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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Attorney
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,476
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 crime of Bank Robbery, however the Plaintiff did not rob the bank. The DOJ did not fix this after a ticket was made with them.


I. PARTIES
1. KB56 (Plaintiff)
2. PiOs67 (Police on scene)
3. xEndeavour (Staff member who helped fix a bug)
4. Milqy (Public advocate who said in a DOJ ticket that the charge stands)
5. The Department of Justice/Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff broke into the Bank Vault.
2. The Plaintiff did not steal or rob from the Bank.
3. Constable PiOs67 claimed to charge the Plaintiff with Bank Trespass, but later charged the Plaintiff with Bank Robbery.
4. The Plaintiff created a DOJ ticket to fix what was assumed to be a mistake.
5. In that ticket, the Plaintiff was told the robbery charge stands.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiff committed Bank Trespass, not Bank Robbery, but was fined for Bank Robbery.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1000, for being fined $1000 for the wrong crime.
2. $500 in legal fees.

Evidence:
1. Minecraft Log from KP56 (Attached)
2. Screenshot from DOJ Ticket by KP56 (Attached)
3. Staff Ticket Transcript (Attached)

I would also like to note that the screenshot of the transcript comes from my point of view, thus, the time shown is in my local time, not the Plaintiff's.

Consent To Represent:
Screenshot_20220523-110503_Discord.jpg


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 23 day of May 2022​
 

Attachments

  • 2022-05-23-1.log.txt
    2022-05-23-1.log.txt
    837.2 KB · Views: 156
  • Screenshot_20220523-182005_Discord.jpg
    Screenshot_20220523-182005_Discord.jpg
    238.9 KB · Views: 174
  • transcript.png
    transcript.png
    138.2 KB · Views: 172
Last edited:
district-court-png.12083


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

The Defendant, @drew_hall, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of KP56 v. Commonwealth.

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.​
 
Your honor, I would like to inform the court that I edited the original post to fix grammar and provide better clarity, particularly Fact 3, as it was worded in such a way that there two possible interpretations, and such ambiguity on a fact is not helpful to anyone.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


KP56 (Solid Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFIRM: The plaintiff was accused and arrested for the crime of Bank Robbery.

2. DISPUTE: That we are facing the crime of Bank Trespass.


II. DEFENCES

1. In the first place, we must specify that when the Policeman PiOs67 said “You have been charged with bank trespassing. You have the right to remain silent, anything you say or do can be used against you. If you want to dispute this charge, please open a ticket under #goverment-support" was against BussinesMan369, who broke into the bank and not against the plaintiff, who was still inside the vault. So, we can conclude that fact number 3 of the accusation is false.

We attach the corresponding evidence where the two differentiated charges are clearly seen (One to BussinesMan369 and the other to the plaintiff)

2. Secondly, we consider that there is clear evidence that the plaintiff planned and executed his plan to rob the bank. He broke the vault door, so it can be considered that the robbery began, later, by the police, he was found inside. This brings us to a clear crime of bank robbery. We must insist that the crime of Bank Trespassing would have been committed by whoever later, after the robbery, would have entered the vault.

3. Finally, in our opinion, it is irrelevant that the plaintiff once inside the bank vault did not steal the gold. There is a precedent for this charging procedure, the fact of seeing the person inside the vault when the alarm sounds and the door of the vault has been broken by the person, has historically been enough to consider that a crime of bank robbery was committed.

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 25th day of May 2022​
 

Attachments

  • Evidence4.png
    Evidence4.png
    333.1 KB · Views: 144
  • Evidence3.png
    Evidence3.png
    784.6 KB · Views: 151
  • Evidence2.png
    Evidence2.png
    167.6 KB · Views: 159
  • Evidence1.png
    Evidence1.png
    232.5 KB · Views: 134
  • Evidence5.png
    Evidence5.png
    620.7 KB · Views: 136
Your honor, since it has been several days since the Defense gave their answer to the complaint, is the court ready for the Plaintiff's Opening Statement at this point?
 
Yes, please excuse the delay, as I was out of town. The Plaintiff may now make their opening statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

Bank Robbery is defined by the Bank Robbery Act (Act of Congress - Bank Robbery Act) as “The act or instance of stealing from a bank.” The Bank Trespass Act (Act of Congress - Bank Trespass Act) specifically explains, “Officers are struggling with people who may be trespassing into the vault without actually robbing anything from the bank, resulting in a very small punishment for the crime, this Bill aims to fix that.”

As we can see in the logs, and as the Defendant has also said, the Plaintiff has:
1. Broken the door of the Bank Vault
2. Entered the Bank Vault
3. Not stolen anything from the Bank Vault

Since the Plaintiff “Trespassed into the vault without actually robbing anything from the bank” (in the words of the Bank Trespass Act), and the Plaintiff never committed “The act or instance of stealing from a bank” (in the words of the Bank Robbery Act), it is clear that the Plaintiff can only be charged with Bank Trespassing, and not Bank Robbery.

We would also like to point out several things about the Defendant’s arguments:

1. While it is now understood to be possible that Fact 3 was false, it was unclear at the time, as BussinesMan369 was not mentioned specifically, so the fact that the Plaintiff heard those words in local chat was enough for a reasonable person to believe the Plaintiff was being charged. Regardless, that is of little to no consequence for this case.

2. The Defense has said, “He broke the vault door, so it can be considered that the robbery began,” however, we must contest this. Again, we point to the Bank Robbery Act, which explicitly states that Bank Robbery is “The act or instance of stealing from a bank,” and not “The act or instance of breaking the vault door in the bank.” Thus, the mere breaking of the door and entry into the Bank Vault is not sufficient to say the Plaintiff committed Bank Robbery.

3. Lastly, we ask that the Defendant’s Evidence 3 be struck, as it is strictly the Defendant’s opinion, even by their own admission: “Finally, in our opinion…” If you decide not to strike it, however, we have this to say: The Defense has also claimed that historically, the mere presence inside the vault as the alarms went off has been enough to charge someone with Bank Robbery, but your honor, we must yet again point to the Bank Robbery Act’s definition of Bank Robbery – “The act or instance of stealing from a bank.” The DOJ disregarding the actual law in the past does not give them the right to continue disregarding it and abusing their power. The DOJ should enforce the laws, not decide to disregard them.

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 30 day of May, 2022​
 
The third defense in the Defense's response to the complaint (which I assume was intended instead of the third exhibit of evidence) will not be struck as it is part of their argument and not their evidence. It is well within their right to use opinions as part of argument, and it is up for interpretation by the court, as is most argument.

That out of the way, the Defense may now present their opening statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

KP56 (Solid Law Firm Representing)
PLAINTIFF

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
DEFENDANT

Your honor,

1. It has been proven that the plaintiff was the person that broke the vault door, this does enter the definition of Bank Robbery since the plaintiff's purpose was to open the vault and steal from the bank. We know this because in the evidence given by the plaintiff we can see that he tried to destroy the vault door multiple times before actually doing it.

2. The Defence has proven that the message for bank trespassing made by Officer PiOs67 wasn't for the plaintiff making the case of the plaintiff completely useless. Officer Pios67 charged correctly the plaintiff with Bank Robbery since he was the one that broke the vault door and was found inside the vault seconds later.

3. Finally, Bank Robbery is defined as ''The act or instance of stealing from a bank'', while Bank Trespassing is ''Trespassing behind the “no trespassing signs” in the bank, which includes going behind the glass and/or entering the vault.''. The moment the crimes switched from Bank Trespassing to Bank Robbery was when the plaintiff breached the vault door and went inside triggering the alarm.

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 1st day of June of 2022
 
Last edited:
Due to the resigning of the Solicitor General, Aladeen has been assigned to take over this case in the meantime, to clear up any confusion. Thank you!
 
Thank you. Both parties may now present a list of witnesses they wish to call, or declare that they have none.
 
The Commonwealth calls Secretary ElainaThomas29 and Senior Constable PiOs67.
 
The Plaintiff calls xEndeavour and PiOs67.
 
district-court-png.12083


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

@xEndeavour, @PiOs67, and @ElainaThomas29 are hereby summoned to the District Court in the case of KP56 v. Commonwealth [2022] DCR 20 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 with questions to their 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.​
 
Your honor, I have been informed that one of the witnesses, PiOs67 will not be able to attend the trial due to IRL circumstances.
 
Can the witness in question declare this to the court, or can any proof be provided that they cannot do so?
 
Your honor, the witness in question is currently passing time with his family due to holidays, it would be extremly unfair to ask him to attend the trial.

1654402306579.png
 
Your honor, since the witness said this last week, and it is now the end of the week, I request that we wait until the witness is available.
 
Due to the fact that this statement was made now over a week ago, I believe it is more than reasonable to expect the witness to appear within the next few days. @PiOs67 is requested to testify at their earliest availability and this case will proceed once they are present.
 
Good morning your Honor,
I am back from my holidays and ready to testify in front of this court.
 
Thank you for your timeliness. The Plaintiff may now present questions to their witnesses.
 
I apologize for the delay, I'd like to request a 48 hour extension due to a death IRL.
 
Of course, the extension is granted. I am sorry for your loss, take the time you need.
 
I apologize again for the delay, but I should be available for the remainder of this case.

Questions for PiOs67:
1. Why did you charge the Plaintiff with Bank Robbery?
2. Did you see the Plaintiff break the vault door in order to enter the vault?
3. Did you see the Plaintiff attempt to break the door multiple times in order to exit the vault?

Questions for xEndeavour:
1. Is it true that there was a bug preventing the robbery of the bank at the time the Plaintiff was arrested for Bank Robbery?
2. Did you see the Plaintiff break the vault door in order to enter the vault?
3. Did you see the Plaintiff attempt to break the door multiple times in order to exit the vault?
 
Your honor, I object to questions 1 and 3 for Officer PiOs67 on the basis of relevance. Throughout the evidence and the arguments presented it is already known why the officer conducted this arrest. Concerning question 3 for Owner xEndeavour, the state formulate an objection on the basis of leading question, since the plaintiff is actually giving the expected answer in his question.
 
Your honor, I am willing to reword question 3 to remove that, like so:
"Did you see the Plaintiff attempt to break the door multiple times from inside the vault? Or was he outside the vault?"
 
As to the objections on relevance to questions 1 and 3 to Witness PiOs67, the objections are overruled, as the court has yet to hear from the arresting official themself the account of what charges took place when and why, only argument from the Defendant.

The objection to question 3 to xEndeavour is sustained, but the rephrased question is allowed.
 
Your Honor,
Here are my answers to the questions.

1. Why did you charge the Plaintiff with Bank Robbery?
Simply to be clair and to clear up any doubt, KP56 have not been charged at any time for bank trespassing. This charge applied to BusinessMan who was walking behind the signs.
That being said, I conducted this arrest because of an amount of facts that constitute in my opinion a bundle of evidence. First of all, plaintiff entered the vault before the reset and logged out to see if he would be able to rob the bank easily (evidence 6). Then, the plaintiff declared publicly his intention to rob the bank, stating his intention to use a mechanism to get this "free money" (evidence 7), and stating moreover that he was waiting for an officer to "be able to rob the bank" (evidence 8). Last but not least, when the plaintiff had finally the possibility to break the vault door and gold blocks in the bank, rather than escaping the vault, he came back into it and run through it (see evidence 4, I arrested the plaintiff in the vault, not outside). This is way enough to charge for bank robbery. To be fair, how will the police react if they find you in a bank vault when the alarms are sounding? They will drop any charge because you kindly explain that you were lost in the vault? That you are doing tourism? That you didn't steal anything from the bank?

2. Did you see the Plaintiff break the vault door in order to enter the vault?
No, I was in Willow when the alarm rang (see evidence 3).

3. Did you see the Plaintiff attempt to break the door multiple times in order to exit the vault?
Yes, the plaintiff tried to escape the vault. He finally broke the door when End came online, because of his police officer role. However, the plaintiff came back in the vault and didn't exit it. I had to drag him out with the handcuff.

For your consideration,
 

Attachments

  • evidence 6.png
    evidence 6.png
    28.5 KB · Views: 118
  • evidence 7.png
    evidence 7.png
    23 KB · Views: 130
  • evidence 8.png
    evidence 8.png
    13.7 KB · Views: 118
Your honor, it’s been multiple days since the witness was asked to answer the questions and has failed to do so.
 
I hereby find xEndeavour in contempt of court, and I request that the DOJ provide fines or jail time as appropriate. The witness has 24 more hours to appear in front of the court before a second contempt of court charge is applied and we move on without it.
 
1. Is it true that there was a bug preventing the robbery of the bank at the time the Plaintiff was arrested for Bank Robbery?
I can't recall, I'll need more information

2. Did you see the Plaintiff break the vault door in order to enter the vault?
This isn't a question for staff.

3. Did you see the Plaintiff attempt to break the door multiple times in order to exit the vault?
This isn't a question for staff.
 
Does the Plaintiff have any more questions for the witnesses?
 
Yes, your honor. I do have more questions for xEndeavour, but I am done asking questions to PiOs67.

To xEndeavour:
1. On May 22 or May 23, depending on your timezone, KP56 created a staff ticket on Discord regarding a bug preventing Bank Robbery. This is shown in the transcript attached to the original post. PiOs67 alleges that the bug fixed when you came online due to your police officer role. Do you recall this happening?

2. If the bug did indeed fix itself when you came online, is it possible that is what caused the Plaintiff to set the alarms off without actually robbing anything from the bank?
 
1. I don't inherit the police officer role and my permission set doesn't trigger the plugin to allow the bank to be robbable. The bankrobbery plugin hasn't experienced any bugs that the staff team are tracking - perhaps it was just a very niche set of circumstances which didn't allow the player to break the vault. i.e. the vault isn't designed to be broken from the inside for example.

2. The alarms are set off when a player breaks the vault door. To break that door there are a set of requirements that have to be met i.e. a police officer is online.
 
Your honor, I have no more questions.
 
The Defense may now cross-examine the witnesses, or declare that they do not wish to do so.
 
For Officer PiOs67:

Could you explain what happened the day that the plaintiff was arrested:

When you arrived at the bank that day, where did you find the plaintiff?:

What is the usual procedure when someone is found inside of the vault when the alarms go off?:

What did the plaintiff do and say during the encounter?:

Were there are any other witnesses?:

Question for Secretary ElainaThomas29:

What is the DOJ policy concerning bank robbery?:

At what point do bank trespassing charges change into bank robbery charges?

Question for xEndeavour:

Could you tell us what happened in the ticket that the plaintiff opened?
 
For Officer PiOs67:

Could you explain what happened the day that the plaintiff was arrested:
First of all I received a DOJ ticket from KeyBoardAlex stzting that KP56 was inside the vault. I went to the bznk and saw that the plaintiff was actualy inside the vault but the doors were closed. I assume that KP56 entered the vault before reset and then waited for reset to robb the bank.
However, due to a server issue, the constable role was not working. I had access to DoJ tools but was not hired in game, and I was the only officer online. Thus KP56 was not able to exit the vault or steak anything. A few linutes later, I arrested Businessman for bank trespassing. Then End came online and stood in front of the vault door to fix the issue with the plaintiff. Once End connected, the plaintiff was able to break vault doors since End is a police officer. But instead of just escaping the vault, the plaintiff opened the door and came back inside.

When you arrived at the bank that day, where did you find the plaintiff?:
The plaintiff was inside the vault (see evidence).

What is the usual procedure when someone is found inside of the vault when the alarms go off?:
The DoJ arrest the person standing here.

What did the plaintiff do and say during the encounter?:
The plaintiff constantly escaped arrest once cuffed by logging out, bug explained this by saying that « he was testing ».

Where there are any other witnesses?:
End as staff member, but also as police officer, and KeyBoardAlex.
 
This is a final 24 hour warning to all witnesses to respond or else be found in contempt of court.
 
I am hereby holding ElainaThomas29 and xEndeavour in contempt of court, and I order that they be punished by the DOJ accordingly. They have 24 hours to answer the questions before they are found in contempt of court again.
 
What is the DOJ policy concerning bank robbery?: This is a very broad question. DOJ policy for all crimes are to jail and fine the person per the law that is broken.

At what point do bank trespassing charges change into bank robbery charges?: Bank trespassing charges change into bank robbery charges when someone is found inside of the vault after a notification is given that the bank vault has been broken into and the bank alarms are going off.
 
Firstly, if the court would like a response 5-10 days after our last reply, a ping would be appreciated. Especially when I am away from home on holiday and not trawling forums every day.
Could you tell us what happened in the ticket that the plaintiff opened?
Click to expand...
I need a ticket number to search please
 
I believe it would be ticket 7082
 
The Court was never made aware of this absence, and so the initial contempt of court charge will remain. However, this will be taken into account for future reference.
 
Your honor,

I will be out of town visiting family and will not be available until Tuesday. While I know I have not been asked to speak yet, it is possible that I may be asked within the next few days, and I would be unable to respond. I ask that I be given sufficient time to respond given the circumstances.

Thank you.
 
The extension request is granted to 4 days (96 hours) after this time. I suggest that the staff team use this time to look for the appropriate ticket and may answer the question provided by the Defense. No response will be required, however, until the aforementioned time at the very latest.
 
Your honor, it has been more than 4 days since the witness responded, would it be prudent for the Defense to ask any follow-ups they may have, or head on to cross-examination?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top