Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Fieldmarshall [2021] FCR 61

bubbarc

bubbarc

Retired Government Official
Supporter
Legal Eagle Statesman Popular in the Polls Change Maker
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
attorney
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
688
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Fieldmarshall
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
The defendant was in the bank vault at the time of a robbery with there being nobody else present and was seen through the wall at the bank by antatro who promptly supplied the DOJ with a screenshot of it after the bank alarms went off

I. PARTIES
1. Bubbarc - Prosecuting Authority
2. Pi0s67 - Arresting officer
3. antatro - witness
4. Fieldmarshall - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. Defendant was in the vault at the time when the bank alarms went off
2. Nobody else was there at the time

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 lack of a prosecuting authority at the time of the arrest)
2. $1000 fined for the robbery itself (done prematurely due to lack of a prosecuting authority at the time of the arrest)

1618933553189.png
1618934837522.png


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
 
Last edited:
PwFVDhr.png


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. Fieldmarshall. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the prosecution.​
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Fieldsmarshall
Defendant

Case no: 04-2021-20-01

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
  1. The defendant confirm that they have trespassed behind the glass
  2. The defendant acknowledges possible accusations of committing bank robbery based solely on prosecutor's evidence

II DEFENCES
  1. Witness antatro has been in the bank for a long time before and (as the evidence provided suggests) during the Bank robbery, thus invalidating Fact 2 put forward by the Prosecutor
  2. Witness antatro has a conflict of interest in providing fair evidence based on previous actions, as they had:
    1. Attempted to incite the defendant to trespass on bank grounds
    2. Attempted to force the defendant to trespass by using knockback to wack the defendant across the glass
  3. Arresting Officer Pi0s67 arrested the defendant outside the main door of the bank and walking from the Capitol, which implies the following conclusions:
    1. The Defendant was not arrested on bank grounds or seen committing bank robbery
    2. The Defendant arrived from the outside of the bank, and not from the inside of the bank through the only path one can use to walk out of the bank
  4. The evidence provided are not sufficient to conclude Prosecutor's Fact 1 or be used to charge the Defendant of Bank robbery due to flaws such as follows:
    1. There are no time stamps for the evidence provided, which makes it susceptible to the following cases:
      1. Witness antatro could have taken the photo on the Defendant's earlier trespassing on bank grounds, in which the Defendant was exploring the new plugin out of curiosity and did not rob the bank
      2. The Bank robbery alert could be taken from a robbery committed by other users, which the Defendant does not know and thus could not be involved in
Police Officer Ansgard_Ist serves as witness to Defence 2.2
Arresting Officer Pi0s67 serves as witness to Defence 3

No photographic evidence are available since the Defendant did not plan to sue antatro for earlier actions or prepare a defence for possible charges of bank robbery on the day of the event.

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 twenty first day of April 2021
 
Objections your honor
 
Prosecution can proceed with their objections
 
(1) The meaning of the line was just intended to be the vault, not the bank, it was a small grammatical mistake

(2) Without proof 2.1 is little more than allegations and 2.2 has no proof of being meant maliciously thus completely invalidating point 2

(3) The Defendant claims there was no way to prove he was in the vault despite him himself confirming their presence there at the beginning to his answer to the summons implying screenshot showing he in the vault is valid, I do not see the legal relevance of this line with that in mind

(4) Everybody can view the bank alarm, thus all it would take is us getting somebody else who was online at the time to confirm that it had went off at the time in question, should you not accept the current witness, as for the point that he was unaware it is also unfounded due to the aforementioned fact that the bank alarm is public

1619013722710.png
 
Last edited:
3. The Defendant was in the vault on multiple occasions before the time in question, and witness antatro was present in recent trespassing, providing an opportunity for the witness to take a photo of Defendant in the vault before the time in question.

4. Defendant has always recognised the bank alarm alert is public but stresses the fact that no clear time association between the alert and the photo of Defendant in the bank grounds are present. This once again discredits the charges of bank robbery because the evidence cannot strongly link such crime to Defendant, since it depends mainly on speculations of connection.
 
You may now call forward any witnesses. Each party may reply to this stating whether they wish, or don't wish, to call witnesses. If you wish to call multiple witnesses, I would ask you to list the witnesses in the order in which you intend for them to be called.

If both parties have called witnesses, the prosecution's witnesses will be called first. There will be opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
 
I'd like to call forward Antatro and Pi0s67
 
PwFVDhr.png



IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@antatro and @PiOs67 are hereby summoned to the court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 04-2021-20-01 as witnesses. Please familiarise yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the Prosecutor and may also be cross-examined.

@antatro will be called first, with @PiOs67 being called second. I would ask that the Prosecutor, where possible, provides a list of all the questions they want answering in one message so as to ensure efficiency. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is acceptable. When the prosecutor is ready, he may post questions to the first prosecution witness.


IN RESPONDING, YOU CONFIRM YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PERJURY ACT - Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Court shall be considered Perjury. You promise to tell only the truth in any answers you provide.


The defendant can file a list of witnesses to the court as soon as reasonably practicable, irrespective of whether the Prosecutor has begun asking questions.​
 
I confirm everything stated by the prosecution
 
antatro said:
I confirm everything stated by the prosecution
Click to expand...
Thank you for your earnestness but please wait for questions posed to you.
 
apologies, this is his first time in court
1. Can you confirm everything stated by the prosecution
2. What was the rough time of this event
 
In addition to the witnesses called by the Prosecution, of which also serves as the Defendant’s witnesses, I would like to further call forward Ansgard_Ist
 
Fields said:
In addition to the witnesses called by the Prosecution, of which also serves as the Defendant’s witnesses, I would like to further call forward Ansgard_Ist
Click to expand...
Thank you that's duly noted, once the prosecution is done questioning their witnesses I'll proceed with your cross-examination of the witnesses.


Antatro please refer to post #15 for your questions, thank you.
 
Due to lack of response from the witness, I would ask that the prosecution continues with their second witness. Can the prosecution please post questions to the second witness now.
 
Present, your honor
 
Same questions
 
1. Can you confirm everything stated by the prosecution
I confirm everything stated before by the prosecution authority.

2. What was the rough time of this event
Concerning the rough time, the facts happened on April 15th so two weeks ago, thus I can't remember the exact time. I can however confirm to court that I posted the criminal report on April 15th 2021 at 7:05 PM (UTC+1). This could correspond almost to the time of the crime (one hour after as a maximum).

I hope I informed the court sufficiently.
 
My apologies for the delay, irl has been busy.

PwFVDhr.png


IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Ansgard, @antatro and @PiOs67 are hereby summoned to the court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 04-2021-20-01 as witnesses. Please familiarise yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the defence.

@antatro will be called first, with @PiOs67 being called second. I would ask that the defendant, where possible, provides a list of all the questions they want answering in one message so as to ensure efficiency. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is acceptable. When the defendant is ready, he may post questions to the first witness.


IN RESPONDING, YOU CONFIRM YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PERJURY ACT - Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Court shall be considered Perjury. You promise to tell only the truth in any answers you provide.​
 
Objection, you have already dismissed my first witness due to lack of a response and my second witness has already responded
 
bubbarc said:
Objection, you have already dismissed my first witness due to lack of a response and my second witness has already responded
Click to expand...

This second witness summons is in relation to a summons by the defence. I have issued the summons again due to a time delay in proceedings. Should the first witness respond, I'm happy to allow you to pose your questions again.
 
Present, your honour (idk what is my involvement in that case but ok)
 
Present
 
Defendant's list of questions as per request, your honour.

To witness antatro:
1. Do you admit that you have attempted to coerce and force Defendant to trespass bank grounds?

To witness PiOs67:
1. Do you confirm that you arrested Defendant outside of the bank?
2. Do you affirm that the only way to exit the vault is out through the vault doors and bank doors?

To witness Ansgard_Ist:
1. Do you confirm that antatro has attempted to force Defendant to trespass with knockback?
 
1. I confirm that antatro used a stick to push people in the bank in the past, but I don't know if it was used in that situation. antatro received warnings for that, I don't know if he pushed people in again.
 
Your honor, first of all I apologize for the delay, I was pretty busy these few days and this answer took me a lot of time to collect evidences.
Here are my answers to the plaintif's questions. I confirm I am aware of the perjury act.

1.Do you confirm that you arrested Defendant outside of the bank?

I confirm I arrested the defendant outside the bank. However, he was coming from the hospital and not from the Capitol as the defendant affirmed in this precedent statement, and this change all the defendant's explanation.

Fields said:
Arresting Officer Pi0s67 arrested the defendant outside the main door of the bank and walking from the Capitol
Click to expand...

He is deliberately (or not?) lying to the court to innocent himself.
As a witness summoned by the defendant and arresting officer, I want to explain my version of the facts.
First of all, I would like to draw court's attention to the fact that the defendant is holding the doctor profession, as the prosecutor's evidence is showing. The name tag is holding the letter "D", which refers to "doctor".

1620479440222.png

Then, all the following informations have been collected on the dynmap as soon as I have been notified of the robbery and informations given by witness antatro. I observed the defendant's movements once he escaped the bank.

Capture d’écran 2021-05-08 à 16.42.14.png
Capture d’écran 2021-05-08 à 16.42.39.png

As the doctor profession gives the perm to warp directly to hospital, the defendant escaped the bank and immediately warped away to the hospital by attending IWantYes! as the following evidences are showing.

Capture d’écran 2021-05-08 à 15.25.31.png

As I stated before, the robbery happened on April 15th at 18:54 PM GMT+1 (I found the log finally). Moreover, a log from the DoH chat confirm that the defendant attended someone on the same day of the robbery.
PiOs67 said:
the facts happened on April 15th so two weeks ago
Click to expand...

1620482122189.png

After warping to hospital, the defendant get disconnected a few seconds as if he tried to innocent him as the following evidences show.

Capture d’écran 2021-05-08 à 16.41.27.png
Capture d’écran 2021-05-08 à 16.41.35.png

A few time later, the defendant connected again on the server and walked back from the hospital to the bank then met me in front of the building (maybe another strategy to innocent himself). However, thanks to witness antatro, I was able to know who committed the robbery and I immediately arrested the defendant.

2. Do you affirm that the only way to exit the vault is out through the vault doors and bank doors?

Indeed there is only one way to escape from the vault. However, I’ll add that the defendant is lying or simply ignoring that another issue exists on the first floor of the bank. Robbers are able to escape through a broken window.

Fields said:
The Defendant arrived from the outside of the bank, and not from the inside of the bank through the only path one can use to walk out of the bank
Click to expand...

Thus I do not confirm the defendant’s allegations.

Capture d’écran 2021-05-08 à 16.10.06.png
Capture d’écran 2021-05-05 à 18.55.14.png
 

Attachments

  • 1620482136251.png
    1620482136251.png
    18.3 KB · Views: 143
Last edited:
Objection!

1. Defendant took the bus at the hospital to the Capitol bus station for travelling convenience, where they then walked to the bank and thus is still coming from the Capitol direction.

2. Defendant have indeed attended IWantYes!, but that was before the time in question and a legal warp to treat illness. The witness cannot accuse Defendant of warping away just because Defendant has executed their doctor duties on the same day.

3. According to the witness's argument, Defendant disconnected to feign innocence on the case. This move is highly disadvantageous to Defendant since it clears chat and deletes message evidence in favour of Defendant. Additionally, Defendant's ping is unstable at the time and disconnections are expected due to connection, not malicious intent.

4. This is the first time Defendant has seen the alarm go off, by natural curiosity Defendant wishes to see what a break-in is like and thus ventures to the bank.

5. Defendant was not aware of the broken window up to this point, and questions whether the broken window was added in the recent bank update to reform escape routes, which happened after the event in question.

As such, Defendant hopes your honour could allow witness PiOs67 to reiterate their testimony while taking account of corrections made by Defendant.
 
Objection

1. As shown in our evidence Fieldmarshall you were in the vault, yet you claim to be walking from the capitol, and the witness claims you to be walking from the hospital, I will come back to this later

2. The doctor's warp works from the bank, (proof below,) meaning the defendant could have been robbing the bank, attended a patient, then came back to finish the job

4. The reiteration of this point is irrelevant to the case as the argument in question is that he was at the bank already then left using a doctor warp, not that he was just leaving the bank

The prosection concedes to points 3 and 5 however, point 3 we have no evidence to confirm it wasn't network related and point 5 the prosecution can confirm didn't exist at the time, however I do not feel this entire witness statement should be thrown out over these minor things

Screenshot_20210508-224529.png
 
Objection!

1. The topic in discussion for this point is where Defendant came from before the arrest, and as such Defendant's justification that they came from the hospital via the capitol bus station does not conflict with any evidence.

2. To refute Plaintiff's line of thought, the alarm is trigger immediately upon vault break (courtesy of staff provided information), and Defendant's treating of the patient is before the event. Additionally, Defendant has intentionally stopped by witness PiOs67 and engaged in a conversation regarding the alarm, further disproving intentions to continue robbing (since if Defendant wants to continue robbing they would've run away after seeing an officer at the door).

4. Defendant is unclear of the relating objection given on this particular point but agrees to not further discuss this point unless further questioning of the motives for the visit after the alarm is engaged.

Defendant has in no way intended for the testimony to be thrown out because of the objections given, and merely wishes for the witness to observe the facts given in the objection before assuming.
 
I thank all involved for providing substantial responses and for keeping the discourse professional.

I have acknowledged all objections and counter-points made. I would ask now that the plaintiff provides a closing statement, should they wish, followed by a closing statement by the defence, should they wish. If either party does not want to make a closing statement please say so.

This closing statement should sum up your position concisely, highlighting all key matters in issue.
 
IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING ARGUMENT

(1) The defendant argues that they were not at the bank at the time of the incident however makes no attempt to refute the evidence initially posted in the lawsuit in any way other than discrediting the witness that provided it, which regardless of how "fair" the witness is or other breakages of the law the screenshot proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was indeed there
(2) The arresting officer specifically saw the alarm go off then the defendant treat somebody which can be done from the vault as proven by staff above, furthermore the defendant refutes that he was coming from the capitol's bus from the hospital, and claimed that could have been the source of his confusion, despite the witness making no claim that he was even coming from the direction of the capitol, once again contradictory with the witness's, who is a senior member of the DOJ, testimony

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 sixteenth day of May 2021

I'd also like to apologize to the court for the extended delay on my response, I've had a busy week
 
IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING ARGUMENT

(1) Defendant continues to argue the ambiguity of timestamps on existing photographic evidence as well as photographic evidence of Defendant robbing the bank the absence of Defendant may result in an inaccurate accusation of charges, Defendant however recognises and accepts the charge of trespassing

(2) Defendant affirm their path of travel to the bank is from the hospital via the capitol bus station, ending with meeting the arresting officer from outside the bank

(3) Defendant's attendance of patient on the same day as the event in question is not related to the charges

(4) Defendant reaffirms potential conflict of interest of a key witness due to their past records

Due to the unexpected lawsuit, Defendant apologises for the lack of photographic evidence to support their points.

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 seventeenth day of May 2021
 
Objection

(1) the witnesses knows what the punishments for purjury are, if antatro did lie he knew he could very well be bankrupt, plus the only evidence you had for evidence of conflict of interest was a vague claim of a seperate crime which he was punished for that you didn't even have a witness who confirmed he did to you, and he did it to a lot of people who entered, and the witnesses both agree about the timing, addressing both claims 1 and 4 in his argument
(2) continuing to make this claim is irrelevant and doesn't mean anything factual for the suit, regardless of what direction you came from, but a witness was watching you on the dynmap and specifically said "the hospital" not capitol
(3) it could have easily been in a situation (as the arresting officer pointed out) that you used it to escape the bank and then came back to the scene of the crime, why is anybody's guess
 
Your honour, although Plaintiff has done an excellent job in questioning the facts and arguments provided by Defendant, as it is a closing statement, could your honour please discourage further development on the latest objection so as to *finally* close this case?
 
I concur, it was early in the morning that I posted it and I hadn't really thought it through, as such I too request my objection disregarded I'd like to apologize for the inconvenience and will keep in mind not to do it next time
 
Due to the current absence of the Hon. Matt_S0, I will be taking this case so that it can move forward. I would like to apologize for the delays on this case on behalf of the courts as the Chief Justice.

Just to clarify, did the Attorney General wish to continue this case?
 
Your honor we had just posted our closing arguments and we were awaiting judgement
 
Noted.

While noting that closing statements were already given, it is evident that both parties have more of an argument to present, as noted with the objection to the Defendant's closing statement. So, given the unique situation following the Hon. Matt_S0's absence, I am going to ask that each party delivers their final remarks now - to ensure that all of the facts are up to date.

Thank you.
 
IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
FINAL REMARKS

(1) The witnesses, regardless of potential past crimes, know full well that perjury could destroy their public image, for PiOs he's served the Department of Justice with distinction even before this event, Antatro, while at the time he was just beginning to get into politics, something like perjury could have destroyed any chance at a semblance of a political career, furthermore you have no evidence regarding to perjury bar a loose witness statement and a supposed conflict of interest in the part of Antatro, with the only thing backing this up being the fact that he allegedly hit you around the bank with a knockback hoe
(2) Your point under point two is irrelevant as it's relatively the same timing to get between them, however the thing is how would PiOs know they were coming from the hospital if they were coming from the direction of the Capitol? Wouldn't the witness state that he was coming from the direction of the capitol instead of the Hospital? Just something I'd like the courts to consider
(3) While you continue to make the claim under point three it simply doesn't have any basis, we have two witnesses affirming the timing with one seeing you go in to the bank vault, seeing the screenshot from the original filing of the lawsuit he actually was seen in the vault, something he doesn't necessarily retort he simply attacks the witness who supplied it
(4) As for point four of the defendant's closing statement please see both my point one and consider this: how would a screenshot of the defendant in the vault be unfair?
 
Thank you. I'll ask that the Defendant submits their final remarks within a reasonable timeframe please.
 
IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
FINAL REMARKS

(1) Defendant continues to affirm that they travelled from the hospital via the Capitol bus station, but recognises ambiguity in interpretation of witness statements.
(2) Defendant's execution of doctor duties is not related to the charges and should not be used as grounds for prosecution.

Defendant no longer wishes to reiterate other previous remarks that were met with repetitive objections by Plaintiff, so as to simplify the court process.
 

Verdict

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 04-2021-20-01

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. The Prosecution, represented by BubbaRC, 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, Fieldsmarshall, admits that they were trespassing, but denies the allegation of bank robbery, arguing that evidence only proves speculation.
2. The Defendant claims that witness antatro attempted to incite them into trespassing by hitting them with a knockback weapon into the bank.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is a fundamental aspect to our justice system is the burden of proof. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant has committed such crime. I do not believe that the Prosecution has met such standard of proof in this case.
2. The Prosecution has presented a picture of the Defendant in the bank vault, which reasonably proves trespassing, however only speculates bank robbery.
3. The witness testimony presented by antatro has been inconclusive as to whether the Defendant had robbed the bank, with their failure to properly respond to the questions by both parties. In addition to that, the testimony provided by Ansgard_Ist in regards to antatro's past bank trespassing incitement has informed the court about the credibility of such witness.
4. Apart from antatro, the only other witness in the situation was the arresting officer, whom did not see the alleged robbery itself. In their testimony, they made several claims, including that (a) The Defendant attended to a patient on the same day of the alleged robbery; and that (b) robbers can potentially escape through another exit in a broken window. Unfortunately these claims appear to have no merit because (a) There is no timestamp on that message to prove that the Defendant attended at that time; and (b) as mentioned by the Defendant, according to #server-announcements, the broken window exit was added on April 23, after the alleged incident.
5. While the case has presented suspicion and potential connection, there is reasonable doubt due to the lack of eyewitness testimony and coherent arguments. I simply cannot rule a Defendant guilty based on speculation.

IV. DECISION
The Court hereby finds the Defendant not guilty of the charge of Bank Robbery, however guilty of the charge of Bank Trespassing.

Since the Defendant has already been charged and sentenced to jail time for Bank Robbery, pursuant of the Judicial Standards Act, I hereby order the Department of Justice to reimburse the defendant for their $1000 fine.

Since the Prosecution has already imprisoned them for 10 minutes on the other charge, I will only proceed with the sentence of the fine. On the charge of Bank Trespassing, I hereby sentence the Defendant to a fine of $100 for Bank Trespassing.

This case is hereby adjourned.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top