Lawsuit: Dismissed CaseyLeFaye v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 58

Status
Not open for further replies.
CaseyLeFaye

CaseyLeFaye

Citizen
Representative
Congressional Staff
Education Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
CaseyLeFaye
CaseyLeFaye
representative
Joined
Oct 5, 2023
Messages
22
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


CaseyLeFaye
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On February 4th, 2023, the Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed into law by President Derpy_Bird. This amendment states that Murder is an Indictable Offense. According to the Standardized Criminal Code Act, "Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offense must be proven in a trial." An Indictable Offense is a crime that needs a trial by jury. On November 8th, 2023, the Murder Quick Fix Act was signed into law by President xlayzur, changing Murder from an Indictable Offense to a Summary Offense. Between the signing of the Violent Offences Amendment Act and the Murder Quick Fix Act, the Plaintiff was arrested for 3 counts of murder by the DOJ and served 30 minutes in jail, and not a single charge was taken and proven in court. For each murder charge the Plaintiff was arrested for, he was also fined $100 by the DOJ, totaling $300.


I. PARTIES
1. CaseyLeFaye
2. Department of Justice

II. FACTS
1. The Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed into law by President Derpy_Bird on February 4th, 2023.
2. It states Murder as an "Indictable Criminal Offense," meaning it has to be proven in court.
3. Murder was changed to a Summary Criminal Offense when the Murder Quick Fix Act was signed into law by President xlayzur on November 8th, 2023.
4. Between the signing of the Violent Offences Amendment Act and the Murder Quick Fix Act, the Plaintiff was charged with 3 counts of Murder, fined a total of $300, and served 30 minutes in prison.
5. These 3 murder charges were never taken and proven in court.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Wrongful Conviction

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $300 returned, as it was fined for wrongfully convicted crimes.
2. $1500, for the time the Plaintiff spent in jail ($50 per minute).
3. Murder Charges with ID's 8407, 8705, and 8737 removed from the Plaintiff's Criminal record.
4. $360 in legal fees (20% of total case value).

V. EVIDENCE

Evidence A
Act of Congress - Violent Offences Act

Evidence B
Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act

Evidence C
Screenshot (171).png


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 27th day of December 2023
 
f5f9rlp.png

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Attorney General is required to appear before the District Court in the case of CaseyLeFaye v. 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.​
 
Your honor,

I have been assigned to represent the Commonwealth in this case on behalf of the DLA.
 
Nacho said:
Your honor,

I have been assigned to represent the Commonwealth in this case on behalf of the DLA.
Click to expand...
Thank you for letting me know.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CaseyLeFaye
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont (Department of Justice)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirms - Facts 1-5
2. Disputes - Claim for relief 1

II. DEFENCES
1. The plaintiff has claimed that a wrongful conviction occurred while the defense deems a rightful conviction occurred. (Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D).
2. Under section 2 of the Standardized Criminal Code Act - The defense can impose punishment before trial. The DLA is not obligated by the Standardized Criminal Code Act requirements to begin a prosecution within any timeframe as one is not specified.

Note: The Defense has evidence for the case but wishes only to submit it within discovery.

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 31 day of December 2023
 
Thank you, we will now move to the discovery phase for 7 days.
 
Your Honor,

The state wishes to enter the following exhibits into evidence. I've listed it in accordance with the next.

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D


The Defense also wishes to enter our list of witnesses.
  1. CaseyLeFaye
 

Attachments

  • Exhibit A.png
    Exhibit A.png
    10.3 KB · Views: 24
  • Exhibit B.png
    Exhibit B.png
    11.2 KB · Views: 22
  • Exhibit C.png
    Exhibit C.png
    9.6 KB · Views: 24
  • Exhibit D.png
    Exhibit D.png
    8.6 KB · Views: 26
Thank you.
 
Your Honor, the Plaintiff wishes to end the discovery phase early.
 
The Commonwealth has no objection.
 
Does the plaintiff have any witnesses to call?
 
I have no witnesses, Your Honor.
 
Thank you.

We will now move onto opening statements, the plaintiff has 72 hours to present theirs.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

A wrongful conviction has occurred. Even if these crimes did happen, that does not mean that the conviction of them was lawful. As precedented in [2023] FCR 97, if a conviction does not follow the procedure that is outlined in the law, then it is a wrongful conviction.

During the time of these three alleged crimes, Murder was an Indictable Offense, meaning that it must be proven in court. However, the Plaintiff was convicted of these murders without them being proven in court. Therefore, these are wrongful convictions.

It should also be noted that according to section 2 of the Standardized Criminal Code Act, the Defense can impose punishment before trial when there is “a continued threat to player safety or enjoyment due to the commission of crime.” Given that these killings were minimal in a relatively large period of time, it can be inferred that the Plaintiff was not a threat to player safety or enjoyment. So, the clause does not apply in this situation.

Furthermore, even if this clause did apply, it is obvious that the Commonwealth showed no intention of taking the alleged crimes to court. Until this Monday, the Commonwealth has never taken any murders to court. That is slightly under 11 months in which murders have gone without trial.

It has been over 2 months since the last of these 3 murders. Yes, the timeframe in which the DLA must begin prosecution is not specified, but one can still expect that it would hardly take any time for the DLA to prosecute 3 murders. With this in mind, it can be inferred that the Commonwealth never intended on taking these murders to trial.

Regardless of whether these murders happened or not, these murder convictions were, ultimately, wrongful.
 
The defense may post their opening statement within 72 hours.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Today, we are here to address a wrongful conviction claim against the Commonwealth of Redmont. While the plaintiff paints a compelling narrative, it is essential to recognize that narratives can be shaped, and perspectives can be skewed. As poignant as it may sound, the plaintiff's story is a partial and subjective account, conveniently omitting crucial details that led to the conviction in question.

In our pursuit of justice, we must resist the temptation of being swayed solely by emotion and carefully scrutinize the facts. When examined under the cold light of objectivity, the plaintiff's tale will reveal discrepancies and oversights that merit your attention. Our duty is not to manipulate the truth but to ensure that justice is served in its purest form.

As we navigate through the legal landscape, it is imperative to clarify certain aspects of the law that may have been misunderstood or misrepresented by the opposing side. The plaintiff might assert a narrow interpretation of the law, attempting to cast a shadow of doubt on the legitimacy of the due process carried out. However, it is crucial to understand that the law is a nuanced instrument, and oversimplifications can lead to misinterpretations.

For instance, the plaintiff might argue that the Commonwealth erred in failing to prosecute them within court but does not provide the timeframe allotted to the Commonwealth to do so. We will demonstrate that the legal framework surrounding the case is comprehensive and considers a broader context. It is not merely about the act itself but the circumstances, intent, and evidence that collectively determine guilt or innocence.

As we delve into the heart of this matter, we will present a meticulous examination of the evidence that led to the conviction. Our case will reveal the thoroughness of the investigation, the weight of the evidence, and the soundness of the legal procedures that were followed. We are confident that, upon closer scrutiny, you will appreciate the diligence exercised by the Commonwealth in seeking truth and justice.

As we progress through this trial, we will not only disprove the allegations of a wrongful conviction but also shed light on the character of the Commonwealth of Redmont as a stalwart defender of justice. Our aim is not merely to uphold a conviction but to reaffirm the integrity of our legal system and the Commonwealth's commitment to safeguard its citizens' rights.

Ultimately, we will unveil a narrative grounded in facts and legal principles that is a bulwark against the plaintiff's unfounded claims. I assure you that, by the conclusion of this trial, you will find not a wrongful conviction but a resolute commitment to justice within the actions of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

DATED: This 7 day of January 2024
 
Thank you very much, the defense has 72 hours to present their opening statement.
 
My apologies, the defense does not need to make another opening statement. We will now move onto witness testimony, the witness will be summoned shortly.
 
Your Honor,

The Commonwealth wanted to request an update on when the summons will be filed for the witnesses.
 
f5f9rlp.png


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

@CaseyLeFaye is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Plaintiff v. Defendant. as a witness. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined. I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses. I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act​
 
Present.
 
Thank you, the prosecution may present their questions for the witness within 48 hours.
 
CaseyLeFaye - Questions
1. Did you murder .Zogden on 10/06/2023 (EST)?
2. Did you murder KyleTivis on 10/21/2023 (EST)?
3. Did you murder FTGWop on 11/26/2023 (EST)?

We have further questions depending on the answers/objections of the witness.
 
Nacho said:
CaseyLeFaye - Questions
1. Did you murder .Zogden on 10/06/2023 (EST)?
2. Did you murder KyleTivis on 10/21/2023 (EST)?
3. Did you murder FTGWop on 11/26/2023 (EST)?

We have further questions depending on the answers/objections of the witness.
Click to expand...
The witness has 48 hours to answer these questions.
 
1. I did not commit the crime of murder against .Zogden on 10/06/2023 (EST).
2. I did not commit the crime of murder against KyleTivis on 10/21/2023 (EST).
3. I did commit the crime of murder against FTGWop on 11/26/2023 (EST).
 
Does the prosecution have any further questions?
 
Objection
Perjury

Your Honor, the defense had entered into evidence death messages contradicting the witness's testimony. The prosecution requests to treat the witness as hostile for attempting to not answer the question truthfully. The defense also asks for the witness to be charged accordingly.

The evidence being referenced within this objection is the defenses Exhibit A-D.

Follow-up Questions
1.1 Were you charged for this crime?
2.1 Were you charged for this crime?
3.1 Were you charged for this crime?

For your Honors reference, the defense has 5 additional questions, not counting the ones within this post. They are all based on previous answers.
 
I will allow the defense to respond to the objection within 24 hours and the witness to respond to the follow-up questions within 48 hours.
 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The Defendant is miscomprehending the definition of “murder” to mean “kill.” However, in the Violent Offences Act, murder is defined as “The act of unlawfully killing another player.” “Murder” is a crime, while “killing” is simply the act of making someone die. I do not deny that I killed those two people; I only deny that I murdered them. There are many ways that one can kill a player without murdering them: self-defense, duels, etc. Therefore, the Defendant's evidence does not contradict my claims.

Furthermore, in the first two questions the Defendant asked, murder was an indictable offense. Given that it has not been properly proven in court that I have committed murder, legally, it has not been determined that I committed murder.

Since the falsity of my statements is highly disputable, it cannot be proven that I committed perjury.
 
As for the questions,

1.1. Yes, I was charged for this crime.
2.1. Yes, I was charged for this crime.
3.1. Yes, I was charged for this crime.
 
The objection is overruled. Does the Commonwealth have any more questions?
 
Questions
4. Can you within your capacity as a member of the legal feild provide the court the definition of 'conviction' given by the Oxford Dictionary?
5. Can you within your capacity as a member of the legal feild provide the court the definition of 'charged' given by the Oxford Dictionary? In specific we will be looking at the definition of the word when it's used as a verb respectfully.
 
For the sake of transparency, I would like to note that I will be pulling from the Oxford English Dictionary ("OED") website for the definition of “conviction,” as I am able to see the definition of that word. Meanwhile, for the definition of "charged," I will have to pull from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (as that is a book that is at my local library, unlike the OED) due to only being able to access general definitions, not specific definitions (such as the one in context of the law) without a paid subscription or institute access. That being said…

4. Yes, “conviction” is defined as: “the action of proving or finding a person guilty of an offence with which he or she is charged before a legal tribunal.”
5. Yes, in this context, “charged” is the past tense of “charge,” which is defined as: “formally accuse (someone) of something, especially an offence under law.”
 
The defense has no further questions.

However, under current legislation passed by the legislative, the defense has to request that this case be dismissed under the new provisions of law and inform the plaintiff that should they wish to accept a refund of the charge, we can assist in facilitating it in accordance to the Murder Quick Fix Act.

I've attached the act of Congress.

- Act of Congress - Murder Quick Fix v2 Act
 
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defendant requested the case to be dismissed without following the proper format, as outlined in the Motions Guide. If they want the case to be dismissed, then they should properly file a Motion to Dismiss.​
 
CaseyLeFaye said:
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defendant requested the case to be dismissed without following the proper format, as outlined in the Motions Guide. If they want the case to be dismissed, then they should properly file a Motion to Dismiss.​
Click to expand...
Objection overruled.
 
Nacho said:
The defense has no further questions.

However, under current legislation passed by the legislative, the defense has to request that this case be dismissed under the new provisions of law and inform the plaintiff that should they wish to accept a refund of the charge, we can assist in facilitating it in accordance to the Murder Quick Fix Act.

I've attached the act of Congress.

- Act of Congress - Murder Quick Fix v2 Act
Click to expand...
This case is hereby dismissed for the reasons listed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top