Lawsuit: Adjourned Vertex v. The Department of Justice [2021] FCR 109

Status
Not open for further replies.
Admin23

Admin23

Citizen
Willow Resident
4th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls
Admin23
Admin23
attorney
Joined
Oct 2, 2021
Messages
173
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Vertex (The_Thought_Fox)

Plaintiff


v.


The Department of Justice

Defendant


COMPLAINT


Plaintiff complains against Defendant as follows:


Defendant has not fulfilled their duties in arresting RFRG1 since he has murdered Plaintiff.


I. PARTIES
1. Vertex - Plaintiff
2. Admin23 - Counsel
3. The Department of Justice - Defendant


II. FACTS
1. Plaintiff punched RFRG1 once, and in return, RFRG1 killed Plaintiff. Plaintiff had said “no consent” in chat after.

2. Upon seeing that the Police had not arrested RFRG1, Plaintiff opened a ticket in the DemocracyCraft server for the services of Defendant.

3. elainathomas and baole444 had stated that RFRG1 was justified in killing Plaintiff and stated that the Police were justified in not arresting RFRG1.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under the Self Defense Act, Self Defense is defined as:
“A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made.”

2. A punch (0.5 hearts of damage with no armor) and killing (20 hearts of damage, and even more damage with armor) are not proportional. A punch could be accidental, or even just to get a person’s attention. There was no tool or weapon in Plaintiff’s hand which would cause more damage to RFRG1, but RFRG1 still killed Plaintiff and claimed self defense.

3. If the Police officers do not know the law, and Defendant does not know the law, then there is no quality enforcement of the law because there is no supervision or legal oversight of the Officers that are charged with keeping Redmont safe.


IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1. Defendant arrest RFRG1 and charge him with the Murder of Defendant.

2. Defendant pay Plaintiff in $5,000 in recompense for dereliction of duties.

V. EVIDENCE
I hereby tender the following exhibits into evidence:
Exhibit 1.
https://media.discordapp.net/attach...231707/Screenshot_20211002-231222_Discord.jpg
Exhibit 2.
https://media.discordapp.net/attach...399646/Screenshot_20211002-231225_Discord.jpg


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 October, 2021.
 
Court-Federal-Seal.png


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The
Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of the Vertex(The Lovely Law Firm Representing) v. The Department of Justice. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Last edited:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Vertex
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Claim for relief three has nothing to do with this case. If they did not know the law then we wouldn’t have officers. Furthermore, the claim for relief is an opinion that cannot be drawn from the law, DOJ policy, or the facts provided to us today. Claims for relief have legal bases, but the third claim for relief simply does not have that legal backing. The plaintiff is drawing conclusions based on their own thoughts and beliefs. Thoughts and beliefs on people are not accepted as fact, nor the backing of one's case.

2. When a player is punched, said player has no idea what they are in for. While it could be a friendly gesture, it could also be seen as a sign of attack. Unfortunately one doesn’t know what the intentions are when a player is hit. When this happens, it is well within the right of a player to defend themselves. RFRG1 saw Vertex as an imminent danger and used appropriate force to defend himself. RFRG1 did not know the danger he was in, therefore acted in a way to defend himself from a potential attacker, in the event of killing him.

3.

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.

(The words defendant and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: The 3rd day of November 2021
 
Would the Plaintiff like to rebuttal?
 
REBUTTAL

1. Defendant has stated that the third claim of relief is an opinion of Plaintiff and has no legal basis yet Plaintiff has furnished evidence in fact 3, the first and second claim of relief, and the exhibits submitted to this court. Defendant has also not refuted any other points.

2. Not knowing what one may or may not be in for does not justify being murdered. Under the laws of Redmont, Plaintiff was murdered. Simple as that. Defendant hasn’t arrested the murderer and has, and still is currently defending the murderer who they are supposed to arrest.


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: The 3rd day of November, 2021.
 
The Motion to Dismiss is REJECTED we will now be moving on to Opening statements starting with the plaintiff.
 
Good morning, your Honor, opposing counsel. I will show the court that Defendant has not fulfilled their duties and have argued against doing so and the law itself.


The Police has not arrested RFRG1, who has murdered Plaintiff. Upon requesting assistance from Defendant, elainathomas and baole444 gave legally incorrect statements about self defense and murder.

Defendant and the Police have an obligation to enforce laws as they are written. Enforcing such laws include arresting individuals who have violated the laws. If the Police cannot do that properly, and Defendant cannot give proper legal oversight of the Police, then there is no law enforcement and it is merely at the discretion of the Police Officers, then we are simply opening ourselves up for blatant and rampant corruption across Redmont.


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.
 
The Defense my present their Opening Statement
 
The defense has 24 hours to produce an opening statement or we will move on without it
 
Your honor,

I request 48 hours. The Office of the Attorney General is very busy, and I have events planned.
 
You have been granted a 48 hour extension
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Vertex
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor and opposing council,

This is a case about the interpretation of the Self Defense Act. Under §3, self defense is defined to be “A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made.” In this case, the courts are to determine what a “reasonable and proportionate defensive response” is.

In Redmont, we roam the streets with a variety of people, some people make it their best to follow the law, others are bent on breaking these laws. How do we know what people's intentions are? The answer is we don't. We could walk next to a law abiding citizen, or we could walk next to someone out for blood. The fact is we don’t know what the player's motives are. A punch could be an intent to get one's attention, or it could be the first blow in an attempt to kill. Unfortunately, no one is a mind reader so when one is punched without context, we don’t know the intent of an out of context punch.

Today this court is in session to determine a player's right to defend themselves. Unfortunately, the plaintiff has used this court as an attempt to make a statement about how he feels about the Department of Justice. Nowhere in the plaintiff’s opening statement did he explain his reasoning for this case underlying question, What is a reasonable and proportionate defensive response? The plaintiff instead attacked the integrity of the Department of Justice. In his last paragraph, there is no evidence to support any of the claims, and the claims do not relate to the original lawsuit.

In this case, the thing we do know is Vertex admitted to assaulting RFRG1. RFRG1 didn’t know whether this was a simple gesture, or an attack on his life, and in turn, defended himself from someone who attacked him. This is justified self defense, and the people of Redmont ought to be allowed to protect themselves from people who are assaulting them.
 
Thank you Mr. Attorney General, in accordance with Court Rules an Procedures this court will be moving on to Witnesses and Testimonials. Mr. Admin23, do you wish to call any witnesses? If so list them so they my be summoned.
 
Your Honor, I would like to call elainathomas, baole444, and Vertex to the stand.
 
Court-Federal-Seal.png


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@ElainaThomas29 @Baole444 @RandomBoi2000 is hereby summoned to the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 11-2021-01 as witnesses. They have 48 hours to appear. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the Defendant, and you may also be cross-examined by the Plaintiff's council.

I am hereby informing the witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.​
 
I'm Eastray_, now present in front of the court
 
@Admin23 You my post your all your questions for each person in one post.
 
For Vertex:

1) When opening a ticket with the DOJ, did you explain the situation and send the applicable laws to baole444 and elainathomas?

2) Under the law, did you think that killing someone was a reasonable response to a punch?

For baole444 and elainathomas:

Is it reasonable to kill someone if they punch you? Under the applicable laws, in your professional law enforcement opinion, is that reasonable?
 
I don’t feel that the plaintiff has shown the full picture in their question for me to accurately understand the question and provide an answer. Staff provided plugins do not give us any information on how many hearts someone has in determining if something is self defense or not. What officers have available to them only shows who started the fight, who was the person that killed, and who was the person that was killed.
 
Your honor, I have one follow up question for elainathomas if it would be allowable. I didn’t plan on a second question but to fully flesh out the situation it would be very useful.
 
You may proceed
 
elainathomas, if the Police see someone kill someone else using the Plugin, and after, the killed person says “no consent”, is it not Police policy to arrest the killer?
 
To my extend, I just basically follow the law given that all we know is the victim being attacked and given the situation they are on the edge of life and death, necessary action may be carried out. Furthermore, I have already gotten the confirmation 2 times from the secretary to give the rightful judgment.
Admin23 said:
elainathomas, if the Police see someone kill someone else using the Plugin, and after, the killed person says “no consent”, is it not Police policy to arrest the killer?
Click to expand...

For this question, as the policy, we will arrest the one who carries out the murder unless they got enough evidence to back up their act of murder is lawfully or not.
 
@Baole444 I hereby hold you in Contempt of Court and hereby order the Department of Justice to fine you $100 for your first offence. Refrain from answering questions not addressed to you.
 
Admin23 said:
elainathomas, if the Police see someone kill someone else using the Plugin, and after, the killed person says “no consent”, is it not Police policy to arrest the killer?
Click to expand...
If someone is killed and it shows up as murder, we used to ask if they consent, now they run the new /complain command.

If someone is killed and it shows up as self defense, we do not ask if they consent.
 
Thank you for your testimony. The Defendant my at this time cross examine the witnesses.
 
Last edited:
Question for ElainaThomas
In the evidence provided in the original filing, you held the position that because Vertex attacked RFRG1 first, RFRG1 could claim self defense. Could you please explain to the court your reasoning behind this position?

Edited: Bold portion is edited to complete the sentence
 
Last edited:
When someone is killed, the coroner report displays information.

The information displayed for this scenario would read something along the lines of “Vertex was killed by RFRG1 after Vertex started the fight.”

This information does not provide us any information regarding how much damage was dealt by the person who initiated the fight to determine if the damage they did took half of a heart or 9. We are limited in the information that we are given and have to make a decision based upon that.

Based on this information, we treat it as self defense and we rely on the plug in that is available to us.

If Vertex had hit RFRG1 and only dealt even half a heart worth of damage, this could still have led to their arrest for assault as assault is when there is a loss of hearts that equals to be less than three. More than three, attempted murder.

Even if RFRG1 never acted in self defense, Vertex could have been charged for crimes related to their starting the fight regardless.
 
Thank Elaina. No further questions your honor.
 
We will now proceed to closing statements starting with the Plaintiff
 
Good Afternoon, your Honor, and opposing counsel.

Plaintiff here is the victim of two wrongdoings. First, they were murdered by RFRG1. Second, the Police didn't arrest the murderer. Once Plaintiff sought help from Defendant and gave clarity to the situation at hand, they were turned away without legal justification or any foundation in law for their explanation. Even if there was a mistake with the plugins and how that would show up with self defense or not, it does not take into account the hearts of damage done, which is required for a crime. self defense is defined as:
“A reasonable and proportionate defensive response to an imminent threat where a criminal action against the individual or property has been directly made.”
Plaintiff did not commit a criminal action. There is no possible argument for self defense. Half a heart of damage does not justify a retaliatory killing of another player. Under the law, Plaintiff was murdered. It is cut and dry. Draining a player of all of their health for a half a heart of damage is not a reasonable and proportionate defensive response, as required to argue self defense.

The precedent it will establish if this is ruled in favor of Defendant will essentially not require the Police to enforce laws as written and approved by the legislature. There should be rule of law and enforcement of law. This is a breach of both. Murder based on a misunderstanding should not be allowed.
 
The AG my present their closing statement
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Vertex
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor, opposing council,


This case is about self defense. What is reasonable self defense? Let’s go over the facts of the case.
  1. Vertex assaulted RFRG1
  2. As a response to the assault, RFRG1 attacked back, killing Vertex.

Vertex attacked first, giving RFRG1 the right to defend himself.

In this case, the Plaintiff has failed to state why RFRG1 did not have the right to defend himself. The plaintiff has failed to understand that because Vertex assaulted RFRG1, RFRG1 was given the right to defend himself. RFRG1 could not be able to tell whether Vertex’s punch was a friendly or an intent to murder. In order to protect his life, RFRG1 used self defense in order to prevent further damage. This court should not infringe upon a player's right to defend themselves from attackers. The point of the self defense act was to make sure that players got legal protection to defend themselves. The defendant has shown consistently that RFRG1 acted in self defense, and that the DOJ was right in not arresting RFRG1.

With that, the state rests.
 
I will have a verdict by tonight
 

Verdict




I. Plaintiffs Stance

The Plaintiff in this case alleges that he was unjustifiably murdered and the Department of Justice did not do their job.

II. Defenses Stance

RFRG1 was justified in his killing of Vertex as they had no idea what the intensions were of the punch and the Department of Justice is not at fault here.

III. Courts Opinion

I believe that RFRG1 did indeed murder the plaintiff as he severely over reacted to the one punch. From what has been presented and the cases that both sides have made, I believe that a clear answer is here.

IIII. Verdict

In this case the Court will be ruling in favor of the Plaintiff vertex. Although i am ruling in favor of the plaintiff i will not be granting the Pray for relief. I will URGE the Department of Justice to look into the two officers conduct and deal with them accordingly.

I would like to thank all parties involved and thank them for their time. This case is now closed.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top