IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
Your honor, this filing will be divided into two parts that is, Rebuttals and closing statement.
I have also highlighted / bolded keyterms which are necessary.
I. REBUTTALS
Prosecution says (1)-
While impersonation typically involves falsely portraying oneself as a government official, this is not always the case. Like in Commonwealth v. Jdroppert, the mere act of claiming to do something that only a government official can do is seen as impersonation. One does not have to explicitly say that they are claiming to be a government official, one merely has to claim they can do something only a government official can do. By claiming you can do something only a government official can do, you are acting as a government official. This is exactly what the defendant was doing.
Defendant Rebuttal (1)-
Your honor, there is once again flaw in the statement of prosecution. I would like to highlight a keyword that is “only.”
According to precedent set by Commonwealth v Jdroppert -
When doing something that
only a certain type of government employees can do, you are posing as that type of government employee. For example if you pull someone over for speeding and you are not a cop, you are considered to be impersonating a cop.
Expungement is a thing that citizens do as per their right given by the following act-
Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act
According to this act-
Any citizen may file for their criminal records to be removed via expungement, provided it has been at least 2 months since they have been charged with a crime.
It clearly states that expungement is to be done by a citizen, hence this expungement is a thing that every citizen can do and this is not a action limited to government employees.
Prosecution says (2)-
KyleTivis clearly said in the evidence that "no one will spill the beans on my [corruption]. KyleTivis also threatened violence if this illegal activity was exposed. This means that he knew and understood that what he was doing was illegal. He said it himself. If he was trying to expunge crimes in a legal way, why would he not want it to be exposed, and furthermore, why would he threaten violence if it was exposed? For legal activity, he sure wants to keep it hidden.
Defendant Rebuttal (2)-
Your honor, according to the following act,-
Act of Congress - Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act
Corruption is defined as-
The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else.
Kyle even tough said the word “corruption” does not qualify for the definition of corruption. He did not misuse his position as a government employee, so this is a simple question, how did he do corruption ?.
Your honor, it is essential to address the ambiguity surrounding the alleged threat of violence made by KyleTivis. The prosecution's claim suggests that violence was threatened in connection to the same activity discussed in the screenshot. However, the statement itself lacks clarity, and we cannot definitively conclude the exact context or subject of the alleged threat.
It is crucial for the court not to make assumptions or draw conclusions based on uncertain or vague statements. The statement may have been in reference to an entirely different matter or situation unrelated to the current case. Without concrete evidence to support a direct link between the alleged threat and the specific activity discussed in the screenshot, any conclusions reached would be speculative and potentially unjust.
Moreover, it is important to remember that we are here to ensure justice is served fairly and objectively. As such, the court should refrain from assuming guilt based solely on an unclear statement. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" must prevail, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, any illegal activity associated with the defendant's actions.
In conclusion, due to the lack of clarity and specificity in the statement, we cannot reasonably attribute the alleged threat of violence to the same activity mentioned in the screenshot. As a result, any assumptions made in this regard would be unfounded and unjust. The court must prioritize a fair and unbiased evaluation of the evidence
presented before reaching any conclusions. Furthermore, we all can agree that expungement is not a “illegal process”
Prosecution says (3)-
While citizens have the indirect ability to make their crimes vanish, the defendant said "5k and I can make your crimes vanish". Not the courts, he himself. He never mentioned legal petitioning to the court to expunge crimes.
Impersonation of a government official includes acting like one. In this case, KyleTivis acted like one by claiming he could expunge crimes. Furthermore, he understood that what he was doing was illegal, and threatened violence if this activity was leaked. This is indisputably illegal. The defendant even said it himself.
Defendants Response (3)-
Regarding the prosecution's assertion that KyleTivis claimed, "5k and I can make your crimes vanish," it is essential to interpret this statement within its full context. As a lawyer, KyleTivis was offering his legal services and "5k" is his legal fees to assist individuals with their expungement process. While the statement may seem straightforward, it is usual for professionals, including lawyers, to use informal language to communicate their expertise and services. This does not imply that KyleTivis intended to bypass the courts or engage in any illegal activities.
Also your honor, this statement is partially true. Kyle and not only he, but all the lawyers can expunge crimes when asked for. Expungement is a process which starts with the guidance of lawyers. It is true when kyle said the word “I” because he is the first link (as a lawyer) in expunging crimes. Crimes cant be expunged when not asked for (as argued in opening statement and answer to complaint.)
II. CLOSING STATEMENT
Your honor, I will summarize everything said in the entire lawsuit in this closing statement.
Tthe argument the defence is making is that a regular citizen can make crimes vanish.
The statement “I can make your crimes vanish” is the only statement that matters in this case.
And this is true, Kyletivis is a citizen, and just like any other citizen, Kyle can vanish crimes via expungement. It does not matter if the courts give the final decision; the statement that “I can make your crimes vanish” is legal, and definitely not government impersonation.
As we have explained before, the process of removing crimes from someone’s record is initiated and carried out by citizens, it is only the final decision that the court acts. Therefore it is not only a judge that carries out the process of removing criminal charges from a record, the citizen is just as if not more important in the process. As a result of this, to behave in the way my client did is to behave in the process of expungement, something both citizens and judges take part in. My client did not behave as ONLY a government employee, they behaved just like any other citizen can.
Your honor, the prosecution is stretching the law in an extreme way to try paint my client as some impersonator. They have not provided any proof that my client has stated they are a member of government, they have failed to provide compelling evidence that my client behaved ONLY in a way that a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE can.
The prosecution has to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, so far they have failed to provide evidence let alone any that proves their claims beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your honor, I know this court wont fail someone like kyle who is just a lawyer offering their legal services. We have high hopes and expect justice. I hope a harmful precedent is not set.
I thank the court for their time.
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: 30th Day of July 2023.