Lawsuit: In Session AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Legal Eagle Change Maker Popular in the Polls
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
947
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AlexanderLove (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On July 6th, my rights were tragically violated. I was jailed for 5 murders, which is a violation of the law as any sentencing exceeding 30 minutes must go through the Department of Justice. To top this, I suffered a fall due to the Commonwealth's negligence while in prison, which never would have happened if the illegal jailing did not occur..


I. PARTIES
1. AlexanderLove (Victim)
2. Yeet_Boy (Agent of the Tortfeasor)
3. Department of Homeland Security (Tortfeasor)

II. FACTS
1. On July 6th, I was wanted for 5 murders (Exhibit A).
2. On July 6th, I was put in cuffs by Yeet_Boy and charged with five counts of murder, then jailed for 20 minutes and fined $200 (Exhibit B).
3. In the prison, I suffered a fall and broke my leg while working the mines (Exhibit C).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the Standardized Criminal Code Act (link) section 4.2.ii, the Court has jurisdiction over summary offenses where 30+ minutes of jail time is imposed. I had 5 murders which would be 50 minutes worth of imprisonment, whether consecutively or not.
2. I was therefore prematurely jailed and fined by the DHS, and my right to a trial was not only violated, but outright discarded. The cop tried to find a loophole to the law by splitting my jail time, but that doesn't change the fact that my charges are a combined 50 minutes. I was formally charged with five counts of murder but only served time for two, yet Yeet is refusing to drop the other 3 meaning they intend to continue my sentencing. Being charged with 5 counts of murder means that I will serve 50 minutes in jail, whether consecutively or not.
3. I was falsely imprisoned and therefore kidnapped, which will serve as a legal cause of action. In being kidnapped, I was scared as the police manhandled me into a cell in which I didn't belong. As a lawyer, the thought of going to a rough prison with murders frightened me as I will testify in this trial (my questioning will be handled by another attorney).
4. Being in prison led to me suffering my fall in the dangerous conditions of the prison mines. The dangerous working conditions are hazardous in general, and it is negligence on the Commonwealth to subject an innocent person to such conditions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,200 in compensatory damages as the Standardized Criminal Code Act entitles me $50 per minute falsely spent in jail, plus my $200 in fines. I also wish for the other three charges to be tried or dropped.
2. $15,000 in punitive damages for the complete disregard of my human and constitutional rights, as well as the belligerent nature of my arrest. Jailing me for under 30 minutes in an illegal attempt to loophole the law while not dropping my other charges shows the intent.
3. $10,000 in emotional damages as I was kidnapped and put in fear of my life and liberty, as well as my personal safety. Without the security of my rights, what do I have to fall back on?
4. $5,000 in emotional damages and pain & suffering due to the fall that I would never have had if I wasn't imprisoned illegally and forced to work the dangerous prison mines. This also covers the cost of a leg splint and my time it took to get treated.
5. $9,420 in legal fees as it is 30% of the value of this case, with no less than $5,000 in legal fees as mandated by the Legal Damages Act.

V. WITNESSES
1. Yeet_Boy
2. AlexanderLove

VI. EVIDENCE
2024-07-06_20.32.03.png
2024-07-06_20.32.40.png
2024-07-06_20.37.44.png


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 6th day of July 2024.
 
Seal_Judiciary.png



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

@Dusty_3 (AG) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of AlexanderLove v. The 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.​
 
OBJECTION PERJURY

Alexander states fact 2 that he was charged with 5 murders and jailed for 20 minutes. The punishment for murder is 10 minutes per charge meaning alexander had to be jailed for 50 minutes. If you look at Exhibit B he was jailed for 20 minutes but that was only on 2 counts of murder in compliance with the law.
 
OBJECTION PERJURY

Alexander states fact 2 that he was charged with 5 murders and jailed for 20 minutes. The punishment for murder is 10 minutes per charge meaning alexander had to be jailed for 50 minutes. If you look at Exhibit B he was jailed for 20 minutes but that was only on 2 counts of murder in compliance with the law.
If you look at exhibit A, I was charged with five counts of murder.
 
OBJECTION PERJURY

Alexander states fact 2 that he was charged with 5 murders and jailed for 20 minutes. The punishment for murder is 10 minutes per charge meaning alexander had to be jailed for 50 minutes. If you look at Exhibit B he was jailed for 20 minutes but that was only on 2 counts of murder in compliance with the law.
Can you please provide proof that you represent the Commonwealth?
 
Thank You.
 
OBJECTION PERJURY

Alexander states fact 2 that he was charged with 5 murders and jailed for 20 minutes. The punishment for murder is 10 minutes per charge meaning alexander had to be jailed for 50 minutes. If you look at Exhibit B he was jailed for 20 minutes but that was only on 2 counts of murder in compliance with the law.
Overruled. Exhibit A shows five charges. If I am missing something, please let me know.
 
The original deadline to file an answer to the complaint remains in effect.
 
AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. We neither confirm or deny that alexander was wanted for 5 murders
2. We deny that Alexander was charged with 5 murders but affirm that he was sentenced to 20 minutes and a $200 fine
3. We affirm that alexander broke his leg while in prison

II. DEFENCES
1. Alexander was never charged with 5 counts of murder, the automated message reading alexander his rights claims he was being charged with 5 counts of murder when you look at what he was jailed and sentenced for, it was only 2 counts of murder. These 2 murders add up to 20 minutes in jail therefore aleaxander had no right to a trial as his sentence was not over 30 minutes.

2. Alexander was not fasely arrested and alexander has provided no information on how his arrest was faulty. He does claim that the cop in question (yeet_boy) purposely only charged him with 2 of the 5 murders to avoid this loophole which isnt at all how jailing player works. Normal Cops can not manually decide what crimes to charge a person with and how long the sentence shall be when jailing a person. Most of this process is automatic besides the act of cuffing the person and bringing them to the police station

3. Alexander did break his leg in prison but it is not the fault of the commonwealth. Every ledge in the prison a person can reasonable get to has a guard rail. Even so in case you do have medical emergencies in prison there is a hospital to request a doctor for treatment. Alexander seems to broke his leg in the mine which the prison is required to have by law. The commonwealth can not control the safety of the mine for certain as we can not control how prisoners mine and whether or not prisoners leave danagerous drops in the mine.

III. COUNTER CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1 Count of Fraud
1 Count of filing a Frivolous Court Case

Alexander filed Alexanader v. The Commonwealth [2024] FCR 98 under the same claim that he was wrongfully denied the right to a trial. The Commonwealth believes it is not a coincidence that events randomly happened to cause alexander to file a almost identical lawsuit only hours after he filed the first. We believe alexander caused these damages to himself for the purpose of filing another lawsuit in an attempt for more money. This would be both a misrepresentation of the facts for fraud and a frivilous case as this case has no value if alexander caused his own 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 Frivolous Court Case


DATED: This 7th day of July, 2024.
 
We will now move into a 7 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.
 
The Prosecution wishes to call Technofied as a witness
 
We deny that Alexander was charged with 5 murders
Objection, your honor. Perjury. Exhibit A explicitly states that I was CHARGED with 5 counts of murder.
 
The Prosecution wishes to call Technofied as a witness
Your honor, I object on the grounds of relevance; he is not directly involved in this case.
 
Alexander filed Alexanader v. The Commonwealth [2024] FCR 98 under the same claim that he was wrongfully denied the right to a trial. The Commonwealth believes it is not a coincidence that events randomly happened to cause alexander to file an almost identical lawsuit only hours after he filed the first. We believe alexander caused these damages to himself for the purpose of filing another lawsuit in an attempt for more money. This would be both a misrepresentation of the facts for fraud and a frivilous case as this case has no value if alexander caused his own damages.
Your honor, a fraud case should go to a separate case. It is inappropriate and logistically a hassle to lodge a fraud allegation in this thread.
 
Alexander was never charged with 5 counts of murder, the automated message reading alexander his rights claims he was being charged with 5 counts of murder
Objection, your honor. Perjury. He contradicts himself here and he even admits the evidence reads that I was charged with five counts of murder.
 
Normal Cops can not manually decide what crimes to charge a person with and how long the sentence shall be when jailing a person. Most of this process is automatic besides the act of cuffing the person and bringing them to the police station
Objection, your honor. Perjury. Police officers can select what charges to jail for in the prison bus. This was clearly done as I was charged with five murders but only jailed for two. There is evidence the two screenshots are consecutive as they have common chat messages in both. Unless they suddenly dropped three of the murder charges, they had to have selected only two. The arresting officer even stated the other three murder counts were not dropped, disproving that alternate pathway.
 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
Objection, your honor. Perjury. Exhibit A explicitly states that I was CHARGED with 5 counts of murder.
The pluggin claims you were being charged with 5 counts of murder but when you look at Exhibit B you can see he was truely charged with 2 counts of murder and this is verified by Alexander's prison sentence and fine.

Your honor, I object on the grounds of relevance; he is not directly involved in this case.
Alexander has talked about the how the arresting officer purposely only charged him with 2 murders instead of 5 and Tech will testify on the jailing pluggin and whether that is or is not possible for an officer to do.

Your honor, a fraud case should go to a separate case. It is inappropriate and logistically a hassle to lodge a fraud allegation in this thread.
We are arguing that this exact case is fraud. It would be an injusticed to have this case heard as if it was a normal case while the legitimacy of that case is being argued in a different lawsuit

Objection, your honor. Perjury. He contradicts himself here and he even admits the evidence reads that I was charged with five counts of murder.
Again, when he was cuffed it claimed he was being charged with 5 counts of murder but alexander was only sentenced to 2 counts of murder.
Objection, your honor. Perjury. Police officers can select what charges to jail for in the prison bus. This was clearly done as I was charged with five murders but only jailed for two. There is evidence the two screenshots are consecutive as they have common chat messages in both. Unless they suddenly dropped three of the murder charges, they had to have selected only two. The arresting officer even stated the other three murder counts were not dropped, disproving that alternate pathway.
Your Honor, I am calling Technofied to testify on this very question so to charge me with perjury this early would be an injustice.
 
I retract my relevance objection. I would love for Technofied to testify :)
 
Objection, your honor. Perjury. Exhibit A explicitly states that I was CHARGED with 5 counts of murder.
Overruled. Until we can gain insight throughout this case regarding why it states 5 but the time is less, I cannot grant this charge.

Your honor, I object on the grounds of relevance; he is not directly involved in this case.
Overruled. The plaintiff has dropped this objection.

Your honor, a fraud case should go to a separate case. It is inappropriate and logistically a hassle to lodge a fraud allegation in this thread.
As of now, I will take note of the counterclaim and observe what unfolds during the course of this trial.

Objection, your honor. Perjury. He contradicts himself here and he even admits the evidence reads that I was charged with five counts of murder.
Overruled. I believe Mr. Ko was trying to make another point, but it was worded poorly. Please be more clear in the future.

Objection, your honor. Perjury. Police officers can select what charges to jail for in the prison bus. This was clearly done as I was charged with five murders but only jailed for two. There is evidence the two screenshots are consecutive as they have common chat messages in both. Unless they suddenly dropped three of the murder charges, they had to have selected only two. The arresting officer even stated the other three murder counts were not dropped, disproving that alternate pathway.
Mr. Love, I was very inclined to grant this as I am also under the impression that police officers have the authority to do that. However, I will allow Tech to testify. If Tech does not confirm what was filed, then this charge will be placed. Overruled for now.
 
As of now, I will take note of the counterclaim and observe what unfolds during the course of this trial.
Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, they are prosecuting me in a civil case. This is the improper place to have a criminal prosecution. It is more than a counterclaim; it is a separate matter altogether with an entirely different burden of proof. I am not the one on trial here and it should stay that way.
 
Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, they are prosecuting me in a civil case. This is the improper place to have a criminal prosecution. It is more than a counterclaim; it is a separate matter altogether with an entirely different burden of proof. I am not the one on trial here and it should stay that way.
Sustained. If the Commonwealth wants to prosecute Mr. Love, they will need to file it appropriately.
 
EMERGENCY INJUCTION

Your Honor, we ask for this case to be frozen until the prosecution on AlexanderLove be finished (link). That Prosecution is arguing the validity of this exact case and alleging that Alexander committed fraud while filing this case. There would be more possible harm then good in allowing this case to be heard while it could be thrown out because of our prosecution for being frivilous.
 
Response, your honor?
 
EMERGENCY INJUCTION

Your Honor, we ask for this case to be frozen until the prosecution on AlexanderLove be finished (link). That Prosecution is arguing the validity of this exact case and alleging that Alexander committed fraud while filing this case. There would be more possible harm then good in allowing this case to be heard while it could be thrown out because of our prosecution for being frivilous.
Denied. This case primarily concerns monetary damages, which are reversible. If more significant damages were involved, the consideration might differ. Granting this Emergency Injunction would unreasonably limit an individual's rights, which I am not inclined to do unless the damages were much larger (e.g., removal from a government position).


Response, your honor?


Mr. Love, a response is not needed at this time.
 
Denied. This case primarily concerns monetary damages, which are reversible. If more significant damages were involved, the consideration might differ. Granting this Emergency Injunction would unreasonably limit an individual's rights, which I am not inclined to do unless the damages were much larger (e.g., removal from a government position).





Mr. Love, a response is not needed at this time.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, If this case moves on then by time the prosecution is finished the Commonwealth would have lost the ability to motion to dismiss. If the Prosecution does find that this case is frivilous then this frivilous case will go to verdict instead of being dismissed as all frivilous cases should. You are causing harm to our ability to argue our case and would be forcing a possible frivilous case to verdict. This is not just about the reversablility of the prayers of relief.
 
Overruled. You can argue this case alongside the prosecution. I will not halt a case just because you filed another one.
 
Interrogatory
1. Did you have the knowledge of this "problem" in the law where any offense over 30 minutes is court juridiction before committing these murders and filing this case?
2. Did you know before committing these murders 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?
 
Interrogatory
1. Did you have the knowledge of this "problem" in the law where any offense over 30 minutes is court juridiction before committing these murders and filing this case?
2. Did you know before committing these murders 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?
1. I had no knowledge of any problem.
2. I knew that the Commonwealth abuses their ability to jail people and avoids giving them a fair trial for their crimes.
3. He was trying to arrest me so of course I killed him. Most wanted fugitives will do anything to evade capture.
 
OBJECTION
Perjury

According to FCR 98 which was filed about 20 hours before this case and before all the murders committed in this case. Alexander wrote as his first prayer of relief:

"According to the Standardized Criminal Code Act (link) section 4.2.ii, the Court has jurisdiction over summary offenses where 30+ minutes of jail time is imposed. I spent 30 minutes in the penitentiary and at least a few seconds in cuffs, making me incarcerated for over 30 minutes."

For Alexander to say he was never aware of this before this case and the murders is an absolute lie as shown by his filing of FCR 98
 
Mr. Love 24 hours to respond.
 
Mr. Love 24 hours to respond.
I never said I didn’t know about that law, if you look at the way my answers were phrased. A “problem” is subjective and I don’t identify the provisions contained within the SCCA as a problem.
 
OBJECTION
Perjury

According to FCR 98 which was filed about 20 hours before this case and before all the murders committed in this case. Alexander wrote as his first prayer of relief:

"According to the Standardized Criminal Code Act (link) section 4.2.ii, the Court has jurisdiction over summary offenses where 30+ minutes of jail time is imposed. I spent 30 minutes in the penitentiary and at least a few seconds in cuffs, making me incarcerated for over 30 minutes."

For Alexander to say he was never aware of this before this case and the murders is an absolute lie as shown by his filing of FCR 98

Sustained. Mr. Ko stated, "1. Did you have the knowledge of this 'problem' in the law where any offense over 30 minutes is court jurisdiction before committing these murders and filing this case?" to which Mr. Love responded, "1. I had no knowledge of any problem." While Mr. Love argues that 'problem' is subjective, it was clear in this context that Mr. Ko was referring to "the law where any offense over 30 minutes is court jurisdiction."
 
Sustained. Mr. Ko stated, "1. Did you have the knowledge of this 'problem' in the law where any offense over 30 minutes is court jurisdiction before committing these murders and filing this case?" to which Mr. Love responded, "1. I had no knowledge of any problem." While Mr. Love argues that 'problem' is subjective, it was clear in this context that Mr. Ko was referring to "the law where any offense over 30 minutes is court jurisdiction."
Motion to Reconsider

The plaintiff should have asked a more specific question rather than getting me to implicitly call the law a problem. It is called a loaded question. I will not be held responsible for perjury when I truthfully answered the question.
 
Overruled. You should have objected to a question you believed couldn't be properly answered instead of committing perjury.
 
Overruled. You should have objected to a question you believed couldn't be properly answered instead of committing perjury.
Ok well I’m not changing my answer. My answer is true whether you like it or not.
 
OBJECTION
Non-Responsive

I ask that alexander answer my question in a truthful manner other then an answer that is perjury.
 
Overruled. Mr. Ko, please rephrase the question to make it clearer for Mr. Love.
 
Interrogatory
1. Were you aware of the law in which in states that any summary offenses in which over 30 minutes of jail time is imposed is court jurisdiction?
2. As shown by your first lawsuit FCR 98, Is it true to say that you understood that if the DHS were to arrest you or anyone else for more then 30 minutes, they could be breaking the law and opening up the commonwealth to legal action? And is it true to say you understood this before the events of this case took place?
 
Interrogatory
1. Were you aware of the law in which in states that any summary offenses in which over 30 minutes of jail time is imposed is court jurisdiction?
2. As shown by your first lawsuit FCR 98, Is it true to say that you understood that if the DHS were to arrest you or anyone else for more then 30 minutes, they could be breaking the law and opening up the commonwealth to legal action? And is it true to say you understood this before the events of this case took place?
1. Yes, I know my rights.
2. Objection, your honor. Compound.
 
The Commonwealth would like to submit the following into Evidence
2024-07-11_19.16.35.png
2024-07-11_19.16.45.png
2024-07-11_19.17.15.png
 
The Commonwealth would like to submit the following into Evidence
Objection, your honor.
Relevance.

These are random pictures in the prison and are not relevant to this case. I already stated I fell within the prison mine, so these locations are not at all relevant.
 
Mr. Ko please respond
 
Objection, your honor.
Relevance.

These are random pictures in the prison and are not relevant to this case. I already stated I fell within the prison mine, so these locations are not at all relevant.
ANSWER TO OBJECTION

One of the photos is of the mine but alexander is stating his reason for falling is from the commonwealths neglect and these photos show that the commonwealth has not been neglectful and every possible ledge in the prison someone could fall off has guard railings.
 
Your Honour, I would like to submit an Amicus Brief to the court as a Sergeant within the DHS. I believe I can shed light on the confusion regarding Exhibit A and the reduced jail time imposed.
 
Your Honor, I would like to submit an amicus brief regarding the safety guardrails of the prison, as an officer of the DHS, the department responsible for managing the prison.
 
Your Honor,

I know discovery has just ended a few hours ago but I forgot to inform the court that we will no longer need Tech as a witness now that he is no longer DHS secretary.
 
Your Honor,

I know discovery has just ended a few hours ago but I forgot to inform the court that we will no longer need Tech as a witness now that he is no longer DHS secretary.
Denied. He will be called.
 
Your Honour, I would like to submit an Amicus Brief to the court as a Sergeant within the DHS. I believe I can shed light on the confusion regarding Exhibit A and the reduced jail time imposed.
Please do so within the next 24 hours and keep it brief.
 
Your Honor, I would like to submit an amicus brief regarding the safety guardrails of the prison, as an officer of the DHS, the department responsible for managing the prison.
Please do so within the next 24 hours and keep it brief.
 
Back
Top