Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. juniperfig [2025] DCR 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alexander P. Love

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Justice Department
Supporter
Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle Statesman Order of Redmont
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
Attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,380

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

juniperfig
Defendant

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

On the 25th of January, 2025, juniperfig heinously encouraged the murder of AlexanderLove. In a malicious act, she offered someone money to commit a crime. This is open-and-shut incitement.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. juniperfig (Criminal)
2. AlexanderLove (Victim)
3. EpsteinGaming392 (Accomplice)

II. FACTS
1. juniperfig told EpsteinGaming392 to kill AlexanderLove for $10.
2. EpsteinGaming392 shortly thereafter killed AlexanderLove.
3. EpsteinGaming392 informed the public he received $10 from juniperfig to kill AlexanderLove.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of incitement per the Miscellaneous Offenses Act.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. As the crime incited is relatively minor, the prosecution recommends the minimum sentence of a $1,000 fine to discourage such behavior in the future.

V. EVIDENCE
1737873247703.png
1737873264113.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 25th day of January, 2025.

 
The prosecution offers the following alternative sentencing option, per the Community Service Program Act:

15 minutes of community service to a department requiring service, determined by the Commonwealth, to be served within two weeks of the verdict being issued.
 

Writ of Summons


@juniperberries is required to appear before the District Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. juniperfig [2025] DCR 10

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.

 
Good day, your honor.

Justice Compass will be representing the Defendant.

Screenshot_20250127_103324_Discord.jpg
 
We will now enter Discovery for the next 72 hours. Please present all of your evidence and witness lists within this time.
 
The Defense is satisfied with the evidence provided by the Plaintiff, and has not witnesses to call.

We are willing to end Discovery early.
 
Dartanboy said:
The Defense is satisfied with the evidence provided by the Plaintiff, and has not witnesses to call.

We are willing to end Discovery early.
Click to expand...
The prosecution requests an in-game trial.

We are willing to end discovery early.
 
The Defense is willing to do an in-game trial as long as both parties can find a reasonable time to do it, recognizing there are several parties involved with lives that may make it difficult to do so.
 
I will create a sidebar conversation for the in-game trial, please ensure you are in the Judiciary discord server or DM me for an invite link.
 
The in-game trial is set for 12:30 AM UTC on Tuesday, February 4 / 7:30 PM EST on Monday, February 3.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The Defense asks that Magistrate Mask3D_WOLF be recused from this case, as the Magistrate has opted to literally give legal advice to the Plaintiff, and then proceeding to say it was "#notlegaladvice"

Giving the Plaintiff legal advice is a clear indication of bias.

1738104872970.png

 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The Defense asks that Magistrate Mask3D_WOLF be recused from this case, as the Magistrate has opted to literally give legal advice to the Plaintiff, and then proceeding to say it was "#notlegaladvice"

Giving the Plaintiff legal advice is a clear indication of bias.

View attachment 51349

Click to expand...
The prosecution interprets the magistrate's statements as a note regarding Court procedure and not advice pertaining to legal strategy. The prosecution deplores this motion and would like to proceed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alexander P. Love said:
The prosecution interprets the magistrate's statements as a note regarding Court procedure and not advice pertaining to legal strategy. The prosecution deplores this motion and would like to proceed.
Click to expand...

Objection


 OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

A response by the opposing party is not warranted for a Motion to Recuse.

 
I will be rejecting the motion to recuse. I was merely pointing out that if the plaintiff was so adamant about the defendant being called as a witness, then they had the ability to also call witnesses. This is further shown by me saying that I would be officially closing discovery 24 hours from that point if either party wanted to call witnesses, as one expressed (plural you was intended in this context).

Pointing out that a party had the ability call a witness themself is not necessarily giving legal advice.

In regards to the objection, while I appreciate any sentiments either party have towards this case, the comment was in breach of procedure. I will be sustaining the objection and the prosecution’s comment shall be stricken from the record.
 

Motion


In accordance with the Judicial Standards Act, the Right to a Fair Trial, and Court Rules and Procedures, the Defense asks Chief Justice @Aladeen to rule upon the Motion to Recuse.

 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


In accordance with the Judicial Standards Act, the Right to a Fair Trial, and Court Rules and Procedures, the Defense asks Chief Justice @Aladeen to rule upon the Motion to Recuse.

Click to expand...

Objection


Breach of Procedure

The defense cannot specify a particular judicial officer to rule on the motion.

 
Alexander P. Love said:

Objection


Breach of Procedure

The defense cannot specify a particular judicial officer to rule on the motion.

Click to expand...
That's correct, it specifically requires the Chief Justice.

Screenshot_20250128_201649_Chrome.jpg
 
The prosecution would like to call juniperfig as a witness under rule 4.2
 
@Mask3D_WOLF Your honor, the Commonwealth requests the verdict be posted here for the record.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honour,

I have recently been informed by a reputable source that you wish for me to carry out my sentence before you post the verdict to the forums.

If this is true, I urge you to reconsider for the following reasons:

1. Lack of Official Record: At this time, there is no formal record of the verdict existing. Without an official posting, there is no real way to verify the specific charges, findings, or reasoning behind the decision.

2. Procedural Fairness: A fundamental principle of justice is that defendants should have the ability to review and, if necessary, appeal a verdict before any sentence is carried out. As seen in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 116, the phrasing of the in-game verdict and the verdict posted to the forums may differ. This could put me at a disadvantage when reviewing and considering my options for appeal.

3. Legal Precedent and Integrity: Enforcing a sentence without written record of the verdict could set a concerning precedent for future cases. It risks undermining the integrity of the judicial system by allowing enforcement without accountability. The law should not function in secrecy, and all rulings must be properly documented to ensure legitimacy.

If there is a specific legal or procedural reason for this course of action, I respectfully request clarification. It is my understanding that verdicts are typically formally issued before enforcement. If there has been a change in procedure, I ask that this be addressed and justified.

 
The motion to reconsider is rejected. The sentencing remains the same, as does my official guidance to the Department of Homeland Security. An in-game trial’s verdict is as legally valid as a ruling on a motion to dismiss delivered in-game.

At the in-game trial’s verdict I found you guilty and sentenced you to 15 minutes of community service, or if that were not able to happen, a $1000 fine. I will expand on the reasoning and such in the forums verdict, which will come soon, and after that you may appeal.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. juniperfig [2025] DCR 10

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. juniperfig incited a player to kill AlexanderLove for $10. The player followed through with this.
2. This constitutes incitement on the part of juniperfig.
3. The murder was not consensual, and the victim was in Oakridge at the time, meaning that it could not be considered only killing.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defense pleas not guilty.
2. Killing does not necessarily constitute murder, therefore juniperfig did not incite murder, but killing, which is not a crime.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The court finds that a reasonable person would assume that killing is non-consensual unless consent is confirmed, and therefore incitement to kill could reasonably be applied as incitement to murder, unless precautions were taken beforehand. In this case, they were not.
2. The court is reluctant to approve community service when a community service system is not set up yet, however orders it under the assumption that it is cruel or unusual and following the law outlining its creation.

IV. SENTENCE
1. The court found juniperfig guilty of incitement, and ordered 15 minutes of community service as punishment.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top