafficking as it is, and it is unclarified whether or not this pardon is revoked.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. We ask for $150 in order to compensate for the fine given by the Officer
2. We ask for $500 from the Department of Justice to cover legal fees
3. We ask for $250 in order to compensate for the jail time given
4. We ask that the arresting officer, baole444, be removed for his position or retrained to ensure his legal knowledge is up to proper standards
5. We ask that this offense is stricken from the Plaintiff's record.

V. EVIDENCE
The following link contains all exhibits that will be used by the Plaintiff:
https://imgur.com/a/5fRJMSk

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 23rd day of June 2021
 
Last edited:
Court_Seal_Redmont.png


IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Divine59 (Apex Law Firm representing) v. The Department of Justice. Failure to appear within 72 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.​
 
Your Honour,

may I as for an extension of 72 hours as the Office of AG is very busy at current and assigning cases is slightly delayed,

i will be dealing with this case but need time to prepare an adequate defence.
 
Your Honor,
The defendant was given a full 72 hours to respond to this case and did not. They did not request an extension within the 72 hour period and therefore I would like to request that this case be adjourned in favor of the plaintiff.
 
Objection from the plaintiff overruled as the defendant still had well over a full five hours to respond, furthermore you aren't even a party in this case, please do not talk unless summoned again or I will charge you with contempt

That being said I am hereby granting an extension of 48 hours instead of a full 72 hours due to the large caseload that the office of the attorney general has currently, please keep the court updated
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


MOTION TO DISMISS

Divine59 Represented by AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice Represented by Poemhunter
Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. under the Reform Drug Possession laws Act section 4 subsection 2 illegal illicit substances, sale is prohibited category Heroin. This states that this substances is illegal and therefore cannot be consumed used or distributed.

2. under the drug trafficking and possession legalisation act a new crime of drug trafficking was created off illicit substances which shall be implemented under miscellaneous laws. Under miscellaneous laws section 15.13 - drug trafficking, trafficking of illegal substances first offence 5 minutes jail along with $150 fine.

3. under the UNODC trafficking of drugs is an illicit trade involving cultivation, manufacturing, distribution and sale of substances, it must includes one or more of the elements to be considered drug trafficking. Distribution is one we see in this case by the plaintiff client.

4. the plaintiff referred to n act of “giving drug away” regardless this is distribution of an illegal substances

5.the pardon cannot be considered due to the ambiguity of its legality.



DATED: This 04 day of July 2021
 
Does the Plaintiff have any rebuttal?
 
In response to point one, the law specifies, according to Section Four Clause Three that the sale and trafficking of the substances are illegal, and not the possession or consumption. To this end, the Plaintiff will be striking Claim for Relief no. 4, since illicit substances are defined within the law. However, the Plaintiff is still not guilty of what he was charged with for all of the other reasons and the reasons provided here.

Point two was addressed in the original filing.

Point three makes no sense. What is the "UNODC," and I found no law with those initials, nor any law that defines trafficking. Trafficking or distribution searching in the forums search tool pulls up no legislative results that defines trafficking as distribution.

Therefore, unless a law naming such can be properly produced and cited in a manner that is easy to understand and reference, point four no longer stands.

Point five is part of why we are here: to address this ambiguity and resolve it, to see whether it stands or not.



Additionally, dismissals are only supposed to occur if the case is inaccurate or frivolous. We addressed our inaccuracy, and therefore this case cannot be dismissed.
 
Motion to dismiss overruled, as it does not allege any inaccuracies or frivolity in regards to the case, furthermore the "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime" definition of drug trafficking does not apply on the server, as the original author of the current system of drug crime specifically made the law to not punish possession or growth unlike the "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime" definition of it, the defendant may now proceed with their opening statement
 
Last edited:
Your Honor,
As this is an Apex Law Firm case and have recently parted ways with Alex, we will be requesting a continuous to get the affairs of the case in order and to get the proper council appointed. The defendant is on board with this. Thank you!
 
Can the Defendant confirm they have no objection?
 
no objection Your Honour.
 
I hereby put the court into recess for 72 hours at both parties' request
 
Your honor I apologize, I just recuse myself as I am now a state prosecutor. I will be assigning a new lawyer to the case, I would ask for 48 hours
 
Does the state have any objection?
 
No your honour.
 
Very well, the court is in recess a further 24 hours
 
Your honor I request a continuance on this case, recently I have been appointed to the Office of the Attorney General and I need time to look over the case.
 
Apologies for the delay, I hadn't noticed this message, as there has already been an eight day delay on this I see no reason to grant a further recess, the defendant may now proceed with their opening statement
 
Your honor the plaintiff has asked me to represent him after canxx01 could no longer do so.
 
Your Honor

State Prosecutor GoodMorning9 will be taking over this case for the Office of the Attorney General
 
Your honor

We ask that the defendant chooses a different prosecutor due to the chosen prosecutor working at the representing firm (Apex)
 
The court agrees with the request and asks the same
 
I retract my statement and overrule the plaintiff's request as nobody else in the office of the attorney general can take the case, instead I recommend the president or the attorney general can take the case
 
Your honor,

Due to the heavy case load the Attorney General has undertaken as of recent and the lack of state prosecutors that are available, members of my cabinet have volunteered to help out.

Secretary hugebob23456 will be taking over this case under the supervision of myself and the Attorney General. I request a 24 hour grace period to familiarize myself and Bob with the facts of the case before proceeding.
 
Very well, the court is hereby in recess for 24 hours
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Divine59
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Commonwealth does not believe that the distribution of drugs without charge qualifies as a lawful act, especially an illicit substance such as Heroin, which the plaintiff falsely (likely unintentionally) claims has never been defined.

II DEFENCES

1. The Drug Trafficking and Possession Legalization Act (Act of Congress - Drug Trafficking and Possession Legalization Act) references illicit substances as unlawful to distribute. The definition of what qualifies as an illicit substance is codified in another act, the Drugs Reform Act (Act of Congress - Drugs Reform Act) and therefore the first claim for relief is based on a misrepresentation of the law.

2. The English definition of the word trafficking is very important here. To deal or trade in something illegal. While you could make the argument that he was not trading in something illegal due to giving drugs away for free, that would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set and it would completely ignore the first portion of the definition of the word which includes dealing something illegal. Dealing means to distribute, and distribution does not necessarily mean that a mutual exchange occurred, simply that you gave something to someone else, which the plaintiff, by his own admission, did. Because the plaintiff unlawfully dealt clearly defined illicit substances, the officer made an arrest in full compliance with the law and DOJ standards, refuting the second claim for relief.

3. The third claim for relief was refuted in my second point, but again I would like to state that the word "deal" as a verb, which is very clearly in the definition of trafficking, does not require an exchange to occur.

4. I believe the plaintiff may have made a copy paste error in their fourth claim for relief, as it is identical to their first claim for relief (even has an additional number 1) and as such I would refer you to my first point.

5. The Drug Trafficking Pardon is no longer in effect, as of July 11th the new Administration found that the pardon no longer holds effect, as evident by this announcement (Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities) and the DOJ has been making drug trafficking arrests ever since then in compliance with law codified by Congress. Therefore, the fifth claim for relief is refuted.

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 twenty-third day of July 2021
 
Does either party have any further evidence or witnesses?
 
Your honor
The plaintiff would like to submit the witnesss 218218consumer and the arresting officer
 
Last edited:
Your honor

I would like to make something known to the court
HugeBob said:
, that would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set
Click to expand...
We are not here to determine what precedent to set we are here to clarify what the law says
 
lawanoesepr said:
Your honor
The plaintiff would like to submit the witnesss 218218consumer
Click to expand...

OBJECTION

It is not the duty of legislators, past or present, to interpret the law. The plaintiff is seeking to call forward a member of the Legislative branch who played a role in the authorship of these laws to have them interpret the law, which is firmly within the jurisdiction of the Courts, not witnesses to any particular lawsuit.
 
HugeBob said:
OBJECTION

It is not the duty of legislators, past or present, to interpret the law. The plaintiff is seeking to call forward a member of the Legislative branch who played a role in the authorship of these laws to have them interpret the law, which is firmly within the jurisdiction of the Courts, not witnesses to any particular lawsuit.
Click to expand...
See exhibit 1 He was in the game while this played out in chat, He could inform the court of more details of what happened.
 
Objection sustained, the court agrees with the defendant's sentiment and does not see his involvement in the event with him simply talking with some friends, and then assisted the plaintiff with the filing of the lawsuit, as well as commented that he should have made the law more specific
 
lawanoesepr said:
Your honor
The plaintiff would like to submit the witnesss 218218consumer and the arresting officer
Click to expand...
Sorry for interrupt the court but this is a OOC comment (Out of character) which related to my real life, Since now I'm busy with irl work I will inform before hand that please send my discord DM (not ping in DC) or send an email to me : [email protected] I might not appear soon or can't not come at all.
Sorry for this interruption.
 
The witness has been summoned
 
I'm here by presenting myself to the court case and ready for question
 
The plaintiff may ask the witness any questions they may have then we will open the floor to cross examination
 
Your honor,

I would like to briefly interject to bring attention to the plaintiff's dishonest actions in this thread.

On June 23rd at 12:29PM EST, the Plaintiff posted "The plaintiff would like to submit the witness 218218Consumer"

On the same day at 1:41PM EST, I posted an objection to the calling of this witness and quoted his post in my unedited post on this thread.

However, while I had the page loaded the plaintiff had edited their original witness request at 1:39PM EST to add the arresting officer to their list of witnesses. To my understanding, it is generally outside Court procedure to call additional witnesses after witnesses had already been requested. Additionally, it is certainly bad form to edit posts to an ongoing lawsuit with the intention of receiving a more favorable verdict.

I have no objections to the arresting officer testifying, however I do believe it may prolong this case as they have made known that they may be unavailable due to irl obligations.

Screenshot of plaintiff's witness requests, note that it has been edited.
1627147204578.png
 
Your honor
I did edit it but I had edited not for a more favorable verdict but because I had forgot to put that in.
 
I wish to proceed to ask the witness questions
 
The plaintiff may proceed with their questions, however I will note the edit
 
1. Did you receive the drugs
2. Was there a exchange of money or items between you and my client?
 
lawanoesepr said:
1. Did you receive the drugs
2. Was there a exchange of money or items between you and my client?
Click to expand...
Answer to the question:
1. I did recived the drug from Divine59 when he trading it to me
2.He didn't want to money
Court may I have a request of getting the arrest day, this will help me able to find the log file of the chat log on that day providing the respective of the police force and the plaintiff
 
Baole444 said:
Court may I have a request of getting the arrest day, this will help me able to find the log file of the chat log on that day providing the respective of the police force and the plaintiff
Click to expand...
This request is hereby denied as the courts were not told the date this took place

The court is now opening up questions to the witness from the defendant for cross examination
 
As the attorney general has been appointed to the courts and had the position refilled I hereby put the court into recess for 48 hours
 
I will be taking over this case as the presiding judge. Sense HugeBob has not indicated he will not be continuing the case, he can move forward with cross examination.
 
The defense does not believe any line of questioning would materially influence the direction of this case due to the plaintiff's admission to distribute illicit substances in their opening statement. I have no questions for the witness nor any additional witnesses I wish to call.
 
With the defense electing to not cross exam the witnesses, the court now directs the Plaintiff to submit their closing statement. Once posted the defense may publish theirs as well.
 
CLOSING STATEMENT

My client gave out drugs to officer baole afterwards he arrested him for drug trafficking, But failed to realize that he was not exchanging a item for money or items, The author of the law even said that it was not written correctly. In the arresting officer's testimony he “did not want money.” And finally there was no exchange therefore there couldn’t of been a trade, Deal, or Sale, it concludes that my client did not break the law.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


Divine59
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

Your honor,

The law makes it illegal to "traffic" illicit substances. While this may involve a mutual transfer of value, it is not necessarily required. The plaintiff trafficked illicit substances to the arresting officer, who then made an arrest for the violation of law. The plaintiff's legal counsel even confesses to such distribution of illicit substances in their opening an closing statements.

Please refer to my opening statement for a full break down of the law and the definitions of words.

Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top