Lawsuit: In Session The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Ko531 [2025] FCR 3

[Alexander P. Love]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The People of the Commonwealth of Redmont through The Department of Justice
Prosecution

v.

Ko531
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
On December 26th, 2024, ko531, a known serial killer and terrorist with a lengthy criminal record, decided to strike again at none other than the Vice President of Redmont, lcn. In a devastating and terrifying moment, the Vice President was backed against a wall with no where to go, held at gun point, verbally threatened, mugged for money, and then shot when he would not give up his hard-earned cash. ko531, the perpetrator, must be held responsible for his heinous crimes before he strikes fear into more citizens and pilfers their wallets too.

I. PARTIES
1. ko531 (Perpetrator)
2. lcn (Victim and Witness)
3. bigpappa140 (Potential Witness)
4. MysticPhunky (Potential Witness)

II. FACTS
1. On December 26th, 2024, lcn was enjoying his day at a UFC arena.
2. ko531 pointed a ranged weapon that was locked and loaded at lcn, with the implicit and explicit threat of discharging the weapon at the victim to kill him.
3. The threats demanded that lcn hand over money to ko531 or incur death.
4. ko531 carried out his threats and killed lcn when lcn refused to comply with the mugging.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant, with the respective statutes linked:
1. One count of Harassment, Alarm, and Distress (Violent Offenses Act) - The perpetrator has caused alarm and distress in a terrifying moment to the Vice President, who was otherwise enjoying his day. By holding him at gunpoint and threatening him, the victim was scared for his life and both alarmed and distressed under the legal definition of the offense.
2. One count of Hostage Holding (Violent Offenses Act) - The victim was backed against a wall and had nowhere to go that would not reasonably risk being shot dead. This meets the legal definition of hostage holding.
3. One count of Conspiracy to Commit Extortion (Accomplice and Conspiracy Offenses Act and Commercial Standards Act) - The perpetrator attempted to use force and threats to obtain something of value from the victim, which meets the legal definition for conspiracy to commit extortion per the two cited acts of Congress.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Harassment, Alarm, and Distress, we request the maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and 60 minutes in prison for the crime is heinous, the victim is high-profile, and the perpetrator is a repeat offender.
2. For Hostage Holding, we request the maximum and minimum penalty of a $100 fine and 10 minutes in prison for the crime is heinous, the victim is high-profile, and the perpetrator is a repeat offender.
3. For Conspiracy to Commit Extortion, we request the maximum penalty of a $25,000 fine and 120 minutes in prison for the crime is heinous, the victim is high-profile, and the perpetrator is a repeat offender. We request that the penalty be diminished to no less than $10,000 and 60 minutes in jail for the crime of extortion is a $10,000 penalty, the crime ko531 attempted to commit and would have been successful at committing if not for the brave actions of the victim. The assailant's willingness to follow through on his threats shows his criminal malice, so no small fine will reform this particular offender.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

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 31st day of December, 2024

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The prosecution would like to request an in-game trial.

 

[lukeyyy11]

As the lawyer I would like to humbly decline your offer for an in-game trial, and would like to push for a not guilty verdict immediately. The evidence could quite easily be forged, and unless you can get those "potential" witnesses to give testimony then I do not believe you can judge my client fairly.

I would also like to add that the sentencing is absolutely absurd and that I believe you are just targeting my client as a way to make "easy money". Following on from this, I would like to counter sue the prosecutor Alexander Love for "picking" on my client and belittling him, I'm sure he will be feeling very vulnerable after this massive affair.

Thank you.
(btw I am not the lawyer)

 

[ko531]

As the lawyer I would like to humbly decline your offer for an in-game trial, and would like to push for a not guilty verdict immediately. The evidence could quite easily be forged, and unless you can get those "potential" witnesses to give testimony then I do not believe you can judge my client fairly.

I would also like to add that the sentencing is absolutely absurd and that I believe you are just targeting my client as a way to make "easy money". Following on from this, I would like to counter sue the prosecutor Alexander Love for "picking" on my client and belittling him, I'm sure he will be feeling very vulnerable after this massive affair.

Thank you.
(btw I am not the lawyer)

I am present and this is not my lawyer.

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - INFLAMMATORY

These statements do nothing for the Commonwealths case in respect to proving or arguing the crimes being alleged. They only serve to immediately try and prejudice the presiding officer or any person who wishes to read this case with the fact that I have been charged with crimes in the past none of which are the crimes being alleged. And yes I know this isn't a question being asked as this objection is usually reserved for but I still ask the court to strike this obvious attempt at Prejudice for Inflammatory.

a known serial killer and terrorist with a lengthy criminal record

3x during sentencing:

the perpetrator is a repeat offender.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - INFLAMMATORY

These statements do nothing for the Commonwealths case in respect to proving or arguing the crimes being alleged. They only serve to immediately try and prejudice the presiding officer or any person who wishes to read this case with the fact that I have been charged with crimes in the past none of which are the crimes being alleged. And yes I know this isn't a question being asked as this objection is usually reserved for but I still ask the court to strike this obvious attempt at Prejudice for Inflammatory.


3x during sentencing:

I request that ko531 be held in contempt for speaking before being summoned.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@ko531 is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwelath of Redmont v. ko531.

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The prosecution would like to request an in-game trial.

The prosecution would like to remind all parties that this still stands.

 

[ko531]

The prosecution would like to remind all parties that this still stands.

Present and I decline an in-game trial.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

With that, discovery is set for a maximum of 72 hours. Both parties may agree to end it early.

 

[ko531]

Objection

OBJECTION - INFLAMMATORY

These statements do nothing for the Commonwealths case in respect to proving or arguing the crimes being alleged. They only serve to immediately try and prejudice the presiding officer or any person who wishes to read this case with the fact that I have been charged with crimes in the past none of which are the crimes being alleged. And yes I know this isn't a question being asked as this objection is usually reserved for but I still ask the court to strike this obvious attempt at Prejudice for Inflammatory.

ko531, a known serial killer and terrorist with a lengthy criminal record, decided to strike again

3x during sentencing

the perpetrator is a repeat offender.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

OBJECTION - INFLAMMATORY

These statements do nothing for the Commonwealths case in respect to proving or arguing the crimes being alleged. They only serve to immediately try and prejudice the presiding officer or any person who wishes to read this case with the fact that I have been charged with crimes in the past none of which are the crimes being alleged. And yes I know this isn't a question being asked as this objection is usually reserved for but I still ask the court to strike this obvious attempt at Prejudice for Inflammatory.

3x during sentencing

Your honor, objections can only be made to evidence, not to argumentative statements. These objections would be appropriate had they been said by a witness.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

OBJECTION - INFLAMMATORY

These statements do nothing for the Commonwealths case in respect to proving or arguing the crimes being alleged. They only serve to immediately try and prejudice the presiding officer or any person who wishes to read this case with the fact that I have been charged with crimes in the past none of which are the crimes being alleged. And yes I know this isn't a question being asked as this objection is usually reserved for but I still ask the court to strike this obvious attempt at Prejudice for Inflammatory.

3x during sentencing

Overruled.

As the Defense has pointed out, inflammatory objections are normally reserved for witness statements.

In this case, the use of this language is to highlight their argument. They serve to enhance the agreeability of their argument.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The prosecution would like to call bigpappa140 and MysticPhunky, your Honor.

I request the court be lenient of the fact this is slightly past the 72 hours since I’ve been having a horrible surgery recovery irl and we haven’t moved on yet.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The prosecution would like to call bigpappa140 and MysticPhunky, your Honor.

I request the court be lenient of the fact this is slightly past the 72 hours since I’ve been having a horrible surgery recovery irl and we haven’t moved on yet.

Granted.

Given that the witness list was submitted only ~5 hours post discovery, and the court had not moved on, the court will be allowing this one-time late submission to pass.

On that note, the Defendant has 72 hours to file a plea. Please request an extension if necessary.

 

[ko531]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

ko531
Defendant

I. PLEA
1. The defense pleads NOT GUILTY to one count of Harassment, Alarm, and Distress
2. The defense pleads GUILTY to one count of Hostage Holding.
3. The defense pleads NOT GUILTY to one count of Conspiracy to Commit Extortion.

II. DEFENSE

By the word of law what I did was Hostage Holding. Word for word it matches exactly what I did, I held someone at gunpoint and asked for "ransom". Every other charge in this case is nothing more then a zealous overcharge from the Commonwealth. This can clearly be seen by the turning of a $100 case into a $35,100 case. Especially when looking at the Conspiracy charge in which the prosecution is asking the maximum $25,000 when in reality the actual crime of Extortion is capped at $10,000. How does a crime elevate by 2.5 times for failing to commit it?

This case is possibly breaching my right against double jeopardy. Right XVI states: "No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law." I committed one criminal act or in better words, an act against the law. That is pointing a gun and asking for money. Congress has even codified this crime directly into law. By charging me with three separate crimes for one criminal act goes against not only right XVI but goes against the goal of the legislative. They specifically wanted this crime to be only $100 fine and 10 minutes in jail, not $35,100 and 190 minutes in jail.


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 28th day of October 2024.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Thank you for your prompt response.

The prosecution now has 48 hours to file their opening statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Thank you for your prompt response.

The prosecution now has 48 hours to file their opening statement.

Apologies, your Honor, I thought it was 72 hours by default not 48. I will file now and if it gets struck, so be it.

Opening Statement

May it please the Court,

Your Honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered to witness this prosecution of a man who committed a crime so vile and malicious against a high profile, current President, this is a case of malice for money. The defendant committed a series of actions that constitute malicious offenses for the sole desire of money, regardless of the consequences. The defendant plead guilty to hostage holding and affirmed the facts at hand. He pointed a gun at lcn and demanded money, making threats several times, and then proceeded to shoot lcn when he refused to give in to this dangerous criminal's demands.

A course of actions can constitute multiple offenses. One is not to assume Congress only intends one punishment per act, but rather, the aggregation of offenses forms the desired punishment. Congress would not create overlapping offenses if a criminal was meant to only receive one charge per series of criminal actions. While the entire situation may be looked at as solely hostage holding by the defense, I allege that each step in a series of actions constitutes a different and unique criminal offense. The act of using the gun to pin the victim along a wall is hostage holding. Using threats of violence to create fear in the victim is harassment, alarm, and distress. The act of demanding money under the threat of violence is the conspiracy to extort money.

I ask for the maximum penalties today not because the prosecution seeks to unduly burden this criminal, but because ko531 is a notorious repeat offender with a long rap sheet of murder, assault, mugging, and various other crimes. Repeat offenders need steep punishments to disincentivize their crimes and prevent these heinous acts from being committed on other people. The victim is also the current President and former Vice President, adding to the severity of these offenses. The prosecution asks the Court to find the perpetrator guilty of all offenses and to inflict the maximum sentence.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Apologies, your Honor, I thought it was 72 hours by default not 48. I will file now and if it gets struck, so be it.

Opening Statement

May it please the Court,

Your Honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered to witness this prosecution of a man who committed a crime so vile and malicious against a high profile, current President, this is a case of malice for money. The defendant committed a series of actions that constitute malicious offenses for the sole desire of money, regardless of the consequences. The defendant plead guilty to hostage holding and affirmed the facts at hand. He pointed a gun at lcn and demanded money, making threats several times, and then proceeded to shoot lcn when he refused to give in to this dangerous criminal's demands.

A course of actions can constitute multiple offenses. One is not to assume Congress only intends one punishment per act, but rather, the aggregation of offenses forms the desired punishment. Congress would not create overlapping offenses if a criminal was meant to only receive one charge per series of criminal actions. While the entire situation may be looked at as solely hostage holding by the defense, I allege that each step in a series of actions constitutes a different and unique criminal offense. The act of using the gun to pin the victim along a wall is hostage holding. Using threats of violence to create fear in the victim is harassment, alarm, and distress. The act of demanding money under the threat of violence is the conspiracy to extort money.

I ask for the maximum penalties today not because the prosecution seeks to unduly burden this criminal, but because ko531 is a notorious repeat offender with a long rap sheet of murder, assault, mugging, and various other crimes. Repeat offenders need steep punishments to disincentivize their crimes and prevent these heinous acts from being committed on other people. The victim is also the current President and former Vice President, adding to the severity of these offenses. The prosecution asks the Court to find the perpetrator guilty of all offenses and to inflict the maximum sentence.

The court will be allowing the late submission, unless the defences holds a valid objection.

However, you are hereby held in contempt of court for missing the deadline - as this was not your first case of failing to comply with court deadlines in this case.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

With that, the defense now has 48 hours to file their opening statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The court will be allowing the late submission, unless the defences holds a valid objection.

However, you are hereby held in contempt of court for missing the deadline - as this was not your first case of failing to comply with court deadlines in this case.

 

[ko531]

Opening Statement

I am guilty of Hostage Holding. Everything I did is encompassed by this crime. From the pointing of a gun to the demand for money is all listed and defined by this singular crime. The prosecution on the other hand is trying to break this clear cut crime into three while ignoring both the clear intent of congress, the constitution and logic when pursuing this case here today. Any sane person should be able to see that this is nothing more then a zealous overcharging

Firstly the prosecution says:

One is not to assume Congress only intends one punishment per act

The constitution clearly says that no one may be punished again for a single criminal act. So either the prosecution is purposely blinding themselves to this right or they are directly saying that congress is in direct violation of the constitution. This act is a crime and congress legislated a clear punishment for this crime. The prosecution is ignoring this and trying to punish me 3 times for 1 criminal act which is double jeopardy.

The prosecution has yet to explain how failing to commit a crime deserves a 2.5x harsher punishment except because of my criminal record. it does matter who did the crime it does not make any logical sense for failure to commit a crime to be 2.5x worse of a punishment. Extortion is capped at $10,000 but yet this conspiracy to commit Extortion charge, the prosecution is asking $25,000. They can not explain how this logically makes any sense so how can the court in a million years rule in favor of it.

Why so much of an overcharge you may ask? Revenge. I prosecuted Alexanderlove while in the DOJ a handful of times as requested by AGs at the time. Alexanderlove is doing nothing but trying to use his government position to enact his revenge against a man only doing the job given to him.

Any sane person should be able to see through this act of revenge resulting in this massive overcharge that is violating my right against double jeopardy. This is an attempt to punish the same criminal act 3 separate times while ignoring any logical reasoning when drafting the sentencing guidelines. The only guideline the Prosecution followed was to ask for the maximum no matter what.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@bigpappa140 & @MysticPhunky is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ko531.

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.

 

[MysticPhunky]

Present.

 

[bigpappa140]

Present, May I request that I don't answer questions?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Present, May I request that I don't answer questions?

You must answer all questions posed to you by plaintiff or defense.

On the other hand, given that both witnesses have declared their presence within the allotted time frame, the Prosecution may proceed with examining their witnesses.

Prosecutors have 48 hours to file the questions they wish to pose the witness, and witnesses shall have a further 48 hours to respond.

Should the prosecution wish to pose further questions, they may do so within 48 hours of a witness’s response.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

To both witnesses:
1. Where did the confrontation in this case take place?
2. Did ko hold anyone else at gun point?
3. How did ko’s actions affect your personal feeling of safety and security?

 

[MysticPhunky]

1. Where did the confrontation in this case take place? | it took place at the ufc event
2. Did ko hold anyone else at gun point? | im not too sure, but he did kill a few people including me.
3. How did ko’s actions affect your personal feeling of safety and security? | it made me feel unsafe

 

[Alexander P. Love]

1. Where did the confrontation in this case take place? | it took place at the ufc event
2. Did ko hold anyone else at gun point? | im not too sure, but he did kill a few people including me.
3. How did ko’s actions affect your personal feeling of safety and security? | it made me feel unsafe

Thank you, no further questions for this witness.

 

[bigpappa140]

1. On an Aventura island during an event hosted by me.
2. Do not know,
3. Didn't affect me too much as I wasn't getting shot at much.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

1. On an Aventura island during an event hosted by me.
2. Do not know,
3. Didn't affect me too much as I wasn't getting shot at much.

Was this an official DPA event?

 

[bigpappa140]

Was this an official DPA event?

It was an Aventura Event but technically run by the DPA.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

It was an Aventura Event but technically run by the DPA.

No further questions at this time, your Honor

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Thank you prosecutor.

Defense may proceed to cross examine the witnesses. Post your questions within the next 48 hours. Witnesses are to respond within a subsequent 48 hours. You may ask a follow up within 48 hours of the witness’s response.

 

[ko531]

Sorry Your Honor for the late response I have been busy but I don't have any questions for these witnesses

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Witnesses are hereby dismissed. Thank you for your time.

With witness examination out of the way, the court shall move to closing statements.

The Prosecution has 48 hours to post their closing remarks. Late submissions will not be tolerated.
Please request an extension if necessary.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Witnesses are hereby dismissed. Thank you for your time.

With witness examination out of the way, the court shall move to closing statements.

The Prosecution has 48 hours to post their closing remarks. Late submissions will not be tolerated.
Please request an extension if necessary.

The prosecution requests a 12 hour extension, been a busy week.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The prosecution requests a 12 hour extension, been a busy week.

Granted. You have 12 hours from your messge.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Granted. You have 12 hours from your messge.

So now I have an hour less to submit it?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

So now I have an hour less to submit it?

You have ~5 hours left?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

You have ~5 hours left?

I asked for a 12 hour extension. Originally have until 2AM, and your ruling made it become 1AM. I need until 2PM.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen who serve as interested parties in this case, this is an open-and-shut case of harassment, conspiracy to commit extortion, and hostage holding. We saw evidence that the defendant committed a series of actions that constitute multiple crimes. First, he held a gun at the victim, preventing him from leaving. This is hostage holding. Next, he used the fear from the gun and demanded money. This is conspiracy to commit extortion. Finally, he made the victim scared for his life. This is harassment, alarm, and distress by legal definition. A series of actions may have multiple crimes apply. The defense's defense is therefore inapplicable. This was not one specific action that has the book thrown at it: it is a series of crimes that are related but distinct.

The prosecution asks that the Court find the defendant guilty on all charges.

 

[ko531]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

This case may at a quick glance just look like a prosecution for illegal activity. But when breaking down this case it becomes clear that this case in one way or another will directly impact how Double Jeopardy is interpreted and applied. When writing this verdict, one should not be judging how much punishment I should receive but how to keep the fundamental right XVI intact.

I plead guilty to Hostage holding which by definition is exactly what I did. I held someone at gunpoint and demanded ransom. For the other crimes being alleged it takes an imaginatory leap to see the action fit the definition. I am not saying that this leap is unreasonable by a definition standpoint, but it is unreasonable by the fact that it bypasses the right against Double Jeopardy by criminalizing the same action multiple times.

Congress when writing the law against Hostage holding, they quite clearly said that this action deserves this exact punishment, a punishment by which I am willing to accept as seen by my guilty plea. Any other intent by congress as implied by the defense would be an attempt to bypass this same constitutional right. So, you must look at what is more reasonable. Congress purposely trying to nullify a constitutional right or Congress only trying to apply one punishment for this specific action.

Now, if you were to rule in favor of the defense and charge me with all 3 crimes, you will in turn be sentencing the XVI right's to the death penalty. It still would be illegal to charge someone for the exact same crime twice, it would not be illegal to make multiple laws punishing the same action. So, before you rule in favor of the defense ask yourself, what would be stopping congress from making 50 separate laws against a single act to bypass double jeopardy.

But not even the prosecutor of this case believes what he is spouting. His motives are clear, revenge. When working for the DOJ I represent the commonwealth in these cases:

The Commonwealth v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 116
The Commonwealth v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102
The Commonwealth v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 100
Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth [2024] FCR 99
Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth [2024] FCR 98

I worked a job while in the DOJ. This job was to represent the commonwealth and do as instructed. These cases were merely a job for me as I was performing my duties or following orders by the Acting AG at the time. Now all these cases were against Alexanderlove. Alexanderlove does not see my actions as a job but as some sort of plot against him. if you do not believe my word for this let's look at Alexander's on words in xEndeavor v. Alexanderlove [2025] DCR 1:

"the potential perception of bias due to having a known, public feud with ko531, and furthermore am prosecuting this magistrate and have been several times prosecuted by this magistrate"

Alexander himself admitted to having a feud with me and that is all this case is about. You can see by the sentencing. There is no guideline except to charge with as many crimes as possible and as much as possible. This is seen in the clear discrepancy with Extortion being a $10k offense yet Conspiracy to Commit Extortion is being recommended $25k along with the maximum for every other crime being alleged.

So, to end my closing statements I must reiterate the importance to view the possible impact on Double Jeopardy and is it worth it when the Prosector himself is not out for justice but for revenge? Is a constitutional right worth being restricted and harmed for one man's pursuit of revenge?