Lawsuit: Adjourned nnmc v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 15

[ElainaThomas29]

Thank you for your cooperation with my questions thus far. I apologize for the large number of questions, but this is my last question for you:

Following up on question 4, so then isn’t it true that Trainee Officer Deekade1004 should have at least arrested CoCoLocoDog for assault or attempted murder? You just said that screenshots create a case for assault, so that’s why I ask this question.

It would be hard for the Officer to have provided the proper evidence for the assault of other players as their screenshots would not have provided evidence of a loss of hearts. The Officer could have taken screenshots of his own assault to count towards a charge for assault, but that would be up to the officers own discretion to press charges or not as the victim to his own assault.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, I have no further questions.

 

[Westray]

Does the Defendant have any additional questions to pose to the witness?

 

[ElainaThomas29]

Your Honor,
I’ve just come across important evidence regarding this case. Would I or the AG/Prosecutor be granted the ability to share such here on behalf of the Defendant?

 

[Westray]

In the interest of hearing the complete facts, the Defendant can share such evidence prior to closing statements, provided it allows the opportunity for the Plaintiff to provide response to it.

I have to say I am not impressed with the surprise introduction of evidence presented by the Government in this case. In the future it should be noted that evidence needs to be presented early-on, to allow for both parties to argue on it and not pro-long this case.

 

[ElainaThomas29]

Your Honor,
I was going through unresolved open charges yesterday in order to take care of them per the Open Charge Act. In doing so, I discovered an open charge for CoCoLocoDog from the 5th of July. This led to me searching through government support transcripts from that same date. In doing so, I found that a ticket was opened by whoAmI (nmnc) on the 5th of July in order to bring attention to the officers of the events that had taken place. Officer IcedxSync had responded to the ticket and explained that the evidence provided could lead to CoCoLocoDog’s arrest for assault. This means that the DoJ did respond to such events, however due to a lack of activity from CoCoLocoDog, they just had not been arrested for their crimes yet.

linked here is the transcript:

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Attached are files that show the transcript dialogue as well as the open charge from the DoJ discord for CoCoLocoDog.

My apologies for this later found evidence. As stated previously, I found it while taking care of some of our unresolved open charges per the Open Charge Act (Act of Congress - Open Charge Act)

Thank you for your time.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, this evidence is not new. I had previously presented it in older arguments, specifically I posted it in post #20 of this thread which was my opening statement. Yes, an open charge for assault was issued, but that does not change the fact that Officer Deekade1004 abandoned his duty, leaving me with the hassle of going to open this ticket and filing the lawsuit. If Officer IcedxSync issued an open charge for assault, then I don’t see why Deekade1004 couldn’t have the done the same since Deekade1004 saw the same things that those screenshots depict. And regardless of that, an assault charge is still not enough and it is still neglect of duty. The Federal Court Judge in the original case concurred with me that the screenshots prove that murder took place, and that Judge issued an arrest warrant for murder.

In conclusion, this evidence is not even “new” and it is prolonging the case for no reason. This evidence changes nothing, as the DoJ still neglected its duty to arrest CoCoLocoDog for murder. In the ticket, the DoJ haphazardly tried to fix the negligence by issuing an open charge for assault, but that is not an adequate fix. The adequate fix was the Federal Court verdict that issued an arrest warrant for murder and awarded me $5000 for all of the damages and hassle. I continue to ask that the Supreme Court uphold the Federal Court verdict that adequately fixed the issue and compensated me for my troubles.

 

[Westray]

Alright, thank you. Provided either party has nothing more to present or pose to the respective witnesses, I will ask that the Plaintiff presents their closing statement.

 

[nnmc]

CLOSING STATEMENT

During the massacre at spawn, the ticket I opened, and this court case, the DoJ has shown severe negligence. Officer Deekade1004 failed to issue the proper punishment to the mass murderer CoCoLocoDog. When I opened the DoJ ticket, they hardly did any better than the officer; the person who responded to my ticket merely issued an open charge for assault. I was finally served justice by the Federal Court's verdict that fired Deekade1004 for his negligence, issued an open charge for murder against CoCoLocoDog, and awarded me compensation for the troubles of having to open the ticket and then go through the courts.

But now, the DoJ is trying to use this appeal to take justice away from me. They have made excuses to justify what happened to me. They claim that Officer Deekade1004 couldn't have arrested CoCoLocoDog because there were no screenshots/coroner reports/"concrete evidence" for the crime. This is ludicrous because if Officers can only arrest someone if they have 100% certainty and 100% foolproof evidence for it, then a lot of criminals would get away with their crimes. Furthermore, I'd hardly consider coroner reports a gold standard of evidence either, considering that they completely fail when bows/crossbows are used.

There was certainly clear evidence for a murder charge. My screenshots clearly show proof of at least one murder, as the Federal Court judge said in his verdict. Officer Deekade1004 could and should have taken more screenshots in order to build a stronger case, if that's what DoJ policy insists on. Even if that's not possible, the officer should have made the arrest and then testified to the court about the murders he saw. The DoJ Secretary testified that they can't use witness testimony, but that's simply unacceptable and ridiculous because the courts (the ultimate arbitrators of justice) are able to accept witness testimony under penalty of perjury. To conclude this paragraph, the screenshots I took, the screenshots Deekade1004 should have taken, and the witness testimony that MoyUwU offered and Deekade1004 could have offered would have been more than enough cause to arrest CoCoLocoDog and more than enough evidence to justify that arrest in the courts if it came to it. But sadly, the DoJ neglected to make the arrest and is to this day continuing to make excuses for it.

The Federal Court's verdict in the original case is the only thing that has provided me justice and closure for the mass murder incident. That verdict rightfully compensated me for my troubles in dealing with the DoJ, fired and jailed Deekade1004 for his negligence, fined the DoJ for their negligence, and arrested CoCoLocoDog for committing murder. Your Honor, I believe that this court should uphold the verdict of the lower court in order to preserve justice.

The plaintiff rests.

 

[Westray]

Thank you, I will ask the Defendant posts their closing statement next.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor,
It has been a significant amount of time since the defendant’s closing statement was requested. I don’t want to unnecessarily rush the defendant, but I don’t believe it should take longer than another few days. Perhaps imposing a deadline would be beneficial here.

 

[Westray]

Given it has been 8 days since the court has asked for a closing statement from the Defendant, I will be arranging a deadline for the matter.

If the Defendant does not provide their closing statement within 48 hours then the Supreme Court will reconvene to consider a verdict without it.

 

[lawanoesepr]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

nnmc
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

Your honor,

The plaintiffs claimed they need compensation for this case, however they never showed why they need so much money due to a single death. Also
the plaintiffs never showed any evidence, other then a claim by MoyUwU. The law for police misconduct states "A fine of at least $500 and at most $10,000, jail time of at most 30 minutes, and the offending officer may be stripped of their officer position and be temporarily or permanently barred from serving as an officer in the future, at the court’s discretion." This is clearly meant to punish the officer not the department. The plaintiff is suing for emotional distress not a financial loss, Therefore should not be granted any monetary compensation. In conclusion, the plaintiffs misinterpreted the law, have presented a lack of evidence, are asking for an unreasonable amount of money, are unfairly referencing this case as precedent, and are trying to set the precedent that emotional distress warrants the maximum punishment for alleged police misconduct. For these reasons, the court should rule in favor of the defendant in this case.
With that the defense rests.

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The Supreme Court will review this case and convene to deliver a verdict within the next two weeks.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Appealed: Case No. 07-2021-06-01

I. ORIGINAL CASE DECISION
1. On July 9 2021, the Federal Court of Redmont ruled with a default judgement by the Hon. Judge Matthew100x, as the result of the Defendant's failure to respond due to inadequate counsel.
2. The Federal Court granted the full compensation to be split between the Plaintiff and the other respective victim of the crime, along with a court-ordered termination of Deekade1004.
3. This appeal was accepted July 24 2021, and therefore the Supreme Court has now been able to convene on a respective judgement with all arguments presented.

II. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, nnmc, alleges that CoCoLocoDog murdered them and MoyUwU. When the murder was reported, the Plaintiff claims that Trainee Officer Deekade1004 did not arrest CoCoLocoDog and instead gave him a verbal warning.
2. The Plaintiff claims that even after opening a ticket with the Department of Justice, they did not charge MoyUwU with murder, instead opting to charge him with merely assault, even though evidence indicated otherwise.
3. The Plaintiff asserts that the Department of Justice neglected their duty of care by refusing to investigate the situation further.

III. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Department of Justice, claims that the compensation granted in the original case does not correlate to the result of a single death.
2. The Defendant, the Department of Justice, alleges that since the law for police misconduct also enforces jail time, it was only intended to apply to only police officers as individuals that can be charged with police misconduct.
3. The Defendant asserts that the Department acted within the resources that they had, as CoCoLocoDog used a bow, which bugs the coroner reports.

IV. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the the unconditional reliance on the coroner plugin is fundamentally flawed with a severe disregard of the fundamental principles of justice. While the coroner report is often reliable, the Department of Justice must exercise its discretion in situations where guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The evidence indicated by the Plaintiff in picture format proves beyond a reasonable doubt the murder that CoCoLocoDog had committed, along with the witness account of MoyUwU. Even when presented with picture evidence, the Department of Justice did not act to provide protection to the citizens of Redmont.
3. The court believes that the Department of Justice has a lawful duty of care - one specified with its constitutional duty to maintain peace and good order - and that by not acting on this evidence or even investigating further, they have breached such duty.
4. While agreeing with much of the verdict in the original case, we do believe that an unlawful injustice has occured in the court ordered termination of Trainee Officer Deekade1004. The Employee Protection Act examines that a government employee cannot be held legally responsible if they are acting within department directions and policy. We believe that Deekade1004 was acting within the directions of the department on their pre-existing coroner report policy and has not committed any sort of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

Although the most rigorous tool for determining guilt of murder is the coroner report - it should not be the sole indicator. This is a matter the Department of Justice has even admitted to, by creating the investigator job after this incident. It is a grave injustice when the victims of a murder have had to go as far as to take legal action against the Department of Justice, instead of having their concerns investigated by the Department of Justice. The matter of this case is one of a very simple rhetorical: if our justice system is supposed to follow the principle that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proves guilt, why doesn't the Department of Justice abide by that?

Additionally, I believe that the accusation made against Trainee Officer Deekade1004 is one not grounded in reasonable justice. The Employee Protection Act exists to protect employees from being punished for acting in the direction of Department leadership and or their policies. I hope that this case acts as a protection for employees who have been stifled with accusations of guilt simply at the direction of department policy. With such considered, it is my belief that this case is fundamentally about an outdated policy of inaction - one that exhibits basing our entire justice system for murder around a coroner report.

I hope that this case being upheld by the Supreme Court will remain a lesson to those trusted to enforce the law. The Department cannot simply blame the coroner report for not properly enforcing the law, when tools evidently exist beyond the scope of such. It should be stressed that coroner reports do play a fundamentally important tool as is, however that tool should not act as a hindrance to alternative evidence that may prove culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.

- Westray, Chief Justice

Remarks from the Hon. 218218Consumer (Acting as Interim Justice as Speaker):

While I understand and respect the Department of Justice's commitment to the fair, accurate, and impartial exercise of justice through the coroner plugin, it is my belief that when evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the information provided by a coroner report or a lack thereof, it is the Constitutional responsibility of the Department of Justice to exercise discretion to ensure the safety of Redmont's citizens. I hold that the Department of Justice is grossly negligent in said responsibilities through its current unconditional reliance on the reports, particularly in the face of evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiff argues that coroner reports are far from a "gold standard of evidence": taking the unregistered nature of bow murders into consideration, I am inclined to agree. This is not to say that coroner reports should be disregarded. In fact, they are frequently the most reliable (and only) evidence available to the Department of Justice, but when even stronger evidence presents itself, the Department can and must act on it. This is especially considering the fallibility of reports.

Further, while it is my opinion that the $5,000 compensation provided to the plaintiff was not proportionate to any emotional damage from his murder, it holds merit in the time taken by the plaintiff toward assembling a legal argument and arguing a case, which is an incredibly arduous process for the sole purpose of receiving justice. As a result, I believe the relief granted was appropriate.

The defense argues that the law of Police Misconduct was designed to target individual officers and not the Department of Justice: however, this interpretation would force the court to consistently undermine the Employee Protection Act and punish officers for following a department policy entirely unrelated to their personal discretion.

The unreliability of coroner reports in all instances has been a long-standing issue on this server, and the Department of Justice must adapt a more flexible and reasonable policy in response. It is irresponsible to rely on absolute certainty from coroner reports when coroner reports cannot provide absolute certainty themselves. As a result, I concur with the ruling of the Hon. Matthew100x.

- 218218Consumer, Speaker of the House (Interim Justice as constitutionally mandated)

V. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby unanimously adjourns to uphold the original verdict of Case No. 07-2021-06-01, while also enforcing a modified order on the termination of Deekade1004.

Since it would be rather irrelevant to retroactively overturn the court-ordered termination of Deekade1004 given the three week period he was barred from had ended, the Supreme Court would simply prefer to express formal discontent with the initial termination of the officer, while leaving it up to the Department of Justice on whether they wish to reinstate him.

Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.