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

[Alexander P. Love]

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

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.​

 

[ko531]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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?

 

[ko531]

Can you please provide proof that you represent the Commonwealth?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Thank You.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The original deadline to file an answer to the complaint remains in effect.

 

[ko531]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[ko531]

The Prosecution wishes to call Technofied as a witness

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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 P. Love]

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 P. Love]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[ko531]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I retract my relevance objection. I would love for Technofied to testify

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[ko531]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Response, your honor?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[ko531]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Overruled. You can argue this case alongside the prosecution. I will not halt a case just because you filed another one.

 

[ko531]

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?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[ko531]

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

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Love 24 hours to respond.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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."

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Overruled. You should have objected to a question you believed couldn't be properly answered instead of committing perjury.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[ko531]

OBJECTION
Non-Responsive

I ask that alexander answer my question in a truthful manner other then an answer that is perjury.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Overruled. Mr. Ko, please rephrase the question to make it clearer for Mr. Love.

 

[ko531]

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?

 

[Alexander P. 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?

1. Yes, I know my rights.
2. Objection, your honor. Compound.

 

[ko531]

The Commonwealth would like to submit the following into Evidence

Spoiler: D-1

Spoiler: D-2

Spoiler: D-3

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Ko please respond

 

[ko531]

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.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

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.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

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.

 

[ko531]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Please do so within the next 24 hours and keep it brief.

Thank you Your Honour,

Regarding Exhibit A, the plugin will inform the player being cuffed that they are being charged with all present wanted points against the player. However, officers must either manually select charges within the jail bus or press the select all (Emerald Block) to jail the player. Manual selection of charges is done in many circumstances, such as but not limited to:
- To avoid jailing a player for a disputed wanted point (in discussion within a ticket)
- To avoid exceeding the maximum sentence of 60 minutes for murder charges
- To ensure that the suspect is not jailed for a wanted point that was generated for a charge that does not result in jail time

In short, while the plugin asserts that the suspect is being charged with all present charges against them, all charges may not be carried through at present due to reasons such as the ones listed above.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

I will try to keep this as brief as I can to respect your time, so here are some general Minecraft mechanics I believe I can provide information on.

In Minecraft, there is a feature known as “jumping”. Without any effects, the player can jump onto surfaces that are generally around one block high. In the submitted evidence, D-2, the prosecution shows that there is an iron bars block which is one block tall. Therefore, it could be possible that a player jumps onto those bars using the jumping mechanic of Minecraft, and then hurt themselves. I can conclude with my expertise that jumping is a fundamental and intentional mechanic of Minecraft, and therefore it would be possible to be hurt by falling off of a ledge.

I thank the court for their time.

 

[ko531]

Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

I will try to keep this as brief as I can to respect your time, so here are some general Minecraft mechanics I believe I can provide information on.

In Minecraft, there is a feature known as “jumping”. Without any effects, the player can jump onto surfaces that are generally around one block high. In the submitted evidence, D-2, the prosecution shows that there is an iron bars block which is one block tall. Therefore, it could be possible that a player jumps onto those bars using the jumping mechanic of Minecraft, and then hurt themselves. I can conclude with my expertise that jumping is a fundamental and intentional mechanic of Minecraft, and therefore it would be possible to be hurt by falling off of a ledge.

I thank the court for their time.

Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Denied. He will be called.

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, both sides don’t need the witness. I motion to discard him.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"

Objection, your honor
Breach of procedure

This isn’t a valid motion, it’s just a rebuttal.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"

Let me Clarify. This is a
MOTION TO STRIKE

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, both sides don’t need the witness. I motion to discard him.

If both sides agree, then sustained.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Objection, your honor
Breach of procedure

This isn’t a valid motion, it’s just a rebuttal.

Sustained. Mr. Ko, please rewrite and submit a new motion if you like.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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.

Overruled.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The plaintiff has 72 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[ko531]

Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

I will try to keep this as brief as I can to respect your time, so here are some general Minecraft mechanics I believe I can provide information on.

In Minecraft, there is a feature known as “jumping”. Without any effects, the player can jump onto surfaces that are generally around one block high. In the submitted evidence, D-2, the prosecution shows that there is an iron bars block which is one block tall. Therefore, it could be possible that a player jumps onto those bars using the jumping mechanic of Minecraft, and then hurt themselves. I can conclude with my expertise that jumping is a fundamental and intentional mechanic of Minecraft, and therefore it would be possible to be hurt by falling off of a ledge.

I thank the court for their time.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Love 24 hours to respond

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Mr. Love 24 hours to respond

Your honor, it is not unfriendly for a brief to favor one side or the other; by nature, they usually do. This brief added a unique and valuable perspective on a major issue. There is no reason to strike a brief just because the defense doesn't like it; they can dispute its contents in their opening/closing statements later in the trial.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor,

Masked is arguing for the Defense. She has provided the court with no new or important information or any important insight. She is making a very basic arguement against the evidence that any single person who has touched minecraft could make. If the defense wishes then they can make this arguement themselves but this amicus brief should be struck as it acts as a second defense for Alexander.

Amicus Brief is defined as "friend of the court". Unless Masked truely believed the presiding officer would not understand that any minecraft player can jump over anything that is 1 block high then this brief is not a "friend of the court" and serves more as a "friend for the defense"

Denied. I will take note of your argument but the brief provided insight.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Opening Statement

May it please the Court,

Your Honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered in witness of this case, this is a case of retribution over rights. A hostile police force is more focused on retribution via trying to find loopholes that circumvent the rights of the people. Remember, retribution over rights. That is the de facto slogan of the Department of Homeland Security. I was formally charged with five murders, as seen in the evidence, and then deliberately jailed for two to try and circumvent the very clear right to a trial laid out in the Standardized Criminal Code Act, and by extension, the Constitution itself. In fact, the DHS has made it official policy for officers to jail for a max of two counts of murder when someone is wanted for more. Whether served consecutively or separately, the charges added up to more than 50 minutes. Jailing any amount of that is a violation of the SCCA.

Their intent is incredibly clear: they wanted to violate my rights and attempted to find what they thought was a 'smart' loophole. This is even more clear when they refused to drop the other three charges, meaning I would be eventually jailed for them. Had they dropped 3 and jailed for 2, it possibly would be legal, but they want to both have their cake and eat it too. Because I was illegally jailed, I was therefore kidnapped / falsely imprisoned by Yeet_Boy, and by extension, the Commonwealth as he was acting as an agent of the DHS. Denying my right to a trial and due process is possibly one of the most egregious things the Commonwealth could do. Are we still a free democracy, or can the government impose harsh penalties with very little recourse? It is time for the Court to decide whether this trend will continue or not, and equally harsh punitive damages should be imposed.

To top all of this, I fell in a prison mine I shouldn't have had to be in in the first place. The justice system includes a dangerous mine with long falls, one such pit catching me by surprise and resulting in a broken leg that I had to get splinted. The pain, suffering, and emotional trauma from breaking my leg and being trapped in a dark prison mine is haunting, as I will testify to in this trial. The Commonwealth is responsible for this as it wouldn't have occurred if I wasn't subjected to illegal jail time.

The plaintiff requests the Court award it the full amount of remedies requested to preserve and protect the civil rights of the people. Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Thank you Your Honour,

Regarding Exhibit A, the plugin will inform the player being cuffed that they are being charged with all present wanted points against the player. However, officers must either manually select charges within the jail bus or press the select all (Emerald Block) to jail the player. Manual selection of charges is done in many circumstances, such as but not limited to:
- To avoid jailing a player for a disputed wanted point (in discussion within a ticket)
- To avoid exceeding the maximum sentence of 60 minutes for murder charges
- To ensure that the suspect is not jailed for a wanted point that was generated for a charge that does not result in jail time

In short, while the plugin asserts that the suspect is being charged with all present charges against them, all charges may not be carried through at present due to reasons such as the ones listed above.

Your honor, I would like to note this brief and affirm its contents as fact. With that being said;

Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 I would like to raise this objection for perjury again.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, I would like to note this brief and affirm its contents as fact. With that being said;

Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 I would like to raise this objection for perjury again.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

I have been informed that I was incorrect about the jailing pluggin. I have never worked in the DOJ or work with this pluggin. But Perjury is defined as "The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court." At the time of saying this I did not believe it to be false. I was so confident that I tried to call a witness to uphold my side of the story. Even though what I said was incorrect (which Im sorry about), I have not committed perjury as when saying it I did not know it to be incorrect.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I have never worked in the DOJ

Your honor, if this is the case, I motion for ko to be thrown off this case as he is not legally able to act as counsel for the Commonwealth. I also object on the grounds of perjury.

 

[ko531]

Your honor, if this is the case, I motion for ko to be thrown off this case as he is not legally able to act as counsel for the Commonwealth. I also object on the grounds of perjury.

Let me rephrase. I have never worked for the DHS now that the name has changed. I was thinking of the old name. My apologies

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your honor, I would like to note this brief and affirm its contents as fact. With that being said;

Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99 I would like to raise this objection for perjury again.

Sustained. Mr. Ko, as counsel for this case, you are duty-bound to ensure that your statements in court are truthful. You have made false statements to the court. I trust this will serve as a reminder for you to verify information with reliable sources before presenting it in court.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your honor, if this is the case, I motion for ko to be thrown off this case as he is not legally able to act as counsel for the Commonwealth. I also object on the grounds of perjury.

Overruled. Mr. Ko, please ensure you carefully proofread any statements or documents you present in this court.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The defense has 72 hours to present their opening.

 

[ko531]

Sustained. Mr. Ko, as counsel for this case, you are duty-bound to ensure that your statements in court are truthful. You have made false statements to the court. I trust this will serve as a reminder for you to verify information with reliable sources before presenting it in court.

Motion to Reconsider

It does not matter what my duties are. The law specifcally says that I must give knowingly incorrect testimony. What I have done here does not meet the definition of perjury as I have not given false information knowingly. You can not charge me with perjury for not meeting my duties. Again I am sorry for giving the false information but I did not know it to be false at the time of saying it therefore it is not perjury.

Perjury is not only about false statements made in court, it is knowingly false statements. By charging me with perjury you are going outside the definition written in law and creating your own.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Reconsider

It does not matter what my duties are. The law specifcally says that I must give knowingly incorrect testimony. What I have done here does not meet the definition of perjury as I have not given false information knowingly. You can not charge me with perjury for not meeting my duties. Again I am sorry for giving the false information but I did not know it to be false at the time of saying it therefore it is not perjury.

Perjury is not only about false statements made in court, it is knowingly false statements. By charging me with perjury you are going outside the definition written in law and creating your own.

Response, your honor?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

You may respond

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Reconsider

It does not matter what my duties are. The law specifcally says that I must give knowingly incorrect testimony. What I have done here does not meet the definition of perjury as I have not given false information knowingly. You can not charge me with perjury for not meeting my duties. Again I am sorry for giving the false information but I did not know it to be false at the time of saying it therefore it is not perjury.

Perjury is not only about false statements made in court, it is knowingly false statements. By charging me with perjury you are going outside the definition written in law and creating your own.

While ko may or may not have known this fact, he is an agent of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, which includes the DHS, did indeed know that charges can be selected. Therefore, the body he represents made a knowingly false statement. Negligence to check one's facts as counsel does not excuse perjury, especially in this instance.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Motion to Reconsider

It does not matter what my duties are. The law specifcally says that I must give knowingly incorrect testimony. What I have done here does not meet the definition of perjury as I have not given false information knowingly. You can not charge me with perjury for not meeting my duties. Again I am sorry for giving the false information but I did not know it to be false at the time of saying it therefore it is not perjury.

Perjury is not only about false statements made in court, it is knowingly false statements. By charging me with perjury you are going outside the definition written in law and creating your own.

Overruled. You knowingly made statements in this courtroom that were not based on accurate information. If you were unsure of the facts, you should have disclosed that rather than making statements without standing. Your testimony was incorrect and deliberately misleading. I must also point out that the Commonwealth was aware of this information, and you are representing the Commonwealth in this matter. I am not deviating from the law; I am upholding it. Your false testimony was a breach of court integrity. I also encourage you to be more respectful.

 

[ko531]

Overruled. You knowingly made statements in this courtroom that were not based on accurate information. If you were unsure of the facts, you should have disclosed that rather than making statements without standing. Your testimony was incorrect and deliberately misleading. I must also point out that the Commonwealth was aware of this information, and you are representing the Commonwealth in this matter. I am not deviating from the law; I am upholding it. Your false testimony was a breach of court integrity. I also encourage you to be more respectful.

Your Honor, Im putting this on the record

At the time of the statement I believed it to be true, I was not unsure as I believed it to be true so there was nothing to disclosed. I did not deliberatley mislead anyone as the testimony I gave I believed to be the truth. You have failed to show how I knowlingly gave this false testimony therefore you should not be able to charge me with perjury.

It also does not matter what the commonwealth may have known as you are charging me individually with perjury not the commonwealth therefore the only thing that matters it what I know and what I believed to be the truth.

At the end of the day you are deviating from the law since even though my testimony was false, it was not knowlingly false and therefore not perjury

 

[ko531]

OPENING STATEMENTS

Your Honor

You will see that this entire case is nothing but a cash grab and the plaintiff Alexander has purposely done this actions on purpose. Alexander knew before committing these murders that it was illegal. He knew that the law says any act sentencing over 30 minutes is court jurisdiction.. He knew that the commonwealth has regularly not been aware of this law and subsequently ignored it. He knew all of these facts before committing his first murder, this is seen by both FCR 98 and Alexander's answers to the interrogation. He even murdered a cop forcing that said cop to arrest him.

As you can see Alexander has caused his own damages as he knew exactly what would happen by doing this. Not only did he know this he used this knowledge to create the damages being argued in this case. As seen in The_Donucticus v. GER, as an organization, et all [2022] SCR 18 when you cause your own damages then you are no longer entitled to prayers/claims of relief. For this reason nothing should be granted and this cause should be found in favor of the defense. Alexander had all the knowledge in the world to avoid this but yet he caused it.

Alexander also talks about the DHS purposely not charging him with all his murder charges at the same time. With this arguement the DHS is damn if they do and damn if they dont as by charging all of the murder charges they would be violating aleaxander's right to a trial. The law never says the DHS has to charge crimminals with all there crimes all at once. No rights were violated as Alexander never served more then 30 minutes of jail time.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Since no witnesses are being called, we will move to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Since no witnesses are being called, we will move to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

My apologies, Mr. Love. I overlooked that. I will issue the witness summons shortly.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@YeetBoy1872325 and @Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the court in the case of AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Present, your honor. A lawyer from Dragon Law Firm will conduct my examination.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Present ur honer

 

[Unseatedduke1]

@Alexander P. Love You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to both witnesses at the same time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

ORDER VACATING PERJURY​

Upon thorough deliberation and review, I have decided to reverse the perjury charge against Mr. Ko. While I encourage Mr. Ko to triple check his information in the future he didn't knowingly provide false information.

Unseatedduke1
Judge

 

[Alexander P. Love]

@Alexander P. Love You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions to both witnesses at the same time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.

Your honor, I went to work for a nine hour shift right after you sent that, then slept for a while because I was tired. Just got started for the day on legal stuff. I feel 24 hours is a bit short considering real life, and while it is a little late, I do request a 24 hour extension from the original deadline.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

@YeetBoy1872325

1. Why did you arrest me?
2. When I was placed in cuffs, what crimes was I charged with?
3. Combined, how long of a jail sentence do those crimes add up to?
4. How long did you jail me for?
5. Did you clear any of the wanted points that you did not jail me for?
6. Did the DHS historically jail people for all wanted points at once provided it was below 60 minutes of jail?

 

[ko531]

6. Did the DHS historically jail people for all wanted points at once provided it was below 60 minutes of jail?

OBJECTION
Speculation and Argumentative

This questions is asking about the historical practices of an entire department something that Yeetboy can not answer about as he is not the entire department. He can only speak to his own experiences and thoughts.

This is also Argumentative as it is not about seeking an answer but trying to state an arguement for the historical practices of the DHS on the record by just having the witness answer true or false.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION
Speculation and Argumentative

This questions is asking about the historical practices of an entire department something that Yeetboy can not answer about as he is not the entire department. He can only speak to his own experiences and thoughts.

This is also Argumentative as it is not about seeking an answer but trying to state an arguement for the historical practices of the DHS on the record by just having the witness answer true or false.

I will rephrase the question to address speculation. As for argumentative, that isn't what argumentative means. Argumentative is when a lawyer asks a question to antagonize or argue with a witness. All questions are designed to state arguments; that is why they are asked in Court by lawyers, who are there to state a case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Yeet, question six is rephrased as follows:

In your experience and from your perception, did the DHS historically jail people for all wanted points at once provided it was below 60 minutes of jail?

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

@YeetBoy1872325

1. Why did you arrest me?
2. When I was placed in cuffs, what crimes was I charged with?
3. Combined, how long of a jail sentence do those crimes add up to?
4. How long did you jail me for?
5. Did you clear any of the wanted points that you did not jail me for?
6. Did the DHS historically jail people for all wanted points at once provided it was below 60 minutes of jail?

1. You were wanted for committing crimes.
2. Murder x2.
3. 20 minutes.
4. 20 minutes.
5. No.
6. I do not know, I am only a Recruit.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

1. You were wanted for committing crimes.

Which crimes?

2. Murder x2.

According to exhibit A, I was charged with a different number of murders. Do you wish to change your answer?

Do you wish to therefore change your answer to question 3?

 

[Avaneesh2008]

Questions to the Witness

AlexanderLove

1. How did you feel when you found out you were being sent to jail rather than given a fair trial?
2. Can you describe how being imprisoned made you feel?
3. Is it safe to say you were scared while in prison?
4. Where did you fall?
5. Why were you in the prison mine?
6. Did your fall cause you to break your leg?
7. If so, did breaking your leg cause a great deal of pain and suffering?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Questions to the Witness

AlexanderLove

1. How did you feel when you found out you were being sent to jail rather than given a fair trial?
2. Can you describe how being imprisoned made you feel?
3. Is it safe to say you were scared while in prison?
4. Where did you fall?
5. Why were you in the prison mine?
6. Did your fall cause you to break your leg?
7. If so, did breaking your leg cause a great deal of pain and suffering?

1. I was outraged and then saddened that a fundamental right of mine was being taken away. I was then scared at the thought of being thrown in a cell with violent criminals.
2. It made me fearful for my own safety, and also lonely. I was confined and deprived of my freedom. It made me feel hopeless.
3. Yes, very.
4. I fell in the prison mine.
5. The mine was the only way to regain my freedom quickly. I was motivated by fear and boredom to get out quickly.
6. Yes.
7. Yes, it hurt a lot. When I got out of prison, I had to hobble to the hospital to get a splint which also hurt and took a great deal of time. I will never forget that traumatic incident.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
Speculation and Argumentative

This questions is asking about the historical practices of an entire department something that Yeetboy can not answer about as he is not the entire department. He can only speak to his own experiences and thoughts.

This is also Argumentative as it is not about seeking an answer but trying to state an arguement for the historical practices of the DHS on the record by just having the witness answer true or false.

Overruled Mr. Love reworded the question. Edit: Overruled because of argumentative aspect but again Mr. Love please reword the question.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, May I begin cross examination as it has been over 24 hours?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Which crimes?


According to exhibit A, I was charged with a different number of murders. Do you wish to change your answer?

Do you wish to therefore change your answer to question 3?

@YeetBoy1872325 Please answer this follow up question in the next 24 hours.

Mr. Ko you may begin.

 

[ko531]

Questions for Alexanderlove

1. Why did you not use the hospital at the Prison?
2. Was there anything inside the prison that made you scared or are you just scared of prison in general?
3. If you were so scared of prison as learn by the events that lead to FCR 98, why did you put yourself in a position to go back to prison?
4. How long was your sentence in the prison?