Lawsuit: Adjourned AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 13

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The Constitution and legal system have many discrepancies and I am only beginning to uncover the extent of them. As words matter, being they are deliberately (or erroneously) authored, I am bringing this case to the Court to begin clarifying and fixing the issues in the legal system.

I. PARTIES
1. AlexanderLove (Plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. HappyRageMage (Brought this to my attention)

II. FACTS
1. The assault and verbal threats criminal offenses are considered two separate offenses, but share definitions.
2. Both offenses have different fines associated with them.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Assault is defined as "Hitting a player, causing a loss of no more than three hearts or putting them in a place of danger, such as pointing a weapon at them." The fine associated with assault begins at $20 and has a five-minute jail associated with it.
2. Verbal threats stipulates that "This is active when a player is threatening another player with a gun to do something." The fine associated with verbal threats is $100 and has no jail punishment associated with it.
3. The Verbally Threatening Act states in Section Two, Clause One that "This will follow the punishments of Assault" which is inconsistent with the $100 fine for it.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. For there to be clarification regarding which punitive actions occur when a gun is pointed at another person in a threatening manner.

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 21st day of June, 2021

 

[Westray]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. 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.​

 

[Canxx01]

Your Honor, the Commonwealth had appointed prosecutor Poemhunter to the case. We would like to ask for a 72h continuance on the grounds of ongoing occupancies and th
workload of the AG's office.

We apologize to the court for keeping it in the dark until now.

 

[Westray]

Your Honor, the Commonwealth had appointed prosecutor Poemhunter to the case. We would like to ask for a 72h continuance on the grounds of ongoing occupancies and th
workload of the AG's office.

We apologize to the court for keeping it in the dark until now.

Given the influx of cases against the Government, you have my complete understanding on the matter. The extension has been granted for an additional 72 hours. Given this is a Supreme Court case, it's necessary to ensure all arguments are heard, however, should the Government fail to respond by this extension, the Supreme Court will have to decide the verdict without the state's consideration in a default judgement.

 

[Poemhunter]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


MOTION TO DISMISS

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont Represented by Poemhunter
Defendant


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

1. Under the Verbally Threatening Act we believe there is a slight error that can cause a problem of confusion, under section 2.3 we see the line: “When a player on the street says:”I'll kill you!”, is an example of not verbally threatening another player.” However the line should read: “When a player on the street says:”I'll kill you!”, is an example of verbally threatening another player.” The state can understand the confusion on that part as a verbal assault should consist of an intent of words that signifies an intent to harm via assault. So I think this should be corrected by the draftsman in congress to provide more clarity.
2. To provide clarification I think this may help: assault shall remain as it is under 13.1 and within the LDV amendment of first offence $20 and 5 minutes jail etc. then if the player also includes threading messages or remarks while committing the act of assault, then I think they should be able to follow up on the assault charge of an additional $80 fine making it a total of $100 in total.
3. I think this swill provide more clarity and I advise that congress should be instructed to fix the errors of confusion within law.

DATED: This 05 day of July 2021

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the Plaintiff admits that the State made errors within the law. The case should be allowed to continue as there are no inaccuracies or frivolities on my end of the case.

 

[Poemhunter]

Your Honour,

if I may this doesn’t need to go any further for the simple fact that and instruction from the courts can amend this slight error in wording, by extending this case drag out something that can be resolved with a simple issued statement from the courts.

 

[Divine59]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


MOTION TO DISMISS

Divine59 Represented by AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont Represented by Poemhunter
Defendant


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

1. Under the Verbally Threatening Act we believe there is a slight error that can cause a problem of confusion, under section 2.3 we see the line: “When a player on the street says:”I'll kill you!”, is an example of not verbally threatening another player.” However the line should read: “When a player on the street says:”I'll kill you!”, is an example of verbally threatening another player.” The state can understand the confusion on that part as a verbal assault should consist of an intent of words that signifies an intent to harm via assault. So I think this should be corrected by the draftsman in congress to provide more clarity.
2. To provide clarification I think this may help: assault shall remain as it is under 13.1 and within the LDV amendment of first offence $20 and 5 minutes jail etc. then if the player also includes threading messages or remarks while committing the act of assault, then I think they should be able to follow up on the assault charge of an additional $80 fine making it a total of $100 in total.
3. I think this swill provide more clarity and I advise that congress should be instructed to fix the errors of confusion within law.

DATED: This 05 day of July 2021

Your honour, I am not apart of whatever case this is. This must be a typo.

 

[Poemhunter]

Your honour, I am not apart of whatever case this is. This must be a typo.

Sorry, I used the same template for another motion it’s removed.

 

[Westray]

Thank you for all of the respective points brought up. The Supreme Court will review what has been presented, and come up with either a verdict to such case or a course of action in its continuance.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 06-2021-22

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, AlexanderLove, claims that the crimes of assaults and verbal threats are considered two separate offences, but share definitions.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that there should be clarification regarding which punitive actions occur when a gun is pointed at another person in a threatening manner.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Government of Redmont, agrees that clarification is needed, and believes that there is a slight error that can cause a problem of confusion.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that since both parties seek to have clarification over these two laws, we shall provide such. We do however hope that the legislative can seek to solve any clarification on the matter furthermore.
2. Both laws constitute two key points to the crime, that a player has been put into danger, and that there is a gun involved. They both, however, also pose distinct differences.
3. Assault includes hitting another player (within 3 hearts); or putting them in a place of danger with a gun involved. In assault, there is absolutely no reference to a demand delivered to the victim of such crime.
4. Verbal threats implies that an explicit threat must be delivered to the victim of the crime, with the clause of "threatening with a gun to do something". There is a very clear reference to a demand being delivered to the victim.
5, Since verbal threats has a higher fine than assault, it is our opinion that if a demand is added in such crime, the charge should be upgraded from assault to verbal threats.

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby clarifies the following in terms of which punitive actions occur when a gun is pointed:

Assault: The putting in danger with a gun, with no further requirements.
Verbal Threats: The putting in danger with a gun, made in conjunction with a threat or demand.

This case is hereby adjourned.