Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. surferdude2132 [2022] FCR 102

[Jakovus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution


v.


surferdude2132
Defendant


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

The Defendant, upon their firing from the Department of Justice, but before the powers of their post were repossessed, knowingly and completely independently used their powers to fine other citizens as they saw fit, without any reason, and afterward unfined themselves for a total of $21,000, also without any reason or court order. They have for this reason damaged the Treasury monetarily.

I. PARTIES

• surferdude2132
• Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS

• The Defendant has been fired from their position at the Department of Justice on the 15th December 2022
• The Defendant was not completely ridden of their in-game powers at the time of the crime’s occurrence
• On 15th December, 2022, the Defendant misused and abused their powers to purposefully damage ElainaThomas29 by illegally fining them for $3,809
• On 15th December, 2022, the Defendant misused and abused their powers to purposefully damage Northray by illegally fining them for $791
• On 15th December, 2022, the Defendant misused and abused their powers to purposefully damage Southray by illegally fining them for $62,799
• On 15th December, 2022, the Defendant misused and abused their powers to purposefully benefit themselves monetarily by illegally unfining themselves for $21,000
• The Commonwealth annulled and recovered the illegal fines in full ($67,399)
• The Commonwealth partially recovered the $21,000 the Defendant unfined themselves for ($7,000 recovered)
• The Department of Justice was left with a $14,000 deficit as a result of the crimes committed by the Defendant
• The Defendant dispersed the rest of the stolen funds elsewhere, making the DOJ unable to recover the said funds

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

• One count of Money Laundering, as per the White-Collar Crackdown Act, for purposefully concealing and diverting illegally acquired funds ($14,000)
• Four counts of Government Impersonation, as per the White-Collar Crackdown Act, for reckless and untrue misuse of powers while pretending to still hold authority of the DOJ and thus fine ElainaThomas29 for $3,809 (first count), Northray for $791 (second count), Southray for $62,799 (third count) and unfining themselves illegally for their own monetary benefit, while pretending to do that with Government’s backing, for a total of $21,000 (fourth count)
• One count of Embezzlement, as per the White-Collar Crackdown Act, for misusing and withholding the funds they were entrusted with managing, those being DOJ’s budget, and using the extracted funds for personal gain and to damage the DOJ’s budget

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:

• For the sole count of Money Laundering, the Prosecution recommends 5 minutes of jail and a $10,000 fine, as per the White-Collar Crackdown Act, as well as an additional $14,000 to be returned to the DOJ as a result of unrecovered stolen funds
• For each of the four counts of Government Impersonation, the Prosecution recommends 4 minutes of jail and a $4,000 fine, totalling $16,000 fine and 16 minutes of jailtime, as per the White-Collar Crackdown Act
• For the sole count of Embezzlement, the Prosecution recommends 4 minutes of jailtime and $5,000 fine, as per the White-Collar Crackdown Act
• The Prosecution recommends the Court to order the Department of Education and Commerce to suspend their entrepreneurial licence, if the Defendant had one, and their ownership of any companies or unions the Defendant may possess, if any.

EVIDENCE
Exhibit A: The Server bot uncovers the transactions ordered by the Defendant

Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:

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 22nd day of December 2022

 

[dygyee]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@surferdude2132 is required to appear before the court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. surferdude2132 [2022] FCR 102. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

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.​

 

[Jakovus]

MOTION TO AMEND FILING

Your honour,
the Commonwealth has been able to acquire new evidence since the lawsuit was filed. The evidence found incriminates the Defendant on the charge of Money Laundering, and, as such, am requesting the Court to allow the Prosecution to add the following to the lawsuit:

Exhibit D: The Defendant disperses the money they unlawfully acquired to unable the DoJ to return it, thus confirming the charge of Money Laundering

DATED: This 24th day of December, 2022

 

[dygyee]

I will be allowing the additional evidence. I would also like to remind the Defendant that their time frame to appear before the court has not changed.

 

[Jakovus]

Your honour,
the Defendant violated the Writ of Summons. For this reason, the Prosecution requests a default judgement.

 

[dygyee]

I'm assuming you meant this case to be against surferdude2132, and not surferdude2128. If this assumption is correct, please respond within 48 hours, and edit the case name.

 

[Jakovus]

Your honour,
I apologise for my mistake. Court's assumption is correct, and I will do as per your instruction.

 

[dygyee]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. surferdude2132 [2022] FCR 102

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant was fired from the DOJ.
2. After the firing before the Defendant's powers were revoked, they illegally used their powers to fine multiple people and unfine themselves.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear before the court.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the facts that the DLA laid out in their filing are true. All of the evidence that is needed has been provided.
2. As for the 1 count of money laundering, it is clear that the Defendant intentionally spent the money that they stole from the DOJ. Furthermore they purchased the same book that costs $100 well over 10 times as a way to get rid of the money that they stole.
3. As for the 4 counts of government impersonation, the White-Collar Crack Down Act states that government impersonation is “The Act of fraudulently Impersonating a government official or a government employee for financial or another personal gain(s)."
4. The issue with the first 3 counts of government impersonation is that it is unclear if the Defendant fined the other players for personal gains. Even if they did, it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which it wasn't.
5. As for the last count of government impersonation, when the Defendant unfined themselves, they clearly did it for a personal and financial gain which means they did commit government impersonation by unfining themselves.
6.As for the 1 count of embezzlement, it is clear that the Defendant used the DOJ's funds, which aren't his, for a personal benefit and not the benefit of the DOJ.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby find the Defendant guilty of 1 count of money laundering, and order the DOJ to fine the Defendant $24,000 and sentence them to 5 minutes in jail.
2. I hereby find the Defendant not guilty on the 1st count of government impersonation.
3. I hereby find the Defendant not guilty on the 2nd count of government impersonation.
4. I hereby find the Defendant not guilty on the 3rd count of government impersonation.
5. I hereby find the Defendant guilty on the 4th count of government impersonation, and order the DOJ to fine him $4,000 and sentence them to 4 minutes in jail.
6. I hereby find the Defendant guilty of 1 count of embezzlement, and order the DOJ to fine them $5,000 and sentence them to 4 minutes in jail.
7. I hereby find the Defendant guilty of 1 count of contempt of court for failing to appear, and order the DOJ to fine them $500.

8. All together the Defendant is guilty of 1 count of money laundering, 1 count of government impersonation, 1 count of embezzlement, and 1 count of contempt of court. The DOJ has been ordered to fine the Defendant a total of $33,500 and sentence them to 13 minutes in jail.

9. Furthermore according to the White-Collar Crack Down Act, as a punishment for these crimes, the DOC is required to suspend the entrepreneur license, and remove all of their companies until these charges have been removed from the Defendant's record, the Defendant has been pardoned, or until the secretary of the DOC chooses to end this ban.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.