Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. Redcliffe Casino [2023] FCR 23

[ColonelKai]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Redcliff Casino
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The defendant has breached White-Collar Crack Down Act by committing Gambling Fraud (§4.7).

The DLA, through multiple testimonies from Void, has evidence to believe that the percentages displayed on signs to the customers do not represent the reality of the slot machines which were present at the Redcliff Casino.

Through aforementioned testimonies, it is known that the slot machines had 4 out of 9 total slots filled with prizes, even though the chance percentages were displayed as "75%" and "90%" while such a layout would only grant the customers a 44.44% chance of winning.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Redcliff Casino

II. FACTS
1. The Redcliff Casino had their slot machines behind rooms that had signs that displayed "75% Chance of Winning" and "90% Chance of Winning"
2. All of the slot machines within both rooms only provided a 44.44% chance of winning.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. White-Collar Crack Down Act, Gambling Fraud (§4.7)

White-Collar Crack Down Act, Gambling Fraud (§4.7)

(7) Gambling Fraud shall be defined as " The act of fraudulently explaining how a certain gambling game works". Any party or entity which hosts a gambling game is required, to explain the game when asked.

The defendant has breached this provision as they have clearly misrepresented the working mechanisms of the said slot machines.


IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. $5,000 in punitive damages (White-Collar Crack Down Act, Punishments §8.2)

Testimonies

Signs at the Slot Machines at the 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: This 10th day of February, 2023

 

[Banana]

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

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Redcliffe Casino [2023] FCR 23.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[ColonelKai]

Your honour, the required 48 hours has passed, and the defense has failed to appear before the court. The prosecution requests default judgment.

 

[Banana]

A default judgment will be entered.

 

[Banana]

Although the default judgment period has been entered, this Court believes that the Defendant is entitled to legal representation in this trial per the Constitution. Following the precedent of [2023] FCR 1 and the passage of the Save the Public Defender Program Act, until a Public Defender Program is created as specified in the Save the Public Defender Program Act, and a public defender can be procured for the Defendant, this case is in recess. If the Prosecution wishes to make any motions, they may do so in this thread.

 

[ColonelKai]

With all respect, the prosecution team would like to request permission to object to the declaration of recess, and provide arguments as to why.

 

[Banana]

If you would like to file a motion to reconsider, you may, as I stated at the end of the instructions for recess.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Justification for Motion
Apologies for missing the allowance of a motion to reconsider, and thank you for the oppurtunity.

Your honour, due all respect, the Prosecution would like to ask the Honourable Court to reconsider the recess on the point of dispute regarding the two legal basis on which the recess decision was taken. To the understanding of the Prosecution, the two legal standings for the decision are as follows;

- Precedent of [2023] FCR 1
- Save the Public Defender Program Act's Passage

However, the Prosecution team believes that neither of these things are valid as;

I. At the time when the 48 hours allocated to the defense was expired, the Save The Public Defender Program Act was not signed into law, and as a matter of fact, at the time of writing this motion as presented to the courts, it is yet to be signed into the law.

II. The Precedent set in the case 2023 FCR 1 relies on two facts;

- Firstly, The Even Moderner Legal Board Act's Section 6, which was declared unconstitutional as of [2022] FCR 97.
- Secondly, the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 9 which states the following;​

Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.​

This section of the constitution grants any citizen to a right to an attorney- however, this does not constitute a requirement to have an attorney. The Defendant had every right to an attorney, and they had the time between the filing of the lawsuit, the writ of summons and the 48 hours following it to excersize that right. The existance of a right does not constitute a mandate to exersize it. We would also like to bring the judge's attention to the fact that the same paragraph of the constitution entitles all citizens to a speedy trial, emphasising the avoiding of unneccesary delays.​

To bring our argument to an end; we believe that the legal standing on which the recess decision was taken does not have the necessary level of command to justify it.


DATED: This 18th day of February, 2023

 

[Banana]

The motion to reconsider is rejected. The Court does acknowledge that the Save The Public Defender Program Act has not passed the required referendum to be considered law, however the Constitutional element still remains. The reasons for the rejection of the motion to reconsider are as follows:

• It is the opinion of the Court that an accused citizen does have the right to assistance of counsel, per the Constitution, Part IV § (32)(IX). To proceed with a default judgment without the Defendant's having any chance to have assistance of counsel would be in violation of their rights per the Constitution. The Court will not proceed to violate the Constitutionally provided rights of a citizen.
• It is furthermore the opinion of the Court that the "speedy and fair trial" section allows for necessary delays such as those required to ensure that the Defendant's rights are not compromised. A speedy trial alone does not satisfy the Constitutional requirements, as it must be fair, too. It would not be a fair trial if Constitutional rights with regard to rights of the accused were disregarded.

 

[MCPotato122]

Sorry I did not know the court went on. I was waiting for someone to contact me about what to do.