Lawsuit: Adjourned xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nnmc

Citizen
Legal Eagle Change Maker Statesman Popular in the Polls
nnmc
nnmc
attorney
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
322
APPEALED CASE

Original Case: xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade (The Lovely Law Firm representing) v. Department of Justice [Case No. 07-2021-06]
Appeal Link: Case No. 07-2021-06 - Appeal Request

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade (The Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

--------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows: The plaintiffs were walking together when suddenly they were attacked by Dwerpy. In self-defence, the plaintiffs killed Dwerpy. Dwerpy then returned to the scene, and then killed the plaintiffs. Dwerpy then sent screenshots to Trainee Officer Alexthelillion. These screenshots were misleading in nature because they did not show that the plaintiffs were acting in self-defence. Dwerpy then used the screenshots to claim that the plaintiffs had committed the crime of murder. This convinced Alexthelillion to arrest and jail the plaintiffs for the crime of murder. The plaintiffs were sentenced to jail for 10 minutes each.

The issue at hand is that Trainee Officer Alexthelillion committed the crime of police misconduct. Dwerpy was the initial aggressor who committed the initial assault, so the plaintiffs then acted in self-defense by killing Dwerpy. Dwerpy then returned for revenge, and killed both of the plaintiffs. The issue is that the Trainee Officer failed to issue the punishments that are specifically outlined by the law. Dwerpy committed the crime of assault, if not murder, but the Trainee Officer did not issue any punishment at all against Dwerpy. The law specifically outlines that assault, attempted murder, and murder are all to be punished with a fine and jail time. On the other hand, the plaintiffs acted in self-defense in response to Dwerpy's aggressions. Even though citizens have the right to kill in self-defense, the Trainee Officer arrested and jailed the plaintiffs for committing the crimes of murder.

This shows that the Trainee Officer committed the crime of police misconduct, by issuing punishments that are inconsistent with the punishments specifically outlined by the law. The Trainee Officer overpunished the plaintiffs and underpunished Dwerpy.

-------------------------------------------

I. PARTIES
1. xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade (Plaintiffs)
2. Alexthelillion (Trainee Officer accused of misconduct)
3. Dwerpy (Witness)

-------------------------------------------

II. FACTS

1. Plaintiffs xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade were walking down the street when Dwerpy attacked them out of nowhere.
2. In self defense, the plaintiffs (xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade) fought back against Dwerpy and killed Dwerpy. However, Dwerpy later returns and kills both xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade for revenge.
3. Dwerpy took screenshots of when xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade acted in self defense and use it to accuse them of murder. Dwerpy presented this evidence to Trainee Officer Alexthelillion.
4. This led to Alexthelillion arresting the plaintiffs for the crime of murder.
5. Both plaintiffs served 10 minutes of jail time for the crime of murder, even though the plaintiffs killed in self-defense.
6. Dwerpy was the one who committed the initial assault and was the aggressor. Despite that, Dwerpy was not arrested or jailed.
7. Trainee Officer Alexthelillion did not ask for the plaintiffs' side of the story. The Trainee Officer solely relied on Dwerpy's story.

-------------------------------------------

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The facts show that xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade were attacked first and only killed in self-defense, and the right to self-defense is a right granted by common law and the Self Defense Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not break the law.
2. Dwerpy was the person who initially attacked the plaintiffs, and Dwerpy did eventually murder both of the plaintiffs. This means that Dwerpy committed the crime of murder twice as well as the crime of assault.
3. Law 15.18, established by the "Protection of the Public Act", is about the crime of police misconduct. This law states that a police officer is guilty of the crime of police misconduct, if the officer issues "punishments that conflict with the punishments specifically outlined" by the law. This crime is punishable by "a fine of at least $500 and at most $10,000".
4. Laws 13.1, 13.4, and 13.5 are about the crimes of assault, attempted murder, and murder, respectively. Dwerpy murdered the plaintiffs and could plausibly be charged with murder, but at the very very least, Dwerpy should be charged with assault. Even in the situation where Dwerpy is charged with assault (the least serious crime of the bunch), Law 13.1 says that assault, even on the first offense, should be punished with a fine of $20 and 5 minutes of jail time. Law 13.1, and especially Laws 13.4 and 13.5, do not allow no punishment as sufficient punishment.
5. Trainee Officer Alexthelillion violated Law 15.18 and committed twice the crime of police misconduct. This is because the Trainee Officer issued no punishment to Dwerpy, despite the laws specifically outlining that Dwerpy should have been punished with a fine and jail time for the crimes Dwerpy committed. That is the definition of police misconduct, and the Trainee Officer is guilty of it. Furthermore, the Trainee Officer jailed the plaintiffs for killing Dwerpy in self-defense, which does not count as the crime of murder and so no punishment should have been issued. Thus, the Trainee Officer's punishment against the plaintiffs goes against what is specifically outlined by the law, meaning the crime of police misconduct was again committed.

-------------------------------------------

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiffs seek the following from the Defendant:
1. The Trainee Officer committed police misconduct in a particularly outrageous way. The Trainee Officer failed to arrest and punish the true criminal, and instead the Trainee Officer arrested and punished the innocent plaintiffs. That is very damaging to the rule of law and will embolden other criminals.
2. Thus, we are seeking $10,000, to be paid by the DOJ. This is $5,000 per offense of police misconduct, and there were 2 offenses.
3. We also are seeking the expungement of the arrests and jail sentences of the plaintiffs, since that punishment was issued in contradiction of the guidelines of the law.

-------------------------------------------

Image 1: Shows Dwerpy shooting an arrow at Plaintiff LTSlade. The arrow can be seen in the body of LTSlade as he dies. A bow can also be seen in the hand of Dwerpy. This image is on the attached link to a Google Doc.

Image 2: At the bottom left of the screen, it is evident that Dwerpy also killed xxTigOlBittiesxx. This image is on the attached link to a Google Doc.

Image 3: Proof that The Lovely Law Firm was hired by the plaintiffs. This image is attached as a file to this post.

IMAGES 1 & 2: Evidence Pictures <--- this is a hyperlink
-------------------------------------------

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 23rd of July 2021
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Image3.png
    Image3.png
    18.5 KB · Views: 204
Last edited by a moderator:
supreme-court-seal-png.8642

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

As an appeal has been granted to the case that was heard in the Federal Court on July 2, this case has hereby been brought to the Supreme Court.

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of xXTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. The Department of Justice. Failure to appear within 72 hours, or this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.​
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


MOTION TO DISMISS

xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade (The Lovely Law Firm representing)


Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice


Defendant





MOTION TO DISMISS


Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:


1. The Plaintiffs made a claim that Dwerpy killed the plaintiffs in Self-defense, however, this claim was never supported by any evidence, witness testimony, etc.
2. The plaintiffs made a claim that Dwerpy showed misleading screenshots to an officer and never provided any evidence to support the claim
3. The plaintiffs made the frivolous claim that they should be awarded 10,000$, the maximum punishment for police misconduct, despite the fact that even if in some way the police officer in question committed some kind of misconduct as the plaintiffs say it would be ridiculous to ask for 10,000$ to compensate for this, the plaintiffs never showed any reasoning to this claim saying that the misconduct was severe but never elaborating. 10 minutes of jail time that they claim is wrongful does not warrant $10,000 of compensation. The plaintiff should not be awarded anywhere near the amount requested.
4. The plaintiffs only presented 2 pieces of evidence in this case and neither of them support the claims made by the plaintiff of a self defense kill, and then that dwerpy returned to the scene to kill the plaintiffs. There is no evidence showing that for example Dwerpy just killed the plaintiffs in a consented kill on another day. Without an officer asking for consent or an arrest, there is no evidence an uncontested kill even happened
5. According to court procedure an appeal will be granted or denied within 3 days, in this case it was not, which violates procedure.
6. The Plaintiffs are severely misinterpreting the meaning of the Protection of the public act, The Act states that “Any officer found guilty in court to be issuing punishments that conflict with the punishments specifically outlined is to have committed police misconduct”. This is to say that any Police officer who makes up crimes or arrests someone for a crime that is not deemed illegal by the law, is guilty of police misconduct. The Plaintiffs are asking for compensation under a law that does not define police misconduct in the way the plaintiffs understand it to. Therefore, it would be unfair for the courts to charge the Department of Justice under that law.
7. In addition to the misinterpretation by the plaintiffs, the plaintiff is asking for the courts to fine the department of Justice when the law in question says “The punishment for Police Misconduct shall be a fine of at least $500 and at most $10,000, jail time of at most 30 minutes, and the offending officer may be stripped of their officer position and be temporarily or permanently barred from serving as an officer in the future, at the court’s discretion.” The law is clearly intended to punish officers, not the department of justice for this misconduct, therefore it is unfair for the plaintiffs to ask the court to fine the department of Justice for this amount, even if misconduct occurred as the plaintiffs say.
8. The plaintiffs are asking for compensation from the department of justice believing that the law says that for police misconduct the department of justice should be punished. However by this logic, the department should be jailed as well because the plaintiffs say the maximum punishment is warranted, which includes 30 minutes of Jail time. However, obviously a department cannot be jailed, so this law was clearly intended to fine the offending officer, not the department of Justice.
9. The plaintiffs referenced a case for precedent (nnmc v. DoJ) however, that case was only won due to a default ruling and does not prove anything
10. The case mentioned for precedent was granted an appeal in the Supreme Court
11. It would be incredibly dangerous, for the Supreme Court to set the precedent that without any significant evidence, 2 players who were allegedly killed without consent, can recieve 10,000 dollars, based on pure speculation.
12. In conclusion, the plaintiffs, without significant evidence, are trying to use the court as a way to make money, and are wasting court time in this frivolous suit. The court is not meant to be a way to make money. When the court awards money to a party, it should be for compensation. Not only did the plaintiffs in this case misinterpret the law and ask for money from the DoJ instead of the officer in question, but the plaintiffs also did not show any reason for their requested prayer for relief. The plaintiffs were jailed for 10 minutes, Unless the plaintiffs collectively make 1,000 per minute while on the server, there is clearly no good reasoning for this. For all these reasons, this frivolous case should be dismissed.


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 of July 2021
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

The motion to dismiss should NOT be granted for the following reasons:

  • In points 1, 2, and 4 of the motion to dismiss, the defendant is trying to use alleged lack of evidence as a reason to dismiss the case. Lack of evidence is never a valid reason to dismiss a case, as per the rules of the courts.
  • In points 3 and 7/8 of the motion to dismiss, the defendant is trying to use the prayer for relief for $10k as a reason to dismiss the case.
    • In point 3, the defendant accuses $10k of being a frivolous amount. By calling this case "frivolous", the defendant is grossly understating the seriousness of the police letting a murder off the hook and instead arresting the victims of the crime. But regardless, in the case that the court agrees that $10k is too much money, the court always has the option when issuing the verdict to grant a lesser amount of money, as has been done in many previous cases (such as Partypig678 v. Dept. of Construction & Transport). There is absolutely no reason to use the $10k prayer for relief to declare this case "frivolous" and dismiss the case.
    • In point 7/8, the defendant claims that any monetary relief should be paid by the individual police officer, not the DoJ. This makes absolutely no sense, because it is a rule of the courts that when you are suing for police misconduct, the defendant should be the DoJ and not the individual police officer. Thus, the DoJ as the defendant is to be punished, and the way to punish the DoJ as the defendant is with a monetary fine. Of course you can't imprison a department, but the DoJ still needs to be punished with the fine because they are responsible for employing a bad officer and (per the court's rules) the DoJ is the defendant in any case against a police officer. It appears that the defendant is misinterpreting the punishments for police misconduct. The correct punishments are: any fine is to be paid by the DoJ, and any jail time and/or being fired from the job is the punishment for the individual officer. This is backed up by precedent such as nnmc v. Department of Justice. This is also backed up by basic logic: most police officers can't afford a $10k fine so it doesn't really make sense for officers to pay the fines. Furthermore, if an officer commits misconduct, it makes logical sense for the DoJ to be punished with the fine for employing a bad officer. There is no inaccuracy when it comes to who should be the defendant in this case, so there is no reason here to dismiss the case.
  • In point 6 of the motion to dismiss, the defendant is trying to make a ridiculous interpretation of Law 15.18 and trying to use that to say that Law 15.18 was not broken. Law 15.18, literally as written by Congress and assented to by the President, says that police issuing punishments inconsistent with the law is the crime of police misconduct. The defendant is baselessly and ridiculously trying to narrow the definition of the law by claiming that the law only criminalizes "making up crimes" or "false arrest". I point out the precedent of nnmc v. Department of Justice which shows that it is the crime of police misconduct if an officer under-punishes or fails to punish a guilty person. Officer Alexthelillion failed to punish the guilty person Dwerpy, which is police misconduct. But even under the defendant's false and too-narrow interpretation of Law 15.18, Officer Alexthelillion did falsely arrest the plaintiffs for killing someone in self-defense even though self-defense is legal. The defendant is trying to falsely interpret Law 15.18 in order to claim that this case has inaccuracies, but this case has no inaccuracies and should not be dismissed. The defendant (the DoJ) is NOT Congress and thus does NOT have the power to write the law. Only Congress has the power to write the law, and when Congress wrote the law, Congress wrote that punishments inconsistent with the law are ILLEGAL. The defendant should stop trying to say that "making up crimes" or "false arrest" is what the law says, because the law DOES NOT say that and the defendant does not get to decide what the law says.
  • In point 5 of the motion to dismiss, the defendant is ridiculously trying to use the amount of time the Supreme Court took to grant this appeal as a reason for a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court is merely suggesting that it will take them 3 days or less to accept or deny an appeal. The 3 day thing is not listed in the forum page for court rules and procedures, and is therefore not a court rule or procedure. It makes sense that sometimes things take longer than expected, and it's perfectly okay for the Supreme Court to take some extra time. The DoJ of all people should understand that, considering that the DoJ often requests extensions on cases. Point 5 is quite disrespectful to the court and quite hypocritical considering the DoJ's habit of requesting extensions. This is definitely not a valid reason for dismissal.
  • In point 9 of the motion to dismiss, the defendant claims that a default ruling somehow makes a case not count as precedent. This is completely false. Any verdict of the court (default ruling or not) is a fully enforceable and legally binding decision.
  • In response to point 10: The fact that an appeal was granted means nothing. The appealed case is still being litigated and in the meantime, the Federal Court's ruling in nnmc v. DoJ remains in place as fully enforceable and legally binding.
  • In response to point 11: Yet again I will point out that alleged lack of evidence is NOT a reason for dismissal. The plaintiff will be providing witnesses and further evidence as the case proceeds.
  • In response to point 12: Yet again, lack of evidence is NOT a reason for dismissal. Yet again, the $10k prayer for relief does not make this case frivolous; when the court is issuing a verdict, the court can choose to grant a lesser amount of money, if it so wishes. This is a very serious and not frivolous case, because the matter at hand is a severe miscarriage of justice for the plaintiffs who were wrongly jailed. We want compensation for the reason that the miscarriage of justice has scarred the plaintiffs, has shaken the plaintiffs' confidence in the justice system that governs them, and the plaintiffs feel that their liberty is endangered if this sort of miscarriage of justice is let off the hook.

There is no valid reason to dismiss this case.
 
In the appeal of this case, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear this case and we will hear this case in full. The motion to dismiss has not alleged any frivolous or inaccuracies in the case, but instead presented a defence. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is hereby rejected.

We will proceed with the court procedure accordingly, starting with opening statements. These opening statements can act as rebuttals to the initial motion / response to motion if appropriate. The Defendant is hereby asked to present their opening statement first. Thank you.
 
Your Honor, it has been nearly 48 hours since you asked for the defendant’s opening statement. The defendant still has not provided that opening statement, nor given a timeline for when we can expect that opening statement. I’d like the defendant to quickly provide the opening statement or ask for an extension if they need one for some reason. Otherwise, the court should move on without the defendant’s opening statement.
 
@GoodMorning9 I am setting a deadline of 24 hours for you to respond with your opening statement or we will proceed without it. Thank you.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Opening Statement
I understand this statement is brief, however the plaintiffs have made many repeated points.

The plaintiff, in there response to the motion to dismiss, mentioned that the amount requested does not make the case frivolous, the reason the plaintiffs mentioned this amount was simply to demonstrate the plaintiffs are clearly using this case as a means to profit, and thus they are asking for an amount that makes absoultely no sense. They also mentioned a case for precedent that is still active in the supreme court and said it is still valid which does not make sense. The defendant talked about the misinterpretation of the law, however instead of explaining in depth, they once again refereneced an open case for referenfce. Also, the plaintiff never really explained how the law could possibly punisht the department if jail is an open option for punishment. And they heavily relied on precedent when making points in there response to motion to dismiss.

The defendants should win this case because the plaintiffs are using broad interpretations of the law and punishments that make no sense. They are relying on precedents from on an open case, and have shown a clear lack of evidence, as well as not having followed proper procedure, such as opening a DoJ ticket. The plaintiffs have made many claims unsupported by evidence and the law.
 
Thank you, the Plaintiff may now present their opening statement.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT

In this case, the Plaintiffs were arrested for the murder of Dwerpy, when in fact the Plaintiffs were killed by Dwerpy as well. I intend to provide evidence and witness testimony to prove this during the evidence/testimony stage of the trial. This means that either all of them or none of them should have been charged with murder. Yet, then-Trainee Officer, now-Constable AlexTheLilLion only arrested and jailed the plaintiffs, and let Dwerpy go free, which is a quite inconsistent and uneven punishment. Clearly, punishments inconsistent with the law and inconsistent with the situation were issued here. Law 15.18 clearly states that those inconsistent punishments are the crime of police misconduct. The DoJ needs to be strongly punished for not only employing this officer, but in fact promoting him to Constable despite these serious allegations.

The defendant has over and over again called this case frivolous and accused the plaintiffs of seeking to profit from the court, but that is simply the DoJ’s attempt to bully and intimidate the plaintiffs for seeking justice. The defendant has also repeatedly claimed that nnmc v. DoJ is not a valid precedent because there is an ongoing appeal. This is false because no injunction or stay was issued against the Federal Court’s verdict in nnmc v. DoJ.

I’d also like to point out to the court that the defendant is making some strange claims about the plaintiffs’ arguments. The defendant’s opening statement says that we didn’t explain how the DoJ can be punished. We literally explained that in our Response to the Motion to DIsmiss. Our Response to the Motion to Dismiss is incredibly detailed in responding point-by-point to the defendant’s ridiculous and constantly repeated defenses. I would urge the Defendant and the court to closely read over our Response to the Motion to Dismiss. The defendant is also trying to say that we rely too much on precedent. That makes zero sense because the entire point of precedent is that it should be used in court arguments.

In conclusion, the defendant accuses us of wrongful interpretation of Law 15.18. Our interpretation is equal word-for-word to what Congress wrote in that law. AlexTheLilLion clearly issued punishments unevenly and inconsistency with the law. Since the plaintiffs and Dwerpy were killing each other, respawning, and coming back for more PvP leaving the event blurry and hard to understand, there is no way to say that the plaintiffs are the only ones guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Either nobody or everybody should have been punished to make things fair and consistent with the law, but the officer on scene wrongly only arrested the plaintiffs.

The court and Defendant should be aware we are gathering significant evidence and testimony to provide during the appropriate stage of the trial
 
The court would like to thank both parties for the arguments they have presented here thus far.

Was there any witness testimony or additional evidence that either party wished to present before we proceed to closing statements?
 
Your honor,
The Defense will not be presenting any additional evidence or calling any witnesses at this time
 
Alright. Does the Plaintiff have any witnesses to call?
 
Your Honor, we would like to present the attached two coroner reports as evidence. We’d also like to call as witness the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Justice, Sergecool, who provided us with these coroner reports and who can provide expert testimony giving some insight about these reports. At this time, we’d also like to summon one of the plaintiffs, LTSlade, as a witness. We are working out the availability of the other plaintiff and we may summon him in the next few days.
 

Attachments

  • 3E13F1A9-0BC6-45C1-8CAF-1973E46170A9.png
    3E13F1A9-0BC6-45C1-8CAF-1973E46170A9.png
    102.1 KB · Views: 186
  • CA132AF1-458B-4F77-A375-78ACA7CE0CE1.png
    CA132AF1-458B-4F77-A375-78ACA7CE0CE1.png
    302.5 KB · Views: 196
supreme-court-seal-png.8642


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

@Dwerpy, @sergecool, and @LTSlade are hereby summoned to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 07-2021-06 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present.​
  • Dwerpy will receive questions will receive questions from the Defendant and may also be cross-examined.​
  • Sergecool and LTSladewill receive questions will receive questions from the Plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.​
I would ask that each party provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable.

I am hereby informing each 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.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.
​
 
Your honor,

I have noticed i was summoned as a witness to this case. But I was not the arresting officer/ I was not even online at that time. So if i can be honest i have no clue why I Sergecool am needed in this case...
 
Your honor,
I notice I have been summoned to this case. but I thought this case was already handled, from the previous case they had against me.
 
Since 48 hours have elapsed since the witness summons I will ask that the Plaintiff's counsel please ensure they inform Plaintiff LTSlade of the current summons they must comply to as soon as possible, and update the court on such matter.

Otherwise I will have no choice but to consider contempt of court charges to the witness for failure to respond to a summons issued by the court, noted under §15.10 of the Rules and Laws.
 
Your honor,
As pointed out by Sergecool, they were not directly involved in this case, and seemingly have nothing more to say. I motion they be dismissed from this case.
 
Your Honor, if Sergecool is dismissed because he is confused about why he is here, then by the same logic the defendant’s witness Dwerpy should be dismissed too. Dwerpy is also expressing confusion here.

As far as LTSlade’s absence, I apologize but LTSlade is not currently responding to my Discord messages. If this issue persists, I may seek the dismissal of LTSlade as a witness of this case. I will keep the court updated.
 
Your Honor, we wish to dismiss LTSlade as a witness of this case.
 
nnmc said:
Your Honor, we wish to dismiss LTSlade as a witness of this case.
Click to expand...
Provided the Defendant has no objection this witness is hereby dismissed.

As for the other witnesses, they will both proceed to answer the questions in this case.

Firstly, I would like the Defendant to present the questions they would like their witness, Dwerpy, to answer. After that, the Plaintiff will have an opportunity to cross-examine, and we will move on to Sergecool's testimony.
 
Question for Dwerpy:

1. What, in your own words, happened in your encounter with the two plaintiffs?
 
I have gotten on the server for 1 reason and 1 reason only and it was to find certain places behind the hospital to put some buses down for easy transportation, while walking trying to find a place i was being chased by LTslade and while being chased i ran into his friend xxtigolbittiesxx and they killed me at this time i was like ok imma just go back over there mind my business (not being worried about being killed) but when i get over there I immediatly get struck down by them again(shown in the screen shot) and then I went over there for a 3rd time to Kill them and i did(basiclly they kept trying to kill me after all that)

evidence:
2021-06-29_15.06.09.png
 
Does the Plaintiff wish to cross-examine the witness?
 
Yes we do, Your Honor.

1) Isn’t it true you went back to the scene of the crime rather than retreating like most people would?

2) Isn’t it true you returned to get revenge kills?

3) isn’t it true you killed the plaintiffs with your bow?
 
@Dwerpy it is required that you answer the questions from the Plaintiff at your earliest convenience. Failure to respond will result in contempt of court charges. Thank you.
 
1) Isn’t it true you went back to the scene of the crime rather than retreating like most people would?
I went back to the crime scene because I needed to do work for the mayoral position
2) Isn’t it true you returned to get revenge kills?
on the 3rd time i was killed yes
3) isn’t it true you killed the plaintiffs with your bow?
it isnt true

if you re read my statement i made it answers all these questions so your giving me questions that was already answered
 
So as a follow up to question 2, what weapon did you use to kill the plaintiffs?
 
@Dwerpy it is required that you answer the questions from the Plaintiff at your earliest convenience. Failure to respond will result in contempt of court charges. Thank you.
 
Provided there are no further questions, we will move to the next witness.

I would like the Plaintiff to present the questions they would like their witness, Sergecool, to answer. After that, the Defendant will have an opportunity to cross-examine.
 
I’m sorry Your Honor, we have a further question for Dwerpy.

Dwerpy: look at the attached image. It shows LTSlade dying with an arrow in his body, with you staring right at it. Are you sure you used an axe to kill, or was it a bow?
 

Attachments

  • 66D7B166-52C3-426B-9959-4C5597414B15.jpeg
    66D7B166-52C3-426B-9959-4C5597414B15.jpeg
    450.1 KB · Views: 165
It was 100% an axe i slaughtered him
 
Your Honor, speaking in my capacity as an associate at the law firm representing the two plaintiffs, I have a statement.
Dwerpy, you said twice you used an axe, however, in the following screenshot, you are clearly not holding an axe in you hand. You are holding a bow in the picture at the exact instant of the Plaintiff's death, and the Plaintiff died with an arrow in them. The other plaintiff clearly does not have a bow in their hotbar that could have inflicted the arrow wound. I am hereby impeaching the witness for perjury.
Evidence:
Dwerpy with Bow.png

66D7B166-52C3-426B-9959-4C5597414B15.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Your honor I am sorry for speaking out of term but why does it matter if I killed them with a bow. If I used the axe they would’ve died if I used a bow they would’ve died either way, they would’ve died the same way
 
Your honor, speaking on my capacity as associate at the lovely law firm, I would like to answer Dwerpy's question.

It matters that you killed the plaintiffs with a bow because the bow is bugged with the coroner report making it so that it does not log. Also, by killing the plaintiffs with a bow, you have just committed perjury since you previously said that you used an axe in the court.
 
Please express patience with the Supreme Court while we evaluate the validity of the testimony presented and the allegations of perjury. Thank you.
 
I have a few questions to the Plaintiff's counsels to clarify the relationship of this case to the witness, Dwerpy.

Are the Plaintiffs alleging that the witness, Dwerpy, misled a police officer into falsely arresting them? And if so, would they believe that Dwerpy could potentially hold guilt in his malicious acts, or should the primary culprit of their arrest remain the Department of Justice in a breached duty of care?

Additionally, if the allegation, as mentioned by co-counsel Mr. Mask3D_WOLF, is that the bow supposedly fired by the witness is 'bugged' and does not log murder, then would the Plaintiff agree that potentially the Department of Justice enforced the law based simply on the information provided to them via the log? Is there perhaps some detail I am missing?

Thank you.
 
In response to question 1, that allegation against Dwerpy was made in a District Court lawsuit (Case No 06-2021-29) about a month ago. That lawsuit was dismissed due to it being premature to accuse Dwerpy of abetting police misconduct before we had even sued the DoJ for that police misconduct. So it’s possible that Dwerpy holds guilt here but this lawsuit was not filed against Dwerpy, it was filed against the DoJ because the DoJ is the primary culprit for the police misconduct. If the allegation against Dwerpy is true, Dwerpy would be a secondary culprit and that would be a matter for a separate case.

In response to the 2nd question: The DoJ did base the plaintiffs’ arrest off of the coroner logs, but the plaintiffs complained to the officer that the logs were false. The officer still made the arrest and jailed them without investigation of the allegations of the false coroner logs. This is why we have filed this lawsuit, in order to reveal the truth that the plaintiffs are guilty of nothing and so that we can get their criminal records struck.
 
Alright, thank you.

@Dwerpy you have a final opportunity to make your case to the court as to why you have not just committed perjury. It appears very clearly in that picture evidence that you are holding a bow, while an arrow is in LTSlade. I hope you have some explanation for the matter.
 
Your honor, I dont really just sentence me to perjury
 
Alright. The court will note this admission of perjury and will proceed noting that the witness had seemingly used a bow from such picture evidence. The respective punishment to the actions made by the witness will be determined when the Supreme Court convenes in its final verdict.

In the meantime, I am hereby dismissing Dwerpy as a witness to this case as his credibility has been compromised in perjuring himself.

To proceed with the remainder of the witness testimony portion, I would like the Plaintiff to present the questions they would like their witness, Sergecool, to answer. After that, the Defendant will have an opportunity to cross-examine.
 
Your honor, I request a delay of 48 hours to assign and brief a new attorney to this case as nnmc retired from the Lovely Law Firm.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I request a delay of 48 hours to assign and brief a new attorney to this case as nnmc retired from the Lovely Law Firm.
Click to expand...
Thank you for informing the court of this. While noting the 48 hour delay, please ensure the attorneys at your firm respond as soon as possible as to not prolong this case.
 
Your honor, I will be taking over the case. Could I get 48 hours to familiarize myself?
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Your honor, I will be taking over the case. Could I get 48 hours to familiarize myself?
Click to expand...
You acted as one of the co-counsels on behalf of the Lovely Law Firm earlier in this case, therefore it is beyond reasonable to assume you are already rather sufficiently familiarized. You have 24 hours unless you can provide some other justification to warrant 48, as this case will not be prolonged further.

If the Plaintiff does not provide questions for their witness within 24 hours I will ask that the Defendant goes on with their cross-examination and we proceed. Thank you.
 
Questions for Sergecool

1. Could you give us some insight into the coroner reports that you have provided?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top