Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. KyleTivis [2023] DCR 18

Status
Not open for further replies.
StyledTea

StyledTea

Citizen
Legal Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
la_dano_34
la_dano_34
barrister
Joined
Jun 7, 2022
Messages
12
THE DISTRIC COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION
Aladeen22
la_dano_34

Prosecution

v.

KyleTivis Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
On May 9, 2023, the defendant stated that he could make an anonymous user's crimes disappear, and then threatened violence if this illegal activity was leaked. Only the courts and the President can make your crimes vanish, so this is a case of Impersonation of a Government Official

I. PARTIES
1. Aladeen22 (Prosecuting Authority)
2. la_dano_34 (Prosecuting Authority)
3. KyleTivis (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On May 9, 2023, the defendant said that he could make an anonymous user's crimes vanish 2. The defendant also threatened violence if this illegal activity was leaked by the anonymous user.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant: 1. Impersonation of a Government Official, specifically the President- The defendant said that he would do something only the courts and the president can do. This is based on the precedent set by Commonwealth v. Jdroppert

IV. SENTENCING

The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant: 1. $1000 fine 2. 10 minutes in jail 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 18th day of May, 2023
 
Good evening, your honor (whoever you may be), this is la_dano_34's first case with the DLA so we ask for your leniency in allowing us to submit the evidence that was forgotten to be submitted.

Thank you.
 
1684270480131.png


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

KyleTivis is required to appear before the court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. KyleTivis. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Dartanman said:
Good evening, your honor (whoever you may be), this is la_dano_34's first case with the DLA so we ask for your leniency in allowing us to submit the evidence that was forgotten to be submitted.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
The request is granted for submitting the missing evidence. Please be prompt in getting it submitted.
 
Thank you, your honor.

Here is the chat screenshot used for this prosecution.

Screenshot_9-1.png
 
Due to the absence of the individual not appearing before the court. The court will require a public defender to take this case. However, due to the lack thereof public defenders the court will require to go into recess until one can be appointed.
 
I will preside over this for the remainder of the case. I ask that the commonwealth confirm they want to pursue this case within 48 hours.

@Dartanman @StyledTea
 
Yes, your honor.
 
The assigned public defender, @Bibsfi4a, shall have 48 hours to respond with either an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The State
Prosecution

v.

KyleTivis (Public defender bibsfi4a representing)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. On May 9, 2023, the defendant said that he could make an anonymous user's crimes vanish

The Defence Affirms this fact

2. The defendant also threatened violence if this illegal activity was leaked by the anonymous user.

The Defence Disputes this fact.

3. Only the courts and the President can make your crimes vanish, so this is a case of Impersonation of a Government Official

The Defence Disputes this fact.

II. DEFENCES

Your honor, the defendant did indeed claim he could vanish a user's crime, but how is that illegal?

First of all, the crime of impersonation of a government official is "The act of impersonating a government official or a government employee for financial or other personal gain." How has the defendant impersonated a government official? The defendant has not at all communicated to the anonymous user that they hold any position in government. All that was stated is that they can make crimes vanish; they have not once declared that they hold any government position, so how is this an impersonation?

Before I make my next point I'd like to draw the court's attention to the following legal process: In accordance with the Expungement Act, any player may petition the court for their criminal records to be expunged (removed).

Secondly, the prosecution has informed the court of a case where it was decided that if one does "something that only a certain type of government employees can do, you are posing as that type of government employee." The defense could not agree more with the judges position in that case, we are just confused at how it relates to this case. Given that the process of expungement is able to remove someone's criminal record, and it can be accomplished without the use of a government position, the act of vanishing a criminal record is not "something that only a certain type of government employee can do." As written in the process of expungement, any player can get their records removed. Therefore the defendant has not impersonated any government position.

The prosecution has no leg left to stand on, it is quite obvious the crime of impersonation was not committed.

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: 22nd of July 2023.
 
Thank you. The prosecution has 48 hours to present their opening statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Your honor,

Before our Opening Statement, we wish to point to the precedent of [2022] DCR 58 which says clearly: "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."

II. REBUTTALS / OPENING STATEMENTS

1. The Defense has disputed that "Only the courts and the President can make your crimes vanish," stating the following: "All that was stated is that they can make crimes vanish; they have not once declared that they hold any government position, so how is this an impersonation?"

We point to the precedent of DCR 58. "When doing something that only a certain type of government employees can do, you are posing as that type of government employee."

In this case, KyleTivis was not only offering to make crimes vanish, but was offering to do so in exchange for five thousand dollars.

2. They Defense also claims "Given that the process of expungement is able to remove someone's criminal record, and it can be accomplished without the use of a government position, the act of vanishing a criminal record is not 'something that only a certain type of government employee can do.' As written in the process of expungement, any player can get their records removed. Therefore the defendant has not impersonated any government position."

The problem here is that in expungement, the court is expunging the crimes – not the petitioner. Thus, only the President (through pardons) and Courts (through expungement) can "make your crimes vanish." Thus, in accordance with the precedent of DCR 58, and the Government Services Offenses Act, KyleTivis has committed the crime of Government Official Impersonation.

This concludes the Prosecution's Opening Statements.
 
Thank you. The defense now has 48 hours to present their opening statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, this filing will be divided into two parts- Rebuttals and Opening Statement.

I. Rebuttal

Prosecution claims and says-

1. We point to the precedent of DCR 58. "When doing something that only a certain type of government employees can do, you are posing as that type of government employee."
In this case, KyleTivis was not only offering to make crimes vanish, but was offering to do so in exchange for five thousand dollars.

2. The problem here is that in expungement, the court is expunging the crimes – not the petitioner. Thus, only the President (through pardons) and Courts (through expungement) can "make your crimes vanish." Thus, in accordance with the precedent of DCR 58, and the Government Services Offenses Act, KyleTivis has committed the crime of Government Official Impersonation.

Rebuttal to Prosecution Claims-

Your honor, I will provide rebuttal to both Point 1 and Point 2 of prosecution together rather than in statement format as these points seem interconnected to eachother.

Firstly, the prosecution relies on the precedent of DCR 58, which states that "When doing something that only a certain type of government employees can do, you are posing as that type of government employee." However, the flaw in this argument lies in the fact that expungement is not an action exclusive to government employees. Any citizen or lawyer can petition for expungement on behalf of their client. Therefore, KyleTivis was not trying to be or impersonating a government official and had no intentions in doing so by offering to help expunge crimes; he was simply offering his legal services to assist with the expungement process. Thats what lawyers do, offer legal services.
Furthermore, the prosecution's claims that KyleTivis committed the crime of Government Official Impersonation , which in the defence opinion is completely false. Impersonation typically involves falsely portraying yourself as a specific government official to fool others. In this case, KyleTivis did not claim to be a government official; he merely offered his services as a lawyer who could help with the expungement process.

Secondly, the prosecution argues that only the President (through pardons) and Courts (through expungement) have the authority to "make your crimes vanish." While it is true that the President can grant pardons and the courts can order expungement, it is essential to understand the context in which these actions occur. The power to expunge crimes lies with the court when it is formally requested through a petition for expungement. The Court cant expunge a crime when not requested by petitioner.

Lets take a irl example, a judge cannot unilaterally expunge a crime without a formal request or petition from the individual seeking expungement. Similarly, a pardon from the President is typically sought through an application process, and the President reviews each case on its merits before deciding whether to grant a pardon.
In KyleTivis's case, he was merely offering his legal services and knowledge to assist with the expungement process. He did not claim to have the authority to expunge crimes without following the proper legal procedures. He did not even say the fact that he was planning to do so using illegal processes. Instead, he offered his services to help new players, navigate the legal system and make a formal petition for expungement.

It just seems that the prosecution is over-exaggerating the situation here and is trying to prevent a lawyer from doing their services.
Your honor, it is crucial to differentiate between offering legal services and impersonating a government official. KyleTivis was acting within the bounds of his profession as a lawyer and following each and every law, and his intention was not to deceive or to commit fraud but to provide legal assistance to those seeking expungement. Therefore, the charges of Government Official Impersonation and any related accusations should be dismissed.

II. OPENING STATEMENT

I would like to sum up everything as said in rebuttals in this opening statement and clarify everything to provide a clear visual.

Your honor, if the prosecution have their way with their incorrect argument of what defines government impersonation, soon lawyers won't be able to make promises like these to their clients. To say you can make someones crimes disappear is something you can do as a citizen, any citizen have that right. Sure the judge has the final say, but what is written in law specifically states that "Any citizen may file for their criminal records to be removed via expungement."

With the above in mind does the prosecutions argument align with the law? Does the citizen not have the ability to make their crimes vanish? Of course they have that ability! That is why the courts exist, so the average citizen can exercise their power to remove their criminal record. This may sound cheesy, but if the prosecution has their way, one of the most important processes in a criminal justice system, an opportunity at redemption, is only made that much more difficult to achieve. Lets not take a step in the wrong direction and restrict our ability to vanish our own crimes.

Your honor, I am sure, you as the guardian and protector of law will make the right decision and protect KyleTivis from a over-exaggerated statement from the prosecution. This lawsuit shall decide whether or not lawyers can freely practice and advocate their services.

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: 25th Day of July 2023.
 
Thank you. Would either party like to call witnesses?
 
The Commonwealth does not have any witnesses.
 
The Defence does not wish to call any witnesses.
 
Thank you. The plaintiff has 48 hours to file their opening statement, following that the defense will have 48 hours to file their opening statement.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Thank you. The plaintiff has 48 hours to file their opening statement, following that the defense will have 48 hours to file their opening statement.
Click to expand...
Your honor, did you mean closing statements?

We mean no disrespect but we wish to clarify.
 
Dartanman said:
Your honor, did you mean closing statements?

We mean no disrespect but we wish to clarify.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I did mean closing statements, I made a typo.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

I. Rebuttals / Closing statement

The defense claims and says:

"Firstly, the prosecution relies on the precedent of DCR 58, which states that "When doing something that only a certain type of government employees can do, you are posing as that type of government employee." However, the flaw in this argument lies in the fact that expungement is not an action exclusive to government employees. Any citizen or lawyer can petition for expungement on behalf of their client. Therefore, KyleTivis was not trying to be or impersonating a government official and had no intentions in doing so by offering to help expunge crimes; he was simply offering his legal services to assist with the expungement process. That's what lawyers do, offer legal services.
Furthermore, the prosecution's claims that KyleTivis committed the crime of Government Official Impersonation , which in the defence opinion is completely false. Impersonation typically involves falsely portraying yourself as a specific government official to fool others. In this case, KyleTivis did not claim to be a government official; he merely offered his services as a lawyer who could help with the expungement process."

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.

In KyleTivis's case, he was merely offering his legal services and knowledge to assist with the expungement process. He did not claim to have the authority to expunge crimes without following the proper legal procedures. He did not even say the fact that he was planning to do so using illegal processes. Instead, he offered his services to help new players, navigate the legal system and make a formal petition for expungement.

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.

With the above in mind does the prosecutions argument align with the law? Does the citizen not have the ability to make their crimes vanish? Of course they have that ability! That is why the courts exist, so the average citizen can exercise their power to remove their criminal record. This may sound cheesy, but if the prosecution has their way, one of the most important processes in a criminal justice system, an opportunity at redemption, is only made that much more difficult to achieve. Lets not take a step in the wrong direction and restrict our ability to vanish our own crimes.

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.

This concludes the prosecution's closing statement
 
Thank you. The defense now has 48 hours to file their closing statement.
 
Notice: This case will be given a new case number ([2023] DCR 18) as it was given the same case number as Mask3D_WOLF v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 9.
 
Your honor, I request 24 hour extension as I have been consumed with a viral flu and have not been in proper shape

To post a proper response I request an extension

Again I'm so sorry and hope this extension could be granted 🙏
 
I will be granting the extension.
 
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.
 
Thank you. Court will now be in recess until a verdict is posted.
 
You honor, we have been waiting for a verdict for over a week. Do we have an ETA on a verdict?
 
I’m unable to provide an exact ETA, however I am actively working on producing it as we speak.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. KyleTivis [2023] DCR 18 (previously [2023] DCR 9)

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. The defendant committed government impersonation by claiming they could make a player’s crimes vanish for $5,000
2. According to the Commonwealth of Redmont v. Jdroppert, a person doing an act that a certain type of government employee or official can do can be seen as government impersonation.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant was rightfully able to do this as a lawyer
2. Therefore the defendant was conducting lawful business

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Government impersonation is defined as “The act of impersonating a government official or a government employee for financial or other personal gain.”
2. It is the opinion of the court that the defendant could be conducting lawful business by saying that they could make, or initiate the process of, one’s crimes disappear.
3. It is the opinion of the court that the 5k could be seen as legal fees.
4. The commonwealth failed to prove that the defendant was actually impersonating a position or official.
5. Therefore it is the opinion of the court that the commonwealth did not prove that KyleTivis was impersonating a government official beyond a reasonable doubt.

IV. SENTENCE
1. The court hereby finds the defendant not guilty of government impersonation.

The District Court thanks Nacholebraa, bibsfi4a, StyledTea, and Dartanman for their time.

This case is hereby adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top