- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 45
Your Honor, the prosecution must request a 12 hour extension for the Closing Statement to this case due to the DLA being recently reshuffled. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Objection, Your Honorthe amount sits at $4,456,743.11 this does not equal the $5 million at question.
This is categorically false by the prosecution's own admission at the beginning of this case. The prosecution needs to get their story straight. Even then, it's only that: a story. The prosecution has the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt here. The defense does not need to provide a shred of evidence, even though we did via prosecutorial admission. The prosecution has no ammunition to make this claim in criminal Court.1- The defendant pay back the entire $5,000,000 that was stolen from the government. The evidence that we have provided, shows that only $4,456,743.11 has been returned to the government. The defense has been unable to provide any counter to this argument, and has been able to provide no EVIDENCE to prove otherwise. THis very court affirms this fact with their confirmation of it on Jan. 6th 2024, when it posted " Currently with all of the evidence provided within the Injunction the amount sits at $4,456,743.11 this does not equal the $5 million at question." We hold firm our stance that the defendant shall be ordered to repay the remaining balance that was taken and not returned.
This is an assumption, certainly not meeting the standard of proof required in this case. Holding a government position is one way to gain access, but the position v__d held should not have even had access. This indicates that it was a bug either way, and we have no insight where the bug came from, and whether or not it was associated with the Senator role or not. As there is a lack of proof, this claim crumbles as the burden of proof is on the prosecution.but lets look at the facts. There is only 1 way to have access to a government bank account, and that is to hold a position within the government which the defendant has had many times. Whether the permissions should have been removed but weren't, or there was some "bug" as the defense claims is irrelevant. The ONLY way one can get access to government funds is to hold a government position.
This law was passed after the events behind this case occurred and therefore cannot be lawfully cited due to ex post facto.Per the Commercial Standards Act
The argument is completely anecdotal and is a last grasp at a chance of victory where proof and concrete facts don't exist in the prosecution's case. The witnesses testified v__d was not legally entrusted with these funds, so embezzlement completely crumbles. Furthermore, per the definition, the prosecution must prove intent to convert the assets which was not done at all. "For the purpose of" in the definition is clearly a mens rea (intent) requirement, so this element must be satisfied for embezzlement charges to stick.Again, the defense wants to argue that the defendant was not "entrusted" with the funds, but I ask, how else would the defendant get access to the bank account? I certainly don't have access to any government accounts.
The Court either misunderstood the request or was flat-out wrong here. The 3rd or greater charge is serial per the Standardized Criminal Code Act, not the second.4- The court has already affirmed that serial charges would be applicable in their response on Jan. 6th where it was stated "should the Court rule in favor of the Commonwealth and charge the Defense with 2 counts of Embezzlement then that would be the two counts required for the serial charge to be placed." We still seek that this be the case and serial charges be applied to both embezzlement and money laundering.
The prosecution makes no sense here. They argue that this is a game, then they argue we should be following real life precedent when our laws are different than real money laundering laws. The situations are not comparable either. Real life money laundering involves using aliases, fake IDs, and foreign countries to mask money. But this was not done here. All transactions are in v__d's name and is easily traced. There is nothing hidden here. So I thank the prosecution for proving my point further. Also again, the money was technically legally obtained and thus doesn't fall under the definition of money laundering.The defense argues that the government is able to track transactions and therefore the defendant did not try to "conceal" them. Your honor, keep in mind that this is a GAME. Of course transactions are logged, its a game. People are convicted of money laundering IRL all the time for putting illegally acquired money into bank accounts and company accounts where it does not belong, and that is exactly what has taken place here.
The Prosecution has about 14 hours left to respond to this Objection.Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. Here is another quote from the prosecution to prove this is cut-and-dry perjury. All $5,000,000 was returned by admission of the prosecution.
View attachment 41185
Response to ObejctionThe Prosecution has about 14 hours left to respond to this Objection.
Until then the Courts will not be in recess given this is an important Objection regarding arguments.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. v__d [2023] FCR 109
I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. The Defendant unfined them a total of 5 million dollars without any authorization.
3. Defendant abused their Government Positions to do so.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant states that the issue was a staff matter and was not in fact an abuse of permissions.
2. All 5 million dollars has been returned.
III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This is a very complex case with a lot of moving parts and both sides arguments falling apart at one section of the Case to another. One side is arguing to not allow someone in a position of power due to embezzlement and the other side is arguing to acquit them of this. Thus before I list out my reasoning for each I would like to explain where I stand on each charge: