Lawsuit: Dismissed ProNeonYT v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 54

Status
Not open for further replies.
dodrio3

dodrio3

Citizen
Supporter
Willow Resident
Dodrio3
Dodrio3
donator1
Joined
May 15, 2021
Messages
192
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ProNeonYT (Lovely Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On the 4th of February, the Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed into law by President Derpy. This law stated that murder is an indictable offence. Which in the Standardized Criminal Code Act states" An Indictable Offence is a crime that needs a trial by jury." Since this date the Plaintiff has been arrested for murder 14 times serving a total of 140 minutes in jail. Not a single one of the murder charges was taken and proven in court. For each charge, The Plaintiff was arrested and charged $100 in fines totalling $1400.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
ProNeonYT
Department of Justice

II. FACTS
The Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed by President Derpy on February 4th.
It states Murder as an "Indictable Criminal Offense" meaning it has to be proven in court by jury.
Since that time, The Plaintiff has been charged with 14 counts of murder and fined a total of $1400 Has served 140 minutes in prison.
All of these murder charges were never taken and proven in court

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Wrongful conviction

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
$1400 returned as it was fined for wrongfully convicted crimes
$7000 For the time the Plaintiff spent in jail $50 per minute
Murder Charges removed from the Plaintiffs Criminal record
$1680 In legal fees payed to Lovely Inc. (20% of case value)

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 12 day of 12 2023
 
f5f9rlp.png


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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the District Court in the case of ProNeonYT v. Commonwealth of Redmont.

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.​
 
Your honor,

I have been assigned this case to represent the Commonwealth on behalf of the DLA.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.4 Jurisdiction

Your honor,

The District Court is only authorized to issue judgements on minor civil cases whose value does not exceed $7,500. The total prayer for relief in this case, requested by the Plaintiff totals $10,080 therefore the District court should dismiss this case.

DATED: This 16th day of December 2023.
 
Your Honour,
It is clear that the Defence does not know the rules of the court as it clearly states that "(v) minor‌ ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ ‌does‌ ‌not‌ ‌exceed‌ $20,000‌ ‌dollars" for the district court of Redmont.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    46.7 KB · Views: 43
dodrio3 said:
Your Honour,
It is clear that the Defence does not know the rules of the court as it clearly states that "(v) minor‌ ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ ‌does‌ ‌not‌ ‌exceed‌ $20,000‌ ‌dollars" for the district court of Redmont.
Click to expand...
I will not tolerate outbursts like this. Dodrio3, this is your final warning to not speak out of turn and to be respectful to all parties. You have 48 hours to file a response to the motion to dismiss.
 
Response to motion

Under the district Courts rules and procedures is states that the district court can issue judgments on "minor‌ ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ ‌does‌ ‌not‌ ‌exceed‌ $20,000‌ ‌dollars"
 
As an extra note the case needs to be marked as in session your Honour.
 
dodrio3 said:
As an extra note the case needs to be marked as in session your Honour.
Click to expand...
I will mark it of my own accord. Do not speak out of turn.
 
I will be away with severely reduced activity from tomorrow to December 28th. Are both parties fine with the court going into recess until the 28th?
 
That will be fine with me. Enjoy the Holiday!
 
Yes your Honour,

Have a merry Christmas
 
Thank you all. Court is in recess. Happy holidays!
 
We will now move onto discovery for the next 7 days. Court is hereby out of recess.
 
The motion to dismiss is rejected as the constitution states that the district court can hear cases with a value of up to $20,000.
 
Evidence of the arrest of the plaintiff




1703946867429.png
1703946876388.png
1703946916148.png
 
The Plaintiff wished to end the discover phase early
 
The defense would also like to end the discovery phase.
 
dodrio3 said:
Evidence of the arrest of the plaintiff




View attachment 40184View attachment 40185View attachment 40186
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Improper Evidence

Your honor,

The evidence provided by the Plaintiff is improper as it does not show whose criminal record this is. This could be mine, the plaintiffs council or even your criminal record for all we know. Since there is no proof provided that the criminal record provided is indeed that of the plaintiffs, the defense is requesting that this evidence be stricken from the record.
 
The defense may respond to the objection.

Does either party have a list of witnesses?
 
No witnesses for me your honor.
 
Your honour do you mean the plaintiff may respond to the objection
 
Response To Objection​

The only way of knowing if the record is not the defense is by contacting the DOJ to confirm this. Whenever anyone looks at their own record or the DOJ looks at it, you don't get given the name of the individual that the record is for.
 
dodrio3 said:
Also to add evidence the exact same as mine has been used in other cases that are after the exact same thing such as Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your honor,

The plantiffs'council has already responded to the previous objection, and is speaking out of turn when not summoned by the court. Parties are allowed one response to an objection, not 2.

The defense hereby requests that this unwarranted outburst be stricken from the record.
 
MrFluffy2U94 said:
OBJECTION
Improper Evidence

Your honor,

The evidence provided by the Plaintiff is improper as it does not show whose criminal record this is. This could be mine, the plaintiffs council or even your criminal record for all we know. Since there is no proof provided that the criminal record provided is indeed that of the plaintiffs, the defense is requesting that this evidence be stricken from the record.
Click to expand...
Objection overruled.

MrFluffy2U94 said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your honor,

The plantiffs'council has already responded to the previous objection, and is speaking out of turn when not summoned by the court. Parties are allowed one response to an objection, not 2.

The defense hereby requests that this unwarranted outburst be stricken from the record.
Click to expand...
I will allow the defense to respond. Also please read through your statements before you post them, dodrio3.
 
Response To Objection
This was clearly an extension to the previous response to objection their for I was not speaking out of turn.​
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Objection overruled.


I will allow the defense to respond. Also please read through your statements before you post them, dodrio3.
Click to expand...
Your honor,
May I request the reasoning for why the first objection was overruled?
 
MrFluffy2U94 said:
Your honor,
May I request the reasoning for why the first objection was overruled?
Click to expand...
The evidence has been properly collected to the fullest extent possible. There is nothing that supports it being modified or it being in breach of normal procedure either.
 
I ask the defense please provide a list of witnesses before I end discovery.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
The evidence has been properly collected to the fullest extent possible. There is nothing that supports it being modified or it being in breach of normal procedure either.
Click to expand...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor,

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning here. There are multiple ways that the plaintiff could go about substantiating this evidence that is both reasonable and commonly accepted in the court of law. I obviously have no desire to play the role of the plaintiff’s counsel here, but they could take a video showing them running a command in game for the records, they could provide screenshots showing the commands used to prove that this is in fact the plaintiffs criminal record, etc.

Furthermore, you state that nothing supports that this evidence is modified or in breach of procedure, yet there is also not anything provided in this evidence that suggests that this is in fact the criminal record of the plaintiff. The only “proof” that this is the plaintiffs criminal record is the fact that the plaintiffs lawyer has submitted it in this case.

In fact, one could argue that this evidence has been altered, as the first screenshot provided has cut off half a line of text, while the second two are labeled “Player records 9/11” and “player records 10/11”. It is clear and obvious that additional records have been cropped out of the chat log along with a first page that will likely tell us whose records these are, indicating that these records are indeed modified.

If the court is to conclude that this is an acceptable piece of evidence, it will severely undermine the burden of proof that has been historically required. Per the law, the burden of proof required for a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fact that nothing in the screenshots provided shows whose records these are should easily meet the definition of a reasonable doubt, as it is reasonable to conclude that it could be a screenshot of anybody’s criminal record.
 
MrFluffy2U94 said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor,

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning here. There are multiple ways that the plaintiff could go about substantiating this evidence that is both reasonable and commonly accepted in the court of law. I obviously have no desire to play the role of the plaintiff’s counsel here, but they could take a video showing them running a command in game for the records, they could provide screenshots showing the commands used to prove that this is in fact the plaintiffs criminal record, etc.

Furthermore, you state that nothing supports that this evidence is modified or in breach of procedure, yet there is also not anything provided in this evidence that suggests that this is in fact the criminal record of the plaintiff. The only “proof” that this is the plaintiffs criminal record is the fact that the plaintiffs lawyer has submitted it in this case.

In fact, one could argue that this evidence has been altered, as the first screenshot provided has cut off half a line of text, while the second two are labeled “Player records 9/11” and “player records 10/11”. It is clear and obvious that additional records have been cropped out of the chat log along with a first page that will likely tell us whose records these are, indicating that these records are indeed modified.

If the court is to conclude that this is an acceptable piece of evidence, it will severely undermine the burden of proof that has been historically required. Per the law, the burden of proof required for a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fact that nothing in the screenshots provided shows whose records these are should easily meet the definition of a reasonable doubt, as it is reasonable to conclude that it could be a screenshot of anybody’s criminal record.
Click to expand...
It is reasonable to assume the plaintiff would be truthful with their evidence. There is reasonable doubt that someone would obtain a private criminal record and, under penalty of sanctions, present it to the court just for more money. You have presented nothing at all that suggests the record is anyone else’s. The motion to reconsider is rejected.

Defense, please provide your list of witnesses within 24 hours.
 
I meant plaintiff has 24 hours, my apologies. That time will restart now.
 
I Have no witnesses you're honour
 
Thank you, would the plaintiff and defense still like to end discovery early?
 
Another lawyer at lovely will be taking over this case
 
Your Honor,

I apologize for the wait, I will be taking over as the lead counsel in this case for Lovely. We would like to agree to end the discovery phase early.

Thank you,
Your Honor
 
Thank you. We will now move onto opening statements, the plaintiff has 72 hours to post theirs.
 
Your honor,

A criminal case has recently been filed against the defendant in order to indict them for these exact crimes in The Commonwealth v. ProNeonYT in the Federal Court. A link has been attached below.

The Commonwealth of Redmont v ProNeonYT [2024]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth of Redmont Prosecution v. ProNeonYT Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT (List any claims from the respective...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net

I would like to request that this case be put in recess until there is a verdict for this criminal case, as that will obviously be a key component to any judgements in this case.
 
OBJECTION
Breach of procedure

The defense has spoken out of turn the plaintiff would like to motion to strike the defense statement.
 
Opening Statement

Your honor,

My client has committed murder and bank trespassing to which he confessed he is guilty but not guilty of the other crime he committed as the client only enjoys collecting player's heads. It is important to acknowledge that my client has faced an overwhelming amount of murder charges, but none of the charges has undergone the scrutiny of a trial by jury, My client has already tolerated a fine of $1,400 and spent 140 minutes in prison without the opportunity for these charges to be taken and proven in court. This comprises considerable money and time spent on a crime that has not been subject to legal process.

Adding to the case, The defense has taken an unusual step of contacting my client via Discord. To which the defense has suggested to my client that dropping the case would be in his best interest, mentioning the case's unfavorable progression and the potential to save his time and the hassle. Disturbingly, the defense has issued a warning to my client that if he persists in proceeding with the case, the DLA will indict him for all the charges, and expose my client to the maximum punishment allowed.

According to the Violent Offences Amendment, murder is considered as an indictable offense which as stated in the Standardized Criminal Code Act "An indictable crime has to be taken to trial by jury."
 
The defense may present their opening statement within 72 hours.
 
MOTION TO DISMISS
Lack of Claim

Your honor,

I wanted to bring to your attention the recent bill that was passed. Murder Quick Fix v2 Act. This bill states that Ex-post Facto will not apply to the misclassification of Murder from a criminal offense to a summary offense. This act clears the government of any wrong doing, and allows those parties to open a DLA support ticket to be reimbursed for their fines.

I have attached a link to this bill that was enacted by the President yesterday for your convenience.

Act of Congress - Murder Quick Fix v2 Act

House: 6-2-0 Senate: 5-0-0 A BILL To Waive Liability of the Government The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net

Thank you for your time and professionalism in this case.
 
MrFluffy2U94 said:
MOTION TO DISMISS
Lack of Claim

Your honor,

I wanted to bring to your attention the recent bill that was passed. Murder Quick Fix v2 Act. This bill states that Ex-post Facto will not apply to the misclassification of Murder from a criminal offense to a summary offense. This act clears the government of any wrong doing, and allows those parties to open a DLA support ticket to be reimbursed for their fines.

I have attached a link to this bill that was enacted by the President yesterday for your convenience.

Act of Congress - Murder Quick Fix v2 Act

House: 6-2-0 Senate: 5-0-0 A BILL To Waive Liability of the Government The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net

Thank you for your time and professionalism in this case.
Click to expand...
I will grant the motion to dismiss, thank you to all parties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top