Lawsuit: Adjourned Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ko531
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On Feburary 4th the Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed into effect by President Derpy. This amendment states that Murder is a indictable offense. According to the Standardized Criminal Code Act, Indictable offense is definded as "Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offense must be proven in a trial." An Indictable Offense is a crime that needs a trial by jury. Since this Amendment was sign I have been arrested for 377 counts of murder by the DOJ and served 1670 minutes in jail and not a single charge was taken and proven in court. For each murder charge I was arrested for I was also fined $100 each by the DOJ totaling $37,700


I. PARTIES
1. Ko531
2. Department of Justice

II. FACTS
1. The Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed by President Derpy on Feburary 4th.
2. It states Murder as an "Indictable Criminal Offense" meaning it has to be proven in court
3. Since that time I have bee charged with 377 counts of murder, fined a total of $37,700 and served 1670 minutes in prison.
4. All of these murder charges were never taken and proven in court

III. Claims for Relief
1. Wrongful Conviction

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $37,700 returned as it was fined for wrongfully convicted crimes
2. $16,700 for the time served in jail ($10 for each minute)
3. $10,000 in Punitive damages
4. Murder charges removed from Ko531 criminal record

V. EVIDENCE

Evidence A

Act of Congress - Violent Offences Act

A BILL To Establish Offences under the Standardized Criminal Code The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions...

www.democracycraft.net

Evidence B

Evidence C

 

[ko531]

MORE EVIDENCE

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@Neemfy is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[RelaxedGV]

I just noticed I accidentally put 48 instead of 72. You have 72 hours from this message. Apologies for the mistake.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to the Commonwealth failing to appear, a default judgement will now occur. We are in recess until the verdict is finished.

I also charge the Department of Legal Affairs with one count of Contempt of Court and order the Department of Justice to jail & fine appropriately.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Due to the Commonwealth failing to appear, a default judgement will now occur. We are in recess until the verdict is finished.

I also charge the Department of Legal Affairs with one count of Contempt of Court and order the Department of Justice to jail & fine appropriately.

Your Honor,
I appologize deeply, I never got the ping for the summons since it was directed @Neemfy and not @attorney general it has only now been brought to my attention. I request a small extension so that I may get our answer to the compliant to thr court
Thank you,
my apologies again,
Your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Even though we are in recess, I will ask. Would the Plaintiff like to go ahead and continue through a full lawsuit or stay with summary judgement?

 

[ko531]

I would like the summary Judgement your honor

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, the summary judgement will continue then. I'll have a verdict out either tonight or tomorrow night.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Alright, the summary judgement will continue then. I'll have a verdict out either tonight or tomorrow night.

Motion to reconsider
You Honor,
A verdict on a case of this magnitude, and importance could cause a cascading affect of lawsuits to the common wealth and could set precedent on such matters. It would be unjust for both the common and the citizens the common wealth represents to not thoroughly look through the evidance, concequences, and facts through a trial, all because our office was not pingged. Depriving a case like this of a trial is going to be doing the whole server a disservice.
My appologies for speaking during recess.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

I am disappointed in the Department of Legal Affairs to appear within the allotted time. This is the reason as to why the Department was and still is charged with Contempt. Given Neemfy is still the Acting Attorney General they were pinged and thus the Attorney General was pinged. I also pinged the Attorney General role within the Discord summons. There is no excuse for the failure to appear,

Despite this, I will be granting the Motion to Reconsider. The Defendant has 24 hours to provide a Motion to Dismiss or Answer to Complaint.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

ko531
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

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

1. The Plaintiff is someone who goes on random killing sprees to collect heads for his museum, his case is frivolous as this is the way it has always been done. The plugin logs murders, who started it and even auto jails you if you die while wanted.

2. With the plugin being the way that it is, there is no reason for the murders to have to be proven in court as they are auto logged and some even auto arrested. If we where to allow this case too be ruled in favor of the plaintiff the commonwealth would be bankrupt with refunds of fines and jail time minutes.

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 13th day of November 2023

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you for your timely response. I will be however rejecting Motion to Dismiss given this is not a case on what the Plaintiff has killed for nor the way the plugin is. This is a case focusing on the legality of the Plaintiff's arrests.

We will now be moving onto Opening Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide one.

 

[ko531]

OPENING STATEMENT

This case is pretty simple. This case is about one thing, The Rule of Law. The Rule of Law states that no one is above the law. No One, including departments and The Commonwealth. The Law clearly stated that Murder was an Indictable Criminal Offense meaning that it must be proven in court. This did not happen. The DOJ disreguarded the law and acted as their own judge, jury and executioner. The DOJ acted above the law while trying to enforce the law which is counterintuitive to say the least.

This is an arguement on whether my arrests were legal which they clearly weren't. The defense will say many things but those many things probably do not matter in this case. Example of things that do not matter:

1. The Intent of the crimes
2. How the plugin works
3. How the DOJ is supposed to/always make murder arrests
4. Whether or not I am gulity of each murder

The only thing that matters is the word of the law and the law stated that Murder was an Indictable Criminal Offense which needs to be proven in court. For the 377 counts of murder I have been convicted of, I did not see one court room.

The defense mentioned in their motion to dismiss that "If we where to allow this case too be ruled in favor of the plaintiff the commonwealth would be bankrupt with refunds of fines and jail time minutes." And to that I say the Commonwealth should have thought about that before disreguarding the law. The problem with the wording of this law was brought up multiple times and each time was ignored until it was too late. So to rule against me would break all faith in government and in the law itself. This belief in the Law comes from the Rule of Law and that no one is above said law so to let the Commonwealth free because of the possibility of backruptcy would be saying that someone is above the law and to that the law holds no power.



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 13th day of November 2023

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, the Defendant may present their Opening Statement. They have 72 hours to do so.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
May it please the court,
The opposing councel claims that "this case is pretty simple" but, that can't be further then the truth.

This is no ordinary case, and I belive that the complexity of this extrodoinary cricumstance has to be acknowledged. Along with its consequences. In order to fully understand the complexity of this we must look at how it all started. On january 25th 2023 the violent offenses act was amended. During this change the term summary judgement was unintentionally replaced with indictment. While the admendnent itself is inarguable we must scritinize the change in terms of consequence. Changing that one little word may not seem like a big change but that change completly reworks an entire plugin dedicated on charging, tracking, and organizing murder charges. This plug-in is a foundation of our law force here in Redmont and works a long side but independently from the DOJ and police officers.
Changing murder from a summary offense to a indictable offense would nulify this plugin changing its complex use.

According to the constitution a complex change is defined as the following:

'"A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President:

• Changes to the System of Government.
• Plugin-related changes.
• Changes involving significant staff involvement.
• Creation of new towns/cities/urban establishments.
• A Rights & Freedoms change."

However, during the passing of this bill no owner aproval was achieved.

This complex change makes the original admendnent an illegal bill meaning that the change between murder being an indictable offense and a summary offense did not occur and the plugin and law should have been and was, followed as it has been since the installment of the plugin.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, we will now move onto Witnesses, both sides have 72 hours to declare they have witnesses or none.

 

[ko531]

I wish to call Dartanman and Technofied as my Witnesses your honor

 

[RelaxedGV]

Can you please provide reasoning as to why you decide to call them?

 

[ko531]

Technofied because he is the DOJ Secretary and Dartanman as Former AG and because of this Screenshot

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, once the Defendant posts their Witnesses or declares they have none, I will issue summons.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
We would like to call LilDigiVert as a witness because he was the one who created the bill in the first place.

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@LilDigiVert @Technofied @Dartanman are required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97 as witnesses.

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

The Court asks 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 the witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.
(Read the highlighted part thoroughly, as it is often misunderstood)

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, subject to the penalties of perjury.

The Witnesses are to identify themselves in this case thread in the next 72 hours. Failure to comply with this summons may result in being held in Contempt of Court.​

 

[Dartanboy]

I am present, your honor.

 

[Technofied]

I am present, your honor. I will be away next week physically.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, would the Plaintiff like for me to Dismiss Technofied or would we rather wait a week for the return of Technofied? This would put the case into recess should we wait for a week until Technofied's return.

 

[ko531]

You may dismiss Technofied, Your Honor

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, @Technofied is hereby dismissed.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor it has been 72 hours and LilDigiVert has not shown up, can I go ahead and start questioning my witness?

 

[RelaxedGV]

LilDigiVert is hereby charged with Contempt of Court and I order the Department of Justice to fine/jail appropriately.

The Plaintiff may start questioning Dartanman.

 

[ko531]

Dart According to this screenshot you alerted End, who at the time was a senator, to this problem about Murder not being a summary crime back in july.

1. What was End's response to your report?

2. Were any actions taken to solve this problem to your knowledge because of your report?

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Hearsay

Your honor,

I don't care to answer questions which don't meet the standard required to be in this courtroom. Question 1 is asking me what someone else said, which is literally hearsay.

 

[Dartanboy]

As for the second question, I don't think I followed up on it. I'm not privy to the inner workings of Congress.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Objection is Granted the Plaintiff is to rewrite the question or strike the question.

 

[ko531]

Dart

1. Did End respond to your concern?

2. If you never checked up then would you consider it be safe to assume that no major course of action was taken to fix this problem?

 

[Dartanboy]

Dart

1. Did End respond to your concern?

2. If you never checked up then would you consider it be safe to assume that no major course of action was taken to fix this problem?

1. Yes

2. Again, I'm not privy to the inner workings of Congress. I'm not in the business of making assumptions.

 

[ko531]

End knew about this problem for his entire 4 month term

All that needed to be fixed was one word

End could have wrote a bill to amend 1 word or at the very least asked someone to write a bill

The problem wasn't even addressed publicly until after End's term

With this information I will ask one more time, Would you consider it a safe thing to assume that no major course of action was taken by End to solve this problem?

 

[Snowy_Heart]

End knew about this problem for his entire 4 month term

All that needed to be fixed was one word

End could have wrote a bill to amend 1 word or at the very least asked someone to write a bill

The problem wasn't even addressed publicly until after End's term

With this information I will ask one more time, Would you consider it a safe thing to assume that no major course of action was taken by End to solve this problem?

Objection
Leading question

Your Honor,

The plaintiff if trying to lead their witness to a specific answer through their question.

Objection
 Asked and answered

Your Honor,
The plaintiff has already asked this question multiple times. They are now searching for a specific question that fits their narrative.

Objection
calls for conclusion

Your Honor
The plaintiff is asking for the witnesses opinion not based on fact.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor

Most of, if not all of, this "question" is just compunded statements not backed by any fact layed down by any foundation inside of this court room and relies on opinion based commentary.

I think its clear that the only reason why the plaintiff is asking this question is to sneak in their own opinions into the comments above. I request that these comments be struck from court.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[ko531]

Answer to Objection
Your Honor this is extremely important to know. Dart during his time as AG reported a problem with the law. It is important to understand if there was any effort by the commonwealth to fix a problem that had been alerted to.

Leading the Witness: The Witness did not answer the question because of Ignorance on the inner workers of congress, I informed them about how the problem could have been fixed and how long End had to fix it and asked the question again.

Asked and Answer: The question was very much not answered as the witness refused to answer stating "I'm not in the business of making assumptions."

Calls for Conclusion: It is extremely important to understand Dart's opinion on whether any action was taken due to his report. Dart by reporting this believe that action need to be taken to fix this problem. By understanding whether Dart felt that the proper actions were taken following his report can shed light onto whether the commonwealth failed to fix the law and allow the DOJ to act outside of said law

 

[RelaxedGV]

All Objections and Motion to Strike are overruled the Plaintiff can continue their questioning of Dartanman.

 

[Dartanboy]

End knew about this problem for his entire 4 month term

All that needed to be fixed was one word

End could have wrote a bill to amend 1 word or at the very least asked someone to write a bill

The problem wasn't even addressed publicly until after End's term

With this information I will ask one more time, Would you consider it a safe thing to assume that no major course of action was taken by End to solve this problem?

I don't consider it a safe thing to assume something I have minimal knowledge about.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I am done questioning Dart and the commonwealth may cross exame

Due to Dart being Extremely Ignorant and unable to answer some of the questions asked I wish to call End as a Witness to help answer some of those questions left unanswered by Dart

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,

I am done questioning Dart and the commonwealth may cross exame

Due to Dart being Extremely Ignorant and unable to answer some of the questions asked I wish to call End as a Witness to help answer some of those questions left unanswered by Dart

objection
Breach of procudure

Witnesses have already been called. Xendevour was not called previously when asked which witnesses the plaintiff wanted to call.

 

[ko531]

Answer to Objection

Your Honor, I didn't plan to call End but after Dart not being able to answer some of the important questions asked I feel End is the next best option. In order for this case to have the best possible verdict it is critical to have and understand all the information including whether the Commonwealth ignore this problem or not.

 

[RelaxedGV]

objection
Breach of procudure

Witnesses have already been called. Xendevour was not called previously when asked which witnesses the plaintiff wanted to call.

The Objection will be overruled other cases have had witnesses called one by one rather than all at once. I will issue summons for xEndeavour once I am home.

 

[RelaxedGV]

@End is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97 as a witness.

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

The Court asks 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 the witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.
(Read the highlighted part thoroughly, as it is often misunderstood)

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, subject to the penalties of perjury.

The Witnesses are to identify themselves in this case thread in the next 72 hours. Failure to comply with this summons may result in being held in Contempt of Court.​

 

[End]

Present

 

[ko531]

End

1. What was your response to Dart's concern?

2. Did you take any action to fix the problem?

3. Why wasn't the problem fix within the 4 months you were senator?

 

[Snowy_Heart]

2. Did you take any action to fix the problem?

3. Why wasn't the problem fix within the 4 months you were

Objection
Relevence

Your Honor,
End is not the one on trial here nor is he the one who wrote the law in the first place.
Why he didn't "fix" the law is irrelevant to case at hand further more End, during the time the law was in affect was a senator
Not a representative. Senators are not responsible for ammending or instituting laws, representatives would be.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[ko531]

Answer to Objection
It is extremely important to understand the reasoning behind why 1 word wasnt changed or amended in a 4 month period and see whether there is good reasoning or if it was ignored. Other people can author and write bills besides Representatives including Senators and even Presidents, They must only be proposed by Representatives.

As someone who is a multiple time Senator and Representative, Former President and Former Cheif Justice, End out of all people should understand why this problem needed to be fixed and the process on how to fix it. This makes it very curious how in 4 months this 1 word wasnt amended and that is why this question is so crucial.