Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. didna [2021] FCR 42

Status
Not open for further replies.
Objection the third question is in simple terms an admittance. The Defendant admits that she was there at all time and also she saying she broke the vault door.
 
Aladeen said:
Objection the third question is in simple terms an admittance. The Defendant admits that she was there at all time and also she saying she broke the vault door.
Click to expand...
Sustained. I don't believe the question poses relevance to the case and it is therefore is should not be considered in Hugebob's testimony. The witness may proceed to answer question 1 and 2.
 
Aladeen said:
Objection the third question is in simple terms an admittance. The Defendant admits that she was there at all time and also she saying she broke the vault door.
Click to expand...
When did I say I broke the vault door.
 
1. The defendant previously served as a Representative from the same political party as myself and is currently married to me. That being said, I have proven throughout the entirety of my political career that I am able to separate facts from fiction, and I am extremely familiar with Perjury, as I myself wrote the law.

2. The defendant can at times make questionable decisions of political nature, however I would be surprised to hear that they had robbed the bank, such would be inconsistent with what I have seen.

3. At present there is no mechanism for the DOJ to prove that someone has stolen from the bank, only that the bank has been robbed and that certain people are within proximity to the bank. I would implore the staff to implement a better mechanism of proof, but at this time precedent in previous lawsuits has accepted this form of evidence to be sufficient. To my knowledge, there has not been any sort of "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty until proven innocent" clauses codified in law, and until such happens it is unfortunately at the discretion of the Courts for which system is to be used. While this case may have begun as a simple Bank Robbery case, it now stands to recognize the existence of this legal issue and set precedent on whether "guilty until proven innocent" is acceptable in the court of law in the event that evidence cannot be sufficiently obtained due to plugin limitations.
 
Did the defence have any additional questions?
 
Thank you.

The prosecution may now cross-examine the defence's witnesses. If the prosecution has no questions for the witnesses of the defence, Krix and HugeBob; I ask that the prosecution replies noting that they do not have anything else to ask, so that we can proceed.
 
I would like to ask both of the defence's witnesses the following question. How would you describe your relationship with the defendant?
 
"Krix didn’t answer my first question. I know he’s not a witness to the crime itself. I would like to ask him to actually answer my questions before proceeding. His answers were vague and didn’t provide any new information."

Answers
1. "Krix, you were a witness of not the crime itself, but where the defendant was before she arrived at the scene of the crime."
I wasn't online so I have no idea where you were.

2. "Can you please describe what the defendant was doing before teleporting away to the scene of the crime? Is the defendant’s alibi true?"
I have no idea, where the alibi is true or not as I was not present
 
Aladeen said:
I would like to ask both of the defence's witnesses the following question. How would you describe your relationship with the defendant?
Click to expand...
@HugeBob and @Krix please respond accordingly.
 
Objection to krix's statement, hadn't the defendant stated previously that you were building alongside her. If you weren't on at the time then wouldn't the defendant be committing an act of perjury through that statement.
 
Aladeen said:
I would like to ask both of the defence's witnesses the following question. How would you describe your relationship with the defendant?
Click to expand...
The defendant and I have previously served as members of the same political party and are currently married.
 
Aladeen said:
Objection to krix's statement, hadn't the defendant stated previously that you were building alongside her. If you weren't on at the time then wouldn't the defendant be committing an act of perjury through that statement.
Click to expand...
This has been noted. However, what are you objecting to? Are you objecting to have the witness' statement struck from the record?
 
No, I'm objecting to the fact that the defendant call upon an irrelevant witness who had a close personal connection to her in hopes that he would perjure himself to save her skin.
 
Aladeen said:
No, I'm objecting to the fact that the defendant call upon an irrelevant witness who had a close personal connection to her in hopes that he would perjure himself to save her skin.
Click to expand...
Please save the remarks for your closing statements, not for objections.
 
Accusing me of perjury is ridiculous. I believe Krix is remembering things incorrectly as it's been several days. H is a busy guy after all so a lawsuit on a Minecraft server is the least of his concerns. I believe he was on at the time because I was building alongside him. How could he have been offline if I was building next to him and in a VC with him at the time? Lmao
 
didna said:
Accusing me of perjury is ridiculous. I believe Krix is remembering things incorrectly as it's been several days. H is a busy guy after all so a lawsuit on a Minecraft server is the least of his concerns. I believe he was on at the time because I was building alongside him. How could he have been offline if I was building next to him and in a VC with him at the time? Lmao
Click to expand...
You've had your chance to question the witnesses. Please allow for the witness to answer the questions of the cross-examination.
 
Aladeen said:
I would like to ask both of the defence's witnesses the following question. How would you describe your relationship with the defendant?
Click to expand...
Depends on the day, we got on well most of the time though
 
Did the prosecution have any additional questions?
 
The prosecution dosent have any additional questions.
 
Did either party in the case wish to present additional evidence or witnesses before we proceed to closing statements?
 
I would like to call hong_kong_101 and burntburger as witnesses.
 
Did the defence have any objections or witnesses to call before we proceed?
 
Considering that the defendant is so keen on bringing this trial to a close, I offer an alternative solution.

The prosecution is asked to provide written testimony in the form of a short affidavit from each additional witness to be posted as soon as possible. I do not wish to proceed without hearing the testimony of everyone potentially involved as a witness to this case, therefore I see this as an appropriate option to address the concern of the defendant over the time of their trial.

Each witness should also be informed that anything included in such affidavit is considered a statement under oath alike any other testimony.
 
HKE.png
image0 (1).png
 
Thank you.

If there is no additional evidence or witnesses to be presented, we can now proceed to the closing statements.

The closing statements will begin with the prosecution, and then the defence.
 
Closing Statement:

The Defendant robbed the bank of redmont the 21 of April, There are more than 3 witnesses that can confirm that the Defendant was the one who robbed it. The Defendant has also perjured several about where she was several times during this lawsuit. One example of this is when she first said she was in the build world during the robbery but then she said she was handcuffed at the banks vault. This makes her side of the story less belivable each time. The Defendant had also said she was with someone in the build world but the witness denied being with the defendant.
 
The defence may now present their closing statement.
 
The prosecution has several times proved in this case they are guilty of a crime that they are accusing me of committing. On the evening of April 21st, 2021, I was in the build world building alongside Krix. Krix has admitted that his testimony was a “meme” response, which from my understanding means he was not testifying seriously. When the bank alarms sounded, I was curious about who was robbing the bank. I teleported to my /home at the Capitol, and, due to my consumption of cocaine earlier that day before going to the build world, I was able to arrive at the bank before the police did. I saw Aladeen22 breaking into the vault with his fists. I saw Aladeen22 head down into the vault. I also went down into the vault after Aladeen22 to attempt to apprehend him and when BubbaRC entered the vault, he falsely accused me of robbing the bank and I was handcuffed and arrested. Bob, a witness I called earlier, who knows me very well, testified that it is very out of character for me to allegedly have broken into the vault. I would like to point out my /balance is less than $100 and no companies so I couldn’t have taken any money from the vault. I have no motive to rob the bank, even with my low /balance, because I’m getting paid a hefty amount for a building project before Monday. This case brings multiple questions up about the legal system and the bank robbery system. I hope justice can be served to me and the prosecution and we can all wrap this case up with content.
 

Attachments

  • BA61A351-625B-459E-AD9F-5D93D2D8C4E7.jpeg
    BA61A351-625B-459E-AD9F-5D93D2D8C4E7.jpeg
    50.9 KB · Views: 167
Thank you for your closing statements.

To inform the parties in the case, I will be issuing a verdict in several hours after considering all facts of the case.
 

Verdict


IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 04-2021-21-03

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. The Prosecution, represented by Aladeen22, allege that the defendant has violated the Bank Robbery law.
2. The Prosecution asserts that the Defendant was caught at the vault at the time the alarms went off.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, didna, denies all allegations made by the Prosecution, claiming that they were in the build world at the time of the alleged robbery.
2. The Defendant claims that they were a witness to the prosecutor, Aladeen22, robbing such a bank; and asserts that they were framed for the robbery.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. In the evidence and testimonies we have heard throughout this case, several eyewitnesses have confirmed the whereabouts of the Defendant during the alleged robbery.
2. The burden of proof is weighed upon the prosecution, which I believe they have proven with the multiple testimonies and evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant committed such a crime.
3. The Defendant claims that Krix was an eyewitness to their alternate whereabouts at the time, however Krix denies that. The lack of any sort of other eyewitness to her whereabouts, in comparison to the testimonies from the other witnesses we have seen, proves that she was not in the location she claimed to be.
4. The Defendant has continuously contradicted themselves throughout this case - claiming that they were in the build world at the time of the alleged robbery, whereas also claiming they witnessed someone else rob the bank.
5. The court finds that the Defendant has committed perjury, in an attempt to mislead the courts in regards to her whereabouts at the time of the crime. This repugnant behaviour came with an intent to falsely accuse another of committing such crime.
6. The court would implore the RBA to consider the removal of the defendant's license to practice law, pursuant of Section 5 of the Legal Board Act.

IV. DECISION
The Court hereby finds the Defendant guilty of the charge of Bank Robbery, and additionally guilty of the charge of Perjury.

The recommended sentence brought by the prosecution, pursuant of the provisions of the charge of Bank Robbery, have been accepted by the court. Seeing as the jail time to Bank Robbery has already been issued, the court sees no reason to issue any further jail time on that charge, as for the fine and the other charge, I've noted the sentence below;

I hereby sentence the Defendant to a:
(a) Fine of $1000 for Bank Robbery
(b) Fine of $500 for Perjury

This case is hereby adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top