Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102

ko531

ko531

Citizen
Magistrate
Education Department
Supporter
4th Anniversary Legal Eagle Popular in the Polls 3rd Anniversary
ko531
ko531
Magistrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
1,495
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Criminal Action


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution


v.


AlexanderLove
Defendant

COMPLAINT

On July 6th Alexanderlove filed a case arguing that his right to a trial was violated has he was sentences to jail for murder. Less the 24 hours later Alexanderlove files an almost identical case arguing the same facts that his right to a trial was violated. Comparing the cases you can fine indentical prayers of relief and claims of relief. The commonwealth believes that Alexander caused his on damages by purposely murdering people for the sole purpose of getting arrested so he could sue for additional damages.

I. PARTIES
  1. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
  2. Alexanderlove (Defendant)
II. FACTS
  1. Alexanderlove filed the lawsuit Alexanderlove v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98 on July 6th
  2. Alexanderlove filed the lawsuit Alexanderlove v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 on July 6th
  3. Both cases have multiple identical prayers of relief.
  4. Alexander imediately states "The cop is gonna go down" directly after being cuffed.
  5. Alexander purposely killed a police officer, forcing them to arrest Alexander.
  6. Alexander purposely committed murders in order to be arrested so he could file an additional lawsuit against the commownealth.
III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1 Count of Fraud for misrepresenting the facts in order to receive more damages in an additional lawsuit
1 Count of Filing a Frivilous case for causing his own damages and suing based on those damages

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. $5000 fine and 5 minutes in jail for Fraud
2. $60 fine for filing a Frivilous case
3. The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99

V. Evidence
Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98
Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99

1720478212438.png

1720478220179.png


DATED: This 8th day of July 2024
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1720480629963.png

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

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 102. Failure to appear within 72 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.​
 
Dartanboy said:
View attachment 45145
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 102. Failure to appear within 72 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.​
Click to expand...
Your honor, I motion to dismiss as this is the same prosecution as before, and therefore my right against double jeopardy is being violated.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I motion to dismiss as this is the same prosecution as before, and therefore my right against double jeopardy is being violated.
Click to expand...

Overruled. The Constitution gives the following right:
No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law.

A dismissal is certainly not being finally convicted or acquitted. Such an action only comes from a verdict.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. "The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99" the dismissal of another separate court case is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, even if the presiding Judge is the same. They are in different venues and are separate matters. The other case should only be dismissed on its own merits or lack thereof.
2. I move to dismiss under 5.5 lack of claim. Fraud has several components including intent, which so far, is entirely speculatory. Furthermore, setting up circumstances to litigate a case is a common practice in real life and in-game, and is by no means fraud. At the end of the day, if I win the other lawsuit, it is because the other side messed up, not because I did anything. No proof exists that I "caused" my own damages. I committed crimes and it was the officer that decided to illegally jail me. I didn't arrest myself. All in all, the entire case is circumstantial and speculative.

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 8th day of July 2024.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS.
1. This case is arguing that Alexander v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 is frivilous. If the court does find it frivilous is would be an insane to allow a frivilous case to be heard. As both cases are on the same level of the court I dont see why this court does not have the power to dismiss a case itself found to be frivilous.

2. There is proof of intent. Alexander understands that by purposely murdering people he is setting the commonwealth up for legal action as seen in P-1 where he hints at a possible 3rd case. Even if there is wrong doing by the commonwealth the act of purposely putting yourself in position for damages negates the wrong doing. Alexander wasnt just murdering anyone, he was murdering the cop that eventually arrested him. He was forcing the cop to arrest him and when he finally was cuffed said "this cop is gonna fall for this" meaning he knew the moment he was cuffed he was going to pursue legal action which would leads to the idea that there was premeditation.

3. Fraud is about the intentional misrepresentation of facts. If Alexander murdered people with the premediated idea of getting arrested to pursue legal action then he is misrepresenting the facts in FCR 99. He is alleging he was scared in the prison for his life when he already planned to go to prison in order to take legal action. Again he is alleging damages done to him by the commonwealth in FCR 99 but you can receive damages if you were the cause, this would be another misrepresentation of facts.


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 8th day of July 2024.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alexander P. Love said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. "The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99" the dismissal of another separate court case is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, even if the presiding Judge is the same. They are in different venues and are separate matters. The other case should only be dismissed on its own merits or lack thereof.
2. I move to dismiss under 5.5 lack of claim. Fraud has several components including intent, which so far, is entirely speculatory. Furthermore, setting up circumstances to litigate a case is a common practice in real life and in-game, and is by no means fraud. At the end of the day, if I win the other lawsuit, it is because the other side messed up, not because I did anything. No proof exists that I "caused" my own damages. I committed crimes and it was the officer that decided to illegally jail me. I didn't arrest myself. All in all, the entire case is circumstantial and speculative.

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 8th day of July 2024.
Click to expand...
I also request the Court dismiss this case with prejudice.
 
ko531 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS.
1. This case is arguing that Alexander v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 is frivilous. If the court does find it frivilous is would be an insane to allow a frivilous case to be heard. As both cases are on the same level of the court I dont see why this court does not have the power to dismiss a case itself found to be frivilous.

2. There is proof of intent. Alexander understands that by purposely murdering people he is setting the commonwealth up for legal action as seen in P-1 where he hints at a possible 3rd case. Even if there is wrong doing by the commonwealth the act of purposely putting yourself in position for damages negates the wrong doing. Alexander wasnt just murdering anyone, he was murdering the cop that eventually arrested him. He was forcing the cop to arrest him and when he finally was cuffed said "this cop is gonna fall for this" meaning he knew the moment he was cuffed he was going to pursue legal action which would leads to the idea that there was premeditation.

3. Fraud is about the intentional misrepresentation of facts. If Alexander murdered people with the premediated idea of getting arrested to pursue legal action then he is misrepresenting the facts in FCR 99. He is alleging he was scared in the prison for his life when he already planned to go to prison in order to take legal action. Again he is alleging damages done to him by the commonwealth in FCR 99 but you can receive damages if you were the cause, this would be another misrepresentation of facts.


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 8th day of July 2024.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. A response was not warranted.
 
Last edited:
Alexander P. Love said:
really? Your format sucks anyways lol, mine is more RP-friendly.

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

A response was not warranted.


Happy now?
Click to expand...
Mr. Love, please refrain from making snarky comments in the courtroom. They are distracting in nature and interfere with the orderly process of the court. This is a warning not to continue being disrespectful and disruptive.

The Objection is sustained, responses to Motions to Dismiss are not guaranteed, and thus you should request to respond if you feel it is necessary. The response is hereby struck.

@ko531 this is a warning to not speak out of turn.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. "The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99" the dismissal of another separate court case is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, even if the presiding Judge is the same. They are in different venues and are separate matters. The other case should only be dismissed on its own merits or lack thereof.
2. I move to dismiss under 5.5 lack of claim. Fraud has several components including intent, which so far, is entirely speculatory. Furthermore, setting up circumstances to litigate a case is a common practice in real life and in-game, and is by no means fraud. At the end of the day, if I win the other lawsuit, it is because the other side messed up, not because I did anything. No proof exists that I "caused" my own damages. I committed crimes and it was the officer that decided to illegally jail me. I didn't arrest myself. All in all, the entire case is circumstantial and speculative.

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 8th day of July 2024.
Click to expand...
The Prosecution has 24 hours to respond.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS.
1. This case is arguing that Alexander v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 is frivilous. If the court does find it frivilous is would be an insane to allow a frivilous case to be heard. As both cases are on the same level of the court I dont see why this court does not have the power to dismiss a case itself found to be frivilous.

2. There is proof of intent. Alexander understands that by purposely murdering people he is setting the commonwealth up for legal action as seen in P-1 where he hints at a possible 3rd case. Even if there is wrong doing by the commonwealth the act of purposely putting yourself in position for damages negates the wrong doing. Alexander wasnt just murdering anyone, he was murdering the cop that eventually arrested him. He was forcing the cop to arrest him and when he finally was cuffed said "this cop is gonna fall for this" meaning he knew the moment he was cuffed he was going to pursue legal action which would leads to the idea that there was premeditation.

3. Fraud is about the intentional misrepresentation of facts. If Alexander murdered people with the premediated idea of getting arrested to pursue legal action then he is misrepresenting the facts in FCR 99. He is alleging he was scared in the prison for his life when he already planned to go to prison in order to take legal action. Again he is alleging damages done to him by the commonwealth in FCR 99 but you can receive damages if you were the cause, this would be another misrepresentation of facts.


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 8th day of July 2024.
 
ko531 said:
1. This case is arguing that Alexander v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 is frivilous. If the court does find it frivilous is would be an insane to allow a frivilous case to be heard. As both cases are on the same level of the court I dont see why this court does not have the power to dismiss a case itself found to be frivilous.
Click to expand...
Alexander P. Love said:
1. "The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99" the dismissal of another separate court case is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, even if the presiding Judge is the same. They are in different venues and are separate matters. The other case should only be dismissed on its own merits or lack thereof.
Click to expand...
There is nothing suggesting the Court has the power to force another case to be dismissed. Thus, Sentencing 3 is Dismissed.

Alexander P. Love said:
2. I move to dismiss under 5.5 lack of claim. Fraud has several components including intent, which so far, is entirely speculatory. Furthermore, setting up circumstances to litigate a case is a common practice in real life and in-game, and is by no means fraud. At the end of the day, if I win the other lawsuit, it is because the other side messed up, not because I did anything. No proof exists that I "caused" my own damages. I committed crimes and it was the officer that decided to illegally jail me. I didn't arrest myself. All in all, the entire case is circumstantial and speculative.
Click to expand...
ko531 said:
2. There is proof of intent. Alexander understands that by purposely murdering people he is setting the commonwealth up for legal action as seen in P-1 where he hints at a possible 3rd case. Even if there is wrong doing by the commonwealth the act of purposely putting yourself in position for damages negates the wrong doing. Alexander wasnt just murdering anyone, he was murdering the cop that eventually arrested him. He was forcing the cop to arrest him and when he finally was cuffed said "this cop is gonna fall for this" meaning he knew the moment he was cuffed he was going to pursue legal action which would leads to the idea that there was premeditation.

3. Fraud is about the intentional misrepresentation of facts. If Alexander murdered people with the premediated idea of getting arrested to pursue legal action then he is misrepresenting the facts in FCR 99. He is alleging he was scared in the prison for his life when he already planned to go to prison in order to take legal action. Again he is alleging damages done to him by the commonwealth in FCR 99 but you can receive damages if you were the cause, this would be another misrepresentation of facts.
Click to expand...
While it is difficult to prove intent, it's not impossible, and to dismiss a case prior to Discovery simply because there is insufficient evidence would be an injustice.

If the Prosecution is able to prove the facts they listed, including intent, certainly the case ought to continue. Thus, the entire case will not be dismissed.
 
The Defendant may provide an Answer to Complaint within the next 48 hours.
 
Dartanboy said:
The Defendant may provide an Answer to Complaint within the next 48 hours.
Click to expand...
The defense will decline to enter one at this time, but will possibly enter one during discovery via the answer to complaint amendment process.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
The defense will decline to enter one at this time, but will possibly enter one during discovery via the answer to complaint amendment process.
Click to expand...
You cannot amend a non-existent filing.

You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for failing to adhere to established Court Procedure, thereby interfering with the orderly administration of this lawsuit and by extension, justice.

The deadline remains the same to file an Answer to Complaint.
 
Last edited:
Dartanboy said:
You cannot amend a non-existent filing.

You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for failing to adhere to established Court Procedure, thereby interfering with the orderly administration of this lawsuit and by extension, justice.

The deadline remains the same to file an Answer to Complaint.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? You said “may”, why am I being held in contempt.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Excuse me? You said “may”, why am I being held in contempt.
Click to expand...
It is long-established court procedure that Opening Statements are required (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures). Seeing as you've read it, you are already aware of this and have no excuse.

Your flamboyant disregard for established procedure will get you nowhere in this courtroom, Mr. Love.

1720490904846.png
 
Dartanboy said:
It is long-established court procedure that Opening Statements are required (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures). Seeing as you've read it, you are already aware of this and have no excuse.

Your flamboyant disregard for established procedure will get you nowhere in this courtroom, Mr. Love.

View attachment 45146
Click to expand...
Your honor, this wasn’t the opening statement but the answer to complaint. Furthermore, regardless of history, the word of the presiding officer trumps all. And the word of the presiding officer was “may.” I will absolutely file one if you'd like, but the contempt is on your hands and not mine. I respectfully tender this as a motion to reconsider.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, this wasn’t the opening statement but the answer to complaint. Furthermore, regardless of history, the word of the presiding officer trumps all. And the word of the presiding officer was “may.” I will absolutely file one if you'd like, but the contempt is on your hands and not mine. I respectfully tender this as a motion to reconsider.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF CERTIORARI

I hereby strike the previous decision to hold AlexanderLove in contempt. Due to my failure to word the Court Order to file a Answer to Complaint in an understandable way, it could be interpreted as an optional decision.

Mr. Love, I'm still imposing the same deadline for an Answer to Complaint.

EDIT: Also, I meant Answer to Complaint in the previous post. I accidentally said Opening Statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense pleads NOT GUILTY to the one count of fraud for misrepresenting the facts in order to receive more damages in an additional lawsuit.
2. The defense pleads NOT GUILTY to the one count of filing a frivolous case for causing his own damages and suing based on those damages.

II. DEFENSES
1. The defense alleges a negative defense to the fraud accusation, and claims that the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence of intent and the act of misrepresentation.
2. The defense alleges a partial affirmative defense to the frivolous case accusation, and claims that the case filed was not frivolous as damages were caused by a third party and the defense sued said third party to remedy those damages.


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 11th day of July 2024.
 
OBJECTION
Breach of procedure

The Court gave Alexander plenty of time to write a answer to complaint yet the defense has only given it 14 hours after the deadline. Maybe instead of arguing with the presiding officer the defense could have issued their answer to complaint on time. The Prosecution wishes to have this answer struck from the record
 
ko531 said:
OBJECTION
Breach of procedure

The Court gave Alexander plenty of time to write a answer to complaint yet the defense has only given it 14 hours after the deadline. Maybe instead of arguing with the presiding officer the defense could have issued their answer to complaint on time. The Prosecution wishes to have this answer struck from the record
Click to expand...
 Sustained. Mr. Love failed to meet the established deadline without asking for an extension, however, the Defendant is entitled to a fair trial in this criminal case, so it will not be struck.

AlexanderLove is, however, found in Contempt of Court for failing to provide their Answer before their deadline. I order the Department of Homeland Security to execute a $500 fine and no jail time for this charge.
 
We will now move on to a 7-day Discovery period. It may be skipped or shortened should both parties agree.
 
INTERROGATION
1. Were you aware of the law in which in states that any summary offenses where over 30 minutes of jail time is imposed then it's court jurisdiction before filing FCR 99?
2. Did you know before committing the murders in FCR 99 that the commonwealth usally doesnt go to court for murder charges no matter the amount?
3. Did you know Yeet_Boy was a cop before murdering him as shown in FCR 99?
4. As shown by your first lawsuit FCR 98, Is it true to say that you understood, before filing FCR 99, that if the DHS were to arrest you or anyone else for more then 30 minutes then they could be opening the commonwealth up to legal action?
 
Dartanboy said:
 Sustained. Mr. Love failed to meet the established deadline without asking for an extension, however, the Defendant is entitled to a fair trial in this criminal case, so it will not be struck.

AlexanderLove is, however, found in Contempt of Court for failing to provide their Answer before their deadline. I order the Department of Homeland Security to execute a $500 fine and no jail time for this charge.
Click to expand...
Umm what? I met the deadline by four hours.
 
IMG_7215.jpeg


IMG_7216.jpeg
 
ko531 said:
Were you aware of the law in which in states that any summary offenses where over 30 minutes of jail time is imposed then it's court jurisdiction before filing FCR 99?
Click to expand...
I couldn’t have filed the case without knowing the law to file under.
 
ko531 said:
Did you know before committing the murders in FCR 99 that the commonwealth usally doesnt go to court for murder charges no matter the amount?
Click to expand...
I will be invoking my fifth right at this time.

ko531 said:
Did you know Yeet_Boy was a cop before murdering him as shown in FCR 99?
Click to expand...
I will be invoking my fifth right at this time.

ko531 said:
As shown by your first lawsuit FCR 98, Is it true to say that you understood, before filing FCR 99, that if the DHS were to arrest you or anyone else for more then 30 minutes then they could be opening the commonwealth up to legal action?
Click to expand...
I know my rights under the law.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
I know my rights under the law.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Non-Responsive

This question is a simple yes or no question and the answer given does not answer the question that was asked. I asked that Alexander be compelled to answer as he has not invoked his fifth amendment right for this question.
 
The Prosecution would like to submit the following into Evidence
1720746668218.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ko531 said:
OBJECTION
Non-Responsive

This question is a simple yes or no question and the answer given does not answer the question that was asked. I asked that Alexander be compelled to answer as he has not invoked his fifth amendment right for this question.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I answered the question. Whether or not it is in the form the opposing counsel likes, it was answered.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, improper evidence. You can see it was scribbled on with red ink.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

I Scribbled out that answer because Alexander was charged with perjury for that answer. I would not want nor think the court would want perjured answers in evidence
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Umm what? I met the deadline by four hours.
Click to expand...
Alexander P. Love said:
View attachment 45233

View attachment 45234
Click to expand...
You had a 72-hour deadline to appear. You appeared in roughly 2 minutes and filed a Motion to Dismiss.

In an effort to ensure a fair trial, I required an Answer to Complaint, and informed you that you have 48 hours to do so.

You quoted that message, and should have reasonably been well-aware of the deadline set. Ignorance of deadlines is no excuse not to meet them.
 
ko531 said:
OBJECTION
Non-Responsive

This question is a simple yes or no question and the answer given does not answer the question that was asked. I asked that Alexander be compelled to answer as he has not invoked his fifth amendment right for this question.
Click to expand...
 Sustained, Mr. Love please answer the question directly.

The question was not about your rights, but the Commonwealth's risk of being sued.
 
ko531 said:
As shown by your first lawsuit FCR 98, Is it true to say that you understood, before filing FCR 99, that if the DHS were to arrest you or anyone else for more then 30 minutes then they could be opening the commonwealth up to legal action?
Click to expand...
I will be invoking my fifth right at this time.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection.
Improper evidence

The evidence is altered.
Click to expand...
 Sustained, Mr. Ko please do not alter evidence. With very few exceptions (such as obscuring the identity of an anonymous whistleblower), such edits should be avoided in court.

The evidence is struck.
 
Dartanboy said:
 Sustained, Mr. Ko please do not alter evidence. With very few exceptions (such as obscuring the identity of an anonymous whistleblower), such edits should be avoided in court.

The evidence is struck.
Click to expand...
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, The answer given by Alexanderlove that I had crossed out was a lie. He was charged with perjury. I crossed out that answer because due to the fact that he was charged with perjury it is unuseable. Why would the court want a Perjured answer in evidence? I would classify Perjury as one of the very few exceptions
 
ko531 said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, The answer given by Alexanderlove that I had crossed out was a lie. He was charged with perjury. I crossed out that answer because due to the fact that he was charged with perjury it is unuseable. Why would the court want a Perjured answer in evidence? I would classify Perjury as one of the very few exceptions
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether it was perjury, it still was said, wasn't it? We don't censor evidence to hide facts, even if the fact is someone perjured themselves by making false testimony.
 
Dartanboy said:
Regardless of whether it was perjury, it still was said, wasn't it? We don't censor evidence to hide facts, even if the fact is someone perjured themselves by making false testimony.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

Im not censoring or hiding any Facts. The comment was Perjury and therefore false. Facts are defined as true statements while perjury is defined as knowingly false statements. It can not be a fact if it is false. also the comment made is unusable as it was perjury, it couldnt be used as evidence even if anyone tried. You have also forgot to state whether you overrule or sustain my motion.
 
ko531 said:
Your Honor,

Im not censoring or hiding any Facts. The comment was Perjury and therefore false. Facts are defined as true statements while perjury is defined as knowingly false statements. It can not be a fact if it is false. also the comment made is unusable as it was perjury, it couldnt be used as evidence even if anyone tried. You have also forgot to state whether you overrule or sustain my motion.
Click to expand...
Was it not clear it was overruled? If not, overruled.

Evidence which contains perjury is still evidence.
 
For clarity, there is no evidence submitted to this court that the red ink covers perjury.

For all I know, it says "I love puppies" or contains evidence which exonerates the Defendant.

To be clear, I'm not saying it does contain such phrases, but it could. So just submit the whole picture, or don't. We do not allow tampered evidence.
 
The Prosecution would like to submit the following into Evidence:
1720816249990.png

We have decided to cross off Alexanders first answer because it was found to be Perjury and therefore can not be used to any extent in this case. It would do more harm then good to have a Perjured answer on the record. You can see the Perjury charge in the evidence below
1720816416788.png

Even though we resubmitted the evidence we do not believe this to be necessary as we already submitted the entire case of FCR 99 in our original complaint which the presiding officer at anytime can go read.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fr
ko531 said:
The Prosecution would like to submit the following into Evidence:
View attachment 45259

We have decided to cross off Alexanders first answer because it was found to be Perjury and therefore can not be used to any extent in this case. It would do more harm then good to have a Perjured answer on the record. You can see the Perjury charge in the evidence below
View attachment 45263

Even though we resubmitted the evidence we do not believe this to be necessary as we already submitted the entire case of FCR 99 in our original complaint which the presiding officer at anytime can go read.
Click to expand...
Mr. Ko, for the last time do not submit tampered evidence in this courtroom, if you do so again, you will be found in Contempt of Court.

Firstly, let me be crystal clear, it is clear that Mr. Love perjured himself in the screenshot you have submitted, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why you're scribbling on it.

You keep saying "It's Perjury so it can't be considered" and perhaps that's true, but that doesn't give you the right to submit edited screenshots.

If I allow your edited screenshot, what happens when someone edits the context of a screenshot? Or someone's skin? Or someone's name? Or a contract? It's a slippery slope.

Tampered evidence is not allowed. While this court may not be able to consider the contents of Mr. Love's Perjury as a fact, we can certainly use the fact that he said what he said, if it is deemed necessary.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to submit this tampered evidence. You already submitted the entire case in which this happened as evidence.

P-003 is struck again, for being tampered with.
 
ko531 said:
We have decided to cross off Alexanders first answer because it was found to be Perjury and therefore can not be used to any extent in this case. It would do more harm then good to have a Perjured answer on the record. You can see the Perjury charge in the evidence below
Click to expand...
Objection
Relevance

Exhibit P-4 is not relevant to the material facts of this case. An allegation of perjury has nothing to do with the allegations in this trial.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection
Relevance

Exhibit P-4 is not relevant to the material facts of this case. An allegation of perjury has nothing to do with the allegations in this trial.
Click to expand...
 Overruled. The Prosecution has all of Discovery to show it is relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top