Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Burntburger_ [2021] FCR 47

[bubbarc]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Burntburger_
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
Keegan7om caught the defendant in the bank vault after the bank alarms have went off, he went in after Griefer_206, when he arrived he caught the defendant invisible inside the bank vault with nobody else present and the rest of the gold not picked up by Griefer_206 missing

I. PARTIES
1. Bubbarc - Prosecuting Authority
2. Keegan7om - Arresting officer
3. Burntburger_ - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. Defendant was in the vault at the time when the bank alarms went off
2. The Defendant was caught invisible in the bank vault while nobody else was present

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 13.14 Bank Robbery

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. 10 minutes jail time (done prematurely due to exigent circumstances)
2. $1000 fined for the robbery itself (done prematurely by the arresting officer)

Spoiler: Evidence

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 twentieth day of April 2021

 

[Westray]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the State v. Burntburger_. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the prosecution.

​

 

[funyolk]

Your honor, may I speak?

 

[Westray]

Your honor, may I speak?

What is your relevance to the case?

 

[funyolk]

Look at the bottom evidence

 

[funyolk]

Now look at griefer_206's cases bottom evidence

 

[Westray]

Normally I would appreciate that outside players respect and have courtesy for the process of the court and don't impede, however I understand the severity of what you've just pointed out. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the court.

Can the prosecution please explain why they have re-used evidence from the case of The Commonweath of Redmont vs. Griefer_206?

 

[bubbarc]

Apologies, I was unaware of this myself and I only grabbed the evidence attached to the criminal record, may I have 24 hours to check with the arresting officer to see if they posted the wrong screenshot

 

[bubbarc]

Please disregard my previous statement, both arrests happened concurrently by different officers

 

[Westray]

Verdict

This case is hereby dismissed without prejudice due to lack of evidence at the moment.

In accordance with Section 4 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, the burden of proof is on the prosecuting authority. Therefore since the proof has now been unveiled as inadequate, there is no reason to continue the case.

I am beyond disappointed - that if the defendant had been left to default judgement, the defendant may have bene convicted on faulty evidence. I would strongly implore the Office of the Attorney General to review and investigate Obstruction of Justice within the Department of Justice, seeing as the same evidence has been re-used to justify a criminal charge.

Since the defendant has already been charged and sentenced to jail time, pursuant of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act I hereby order the Department of Justice to:
(a) Compensate the defendant $500 ($50/minute spent in jail)
(b) Reimburse the defendant for their $1000 fine.

If new proper evidence arises, a case may be brought again to the courts, where if guilty, the appropriate punishments will be re-issued. Otherwise this matter is resolved.