Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102

ko531

ko531

Citizen
Judge
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
ko531
ko531
Judge
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
1,911
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Criminal Action


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution


v.


AlexanderLove
Defendant

COMPLAINT

On July 6th Alexanderlove filed a case arguing that his right to a trial was violated has he was sentences to jail for murder. Less the 24 hours later Alexanderlove files an almost identical case arguing the same facts that his right to a trial was violated. Comparing the cases you can fine indentical prayers of relief and claims of relief. The commonwealth believes that Alexander caused his on damages by purposely murdering people for the sole purpose of getting arrested so he could sue for additional damages.

I. PARTIES
  1. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
  2. Alexanderlove (Defendant)
II. FACTS
  1. Alexanderlove filed the lawsuit Alexanderlove v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98 on July 6th
  2. Alexanderlove filed the lawsuit Alexanderlove v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 on July 6th
  3. Both cases have multiple identical prayers of relief.
  4. Alexander imediately states "The cop is gonna go down" directly after being cuffed.
  5. Alexander purposely killed a police officer, forcing them to arrest Alexander.
  6. Alexander purposely committed murders in order to be arrested so he could file an additional lawsuit against the commownealth.
III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1 Count of Fraud for misrepresenting the facts in order to receive more damages in an additional lawsuit
1 Count of Filing a Frivilous case for causing his own damages and suing based on those damages

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. $5000 fine and 5 minutes in jail for Fraud
2. $60 fine for filing a Frivilous case
3. The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99

V. Evidence
Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98
Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99

1720478212438.png

1720478220179.png


DATED: This 8th day of July 2024
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1720480629963.png

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

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 102. 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.​
 
Dartanboy said:
View attachment 45145
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 102. 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.​
Click to expand...
Your honor, I motion to dismiss as this is the same prosecution as before, and therefore my right against double jeopardy is being violated.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I motion to dismiss as this is the same prosecution as before, and therefore my right against double jeopardy is being violated.
Click to expand...

Overruled. The Constitution gives the following right:
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.

A dismissal is certainly not being finally convicted or acquitted. Such an action only comes from a verdict.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. "The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99" the dismissal of another separate court case is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, even if the presiding Judge is the same. They are in different venues and are separate matters. The other case should only be dismissed on its own merits or lack thereof.
2. I move to dismiss under 5.5 lack of claim. Fraud has several components including intent, which so far, is entirely speculatory. Furthermore, setting up circumstances to litigate a case is a common practice in real life and in-game, and is by no means fraud. At the end of the day, if I win the other lawsuit, it is because the other side messed up, not because I did anything. No proof exists that I "caused" my own damages. I committed crimes and it was the officer that decided to illegally jail me. I didn't arrest myself. All in all, the entire case is circumstantial and speculative.

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 8th day of July 2024.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS.
1. This case is arguing that Alexander v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 is frivilous. If the court does find it frivilous is would be an insane to allow a frivilous case to be heard. As both cases are on the same level of the court I dont see why this court does not have the power to dismiss a case itself found to be frivilous.

2. There is proof of intent. Alexander understands that by purposely murdering people he is setting the commonwealth up for legal action as seen in P-1 where he hints at a possible 3rd case. Even if there is wrong doing by the commonwealth the act of purposely putting yourself in position for damages negates the wrong doing. Alexander wasnt just murdering anyone, he was murdering the cop that eventually arrested him. He was forcing the cop to arrest him and when he finally was cuffed said "this cop is gonna fall for this" meaning he knew the moment he was cuffed he was going to pursue legal action which would leads to the idea that there was premeditation.

3. Fraud is about the intentional misrepresentation of facts. If Alexander murdered people with the premediated idea of getting arrested to pursue legal action then he is misrepresenting the facts in FCR 99. He is alleging he was scared in the prison for his life when he already planned to go to prison in order to take legal action. Again he is alleging damages done to him by the commonwealth in FCR 99 but you can receive damages if you were the cause, this would be another misrepresentation of facts.


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 8th day of July 2024.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alexander P. Love said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. "The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99" the dismissal of another separate court case is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, even if the presiding Judge is the same. They are in different venues and are separate matters. The other case should only be dismissed on its own merits or lack thereof.
2. I move to dismiss under 5.5 lack of claim. Fraud has several components including intent, which so far, is entirely speculatory. Furthermore, setting up circumstances to litigate a case is a common practice in real life and in-game, and is by no means fraud. At the end of the day, if I win the other lawsuit, it is because the other side messed up, not because I did anything. No proof exists that I "caused" my own damages. I committed crimes and it was the officer that decided to illegally jail me. I didn't arrest myself. All in all, the entire case is circumstantial and speculative.

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 8th day of July 2024.
Click to expand...
I also request the Court dismiss this case with prejudice.
 
ko531 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS.
1. This case is arguing that Alexander v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 is frivilous. If the court does find it frivilous is would be an insane to allow a frivilous case to be heard. As both cases are on the same level of the court I dont see why this court does not have the power to dismiss a case itself found to be frivilous.

2. There is proof of intent. Alexander understands that by purposely murdering people he is setting the commonwealth up for legal action as seen in P-1 where he hints at a possible 3rd case. Even if there is wrong doing by the commonwealth the act of purposely putting yourself in position for damages negates the wrong doing. Alexander wasnt just murdering anyone, he was murdering the cop that eventually arrested him. He was forcing the cop to arrest him and when he finally was cuffed said "this cop is gonna fall for this" meaning he knew the moment he was cuffed he was going to pursue legal action which would leads to the idea that there was premeditation.

3. Fraud is about the intentional misrepresentation of facts. If Alexander murdered people with the premediated idea of getting arrested to pursue legal action then he is misrepresenting the facts in FCR 99. He is alleging he was scared in the prison for his life when he already planned to go to prison in order to take legal action. Again he is alleging damages done to him by the commonwealth in FCR 99 but you can receive damages if you were the cause, this would be another misrepresentation of facts.


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 8th day of July 2024.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. A response was not warranted.
 
Last edited:
Alexander P. Love said:
really? Your format sucks anyways lol, mine is more RP-friendly.

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

A response was not warranted.


Happy now?
Click to expand...
Mr. Love, please refrain from making snarky comments in the courtroom. They are distracting in nature and interfere with the orderly process of the court. This is a warning not to continue being disrespectful and disruptive.

The Objection is sustained, responses to Motions to Dismiss are not guaranteed, and thus you should request to respond if you feel it is necessary. The response is hereby struck.

@ko531 this is a warning to not speak out of turn.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. "The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99" the dismissal of another separate court case is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, even if the presiding Judge is the same. They are in different venues and are separate matters. The other case should only be dismissed on its own merits or lack thereof.
2. I move to dismiss under 5.5 lack of claim. Fraud has several components including intent, which so far, is entirely speculatory. Furthermore, setting up circumstances to litigate a case is a common practice in real life and in-game, and is by no means fraud. At the end of the day, if I win the other lawsuit, it is because the other side messed up, not because I did anything. No proof exists that I "caused" my own damages. I committed crimes and it was the officer that decided to illegally jail me. I didn't arrest myself. All in all, the entire case is circumstantial and speculative.

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 8th day of July 2024.
Click to expand...
The Prosecution has 24 hours to respond.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS.
1. This case is arguing that Alexander v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 is frivilous. If the court does find it frivilous is would be an insane to allow a frivilous case to be heard. As both cases are on the same level of the court I dont see why this court does not have the power to dismiss a case itself found to be frivilous.

2. There is proof of intent. Alexander understands that by purposely murdering people he is setting the commonwealth up for legal action as seen in P-1 where he hints at a possible 3rd case. Even if there is wrong doing by the commonwealth the act of purposely putting yourself in position for damages negates the wrong doing. Alexander wasnt just murdering anyone, he was murdering the cop that eventually arrested him. He was forcing the cop to arrest him and when he finally was cuffed said "this cop is gonna fall for this" meaning he knew the moment he was cuffed he was going to pursue legal action which would leads to the idea that there was premeditation.

3. Fraud is about the intentional misrepresentation of facts. If Alexander murdered people with the premediated idea of getting arrested to pursue legal action then he is misrepresenting the facts in FCR 99. He is alleging he was scared in the prison for his life when he already planned to go to prison in order to take legal action. Again he is alleging damages done to him by the commonwealth in FCR 99 but you can receive damages if you were the cause, this would be another misrepresentation of facts.


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 8th day of July 2024.
 
ko531 said:
1. This case is arguing that Alexander v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 is frivilous. If the court does find it frivilous is would be an insane to allow a frivilous case to be heard. As both cases are on the same level of the court I dont see why this court does not have the power to dismiss a case itself found to be frivilous.
Click to expand...
Alexander P. Love said:
1. "The Dismissal of Alexanderlove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99" the dismissal of another separate court case is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, even if the presiding Judge is the same. They are in different venues and are separate matters. The other case should only be dismissed on its own merits or lack thereof.
Click to expand...
There is nothing suggesting the Court has the power to force another case to be dismissed. Thus, Sentencing 3 is Dismissed.

Alexander P. Love said:
2. I move to dismiss under 5.5 lack of claim. Fraud has several components including intent, which so far, is entirely speculatory. Furthermore, setting up circumstances to litigate a case is a common practice in real life and in-game, and is by no means fraud. At the end of the day, if I win the other lawsuit, it is because the other side messed up, not because I did anything. No proof exists that I "caused" my own damages. I committed crimes and it was the officer that decided to illegally jail me. I didn't arrest myself. All in all, the entire case is circumstantial and speculative.
Click to expand...
ko531 said:
2. There is proof of intent. Alexander understands that by purposely murdering people he is setting the commonwealth up for legal action as seen in P-1 where he hints at a possible 3rd case. Even if there is wrong doing by the commonwealth the act of purposely putting yourself in position for damages negates the wrong doing. Alexander wasnt just murdering anyone, he was murdering the cop that eventually arrested him. He was forcing the cop to arrest him and when he finally was cuffed said "this cop is gonna fall for this" meaning he knew the moment he was cuffed he was going to pursue legal action which would leads to the idea that there was premeditation.

3. Fraud is about the intentional misrepresentation of facts. If Alexander murdered people with the premediated idea of getting arrested to pursue legal action then he is misrepresenting the facts in FCR 99. He is alleging he was scared in the prison for his life when he already planned to go to prison in order to take legal action. Again he is alleging damages done to him by the commonwealth in FCR 99 but you can receive damages if you were the cause, this would be another misrepresentation of facts.
Click to expand...
While it is difficult to prove intent, it's not impossible, and to dismiss a case prior to Discovery simply because there is insufficient evidence would be an injustice.

If the Prosecution is able to prove the facts they listed, including intent, certainly the case ought to continue. Thus, the entire case will not be dismissed.
 
The Defendant may provide an Answer to Complaint within the next 48 hours.
 
Dartanboy said:
The Defendant may provide an Answer to Complaint within the next 48 hours.
Click to expand...
The defense will decline to enter one at this time, but will possibly enter one during discovery via the answer to complaint amendment process.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
The defense will decline to enter one at this time, but will possibly enter one during discovery via the answer to complaint amendment process.
Click to expand...
You cannot amend a non-existent filing.

You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for failing to adhere to established Court Procedure, thereby interfering with the orderly administration of this lawsuit and by extension, justice.

The deadline remains the same to file an Answer to Complaint.
 
Last edited:
Dartanboy said:
You cannot amend a non-existent filing.

You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for failing to adhere to established Court Procedure, thereby interfering with the orderly administration of this lawsuit and by extension, justice.

The deadline remains the same to file an Answer to Complaint.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? You said “may”, why am I being held in contempt.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Excuse me? You said “may”, why am I being held in contempt.
Click to expand...
It is long-established court procedure that Opening Statements are required (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures). Seeing as you've read it, you are already aware of this and have no excuse.

Your flamboyant disregard for established procedure will get you nowhere in this courtroom, Mr. Love.

1720490904846.png
 
Dartanboy said:
It is long-established court procedure that Opening Statements are required (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures). Seeing as you've read it, you are already aware of this and have no excuse.

Your flamboyant disregard for established procedure will get you nowhere in this courtroom, Mr. Love.

View attachment 45146
Click to expand...
Your honor, this wasn’t the opening statement but the answer to complaint. Furthermore, regardless of history, the word of the presiding officer trumps all. And the word of the presiding officer was “may.” I will absolutely file one if you'd like, but the contempt is on your hands and not mine. I respectfully tender this as a motion to reconsider.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, this wasn’t the opening statement but the answer to complaint. Furthermore, regardless of history, the word of the presiding officer trumps all. And the word of the presiding officer was “may.” I will absolutely file one if you'd like, but the contempt is on your hands and not mine. I respectfully tender this as a motion to reconsider.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF CERTIORARI

I hereby strike the previous decision to hold AlexanderLove in contempt. Due to my failure to word the Court Order to file a Answer to Complaint in an understandable way, it could be interpreted as an optional decision.

Mr. Love, I'm still imposing the same deadline for an Answer to Complaint.

EDIT: Also, I meant Answer to Complaint in the previous post. I accidentally said Opening Statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense pleads NOT GUILTY to the one count of fraud for misrepresenting the facts in order to receive more damages in an additional lawsuit.
2. The defense pleads NOT GUILTY to the one count of filing a frivolous case for causing his own damages and suing based on those damages.

II. DEFENSES
1. The defense alleges a negative defense to the fraud accusation, and claims that the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence of intent and the act of misrepresentation.
2. The defense alleges a partial affirmative defense to the frivolous case accusation, and claims that the case filed was not frivolous as damages were caused by a third party and the defense sued said third party to remedy those damages.


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 11th day of July 2024.
 
OBJECTION
Breach of procedure

The Court gave Alexander plenty of time to write a answer to complaint yet the defense has only given it 14 hours after the deadline. Maybe instead of arguing with the presiding officer the defense could have issued their answer to complaint on time. The Prosecution wishes to have this answer struck from the record
 
ko531 said:
OBJECTION
Breach of procedure

The Court gave Alexander plenty of time to write a answer to complaint yet the defense has only given it 14 hours after the deadline. Maybe instead of arguing with the presiding officer the defense could have issued their answer to complaint on time. The Prosecution wishes to have this answer struck from the record
Click to expand...
 Sustained. Mr. Love failed to meet the established deadline without asking for an extension, however, the Defendant is entitled to a fair trial in this criminal case, so it will not be struck.

AlexanderLove is, however, found in Contempt of Court for failing to provide their Answer before their deadline. I order the Department of Homeland Security to execute a $500 fine and no jail time for this charge.
 
We will now move on to a 7-day Discovery period. It may be skipped or shortened should both parties agree.
 
INTERROGATION
1. Were you aware of the law in which in states that any summary offenses where over 30 minutes of jail time is imposed then it's court jurisdiction before filing FCR 99?
2. Did you know before committing the murders in FCR 99 that the commonwealth usally doesnt go to court for murder charges no matter the amount?
3. Did you know Yeet_Boy was a cop before murdering him as shown in FCR 99?
4. As shown by your first lawsuit FCR 98, Is it true to say that you understood, before filing FCR 99, that if the DHS were to arrest you or anyone else for more then 30 minutes then they could be opening the commonwealth up to legal action?
 
Dartanboy said:
 Sustained. Mr. Love failed to meet the established deadline without asking for an extension, however, the Defendant is entitled to a fair trial in this criminal case, so it will not be struck.

AlexanderLove is, however, found in Contempt of Court for failing to provide their Answer before their deadline. I order the Department of Homeland Security to execute a $500 fine and no jail time for this charge.
Click to expand...
Umm what? I met the deadline by four hours.
 
IMG_7215.jpeg


IMG_7216.jpeg
 
ko531 said:
Were you aware of the law in which in states that any summary offenses where over 30 minutes of jail time is imposed then it's court jurisdiction before filing FCR 99?
Click to expand...
I couldn’t have filed the case without knowing the law to file under.
 
ko531 said:
Did you know before committing the murders in FCR 99 that the commonwealth usally doesnt go to court for murder charges no matter the amount?
Click to expand...
I will be invoking my fifth right at this time.

ko531 said:
Did you know Yeet_Boy was a cop before murdering him as shown in FCR 99?
Click to expand...
I will be invoking my fifth right at this time.

ko531 said:
As shown by your first lawsuit FCR 98, Is it true to say that you understood, before filing FCR 99, that if the DHS were to arrest you or anyone else for more then 30 minutes then they could be opening the commonwealth up to legal action?
Click to expand...
I know my rights under the law.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
I know my rights under the law.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Non-Responsive

This question is a simple yes or no question and the answer given does not answer the question that was asked. I asked that Alexander be compelled to answer as he has not invoked his fifth amendment right for this question.
 
The Prosecution would like to submit the following into Evidence
1720746668218.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ko531 said:
OBJECTION
Non-Responsive

This question is a simple yes or no question and the answer given does not answer the question that was asked. I asked that Alexander be compelled to answer as he has not invoked his fifth amendment right for this question.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I answered the question. Whether or not it is in the form the opposing counsel likes, it was answered.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, improper evidence. You can see it was scribbled on with red ink.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

I Scribbled out that answer because Alexander was charged with perjury for that answer. I would not want nor think the court would want perjured answers in evidence
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Umm what? I met the deadline by four hours.
Click to expand...
Alexander P. Love said:
View attachment 45233

View attachment 45234
Click to expand...
You had a 72-hour deadline to appear. You appeared in roughly 2 minutes and filed a Motion to Dismiss.

In an effort to ensure a fair trial, I required an Answer to Complaint, and informed you that you have 48 hours to do so.

You quoted that message, and should have reasonably been well-aware of the deadline set. Ignorance of deadlines is no excuse not to meet them.
 
ko531 said:
OBJECTION
Non-Responsive

This question is a simple yes or no question and the answer given does not answer the question that was asked. I asked that Alexander be compelled to answer as he has not invoked his fifth amendment right for this question.
Click to expand...
 Sustained, Mr. Love please answer the question directly.

The question was not about your rights, but the Commonwealth's risk of being sued.
 
ko531 said:
As shown by your first lawsuit FCR 98, Is it true to say that you understood, before filing FCR 99, that if the DHS were to arrest you or anyone else for more then 30 minutes then they could be opening the commonwealth up to legal action?
Click to expand...
I will be invoking my fifth right at this time.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection.
Improper evidence

The evidence is altered.
Click to expand...
 Sustained, Mr. Ko please do not alter evidence. With very few exceptions (such as obscuring the identity of an anonymous whistleblower), such edits should be avoided in court.

The evidence is struck.
 
Dartanboy said:
 Sustained, Mr. Ko please do not alter evidence. With very few exceptions (such as obscuring the identity of an anonymous whistleblower), such edits should be avoided in court.

The evidence is struck.
Click to expand...
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, The answer given by Alexanderlove that I had crossed out was a lie. He was charged with perjury. I crossed out that answer because due to the fact that he was charged with perjury it is unuseable. Why would the court want a Perjured answer in evidence? I would classify Perjury as one of the very few exceptions
 
ko531 said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, The answer given by Alexanderlove that I had crossed out was a lie. He was charged with perjury. I crossed out that answer because due to the fact that he was charged with perjury it is unuseable. Why would the court want a Perjured answer in evidence? I would classify Perjury as one of the very few exceptions
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether it was perjury, it still was said, wasn't it? We don't censor evidence to hide facts, even if the fact is someone perjured themselves by making false testimony.
 
Dartanboy said:
Regardless of whether it was perjury, it still was said, wasn't it? We don't censor evidence to hide facts, even if the fact is someone perjured themselves by making false testimony.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

Im not censoring or hiding any Facts. The comment was Perjury and therefore false. Facts are defined as true statements while perjury is defined as knowingly false statements. It can not be a fact if it is false. also the comment made is unusable as it was perjury, it couldnt be used as evidence even if anyone tried. You have also forgot to state whether you overrule or sustain my motion.
 
ko531 said:
Your Honor,

Im not censoring or hiding any Facts. The comment was Perjury and therefore false. Facts are defined as true statements while perjury is defined as knowingly false statements. It can not be a fact if it is false. also the comment made is unusable as it was perjury, it couldnt be used as evidence even if anyone tried. You have also forgot to state whether you overrule or sustain my motion.
Click to expand...
Was it not clear it was overruled? If not, overruled.

Evidence which contains perjury is still evidence.
 
For clarity, there is no evidence submitted to this court that the red ink covers perjury.

For all I know, it says "I love puppies" or contains evidence which exonerates the Defendant.

To be clear, I'm not saying it does contain such phrases, but it could. So just submit the whole picture, or don't. We do not allow tampered evidence.
 
The Prosecution would like to submit the following into Evidence:
1720816249990.png

We have decided to cross off Alexanders first answer because it was found to be Perjury and therefore can not be used to any extent in this case. It would do more harm then good to have a Perjured answer on the record. You can see the Perjury charge in the evidence below
1720816416788.png

Even though we resubmitted the evidence we do not believe this to be necessary as we already submitted the entire case of FCR 99 in our original complaint which the presiding officer at anytime can go read.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fr
ko531 said:
The Prosecution would like to submit the following into Evidence:
View attachment 45259

We have decided to cross off Alexanders first answer because it was found to be Perjury and therefore can not be used to any extent in this case. It would do more harm then good to have a Perjured answer on the record. You can see the Perjury charge in the evidence below
View attachment 45263

Even though we resubmitted the evidence we do not believe this to be necessary as we already submitted the entire case of FCR 99 in our original complaint which the presiding officer at anytime can go read.
Click to expand...
Mr. Ko, for the last time do not submit tampered evidence in this courtroom, if you do so again, you will be found in Contempt of Court.

Firstly, let me be crystal clear, it is clear that Mr. Love perjured himself in the screenshot you have submitted, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why you're scribbling on it.

You keep saying "It's Perjury so it can't be considered" and perhaps that's true, but that doesn't give you the right to submit edited screenshots.

If I allow your edited screenshot, what happens when someone edits the context of a screenshot? Or someone's skin? Or someone's name? Or a contract? It's a slippery slope.

Tampered evidence is not allowed. While this court may not be able to consider the contents of Mr. Love's Perjury as a fact, we can certainly use the fact that he said what he said, if it is deemed necessary.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to submit this tampered evidence. You already submitted the entire case in which this happened as evidence.

P-003 is struck again, for being tampered with.
 
ko531 said:
We have decided to cross off Alexanders first answer because it was found to be Perjury and therefore can not be used to any extent in this case. It would do more harm then good to have a Perjured answer on the record. You can see the Perjury charge in the evidence below
Click to expand...
Objection
Relevance

Exhibit P-4 is not relevant to the material facts of this case. An allegation of perjury has nothing to do with the allegations in this trial.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection
Relevance

Exhibit P-4 is not relevant to the material facts of this case. An allegation of perjury has nothing to do with the allegations in this trial.
Click to expand...
 Overruled. The Prosecution has all of Discovery to show it is relevant.
 
The Prosecution would like to submit the following into Evidence:
1720821060375.png
 
@ko531 We'll now hear the Prosecution's opening statement. You have 72 hours to make a submission, and the Defence has 72 hours from the Prosecution's submission to provide their opening statement.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

Fraud is defined as "An intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission." What alexander did is nothing short of this definition. He Intentionally misrepresented important facts in the filing of the FCR 99 case to try and show damages that if he had told the truth, he would never be entitled to. This mirepresentation of the facts has cost the DOJ in time defending the case, manpower in people working on the case and money from when this case is finished prosecutors must get paid. Not only this he has caused potential damages to the Commonwealth as if the case is found in his favor, then Alexander will be rewarded out of the commonwealth's pocket.

How did Alexander misrepresent the facts? He purposely caused his own damages which he failed to mention at all. He had the knowledge to understand how to do this as shown by FCR 98 and by evidence P-3. He knew that by murdering people he would get arrested. He knew that any punishment of over 30 minutes jail time would be Court jurisdiction. And he knew that the Commonwealth has been unaware of this law and subsequently ignoring it. Alexander knew all of this so what does Alexander do? He murders 5 people including a cop multiple times and once he was arrested and charged, he filed an identical case of one he filed less then 24 hours before. What does he do after filing this case? He brags about a possible 3rd case in the defending attorney's DMs as seen by P-1. Alexander did not stop here. He also committed perjury as seen by P-4 in order to futher misrepresent the facts inside the case.

For the Frivilous case charge if Alexander is found guilty of fraud then the case he filed would be frivilous. The only way alexander has portrayed FCR 99 as a valid case is by committing fraud and purposely misrepresenting facts to convince the court of damages.

Alexander in order to try and make a cash grab purposely caused his own damages to which he files a lawsuit that points to the commonwealth as being the real person at fault. By this misrepresentation of facts in the filing of FCR 99 he has cause damages to the DOJ and potential damages to the commonwealth.
 
The defence has failed to file an opening statement and no witness lists have been put forward. I request the Prosecution files a closing statement or notifies the court that it rests its case over the next 72 hours.
 
End said:
The defence has failed to file an opening statement and no witness lists have been put forward. I request the Prosecution files a closing statement or notifies the court that it rests its case over the next 72 hours.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the defense wasn’t given the opportunity. We were not promoted to give an opening and didn’t want to speak out of turn.
 
You were prompted. You will need to make your arguments in your closing statement.

@ko531 We'll now hear the Prosecution's opening statement. You have 72 hours to make a submission, and the Defence has 72 hours from the Prosecution's submission to provide their opening statement.
Click to expand...
 
End said:
You were prompted. You will need to make your arguments in your closing statement.
Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider
Respectfully, your honor, this is a criminal trial. As such, the right to a fair trial is especially important. You deviated from typical court practice which put me in jeopardy. The only remedy is to allow me to submit an opening, otherwise you may as well declare this a mistrial now.

Furthermore, your honor, I was never pinged. You only pinged the prosecution, this is the definition of unfair.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Motion to Reconsider
Respectfully, your honor, this is a criminal trial. As such, the right to a fair trial is especially important. You deviated from typical court practice which put me in jeopardy. The only remedy is to allow me to submit an opening, otherwise you may as well declare this a mistrial now.

Furthermore, your honor, I was never pinged. You only pinged the prosecution, this is the definition of unfair.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO MOTION

It is ridiculous to believe that a mistrial should be called because of the Defense's poor ability to follow this case. They should be responsible for paying attention to this case especially because it is a criminal prosecution. The Defense had almost 5 days to check this case and read what the presiding officer said. It is nobody's fault but the defense's for their inability to file their opening statements on time and therefore the court should not be punished by wasting their time and I should not be punished by having my case thrown out as a mistrial
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ko531 said:
RESPONSE TO MOTION

It is ridiculous to believe that a mistrial should be called because of the Defense's poor ability to follow this case. They should be responsible for paying attention to this case especially because it is a criminal prosecution. The Defense had almost 5 days to check this case and read what the presiding officer said. It is nobody's fault but the defense's for their inability to file their opening statements on time and therefore the court should not be punished by wasting their time and I should not be punished by having my case thrown out as a mistrial
Click to expand...
Objection
Breach of Procedure

A response was not warranted.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Motion to Reconsider
Respectfully, your honor, this is a criminal trial. As such, the right to a fair trial is especially important. You deviated from typical court practice which put me in jeopardy. The only remedy is to allow me to submit an opening, otherwise you may as well declare this a mistrial now.

Furthermore, your honor, I was never pinged. You only pinged the prosecution, this is the definition of unfair.
Click to expand...

You have 24 hours to submit an opening statement.

This is done out of goodwill and giving you benefit of the doubt. I find it hard to believe you went 6+ days of not checking the case, particularly when there was activity on it.

Court procedure does not require presiding officers to ping you and it is standard practice in my court that the follow on action is prompted for opening and closing statements and no one has ever had an issue with this until now.
 
ko531 said:
RESPONSE TO MOTION

It is ridiculous to believe that a mistrial should be called because of the Defense's poor ability to follow this case. They should be responsible for paying attention to this case especially because it is a criminal prosecution. The Defense had almost 5 days to check this case and read what the presiding officer said. It is nobody's fault but the defense's for their inability to file their opening statements on time and therefore the court should not be punished by wasting their time and I should not be punished by having my case thrown out as a mistrial
Click to expand...
Struck
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, this is a case of petty accusations for prosecutor gain. The prosecution has lodged petty accusations against me in order to help him against lawsuits I filed against the Commonwealth. You could say that it is retribution and malicious prosecution. Apparently, the message being sent here is that if you sue the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth finds a way to sue you.

The prosecution alleges fraud which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It has many elements, including intent, which the prosecution has failed and will fail to prove. The prosecution is using circumstantial evidence to try and claim I set up my false arrests just to sue the Commonwealth. There are a couple problems with that: lawsuits only remedy a harm, they aren’t profit machines. Even if I win those cases, I will have lost freedom. Plaintiffs will often also establish cases to try and challenge misconduct by the government.

Even if the accusations are true, the act of committing a crime to go to jail isn’t certain. The DHS ultimately chose to break the law and jail me outside of their authority. I didn’t make them do it. I didn’t misrepresent any facts that caused them to behave differently than they normally do. All in all, this case is a last ditch effort for the prosecution to win a case in which the Commonwealth stepped upon my rights. It’s imperative the Court puts a stop to this and finds me not guilty.

Edit: I apologize for my slight tardiness, I got called into work earlier than expected.
 
Closing Statements starting with the prosecution. You have 48 hours. In your closing statement please clarify for me as to why the court should accept a 'plea' of ignorance.

> And he knew that the Commonwealth has been unaware of this law and subsequently ignoring it.

The Defence will follow in the 48 hours after the prosecution has responded.

Unless you wish to proceed to a summary verdict based on the facts already presented.

@Alexander P. Love @ko531
 
Last edited:
End said:
Unless you wish to proceed to a summary verdict based on the facts already presented.
Click to expand...
The defense does not wish to proceed to summary verdict, your honor.
 
CLOSING STATEMENTS

May it please the court,

The defense has argued that this case is nothing more then an attempt to win FCR 99. The issue with this is FCR 99 has completed, the commonwealth won and we are still seeking these charges. The only goal of this case is to seek justice. The filing of FCR 99 was nothing short of fraud. Alexanderlove has misrepresented facts in order to be awarded prayers of relief for damages he himself caused. With the act of filing FCR 99 being fraud it also makes FCR 99 a Frivilous case filing.

The first issue the defense claims we have is proving intent. This is where the defense is wrong. We have everything short of a confession to prove intent including direct statements made by Alexanderlove. Lets break down intent into different parts to better show our evidence

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE:
as shown by P-3 and FCR 98 Alexander had all the prior knowledge to commit an act like this. He knew murder was illegal, he "knew that the commonwealth abuses their ability to jail people" and he knew about the line in the standardized criminal code act that says any punishment of over 30 minutes is court juridiction.

With all this prior knowledge it is very safe to assume alexander could put together the fact that if he were to murder people and get arrested for more then 30 minutes, he could sue the commonwealth for a cash grab.

MOTIVE:
This part of intent is very straight forward, Alexanderlove knew that if he filed a lawsuit and won he could be awarded a bit of money therefore he had the motive to file FCR 99 to gain monetary value. He had the motive to file this case by commiting fraud because he knew he would not be rewarded this monetary value otherwise. Alexander as a well established lawyer understands the law well enough to know that by causing his own damages causes him to be entiled to nothing as shown in The_Donuticus v. GER, as an organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18. This is why alexander misrepresented the facts and therefore committing fraud so he would be entiled to damages.

BOASTING:
Alexander told the prosecutor of FCR 99 during discussions of a settlement "And who knows, maybe I’ll have some fun murdering people and if some clueless cop just happens to jail me again, we can have a third case" as shown in P-1. Alexander boasted about being about to create a possible 3rd case showing that he had the ablility to have done the exact same thing to create FCR 99. This does not speak of someone trying to reverse their harm but of someone trying to threaten the commonwealth to help gain their requested settlement offer.


Now this misrepresentation of fact which fails to provide that Alexander caused his own damages has cost the commonwealth damages. the DOJ now has to pay the prosecutor for the case and had to waste time and manpower during the case to try and win. The damage has been done and this case is to seek justice for these damages.

Alexander also claims that lawsuits arent profit machines. Now while usually the answer is yes in this instance FCR 99 was treated as a sole effort to gain profit. Ignoring legal fees Alexander was asking for $31,200 for only serving 20 minutes in prison. This comes out to a rate $93,300 an hour which is better pay then 99% of jobs on the server. Almost $100,000/hr definitely sounds like a profit machine.

When is comes to the plea of ignorance about the commonwealths knowledge in this one line of the Standardized criminal code act talking about court jurisdiction. You can see that since that bill has been passed not a single prosecution for 4+ murders has ever happened for this reason of ignorance. You will see the moment Alexander filed FCR 98 he alerted the commonwealth of this law. The DHS's first solution was to jail people for 3 murders max at a time as shown in FCR 99. Once the verdict of FCR 99 said the DHS does not have the power to do this then the DOJ started to prosecute people as shown by The Commonwealth of Redmont v. ezieshem [2024] FCR 111. The Commonwealth is not in the business of chosing which laws to follow and which to break. We try to follow all the laws but it is impossible to expect perfection as the commonwealth is run by humans and no human is perfect.

At the end of the day it is very easy to see that Alexander misrepresented the facts of FCR 99 by failing to provide that he caused the damages himself, this act has cause the commonwealth damages and under the current definition of law this would make what Alexander done Fraud which would make FCR 99 a frivilous case. The Commonwealth has provided everything short of a confession to prove Alexander's intent to commit fraud. No reasonable doubt is left to be had as when taking all the evidence into account leaves no other probable conclusion then Alexander committing these crimes.
 
Your honor, I request an 8 hour extension.
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, this case is clear. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of facts being misrepresented: I was abusively jailed for alleged murder, and whether or not I committed the murders, the process was illegal under the law. I did not make the cops jail me, they broke the law of their own free will. They decided to damage me, so I went to Court seeking remedies. No facts were obscured, and even if I did commit the murders, I didn't "cause my own damages." The Commonwealth's refusal to prosecute me and to instead jail me against the law caused my damages. The Commonwealth needs to own up to its own mistakes.

Furthermore, even if I did misrepresent facts, there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of intent. All of the prosecution's evidence is entirely circumstantial. He is using quotes that don't actually imply I had any intent to misrepresent facts, not that any facts were misrepresented. All I did say was that if the cops did abusively jail me again, I would sue them. This is about as honest as I can get, in fact, and is in no way misrepresenting facts. The Commonwealth is definitely aware of the law by now, and they always have been.

How can the Commonwealth plead ignorance of a law IT CREATED? At best this is negligence. At worst, this is a malicious and systematic disregard for our rights under the law, a law created under the will of the people. It went through both chambers of Congress and was signed by the President. The Commonwealth's failure to consistently apply the law it created is not a sign of ignorance; it is a sign of gross incompetence, negligence, and/or malice. The Commonwealth today is prosecuting me. but it should turn the lens upon itself. The only dirty player here is an abusive police state that has failed to apply legal due process for years.

I urge the Court to find the defense not liable on all counts and to award the defense legal fees for money spent consulting with attorneys from Dragon Law Firm, and for myself not being able to take as many cases at Dragon due to being tied up with this case. This case was beyond malicious and hypocritical, and legal fees will help encourage the Commonwealth to not abuse the Courts for its civil rights violations.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION

  1. The prosecution asserts that the defendant's actions meet the definition of fraud.
  2. The prosecution claims that the defendant intentionally misrepresented facts in the FCR 99 case to claim damages he would not be entitled to if he had told the court that he caused his own damages by committing murders to get arrested illegally.
  3. The prosecution argues that the defendant had prior knowledge (evidence P-3 and FCR 98) of how to manipulate the system. His motive was financial gain, as indicated by his detailed understanding of the law and his statements. He had a view for profit.
  4. If fraud is proven, the FCR 99 case is deemed frivolous since it was based on misrepresented facts.
  5. The prosecution acknowledges the Commonwealth’s initial ignorance of the law.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
  1. The defence argues that the prosecution is retaliatory against the defendant for filing previous lawsuits against the Commonwealth.
  2. The defence argues that the prosecution has failed to prove intent to constitute fraud and that the evidence is circumstantial.
  3. The defence claims that the DHS broke the law by jailing him without proper authority. This act, they claim, is independent of any wrongdoing on the defendant's behalf.
  4. The defence argues that even if the allegations were true, suing for damages is a legitimate method to remedy government misconduct, not a profit-seeking scheme.
  5. The defence suggests that the Commonwealth's failure to adhere to its own laws indicates negligence, incompetence, or malicious intent.
  6. Requests compensation for legal fees.
III. THE COURT OPINION

Fraud is an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.

Were the actions of the defendant intentional or reckless?
I am satisfied that there was intent, but not recklessness.

Did the defendant misrepresent or omit information in their cases against the Commonwealth?
The defendant did not disclose that they murdered intentionally for the purposes of filing a case. This did, however, appear to be so.

Did the Commonwealth suffer an actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.
I'm not satisfied that the Commonwealth suffered any quantifiable losses.

General
Honesty and integrity are integral tenants of our legal system. Equally, the government complying with the law is an important aspect of our society. Each party's actions must be judged independently, and unlawful conduct by one party does not justify or negate the unlawful conduct by the other party.

The Defendant submitted cases against the Commonwealth for it's alleged illegal actions. If the Commonwealth was ignorant and negligent in its enforcement of the law, the defendant had every right to commence legal proceedings against the government as a legal remedy.

The court exists to right wrongs, not as a money making machine. The merits of individual cases are weighed against the evidence of damage incurred. Whether the defendant did the illegal action with a view for profit or whether they genuinely wanted to prove a point through the legal system is irrelevant - the case was judged based on the loss suffered by the defendant in that scenario, whether they set the conditions for that to occur or not.

At the end of the day, the Commonwealth committed a wrong. The defendant fought the wrong in court and was not awarded damages.

This was a waste of the Commonwealth's time and resources when it could have been better spent reviewing how to fix the issue at hand, not to retaliate against cases challenging it's ignorance of the law.

IV. DECISION

The Federal Court rules in favour of the Defendant.

The Commonwealth will pay the Defendant $5,000 in legal fees.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.


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