Lawsuit: Dismissed BenTDM v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 53

[Dartanboy]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

BenTDM (Solid Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The Plaintiff was arrested and charged for the murder of FTGWop, despite it not being proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff murdered FTGWop.

I - PARTIES
1 - BenTDM
2 - Department of Justice

II - FACTS
1 - BenTDM was arrested for the murder of FTGWop and Claxx77. [See Exhibit A]
2 - The only disputed charge is the alleged murder of FTGWop, not Claxx77.
3 - After opening a DoJ ticket and explaining that this charge should be overturned, the charge was not overturned.
4 - The plugin used to track murders, while is helpful, cannot be unconditionally relied on, and thus cannot be used as the sole reason to convict for murder (See Exhibit E ([2021] SCR 15)) – the District Court cannot override Supreme Court precedent, so if the plugin is the only evidence the DoJ has, the charge must be struck.

III - CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1 - The Department of Justice violated the Plaintiff's rights by not confronting him with the evidence against him (Constitution, Part IV, Right IX)
2 - The Department of Justice supplied no evidence beyond the fact that FTGWop was killed by the Plaintiff, but had no evidence indicating that it was murder (could have been self-defense, thorns armor, or something else). There is significant precedent showing that without such evidence, a charge is illegal [Exhibit B ([2022] DCR 20), C ([2022] FCR 72), and D ([2022] DCR 44)] – the District Court cannot override Federal Court precedent, so if there is not proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff murdered FTGWop, the charge must be struck.

IV - PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1 - $250 for the violation of the Constitution (not confronting the Plaintiff with the evidence against him).
2 - $100 for the murder fine
3 - $150 for the wrongful imprisonment
4 - $600 in legal fees

EVIDENCE:
Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION KP56 (Solid Law Firm representing) Plaintiff v. Commonwealth of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On May 23, 2022, the Plaintiff was arrested and apparently fined for the...

www.democracycraft.net

Exhibit C:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Dartanman Plaintiff v. Commonwealth of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On August 26, 2022, the Plaintiff was informed that there was an open Bank Robbery charge against...

www.democracycraft.net

Exhibit D:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - JoeGamer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 44

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION JoeGamer Plaintiff v. Commonwealth of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The Department of Justice has unfairly charged and imprisoned the plaintiff with little to no regard...

www.democracycraft.net

Exhibit E:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - nnmc v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 15

APPEALED CASE Original Case: nnmc v. Department of Justice [Case No. 07-2021-06-01] Appeal Link: Case No. 07-2021-06-01 - Appeal Request IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION nnmc Plaintiff v. Department of Justice Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains...

www.democracycraft.net

Consent to Represent:

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 5th day of November 2022

ALSO NOTE: I tried really hard to properly follow the format on my phone as I do not have access to my computer right now. Sorry if it is a little wrong.

 

[Psypio]

There's no evidence here that he didn't kill FTGWop, whilst I have this:

 

[Aladeen]

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

@Attorney General's Office is required to appear before the District Court in the case of BenTDM v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 53. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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.​

 

[Aladeen]

There's no evidence here that he didn't kill FTGWop, whilst I have this:

View attachment 29531

I am hereby charging @Psypio with one count of contempt of court. Please refrain from speaking in cases where you have not been summoned.

 

[Aladeen]

I would like to remind both Plaintiff and Defendant of the possibility of an in-game trial.

 

[Staff Team]

Owner Veto

I apologise Your Honour, but the server senior administration team has had internal discussions regarding this lawsuit and we have decided to veto this case on the grounds that the DemocracyPolice plugin is a staff matter.

Should this case have been accepted, precedent would be set by in which murder would be near impossible to prove unless the Department of Justice had recordings of when the fight first began to when it ended. This is unrealistic and unfair for the Department of Justice, and discourages the policing aspect of this server.

We also take position that the verdict for this case would be detrimental to our existing player base and efforts to retain players. This is in light of players complaining when they have been subjected to murders and have no way of pressing charges, this was an issue back when the policing system had not come out of beta. Before this policing system, we had this issue as well but significantly worse. Players would consistently complain, and some would even go as far as to leaving the server or breaking rules out of frustration.

For these reasons outlined above, the server senior administration has agreed to veto this case.

 

[BenTDM]

Your Honour I would like to say the Doj is just trying to get out of this and because my lawyer know the laws he found a way the Doj can't win that why I think it unfair if the Doj try to get rid of the lawsuit

 

[Aladeen]

Case dismissed due to owner veto.