Lawsuit: Adjourned AlexanderLove v. The Department of Justice [2021] DCR 33

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
On 6/19/21, the Department of Justice called four persons who were assailed by an invisible assailant liars. They proceeded to arrest two of us while another pleaded with the DOJ to release us due to the events that transpired. None of us have any association or bond with each other; we were acting out of humanitarianism and protection of fellow citizen. I was punched down to one heart by the assailant when I was visiting the DOH HQ so I fired a shot in self-defense and attempted to call the DOJ, who was already looking for the suspect. The assailant shot me back using an AWP and then a Needler. As he was invisible, I couldn't see where he was. I finally saw him pull out his AWP again and quickly fired my Remington in the area, killing the assailant in self-defense. The assailant was also shooting at OmegaPlashMC and he even pleaded for his life in global chat. The Department of Justice however arrests me nonetheless as they rely only on their logs. Also, I am a politician and a lawyer. I am not going to just murder people.

I. PARTIES
1. Aladeen22 (Arresting Officer)
2. AlexanderLove (Plaintiff)
3. Huase (Eye-Witness, Also Attacked by the Assailant)
4. OmegaPlashMC (Another Victim of the Assailant)
5. baole444 (Officer on Scene Looking for the Assailant)
6. Immagfygbr (Assailant)
7. ShiveryBeat (Yet Another Victim, Also Arrested for Self-Defense)

II. FACTS
1. I was in the DOH HQ to sell some supplies when I see an invisible block and I punch it once to see if it's a bugged armor stand.
2. It's an invisible player who apparently is a suspect the DOJ (baole) was looking for, and he spam punches me despite me trying to get away. I am left at one heart during the altercation. He also shot Omega there with a pistol, and he even pleads for his life.
3. I shoot my Remington at the assailant in self-defense, triggering the police logs making it say that I "started the fight". The Assailant pulls an AWP and misses his shots as I tell the DOJ that their suspect is at the DOH. No DOJ comes to the scene.
4. The assailant moves positions while invisible to obscure his location while firing off quick needler shots. I finally see him flash a gun and fire my Remington at his location, killing the assailant.
5. The police summon me to the Police Station and I refuse to comply since I am in the presence of another law enforcement officer who knew about the situation and didn't arrest me. Aladeen was the arresting officer and knew nothing of the situation.
6. Aladeen teleports to spawn, cuffs me, and hauls me to jail. I tell him his logs are wrong and I have proof, when he tells me to create a ticket. I open the ticket and before I can even post proof, he had already jailed me. He had no intention of looking at the proof beforehand. I am arrested and fined for "murder."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. I was falsely arrested by the Department of Justice due to their incompetence and failure to investigate the situation.
2. I was told to open a DOJ ticket to give the evidence supporting my side. I was uploading the screenshots and they had already put me in jail.
3. I acted in self-defense as I was being repetitively hit by the assailant.
4. Police logs DO NOT take into account attempted murder via missed gunfire.
5. I made every effort to call the DOJ to the scene and flee the area, but I was being sniped at so it was hard to get away without dying.
6. The person who arrested me I later found out isn't even a cop according to /info.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Record expungement
2. $1,000 in compensation of the $100 fine, time wasted, legal expenses, and the opportunity cost of going to jail
3. A written, public apology from the Department of Justice
4. The arresting officer, Aladeen, to be re-evaluated and trained to bother investigating the issue before instantly jailing

V. WITNESSES
1. Huase
2. baole444
3. OmegaPlashMC
4. ShiveryBeat

VI. EVIDENCE
The evidence is in the following gallery:

https://imgur.com/a/4IfkGJa

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 19th day of June, 2021

 

[bubbarc]

IN THE 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 Department of Justice. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​

 

[Canxx01]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The Department of Justice policy constitutes that police officers are to look at the coroner report and the coroner report only.
2. As claimed by the Plaintiff:

3. I shoot my Remington at the assailant in self-defense, triggering the police logs making it say that I "started the fight".

The police logs show the murdered, the murderer and who started the fight. The arresting officer in this case, merely follows what the logs say, and conducts their arrest regarding it.
3. The Plaintiff was instructed to report to the Police Station:

5. The police summon me to the Police Station and I refuse to comply since I am in the presence of another law enforcement officer who knew about the situation and didn't arrest me. Aladeen was the arresting officer and knew nothing of the situation.

And they have admitted that they refused to comply. This constitutes as evading arrest, as all arrest recipients are first asked to report to the police station, and if they refuse to comply, they require law enforcement to chase them, which was why the Plaintiff was charged with such.
4. This claim, made by the Plaintiff:

6. The person who arrested me I later found out isn't even a cop according to /info.

Is completely false. Aladeen22 is a fully fledged Sergeant of the Department of Justice, and if the Plaintiff still has any doubts regarding it, we can call the testimony of anyone from the Department of Justice to confirm. Furthermore, Non-Police Officers cannot make arrests in the server, it is simply impossible.

5. This claim, made by the Plaintiff:

4. Police logs DO NOT take into account attempted murder via missed gunfire.

Should not constitute as claims for relief, as all Police Officers are instructed to always follow police logs, no matter what. Therefore, if it does not take something into account, neither does the officers.

Your Honor, the simple fact is that police officers are always obligated to follow the logs, for every citizen, no matter what. The evidence given by the Plaintiff explaining the situation is irrelevant, due to that simple fact. The arresting officer mentioned, Aladeen22, has conducted department policy thoroughly, only taking into account the logs, which they were required to do so.

Therefore the Defence wishes to dismiss this case.


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 27th day of June 2021

 

[bubbarc]

Does the plaintiff have any rebuttal?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Yes your honor,

1: "The Department of Justice policy constitutes that police officers are to look at the coroner report and the coroner report only."
The Department of Justice policy should not have the effect to implicate the wrong citizens. DOJ policy is not binding by law nor fixed by statute, and DOJ policy should be modified if it is not effective. In this case, DOJ policy should be amended to reflect the bugginess of the plugin, and rather than using it as a binding "judge, jury, and executioner," the DOJ should use it to follow up on leads and interrogate both parties. Other possibilities are present, but innocent civilians should not go to jail for something they didn't do. To sum it up, DOJ policy should not be used as an excuse as it is in no way legally binding.

2: "The police logs show the murdered, the murderer and who started the fight. The arresting officer in this case, merely follows what the logs say, and conducts their arrest regarding it."
I am in no way blaming the arresting officer; I am blaming the DOJ and their policy for being inept and ineffective at properly enforcing the law and ensuring innocent civilians are not thrown in jail and fined on absolutely no legal merit. The law specifies only murderers should go to jail. I should not have gone to jail as I did not murder; I used self-defense when I was punched to low health and shot at by the aggressor, as several witnesses will testify to.

3: "And they have admitted that they refused to comply. This constitutes as evading arrest, as all arrest recipients are first asked to report to the police station, and if they refuse to comply, they require law enforcement to chase them, which was why the Plaintiff was charged with such."
This was sorted and I in fact was not charged with evasion. I told the officer where I was and he easily came to me. This point is also entirely irrelevant to the case, as I am appealing the murder charge, which was the only charge issued as seen in Exhibit #6.

4: "Should not constitute as claims for relief, as all Police Officers are instructed to always follow police logs, no matter what. Therefore, if it does not take something into account, neither does the officers."
What police officers are instructed to do has no bearing on the law. Their instructions are unlawful, and the Department of Justice should be held accountable for wrongfully instructing their law enforcement officers and not encouraging them to investigate each case to ensure accuracy, and to take into account the *common knowledge* that the coroner plugin is buggy and inaccurate. The Department of Justice is supposed to be accurately enforcing the law, and they are failing at their duty. The Court must step in and make them adhere to their mission.

These reasons sufficiently defend most points of the Plaintiff's motion. A motion for dismissal should also not be granted as there are no inaccuracies (except for the Department of Justice's) in this case, nor is this case frivolous. Given that neither of these two circumstances applies, the case is supposed to proceed pursuant to Court policy.

 

[bubbarc]

The court has elected to overrule the motion to dismiss as, as the plaintiff pointed out, the case is neither frivilous nor are there any intentional inaccuracies (that being said the court will throw out claim for relief number 6 on those grounds,) the plaintiff may now proceed with their opening statement

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, should the defense present their opening statement first? Unless the motion of dismissal counts as such.

 

[bubbarc]

You're right, the defendant may now proceed with their opening statement, apologies

 

[Canxx01]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, the Esteemed Court, the Plaintiff is making a case on baseless claims and prayer for relief. The fact is, there was nothing that the Department did which was wrong, per the law and the constitution, and the department policy that we as the citizens of Redmont are all privy to, bound by and live by, under equal circumstances.
The fact is that the Plaintiff may have conducted self defence, or they didn't. This doesn't matter. Police officers arrest based on Coroner Report and Coroner Report only, in order to ensure the equality of all citizens and to block opportunities of perjury from happening.

1: "The Department of Justice policy constitutes that police officers are to look at the coroner report and the coroner report only."
The Department of Justice policy should not have the effect to implicate the wrong citizens. DOJ policy is not binding by law nor fixed by statute, and DOJ policy should be modified if it is not effective. In this case, DOJ policy should be amended to reflect the bugginess of the plugin, and rather than using it as a binding "judge, jury, and executioner," the DOJ should use it to follow up on leads and interrogate both parties. Other possibilities are present, but innocent civilians should not go to jail for something they didn't do. To sum it up, DOJ policy should not be used as an excuse as it is in no way legally binding.

The DoJ uses this methodology for arresting of said criminals equally. The fact is that if you kill someone, and you have started the fight, you are going to be arrested, if the victim did not consent to it. The plaintiff was held up to this standard as did every single criminal who have been arrested before. To grant a verdict based on the fact that the DoJ had done injustice by simply following its policy would be a gross miscarriage of justice, for all the criminals that have been arrested before by this protocol. The fact that the Plaintiff said that "innocent civilians should not go to jail for something they didn't do", is simply incorrect. As the coroner report shows, the plaintiff murdered a victim in a fight where they started the fight. That is the textbook definition of murder in the server, and it seems as the plaintiff has committed it. To expunge said records and unfine the monetary funds fined from the plaintiff would be to grant someone an expunge of a murder charge, without a formal request, and without it passing the statute of limitations of two months. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice for every other criminal who has been arrested of murder charge before, as the proofs show that they did it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

2: "The police logs show the murdered, the murderer and who started the fight. The arresting officer in this case, merely follows what the logs say, and conducts their arrest regarding it."
I am in no way blaming the arresting officer; I am blaming the DOJ and their policy for being inept and ineffective at properly enforcing the law and ensuring innocent civilians are not thrown in jail and fined on absolutely no legal merit. The law specifies only murderers should go to jail. I should not have gone to jail as I did not murder; I used self-defense when I was punched to low health and shot at by the aggressor, as several witnesses will testify to.

The arresting officer was the recipient of this in the prayer for relief:

4. The arresting officer, Aladeen, to be re-evaluated and trained to bother investigating the issue before instantly jailing

The Plaintiff has contradicted themselves in their opposition by stating the opposite of what they had said in the prayer for relief. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is now requesting that the Department of Justice policy be amended, which is not a valid request to make, as to the fact that this case, in itself, was filed on the grounds of that policy. If the Plaintiff wishes to amend the policy of the Department of Justice there are far better effective ways to do that then to file a case in the district court, which is actually for "wrongful arrest".

Going by the wrongful arrest allegations, as pointed out before, the Plaintiff was arrested for murder. The coroner report has shown it, and they didnt deny it. The fact that you were murdered before murdering is irrelevant. And since the policy has not been amended, they cannot argue that the policy is wrong, when it has been the precedent, and protocol of arrest for hundreds of people before them. They get held up to the same standards as everyone else, and unless the policy has been amended and i woke up in Business Craft today, the Department of Justice was not wrong in the way they had conducted their arrest.

3: "And they have admitted that they refused to comply. This constitutes as evading arrest, as all arrest recipients are first asked to report to the police station, and if they refuse to comply, they require law enforcement to chase them, which was why the Plaintiff was charged with such."
This was sorted and I in fact was not charged with evasion. I told the officer where I was and he easily came to me. This point is also entirely irrelevant to the case, as I am appealing the murder charge, which was the only charge issued as seen in Exhibit #6.

While the Plaintiff is arguing that they are appealing the murder charge, the fact is that they are appealing the entire policy of the Department of Justice, saying that it is incorrect. The case should have facts and a base for law given to the court, and the Plaintiff has failed to cite a SINGLE clause of constitution, common law or statute in their claims for relief.

4: "Should not constitute as claims for relief, as all Police Officers are instructed to always follow police logs, no matter what. Therefore, if it does not take something into account, neither does the officers."
What police officers are instructed to do has no bearing on the law. Their instructions are unlawful, and the Department of Justice should be held accountable for wrongfully instructing their law enforcement officers and not encouraging them to investigate each case to ensure accuracy, and to take into account the *common knowledge* that the coroner plugin is buggy and inaccurate. The Department of Justice is supposed to be accurately enforcing the law, and they are failing at their duty. The Court must step in and make them adhere to their mission.

These reasons sufficiently defend most points of the Plaintiff's motion. A motion for dismissal should also not be granted as there are no inaccuracies (except for the Department of Justice's) in this case, nor is this case frivolous. Given that neither of these two circumstances applies, the case is supposed to proceed pursuant to Court policy.

The Plaintiff is yet again claiming that the police officers' instructions are unlawful, but failes to explain how they are, and what law it is "unlawful" to, or in violation of. The Plaintiff has testified by claiming that the coroner plugin is buggy and inaccurate, claiming it as *common knowledge*, when there is not a single shred of evidence supporting it.

The Department of Justice is supposed to be accurately enforcing the law, and they are failing at their duty. The Court must step in and make them adhere to their mission.

Yet again the Plaintiff fails to explain how the Department of Justice is failing at its duty of accurately enforcing the law, as no law which was alleged to be "not accurately enforced" has been cited or mentioned by the Plaintiff.

The Court must step in and make them adhere to their mission.

At first the Plaintiff requested the following for Prayer for Relief:

1. Record expungement
2. $1,000 in compensation of the $100 fine, time wasted, legal expenses, and the opportunity cost of going to jail
3. A written, public apology from the Department of Justice
4. The arresting officer, Aladeen, to be re-evaluated and trained to bother investigating the issue before instantly jailing

And now they are asking for the Court to force the Department of Justice to change policy. In fact, in none of these objections did the Defendant actually defend their claims of receord expungement, 1000 in compensation of the 100$ fine, time wasted, legal expenses, opportunity cost of going to jail, a written, public apology from the department of justice, and that the arresting officer be re-evaluated and trained.

What they have done, however, is argue that the Department of Justice policy is unlawful and does not have bearing on the law, without citing the law, therefore all of their argument has been baseless. They even claimed that the arresting officer had done nothing wrong, directly contradicting the 4th clause of the prayer for relief, in which the Plaintiff asks for the arresting oficer to be re-evaluated and trained.

What the Defence is asking the Court in this case, Your Honor, is for it to stay strictly within the confines of what the prayer for relief, and the Defence's argument is about. Not the change of Department Policy, but that the arrest made was wrongfully conducted.

The Defence thanks the Court for hearing out the Defence's opening statement, and hereby rests.

 

[bubbarc]

The plaintiff may proceed with their opening statement

 

[bubbarc]

If the plaintiff does not have an opening statement in within 48 hours we will move on without it

 

[Baole444]

as a witness between the court case related to this court, I express the concern the missing of plaintiff for more than 3 days already. The plaintiff have also show a huge delay on other court result in changing lawyer.

 

[bubbarc]

as a witness between the court case related to this court, I express the concern the missing of plaintiff for more than 3 days already. The plaintiff have also show a huge delay on other court result in changing lawyer.

Do not speak unsummoned or out of turn, failure to comply will result in me charging you with contempt of court

 

[Baole444]

Do not speak unsummoned or out of turn, failure to comply will result in me charging you with contempt of court

Sorry wont do that again

 

[Canxx01]

If the plaintiff does not have an opening statement in within 48 hours we will move on without it

Your Honor, the timeframe has passed.

The Plaintiff has not had an opening statement for 12 days now.

 

[bubbarc]

Your Honor, the timeframe has passed.

The Plaintiff has not had an opening statement for 12 days now.

The plaintiff still has 10 hours remaining

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Apologies for the delay, your honor.

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, I am AlexanderLove, the self-representing plaintiff in this case against the Department of Justice. Today, I have brought forward several complaints against the operational policy of the Department of Justice. This is a case of pride over performance. The Department of Justice would rather take pride in its ineffective policy, claiming that it's simply just the way things are, over changing it to be effective at performing the duties it is prescribed with doing.

Allowing the Department of Justice to win this case of false arrest simply because it refuses to change its policy to properly enforce the law as written would be setting a clear precedent that the Executive Branch can ignore the wishes of the Legislative Branch entirely, and enforce the law in the way it interprets.

I was being fired upon by an assailant, which several members of the public can attest to, and the defendant ignored them and my material evidence. They not only took no time to investigate the situation but in fact, blatantly refused to see my defense. This is a power-hungry officer who was eager to make an arrest, and the Department of Justice's policy enables - no, ENCOURAGES - him to behave that way. This cannot be allowed to remain, and the Court must get the Executive Branch into line in order to properly adhere to their constitutional duties.

Let us put performance before pride. Do not allow the Department of Justice's pride to continue to damper performance and adherence to basic constitutional principles.

Thank you.

 

[bubbarc]

Does either party have any further evidence or any witnesses to call for? (This is your last chance to do either)

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I'd just like to call the four witnesses I originally named.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

I will be taking one this case from Canxx01 as he is no longer the Attorney General, I ask the court for some time and Leniency as I just assumed office today and a disorganized and under staffed one at that.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I ask that we move on in the next 24 hours.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor we are ready to proceed and have no objection to the 4 witnesses

 

[bubbarc]

Apologies for the delay, the witnesses have been summoned, the plaintiff may first ask any questions they may have then the defendant may cross examine them

 

[bubbarc]

It has been over 24 hours past when the witnesses were summoned and none of them have arrived, as such I order the Department of Justice to fine Huase, baole444, OmegaPlashMC, and ShiveryBeat $200 for Contempt of Court, do either the plaintiff or the defendant have any further evidence or witnesses?

 

[Baole444]

It has been over 24 hours past when the witnesses were summoned and none of them have arrived, as such I order the Department of Justice to fine Huase, baole444, OmegaPlashMC, and ShiveryBeat $200 for Contempt of Court, do either the plaintiff or the defendant have any further evidence or witnesses?

I have always been here waiting for the question, please notice that I have real life work to do. Please don't waste MY real life time, NOT so thank you!

Speaking of being witness, I would like to point out some wrong detail of the plaintiff to provide false claim.
1. The plaintiff point out the guy with invis potion is wanted a.k.a claiming that I'm looking for him, which isn't correct. What I did is provide people with the information of "Who is the invis guy", not hunting for him.
2. Pointing out I'm the witness isn't correct. I was afk ALL the time on the chair all the time, making it impossible to know what is happening. The only think I know is the part when the plaintiff screaming in chat claiming that he will sue the DoJ, which why we here, wasting peoples time. If you think that this is an empty statement I would like the OWNER or S/Admin to access the log file on that day at that time to really know what happen.

That all for my counter fine answer and the fact that in the announcement not making clear that we can't sit here watching but must speak up to make a "statement".

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor the time limit has passed and they have already been fined, I request we move on to closing statements

 

[Baole444]

I have always been here waiting for the question, please notice that I have real life work to do. Please don't waste MY real life time, NOT so thank you!

Speaking of being witness, I would like to point out some wrong detail of the plaintiff to provide false claim.
1. The plaintiff point out the guy with invis potion is wanted a.k.a claiming that I'm looking for him, which isn't correct. What I did is provide people with the information of "Who is the invis guy", not hunting for him.
2. Pointing out I'm the witness isn't correct. I was afk ALL the time on the chair all the time, making it impossible to know what is happening. The only think I know is the part when the plaintiff screaming in chat claiming that he will sue the DoJ, which why we here, wasting peoples time. If you think that this is an empty statement I would like the OWNER or S/Admin to access the log file on that day at that time to really know what happen.

That all for my counter fine answer and the fact that in the announcement not making clear that we can't sit here watching but must speak up to make a "statement". Fine me if you want, YOU have 24H before I withdraw from witness respective.

 

[bubbarc]

I have always been here waiting for the question, please notice that I have real life work to do. Please don't waste MY real life time, NOT so thank you!

Speaking of being witness, I would like to point out some wrong detail of the plaintiff to provide false claim.
1. The plaintiff point out the guy with invis potion is wanted a.k.a claiming that I'm looking for him, which isn't correct. What I did is provide people with the information of "Who is the invis guy", not hunting for him.
2. Pointing out I'm the witness isn't correct. I was afk ALL the time on the chair all the time, making it impossible to know what is happening. The only think I know is the part when the plaintiff screaming in chat claiming that he will sue the DoJ, which why we here, wasting peoples time. If you think that this is an empty statement I would like the OWNER or S/Admin to access the log file on that day at that time to really know what happen.

That all for my counter fine answer and the fact that in the announcement not making clear that we can't sit here watching but must speak up to make a "statement".

You had responded prior to summons and when I did summon you you did not answer, as is why I charged you with contempt, however I will allow your statement to disqualify you as a witness to the crime, the plaintiff may now proceed with their closing statement

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the witnesses were never instructed to respond. I request we allow them to remedy the issue so we can properly have a Court proceeding here.

 

[bubbarc]

They were both in a government announcements on the discord and in an in game mail for those who don't have discord, therefore I overrule the plaintiff's objection, the plaintiff may now proceed with their closing statement

 

[bubbarc]

If the plaintiff doesn't have a closing statement within 48 hours we will proceed without it.

 

[bubbarc]

As the plaintiff has not put in a closing statement within the aloted timeframe we will proceed without it, I am also putting the court into recess for 24 hours due to the recent appointment of the new attorney general

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

Your Honor,

As this case comes to a close I will review what the Defendant has argued in this case. The policing policy of the Department of Justice is set up in such a way to be as equal as possible, to all players. This case is not about what the Department of Justice’s policies should be, it’s about what they are. The arresting officer, Aladeen, did not break any norms, he was doing what his job entails. Our officers are required to follow these Department policies, and failure to do so can result in warnings or a loss of job. The fact is that Alex has argued what department policy should be, and not what it is, and that standard doesn’t get to change because some people don't agree with it.

I would also like to thank the judge and plaintiff for bearing through three different Attorney Generals in one case. With that the Defendant rests.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

Your Honor,

Department policies should be in adherence with the laws as the Executive is supposed to enforce the laws as written, not bend them via Department policies. The DOJ needs to change their policies to reflect the current laws.

The Plaintiff rests.

 

[bubbarc]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

Your Honor,

Department policies should be in adherence with the laws as the Executive is supposed to enforce the laws as written, not bend them via Department policies. The DOJ needs to change their policies to reflect the current laws.

The Plaintiff rests.

The court shall disregard this closing statement as the plaintiff hadn't submitted it within eight days time, with 48 hours on the six day mark

 

[bubbarc]

Verdict

I hereby rule in favor of the defendant due to the evidence being inconclusive as to whether or not the plaintiff had murdered the alleged instigator in self defense or not, with the only witness who actually showed up to testify before the court claiming to have been afk, and the evidence being a screenshot that the plaintiff went to the scene of the crime and the witness providing it, as well as a discussion on whether or not the officer was an actual officer, and the fact that a lot of the plaintiff's arguments were contradictory, both claiming that the officer should be retrained and also stating that the officer was not at fault in an answer to a motion to dismiss, for instance, I would like to thank both parties for their time