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

[ko531]

The Prosecution would like to submit the following into Evidence:

Spoiler: P-3

 

[End]

I’ll be taking on this case. I’ll review where we are up to over the next day.

 

[End]

@ko531 We'll now hear the Prosecution's opening statement. You have 72 hours to make a submission, and the Defence has 72 hours from the Prosecution's submission to provide their opening statement.

 

[ko531]

OPENING STATEMENT

Fraud is defined as "An intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission." What alexander did is nothing short of this definition. He Intentionally misrepresented important facts in the filing of the FCR 99 case to try and show damages that if he had told the truth, he would never be entitled to. This mirepresentation of the facts has cost the DOJ in time defending the case, manpower in people working on the case and money from when this case is finished prosecutors must get paid. Not only this he has caused potential damages to the Commonwealth as if the case is found in his favor, then Alexander will be rewarded out of the commonwealth's pocket.

How did Alexander misrepresent the facts? He purposely caused his own damages which he failed to mention at all. He had the knowledge to understand how to do this as shown by FCR 98 and by evidence P-3. He knew that by murdering people he would get arrested. He knew that any punishment of over 30 minutes jail time would be Court jurisdiction. And he knew that the Commonwealth has been unaware of this law and subsequently ignoring it. Alexander knew all of this so what does Alexander do? He murders 5 people including a cop multiple times and once he was arrested and charged, he filed an identical case of one he filed less then 24 hours before. What does he do after filing this case? He brags about a possible 3rd case in the defending attorney's DMs as seen by P-1. Alexander did not stop here. He also committed perjury as seen by P-4 in order to futher misrepresent the facts inside the case.

For the Frivilous case charge if Alexander is found guilty of fraud then the case he filed would be frivilous. The only way alexander has portrayed FCR 99 as a valid case is by committing fraud and purposely misrepresenting facts to convince the court of damages.

Alexander in order to try and make a cash grab purposely caused his own damages to which he files a lawsuit that points to the commonwealth as being the real person at fault. By this misrepresentation of facts in the filing of FCR 99 he has cause damages to the DOJ and potential damages to the commonwealth.

 

[End]

The defence has failed to file an opening statement and no witness lists have been put forward. I request the Prosecution files a closing statement or notifies the court that it rests its case over the next 72 hours.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defence has failed to file an opening statement and no witness lists have been put forward. I request the Prosecution files a closing statement or notifies the court that it rests its case over the next 72 hours.

Your honor, the defense wasn’t given the opportunity. We were not promoted to give an opening and didn’t want to speak out of turn.

 

[End]

You were prompted. You will need to make your arguments in your closing statement.

@ko531 We'll now hear the Prosecution's opening statement. You have 72 hours to make a submission, and the Defence has 72 hours from the Prosecution's submission to provide their opening statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

You were prompted. You will need to make your arguments in your closing statement.

Motion to Reconsider
Respectfully, your honor, this is a criminal trial. As such, the right to a fair trial is especially important. You deviated from typical court practice which put me in jeopardy. The only remedy is to allow me to submit an opening, otherwise you may as well declare this a mistrial now.

Furthermore, your honor, I was never pinged. You only pinged the prosecution, this is the definition of unfair.

 

[ko531]

Motion to Reconsider
Respectfully, your honor, this is a criminal trial. As such, the right to a fair trial is especially important. You deviated from typical court practice which put me in jeopardy. The only remedy is to allow me to submit an opening, otherwise you may as well declare this a mistrial now.

Furthermore, your honor, I was never pinged. You only pinged the prosecution, this is the definition of unfair.

RESPONSE TO MOTION

It is ridiculous to believe that a mistrial should be called because of the Defense's poor ability to follow this case. They should be responsible for paying attention to this case especially because it is a criminal prosecution. The Defense had almost 5 days to check this case and read what the presiding officer said. It is nobody's fault but the defense's for their inability to file their opening statements on time and therefore the court should not be punished by wasting their time and I should not be punished by having my case thrown out as a mistrial

 

[Alexander P. Love]

RESPONSE TO MOTION

It is ridiculous to believe that a mistrial should be called because of the Defense's poor ability to follow this case. They should be responsible for paying attention to this case especially because it is a criminal prosecution. The Defense had almost 5 days to check this case and read what the presiding officer said. It is nobody's fault but the defense's for their inability to file their opening statements on time and therefore the court should not be punished by wasting their time and I should not be punished by having my case thrown out as a mistrial

Objection
Breach of Procedure

A response was not warranted.

 

[End]

Motion to Reconsider
Respectfully, your honor, this is a criminal trial. As such, the right to a fair trial is especially important. You deviated from typical court practice which put me in jeopardy. The only remedy is to allow me to submit an opening, otherwise you may as well declare this a mistrial now.

Furthermore, your honor, I was never pinged. You only pinged the prosecution, this is the definition of unfair.

You have 24 hours to submit an opening statement.

This is done out of goodwill and giving you benefit of the doubt. I find it hard to believe you went 6+ days of not checking the case, particularly when there was activity on it.

Court procedure does not require presiding officers to ping you and it is standard practice in my court that the follow on action is prompted for opening and closing statements and no one has ever had an issue with this until now.

 

[End]

RESPONSE TO MOTION

It is ridiculous to believe that a mistrial should be called because of the Defense's poor ability to follow this case. They should be responsible for paying attention to this case especially because it is a criminal prosecution. The Defense had almost 5 days to check this case and read what the presiding officer said. It is nobody's fault but the defense's for their inability to file their opening statements on time and therefore the court should not be punished by wasting their time and I should not be punished by having my case thrown out as a mistrial

Struck

 

[End]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

A response was not warranted.

Sustained

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, this is a case of petty accusations for prosecutor gain. The prosecution has lodged petty accusations against me in order to help him against lawsuits I filed against the Commonwealth. You could say that it is retribution and malicious prosecution. Apparently, the message being sent here is that if you sue the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth finds a way to sue you.

The prosecution alleges fraud which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It has many elements, including intent, which the prosecution has failed and will fail to prove. The prosecution is using circumstantial evidence to try and claim I set up my false arrests just to sue the Commonwealth. There are a couple problems with that: lawsuits only remedy a harm, they aren’t profit machines. Even if I win those cases, I will have lost freedom. Plaintiffs will often also establish cases to try and challenge misconduct by the government.

Even if the accusations are true, the act of committing a crime to go to jail isn’t certain. The DHS ultimately chose to break the law and jail me outside of their authority. I didn’t make them do it. I didn’t misrepresent any facts that caused them to behave differently than they normally do. All in all, this case is a last ditch effort for the prosecution to win a case in which the Commonwealth stepped upon my rights. It’s imperative the Court puts a stop to this and finds me not guilty.

Edit: I apologize for my slight tardiness, I got called into work earlier than expected.

 

[End]

Closing Statements starting with the prosecution. You have 48 hours. In your closing statement please clarify for me as to why the court should accept a 'plea' of ignorance.

> And he knew that the Commonwealth has been unaware of this law and subsequently ignoring it.

The Defence will follow in the 48 hours after the prosecution has responded.

Unless you wish to proceed to a summary verdict based on the facts already presented.

@Alexander P. Love @ko531

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Unless you wish to proceed to a summary verdict based on the facts already presented.

The defense does not wish to proceed to summary verdict, your honor.

 

[ko531]

CLOSING STATEMENTS

May it please the court,

The defense has argued that this case is nothing more then an attempt to win FCR 99. The issue with this is FCR 99 has completed, the commonwealth won and we are still seeking these charges. The only goal of this case is to seek justice. The filing of FCR 99 was nothing short of fraud. Alexanderlove has misrepresented facts in order to be awarded prayers of relief for damages he himself caused. With the act of filing FCR 99 being fraud it also makes FCR 99 a Frivilous case filing.

The first issue the defense claims we have is proving intent. This is where the defense is wrong. We have everything short of a confession to prove intent including direct statements made by Alexanderlove. Lets break down intent into different parts to better show our evidence

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE:
as shown by P-3 and FCR 98 Alexander had all the prior knowledge to commit an act like this. He knew murder was illegal, he "knew that the commonwealth abuses their ability to jail people" and he knew about the line in the standardized criminal code act that says any punishment of over 30 minutes is court juridiction.

With all this prior knowledge it is very safe to assume alexander could put together the fact that if he were to murder people and get arrested for more then 30 minutes, he could sue the commonwealth for a cash grab.

MOTIVE:
This part of intent is very straight forward, Alexanderlove knew that if he filed a lawsuit and won he could be awarded a bit of money therefore he had the motive to file FCR 99 to gain monetary value. He had the motive to file this case by commiting fraud because he knew he would not be rewarded this monetary value otherwise. Alexander as a well established lawyer understands the law well enough to know that by causing his own damages causes him to be entiled to nothing as shown in The_Donuticus v. GER, as an organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18. This is why alexander misrepresented the facts and therefore committing fraud so he would be entiled to damages.

BOASTING:
Alexander told the prosecutor of FCR 99 during discussions of a settlement "And who knows, maybe I’ll have some fun murdering people and if some clueless cop just happens to jail me again, we can have a third case" as shown in P-1. Alexander boasted about being about to create a possible 3rd case showing that he had the ablility to have done the exact same thing to create FCR 99. This does not speak of someone trying to reverse their harm but of someone trying to threaten the commonwealth to help gain their requested settlement offer.


Now this misrepresentation of fact which fails to provide that Alexander caused his own damages has cost the commonwealth damages. the DOJ now has to pay the prosecutor for the case and had to waste time and manpower during the case to try and win. The damage has been done and this case is to seek justice for these damages.

Alexander also claims that lawsuits arent profit machines. Now while usually the answer is yes in this instance FCR 99 was treated as a sole effort to gain profit. Ignoring legal fees Alexander was asking for $31,200 for only serving 20 minutes in prison. This comes out to a rate $93,300 an hour which is better pay then 99% of jobs on the server. Almost $100,000/hr definitely sounds like a profit machine.

When is comes to the plea of ignorance about the commonwealths knowledge in this one line of the Standardized criminal code act talking about court jurisdiction. You can see that since that bill has been passed not a single prosecution for 4+ murders has ever happened for this reason of ignorance. You will see the moment Alexander filed FCR 98 he alerted the commonwealth of this law. The DHS's first solution was to jail people for 3 murders max at a time as shown in FCR 99. Once the verdict of FCR 99 said the DHS does not have the power to do this then the DOJ started to prosecute people as shown by The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ezieshem [2024] FCR 111. The Commonwealth is not in the business of chosing which laws to follow and which to break. We try to follow all the laws but it is impossible to expect perfection as the commonwealth is run by humans and no human is perfect.

At the end of the day it is very easy to see that Alexander misrepresented the facts of FCR 99 by failing to provide that he caused the damages himself, this act has cause the commonwealth damages and under the current definition of law this would make what Alexander done Fraud which would make FCR 99 a frivilous case. The Commonwealth has provided everything short of a confession to prove Alexander's intent to commit fraud. No reasonable doubt is left to be had as when taking all the evidence into account leaves no other probable conclusion then Alexander committing these crimes.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I request an 8 hour extension.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, this case is clear. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of facts being misrepresented: I was abusively jailed for alleged murder, and whether or not I committed the murders, the process was illegal under the law. I did not make the cops jail me, they broke the law of their own free will. They decided to damage me, so I went to Court seeking remedies. No facts were obscured, and even if I did commit the murders, I didn't "cause my own damages." The Commonwealth's refusal to prosecute me and to instead jail me against the law caused my damages. The Commonwealth needs to own up to its own mistakes.

Furthermore, even if I did misrepresent facts, there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of intent. All of the prosecution's evidence is entirely circumstantial. He is using quotes that don't actually imply I had any intent to misrepresent facts, not that any facts were misrepresented. All I did say was that if the cops did abusively jail me again, I would sue them. This is about as honest as I can get, in fact, and is in no way misrepresenting facts. The Commonwealth is definitely aware of the law by now, and they always have been.

How can the Commonwealth plead ignorance of a law IT CREATED? At best this is negligence. At worst, this is a malicious and systematic disregard for our rights under the law, a law created under the will of the people. It went through both chambers of Congress and was signed by the President. The Commonwealth's failure to consistently apply the law it created is not a sign of ignorance; it is a sign of gross incompetence, negligence, and/or malice. The Commonwealth today is prosecuting me. but it should turn the lens upon itself. The only dirty player here is an abusive police state that has failed to apply legal due process for years.

I urge the Court to find the defense not liable on all counts and to award the defense legal fees for money spent consulting with attorneys from Dragon Law Firm, and for myself not being able to take as many cases at Dragon due to being tied up with this case. This case was beyond malicious and hypocritical, and legal fees will help encourage the Commonwealth to not abuse the Courts for its civil rights violations.

 

[End]

I'll accept the late submission.

Please be more timely or request an extension prior in future.

 

[End]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION

1. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's actions meet the definition of fraud.
2. The prosecution claims that the defendant intentionally misrepresented facts in the FCR 99 case to claim damages he would not be entitled to if he had told the court that he caused his own damages by committing murders to get arrested illegally.
3. The prosecution argues that the defendant had prior knowledge (evidence P-3 and FCR 98) of how to manipulate the system. His motive was financial gain, as indicated by his detailed understanding of the law and his statements. He had a view for profit.
4. If fraud is proven, the FCR 99 case is deemed frivolous since it was based on misrepresented facts.
5. The prosecution acknowledges the Commonwealth’s initial ignorance of the law.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

1. The defence argues that the prosecution is retaliatory against the defendant for filing previous lawsuits against the Commonwealth.
2. The defence argues that the prosecution has failed to prove intent to constitute fraud and that the evidence is circumstantial.
3. The defence claims that the DHS broke the law by jailing him without proper authority. This act, they claim, is independent of any wrongdoing on the defendant's behalf.
4. The defence argues that even if the allegations were true, suing for damages is a legitimate method to remedy government misconduct, not a profit-seeking scheme.
5. The defence suggests that the Commonwealth's failure to adhere to its own laws indicates negligence, incompetence, or malicious intent.
6. Requests compensation for legal fees.

III. THE COURT OPINION

Fraud is an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.

Were the actions of the defendant intentional or reckless?
I am satisfied that there was intent, but not recklessness.

Did the defendant misrepresent or omit information in their cases against the Commonwealth?
The defendant did not disclose that they murdered intentionally for the purposes of filing a case. This did, however, appear to be so.

Did the Commonwealth suffer an actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.
I'm not satisfied that the Commonwealth suffered any quantifiable losses.

General
Honesty and integrity are integral tenants of our legal system. Equally, the government complying with the law is an important aspect of our society. Each party's actions must be judged independently, and unlawful conduct by one party does not justify or negate the unlawful conduct by the other party.

The Defendant submitted cases against the Commonwealth for it's alleged illegal actions. If the Commonwealth was ignorant and negligent in its enforcement of the law, the defendant had every right to commence legal proceedings against the government as a legal remedy.

The court exists to right wrongs, not as a money making machine. The merits of individual cases are weighed against the evidence of damage incurred. Whether the defendant did the illegal action with a view for profit or whether they genuinely wanted to prove a point through the legal system is irrelevant - the case was judged based on the loss suffered by the defendant in that scenario, whether they set the conditions for that to occur or not.

At the end of the day, the Commonwealth committed a wrong. The defendant fought the wrong in court and was not awarded damages.

This was a waste of the Commonwealth's time and resources when it could have been better spent reviewing how to fix the issue at hand, not to retaliate against cases challenging it's ignorance of the law.

IV. DECISION

The Federal Court rules in favour of the Defendant.

The Commonwealth will pay the Defendant $5,000 in legal fees.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.