Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Katkoo [2021] DCR 59

Status
Not open for further replies.
nnmc

nnmc

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
nnmc
nnmc
attorney
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
322
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Katkoo
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
On the 1st of September, the Defendant Katkoo was at the Hamilton City Hospital. Katkoo then attempted to sell Doctor JohnWarosa a leg splint for $20 while on the grounds of Hamilton City Hospital, which is a violation of the DOH hospital policy and the Executive Standards Act.

I. PARTIES
1. nnmc - Prosecuting Authority
2. JohnWarosa - Doctor and Witness
3. VerySmolBirb - Medical Specialist and Witness
4. Katkoo - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. The defendant Katkoo was at the Hamilton City Hospital.
2. Katkoo sold Dr. JohnWarosa a leg splint for $20 while on the grounds of the hospital.
3. Dr. JohnWarosa messaged Medical Specialist VerySmolBirb to report the crime.
4. Selling medical products on hospital grounds is a violation of DOH policy and the Executive Standards Act Section 11 Subsection 3

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Executive Standards Act Section 11 Subsection 3 “An entity who has conspired to or engaged in obstructing functions vital to public safety.”

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A fine of $300 for the offense

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 17th day of September 2021
 

Attachments

  • 607D83DF-EFBE-488E-AC0D-CD23D49B5C82.png
    607D83DF-EFBE-488E-AC0D-CD23D49B5C82.png
    114.4 KB · Views: 153
  • 909F9CCA-328E-445C-B1BC-A2FBC6C530D4.png
    909F9CCA-328E-445C-B1BC-A2FBC6C530D4.png
    108.6 KB · Views: 158
district-court-png.12083


IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Defendant,
@koo , is required to appear before the court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Katkoo. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​
 
When am I supposed to be in court, The lovely law firm will be representing me.
 
The response needs to be placed within 48 hours of the summon.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Katkoo
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Our client, Katkoo, was convinced by Johnwarosa to commit this crime. Johnwarosa asked the defendant if he could sell him a legsplint inside the hospital, and Johnwarosa clearly specified that he wanted to buy the legsplint inside the hospital. JohnWarosa is in fact a representative of the Commonwealth of Redmont while he is working as a Doctor. So in this situation, we have a representative of the State asking a citizen to commit a crime, only to report them to the State. The State here are asking this Court to accept the absurd and frivolous proposition that a State agent can induce a citizen to commit a crime, in fact committing the same crime themselves in the process, and have the citizen charged. This is a clear violation of our client’s rights specifically a fair trial, equal protection and the freedom of liberty which cannot be infringed except in cases of fundamental justice, which it is clear has not been here by a State agent induces a person to commit a crime they would not have done otherwise, in order to charge them. In conclusion, the State’s case is frivolous as they ask this Court to ignore the most important rights guaranteed to every citizen, to charge our client for a crime he only committed at the behest of a State agent, who worked solely to have our client charged, and was not himself charged for committing the same crime.

In addition, the State is charging our client with obstructing emergency services. It is clear that the simple act of selling medical supplies to a Doctor, particularly one who asks for the supplies, in no way obstructs emergency services, even if that is the DoH’s policy, as the DoH’s policies are not laws and cannot be enforced as such, as clearly defined in the constitution. This shows these charges to be frivolous, and means that this motion to dismiss must stand.

DATED: This 19th day of September 2021
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0609.jpg
    IMG_0609.jpg
    55 KB · Views: 121
alleged crime*

Editing to avoid confusion.
 
RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS
Just as an undercover police officer allows a criminal to break the law, a doctor allows the Defendant to break DoH policy in order to expose wrongdoing. This is not at all a case of incitement, but rather a case of something similar to an undercover police officer. The Doctor is an agent of the DoH just as a police officer is an agent of the DoJ; both are acting as agents of the Commonwealth.

If the Court were to agree with the Defendant's interpretation of the actions of the doctor, then by that same logic, all undercover police work would also be illegal. Thus, it is hard to agree with how they interpret the actions of the doctor.
The Defendant also claims that the actions of the Defendant do not count as obstruction of emergency services. Case No. 04-2021-24 is a precedent case that shows that the actions of the Defendant do indeed count as obstruction of emergency services. In that precedent case, the Defendant committed very similar actions, was charged with obstruction of emergency services, and then found guilty of that crime.
 
There are three claims by the State I would like to address here.


The prosecution claims that “Just as an undercover police officer allows a criminal to break the law, a doctor allows the Defendant to break DoH policy in order to expose wrongdoing.” If the Doctor had allowed our client to break the law as the prosecution claim, this argument would be perfectly sound. However the State’s own evidence clearly shows that the Doctor actually initiated the crime. Our client did not know that selling medical items on hospital property was illegal, but wouldn’t have done so without the Doctor’s incitement. Here we have a situation where an agent of the State creates a crime which would not have occurred otherwise, only for the person who commits it to be charged. The constitution protects “life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” as well as the right to be safe against “unreasonable search or seizure”. Creating a crime, and turning a citizen into a criminal, cannot be reasonable or in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, making these charges frivolous.

In a similar vein, the prosecution claims that “If the Court were to agree with the Defendant's interpretation of the actions of the doctor, then by that same logic, all undercover police work would also be illegal.” There is a clear issue between an undercover officer catching a criminal and a state agent orchestrating for a crime to be committed by someone who would never have done so otherwise, solely to punish them for an action they would not have committed without the interference of those administering the punishment.

The prosecution has claimed that “Case No. 04-2021-24 is a precedent case that shows that the actions of the Defendant do indeed count as obstruction of emergency services.” However, the case referenced here has no value as precedent, as the court never considered the claims brought by the prosecution, and the case was resolved by a plea deal, even if it did have value as precedent, this case was settled in District Court and is not binding on this court. In addition, the Defendant in that case was selling the items while a Doctor was treating a patient, and not at the request of the Doctor. There is no way that our client could be obstructing someone whom asked him to sell to, which clearly makes this case frivolous.
 
Your Honor, you asked for the defendant to “hold it short” but the defendant has done the exact opposite. Thus, I ask to be allowed to respond to these new claims by the defendant.
 
Im going to reject the motion for dismissal. And indeed when I say hold it short, you don’t have to make a full story. Both parties have a lot to say and they can do that in the opening statement. So please I ask the defendant to open with his opening statement.
 
The defendant only has 24 hours remaining for his opening statement. If he doesn’t respond in time, we will move on without it.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT

In this case, we will prove two main arguments. Firstly, that our clients rights were violated when a State agent got him to make an action he would not have done otherwise (which the State argues is unlawful) for the purpose of punishing him and that selling medical items on hospital grounds is not illegal in most instances.

1. Violation of Defendant’s Rights
The State’s own evidence has established that Doctor JohnWarosa, as a State agent, asked our client to sell him a leg splint in the hospital.

The State’s evidence also established that Doctor JohnWarosa believed that selling items on hospital grounds was illegal and asked our client to sell him leg splints on hospital grounds for the sole purpose of getting our client charged.

We will establish that the Constitution protects “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice,” as well as “the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

We will also establish that an agent working on behalf of the State causing a crime to be committed, is not in the interests of “fundamental justice”, the standard laid out in the Constitution, as shown above, even if it is found that selling medical items at the hospital is unlawful, which it is not.

We will also establish that this protects citizens from being found guilty of crimes, and suffering any penalties associated with that, when that crime is initiated by a State agent with the sole purpose of charging a citizen with a crime they would not have otherwise committed.

We will also establish that Department of Health policies are not laws, and cannot be enforced as such.

Our evidence will establish that our client would not have committed the act she is charged with, which we will establish is not illegal, without the coaxing of a State agent, namely Doctor JohnWarosa.


2. Selling Medical Items in Hospital Not Being Illegal

The State has charged our client with obstructing emergency services (Executive Standards Act Section 11 Subsection 3). The text of that section reads “An entity who has conspired to or engaged in obstructing functions vital to public safety.”

Our evidence will establish that when a citizen is asked by these Emergency Services to sell them an item, they cannot be obstructing them.

Our evidence will also establish that our client had no intent to obstruct emergency services.
 
Ill ask that after the Plaintiff came with his opening statement. The Plaintiff may present his and he has 72 hours to do so.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

Just because the doctor asked for a leg splint to be sold, it is not incitement which we have pointed out many times. The pharmacist of their own free will decided to break DoH policy. The doctor did not force them to do that, but only asked them to do that to test their compliance with DoH policy

First of all, precedent case 04-2021-24 shows that selling medical goods in the hospital is the crime of emergency of obstruction services. This makes sense, because the defendant intruded on hospital grounds and then decided to compete with the employees of the hospital for sales. This interferes with and obstructs hospital employees from focusing on their jobs of helping citizens, by forcing them to deal with intruders trying to undercut their prices. If the defendant wanted to undercut hospital prices, then the defendant is welcome to do so on their own property in their own business, but not in the hospital.

Finally, DoH policies are enforceable as law. The Constitution gives the DoH the responsibility of “maintenance and upkeep of the country's health systems.” Obstructing that responsibility of managing public hospitals, like the defendant did, is the equivalent of obstructing the Constitution. Thus, the DoH’s hospital policy, which they issue like the Constitution requires them to, is enforceable in a court of law
 
Yes, it is. I will call the witnesses later today, I have some work to do first.
 
district-court-png.12083

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

@xKat is hereby summoned to the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 09-2021-18 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the Plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.

I would ask that the Defence provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness 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. When the Defence is ready, they may post questions to the witness.

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 of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.​
 
1. Would you have sold that splint on hospital premises if the Doctor didn’t ask you?
2. Did you intend to obstruct emergency services?
 
1) Isn’t it true that nobody intimidated, harassed, or forced you to sell that splint, and that you did so on your own free will?
 
I did what JohnWarosa asked of me because I trusted that he would follow the laws in the hospital. I didn't intend to break the law since I thought he was asking for a splint to help the hospital.
 
Objection Your Honor

The witness is being unresponsive. It was a yes or no question and the witness is not answering with a yes or no. What the witness has stated isn’t even responding to what I asked, which is whether or not the witness sold that splint on their own free will.
 
Yeah, I wasn't threatened but I thought I was allowed to do what I did because a hospital worker asked me to. So yes.
 
The Prosecution has no further questions for the witness
 
Thank you for your time. The Plaintiff may present his closing statement now.
 
CLOSING STATEMENT

The doctor only ONCE asked the defendant to sell a splint, without any threat, harassment, or anything of the sort. It is evident that there was no incitement here by the doctor, and any actions by the doctor resemble what an undercover police officer would do. The defendant of their own free will decided to break DoH policy, and the defendant admitted as such during testimony. As a licensed pharmacist, the defendant should have known the laws and policies relating to pharmacist activities. The defendant can’t plead ignorance to the fact that the defendant and all other pharmacists are not allowed to sell their products in the hospitals of the DoH

Precedent case 04-2021-24 shows that selling medical goods in the hospital is the crime of emergency of obstruction services under the Executive Standards Act. By the principle of stare decisis, given that this court previously found similar actions to be obstruction of emergency services, this court should find this defendant guilty of the same charge.

Finally, DoH policies are enforceable as law. The Constitution gives the DoH the responsibility of “maintenance and upkeep of the country's health systems.” Obstructing that responsibility of managing public hospitals, like the defendant did, is the equivalent of obstructing the Constitution. Thus, the DoH’s hospital policy, which they issue like the Constitution requires them to, is enforceable in a court of law

In conclusion, the defendant has violated DoH policy. They were not incited by others to break the policy, and as a licensed pharmacist, they cannot plead ignorance to the limitations and rules of their profession. Based on the Constitution and precedent, violating DoH policy is a violation of law. Given all these facts, the defendant should be found guilty and fined $300.

The Prosecution rests.
 
Your Honor, because of recent changes at the lovely law firm, I would like to inform the court that I will be taking over this case. To take over it, I would like to request 72 hours to familiarize myself.
 
Pardon me Your Honor, but 72 hours seems excessive. All that is left in this case is for the defendant to make a closing statement, in a relatively straightforward case. I don’t think the defense needs a 72 hour extension for that.
 
Your Honor, as a partner at Lovely Law, I will be making the closing statements for the Defense
 
CLOSING STATEMENT

If the doctor in question, JohnWarosa, had followed the law and not solicited Katkoo to do the thing of which they are accused, we would not be here right now. The responsibility in this case lies squarely and solely on his shoulders, as he incited the commission of a crime, being fully aware that it was a crime. As a doctor, he knew the laws of the hospital premises, even when the Defendant did not, and he took advantage of that fact to trap the Defendant into doing something that John believed it was his duty to stop.

While the Defendant admitted of their own free will that they sold the splint, to take that statement entirely on its own is in blatant disregard of the law concerning incitement. The law states that incitement includes coaxing or encouraging someone to break a law, which JohnWarosa is guilty of. This relieves the Defendant of being responsible, as they believed that a doctor would surely not be breaking the rules of the hospital.

This is clearly a case of vigilantism, with JohnWarosa working like an undercover detective. If he is not, however, employed by the Department of Justice, which he does not happen to be, then his actions are not legally sanctioned. In this instance, a State employee broke the code of the hospital in order to entrap an innocent Defendant, with no reasonable suspicion of ill will, into committing a crime. That same Defendant who was so abused at the hands of a State employee is now being charged for the crime of obstructing a function that the State employee specifically requested. If it can be considered obstruction to sell to a State employee at the behest of such, then it is surely also incitement to request that. The fact that JohnWarosa has suffered no legal penalty, while Katkoo is subjected to a trial that unfairly paints them in a bad light, is a miscarriage of justice to the fullest extent. Indeed, to convict the Defendant of doing nothing more than what a doctor asked, inside of a hospital, while acting with no approval from the DOJ or DOH, would leave a severe black mark on the legacy of fairness and citizens' rights upheld in Redmont.

Accordingly, we implore the court to consider how bizarre it is to charge a citizen with following direct requests from someone they held to be an authority. JohnWarosa acted outside any legitimate sanctioning, to commit an act of incitement and vigilantism, and the Defendant is only a victim of these unlawful actions. The Defendant must be found not guilty.

The Defense rests.
 
Please answer the following question so I have the full information necessary to write the verdict. What are tha the social status' of the Katkoo and JohnWarosa. What are they doing as job/rank in the server?

(Any party can answer this)
 
May it please the Court,
Katkoo is a pharmacist, and JohnWarosa is now an Economist, having left the DOH following this incident.
 
May I add that at the time of the incident, John was a Doctor.
 

Verdict



IN THE COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 09-2021-18

1. PROSECUTOR'S POSITION

a) The Defendant sold a splint to a doctor in the hospital. Following the DoH policy, she is not allowed to do so and so in violation of the policy. This is a crime of emergency of obstruction services under the Executive Standards Act.
b) The DoH's policy is enforceable in the Court of law. The Constitution gives the DoH the responsibility of the well-being of the people of the Commonwealth of Redmont. The Defendant obstructed this responsibility and hereby also the Constitution.
c) She can't ignore the policy because of her job at the DoH as a pharmacist
d) The Defendant admitted the crime during her testimony.
e) Finally Case No. 04-2021-24 sets precedent that emergency of obstruction services is a crime.

2. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

a) The doctor, JohnWarosa, incited the crime and so he is guilty of the crime happened in the Hospital. The law states that incitement includes coaxing or encouraging someone to break a law, which JohnWarosa is guilty of. The Defendant believed that a doctor would not be breaking any rules and followed his command.
b) JohnWarosa acted outside any legitimate sanctioning, to commit an act of incitement and vigilantism, and the Defendant is only a victim of these unlawful actions.
c) JohnWarosa is not an undercover detective working for the DoJ, he is just a simple doctor at the DoH. He is not competent to play a police officer.
d) The Defendant had no ill will into committing a crime.
e) A violation of the Defendant's rights as a citizen of Redmont.

3. THE COURT'S OPINION

a) The Court acknowledges that selling medical goods in any Hospital is forbidden and needs to be protected. The Court acknowledges that the Defendant admitted the crime and will remind this further in the Verdict.
b) The Court believes that this was a situation like in the Experiment of Milgram. This resulted that every person higher up the ranking or a leading figure has a lot of influence in the doing of a person. A doctor is a person higher up the rank within the DoH and so shines power to a pharmacist, who will do anything to please his leading figure like in the experiment of Milgram. The Court believes that even though under influence of another person a crime is commited by the Defendant.
c) JohnWarosa is a main character in this lawsuit and he needs a proper investigation for incitement and that may lead to a new lawsuit. The Court can't convict him without him being on trial.

4. THE VERDICT

The Court will rule in favor of the Prosecutor.

The Court hereby orders:
a) The Defendant to pay a fine of 20 dollars

Furthermore the Court thanks each party for their time and effort put in this case. This case is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top