Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. V__D [2023] FCR 109

[Nacho]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We request the court to freeze V__d's current assets. As established within [2023] FCR 32 & [2023] FCR 58, we request the government to seize the funds identified as being stolen and hold them until the dispute over the funds has been resolved. We request the government seize the funds listed below until the conclusion of this case. I have provided a breakdown of the currently contested funds the defendant holds.

The Government also requests an extension of the filing of the case from 4 hours to 48 hours from the time of the acceptance of this emergency injunction.

Funds Embezzled: $5,000,000 (Exhibit A)
Company Balances: (Exhibit B-E)

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

V__D
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
On December 25th, while wrongfully holding the permissions granted to him from his previous term as senator, unfined himself 5,000,000 dollars from the government account. He then distributed that money into Avalon bank, CreditRedmont, Quality Bank of Redmont, Discover Bank, and eb, in an attempt to hide the embezzled funds.

I. PARTIES
1. CommonWealth of Redmont (plaintiff)
2.V__D (Defendent)
3. Avalon Bank
4. CreditRedmont
5.eb
6. Quality Bank of Redmont
7. Discover Bank (witness)

II. FACTS
1. on December 25th V__D unfined himself $5,000,000.
2. V__D did not have the authority or permission to unfine themselves $5,000,000
3.V__D disbursed the illegally obtained $5,000,000 through Avalon bank, CreditRedmont, Quality Bank of Redmont, discover bank, and eb

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 Count of Corruption for using powers wrongfully left to him from his time in the senate.
2. 1 count of embezzlement for attempting to spend government funds as personal funds.
3. 5 Counts of Money laundering for attempting to hide the funds that were illegally detained in multiple accounts.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. The defendant be charged $5,000,000 to reconciliate the funds that they stole from the government.
2. the dependant be charged $25,000 and the exclusion from holding office for two months as according to the ‘Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act'.
3. The defendant charge $50,000, jailed 10 minutes and pay $10,000 dollars in punitive damages for embezzlement as according to the 'White-Collar CrackDown Act'.
4. The accused be considered a serial criminal offender if convicted of embezzlement, and the fines be doubled according to the ‘Standardized Criminal Code Act’.
5. The defendant be charged $5000 per count totaling up to $25,000 dollars and charged with punitive damages of $10,000 per each count totaling up to $50,000 as according to the “White-Collar CrackDown Act”.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Emergency Injunction is hereby granted due to the amount and the fact that is the primary issue at hand.

I will issue summons shortly.

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@v__d is required to appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. v__d. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Dismiss
This is a staff matter and therefore is not under the domain of RP as it involved a bug.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Prosecution does not need to rebuttal as I will be rejecting the Motion to Dismiss given the powers used to provide the 5 million dollars were still used by a Government position and are shown across multiple business ventures.

With that, we will now move into Discovery. This will be lasting 7 days.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Prosecution does not need to rebuttal as I will be rejecting the Motion to Dismiss given the powers used to provide the 5 million dollars were still used by a Government position and are shown across multiple business ventures.

With that, we will now move into Discovery. This will be lasting 7 days.

Your honor, I haven’t filed my response yet.

 

[RelaxedGV]

To? Your Motion to Dismiss?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

To? Your Motion to Dismiss?

To the filing… my answer to complaint.

 

[RelaxedGV]

You have 72 hours to provide an answer to complaint.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the defendant is non-responsive. I am letting the Court know Dragon Law Firm is no longer representing him, and a public defender should be appointed in our place. Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Even though this is after the deadline I will not charge with contempt.

I will appoint a Public Defender when one can be assigned.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Even though this is after the deadline I will not charge with contempt.

I will appoint a Public Defender when one can be assigned.

Your honor, this is unorthodox and I severely apologize. The defendant has become responsive and the Dragon Law Firm has once more been retained. I request 24 hours to issue an answer to complaint as the original deadline was on a Court holiday.

 

[RelaxedGV]

You have 24 hours to provide an answer.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS facts one and two.
2. The defense DISPUTES fact three as the money was not stolen illegally, and even if it was, it was simply put into accounts in a strategic financial manner. Divesting a large sum of money into multiple banks and options is fiscally wise regardless of the situation and is not to be construed as "laundering" it.

II. DEFENCES
1. Corruption is "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." v__d did not use a government position to give themselves any advantage as they were not a Senator at the time the $5,000,000 was debited from the Government's account. They did not have an official duty at the time. Therefore, the definition of corruption is inapplicable to this case.
2. For embezzlement to be valid, the assets would have to be entrusted to the person who embezzled them. v__d was not entrusted with these assets. The prosecution specifically states this in fact two of their original filing.
3. The Government tracks bank transactions with the DOC's FITA monitoring system. Therefore, the Government knew about all of the bank transfers with ease. These cannot be reasonably considered money laundering as v__d himself ran a bank and knew the Government could see those transactions. A reasonable person would not expect to hide money in this manner. Rather, these transfers were fiscally prudent and not an attempt to conceal these funds. Finally, the funds must be proven illegally obtained for money laundering to even be considered. For both of these reasons, all five money laundering charges are invalid.


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 3rd day of January 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, we will now be moving onto Discovery which will last 7 days. Should both sides agree we may end discovery early and move onto Opening Statements.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defense motions to expedite discovery by four days, bringing it down to three days.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Is the Prosecution fine with this?

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Is the Prosecution fine with this?

Your Honor,
Prosecution would like to adhear to the previous aformentioned timeline and not expidite recovery.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, discovery will continue as planned.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I request an in-game trial.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Witness List
The defense will call the following people as witnesses:

1. v__d

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defense motions to dismiss this case on the following grounds:
1. Sentencing 1 should be struck as this money was already returned. This 5 million should not be charged to the defendant twice if found guilty.
2. Sentencing 4 should be struck under rule 5.5 as the prosecution cannot prove the defendant has been convicted of embezzlement already twice before this. Serial crimes only apply on the third and subsequent offense of a given crime.
3. Charge 1 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 for lack of evidence this crime was committed while in office. It should also be dismissed under rule 5.12 as the prosecution does not have standing to prosecute people for corruption unless corruption was committed while in office, per the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act.
4. Charge 2 should be dismissed under rule 5.12 as only a party injured by embezzlement may litigate for embezzlement. As previously established, v__d did not work for the government and was explicitly not authorized to take (and thereby not entrusted with) government funds. Therefore, the definition of embezzlement excludes the Commonwealth from having any standing to pursue an embezzlement charge.
5. Charge 3 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 as the prosecution lacks any evidence to substantiate or support all elements of the crime "money laundering" as intent to hide funds is required. Simply depositing money into a bank is not an attempt to hide funds; it is a normal and fiscally prudent activity. This claim is therefore frivolous as well.


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 3rd day of January 2024

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

QUESTIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION
1. Isn't it true staff collected the $5,000,000 back from v__d?
2. Isn't it true v__d was not a Senator at the time $5,000,000 was unfined into v__d's account?


The defense maintains the right to ask up to three more questions of the prosecution via interrogatory at a later date.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance. I object to Exhibit F on the grounds that it is a picture of a $10 balance of a random company (eb) that is not consequential to this case.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Prosecution has 72 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
24 hours to respond to the objection.
Finally, the Prosecution has 48 hours to respond to the Interrogatory questions.

On the matter of an in game trial, would the Prosecution also like an in game trial?

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance. I object to Exhibit F on the grounds that it is a picture of a $10 balance of a random company (eb) that is not consequential to this case.

Your Honor,
The prosecution requested to seize the funds until the ending of the case from the defendant v__d, which included all his businesses including "eb" recover the $5 million that was taken and to prevent it from being distributed into more bank accounts.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your honor, I request an in-game trial.

Your Honor,
The prosecution would not like to do an in-game trial.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,
The prosecution requested to seize the funds until the ending of the case from the defendant v__d, which included all his businesses including "eb" recover the $5 million that was taken and to prevent it from being distributed into more bank accounts.

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution failed to respond by the deadline and thus I motion to strike their remark from the record.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution failed to respond by the deadline and thus I motion to strike their remark from the record.

Your Honor,
I do ask for a leancy on this deadline. Its the begining of the school year and I only missed it by a few hours due to unforseen school affiliated irl circumstances.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

QUESTIONS FOR THE PROSECUTION
1. Isn't it true staff collected the $5,000,000 back from v__d?
2. Isn't it true v__d was not a Senator at the time $5,000,000 was unfined into v__d's account?


The defense maintains the right to ask up to three more questions of the prosecution via interrogatory at a later date.

1. Yes
2. Yes

 

[Snowy_Heart]

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

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
The defense motions to dismiss this case on the following grounds:
1. Sentencing 1 should be struck as this money was already returned. This 5 million should not be charged to the defendant twice if found guilty.
2. Sentencing 4 should be struck under rule 5.5 as the prosecution cannot prove the defendant has been convicted of embezzlement already twice before this. Serial crimes only apply on the third and subsequent offense of a given crime.
3. Charge 1 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 for lack of evidence this crime was committed while in office. It should also be dismissed under rule 5.12 as the prosecution does not have standing to prosecute people for corruption unless corruption was committed while in office, per the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act.
4. Charge 2 should be dismissed under rule 5.12 as only a party injured by embezzlement may litigate for embezzlement. As previously established, v__d did not work for the government and was explicitly not authorized to take (and thereby not entrusted with) government funds. Therefore, the definition of embezzlement excludes the Commonwealth from having any standing to pursue an embezzlement charge.
5. Charge 3 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 as the prosecution lacks any evidence to substantiate or support all elements of the crime "money laundering" as intent to hide funds is required. Simply depositing money into a bank is not an attempt to hide funds; it is a normal and fiscally prudent activity. This claim is therefore frivolous as well.


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 3rd day of January 2024

1. 
   Sentencing 1 should be struck as this money was already returned. This 5 million should not be charged to the defendant twice if found guilty.

The funds were collected via a court approved emergency injunction issued by this court while the funds are disputed by the government. We indicated as such within the filing of the case within point 1 of sentencing and it is mentioned within the emergency injunction. This point within the motion to dismiss is also invalid per it failing to meet the requirements outlined within Court Rule 5.1.

1. Sentencing 4 should be struck under rule 5.5 as the prosecution cannot prove the defendant has been convicted of embezzlement already twice before this. Serial crimes only apply on the third and subsequent offense of a given crime.

As recommended within the sentencing guidelines issued by the prosecution, should the individual be charged with both counts of embezzlement the Prosecution have requested the court based upon the definition of serial offense outlined within Standardized Criminal Code Act. Sentencing 4 does not violate the rule as there is a clear basis for a claim that the individual could be charged with 2 counts of embezzlement which would constitute a serial criminal offense.

1. Charge 1 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 for lack of evidence this crime was committed while in office. It should also be dismissed under rule 5.12 as the prosecution does not have standing to prosecute people for corruption unless corruption was committed while in office, per the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act.

It is clear the individual utilized the powers awarded to him when he was a sitting senator to funnels millions out of the government. The prosecution has clearly provided evidence showing that the funds were unfined by the Defendant and the government is clearly indicating that this was a non-authorized appropriations of funds. Sufficient for a valid claim and valid evidence which was attached within the emergency injunction of this case. It's rather funny when the defense indicates that we cannot prosecute individuals of corruption when we are prosecuting the individual before the court in this moment of corruption. The prosecution aims to expand the definition of corruption to be included in and out of office, should the powers of a member of public office be abused by an individual it shall be considered corruption.

1. Charge 2 should be dismissed under rule 5.12 as only a party injured by embezzlement may litigate for embezzlement. As previously established, v__d did not work for the government and was explicitly not authorized to take (and thereby not entrusted with) government funds. Therefore, the definition of embezzlement excludes the Commonwealth from having any standing to pursue an embezzlement charge.

As outlined within [2023] FCR 59 - The government has previously prosecuted an individual for embezzling funds out of a government entity. The defendant has clearly taken these funds for personal gain as the government is declaring these funds to have not been authorized for use. The defendant was using powers awarded to him during his time in the senate for personal gain.

1. Charge 3 should be dismissed under rule 5.5 as the prosecution lacks any evidence to substantiate or support all elements of the crime "money laundering" as intent to hide funds is required. Simply depositing money into a bank is not an attempt to hide funds; it is a normal and fiscally prudent activity. This claim is therefore frivolous as well.

The individual did attempt to hide the funds from the government. Moving funds to various accounts falls within the definition of Money laundering as ""Any act to conceal funds illegally obtained, through commercial transactions, business deals, or any means otherwise." - Depositing funds into a bank account are considered a commercial transaction and the funds were obtained without approval by the government which makes it illegal.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INTERROGATORY

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

v__d
Defendant

QUESTIONS FOR THE DEFENSE

1. Who approved the 5-million-dollar unfine?
2. After the defendant unfined himself 5 million dollars, did he deposit any money into discover bank?

The Prosecution maintains the right to ask up to three more questions of the Defense via interrogatory at a later date.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

2 counts of embezzlement which would constitute a serial criminal offense.

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The Standardized Criminal Code Act states "in which the perpetrator has already committed the crime twice" meaning only the THIRD or higher offense can be considered a serial offense. The prosecution is attempting to fool the Court in this matter.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

1. Who approved the 5-million-dollar unfine?
2. After the defendant unfined himself 5 million dollars, did he deposit any money into discover bank?

1. No one
2. Yes, depositing money into a bank account is a normal and financially prudent activity

 

[Alexander P. Love]

using powers awarded to him during his time in the senate

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. Staff have said this is categorically false: Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the defense would like to additionally call the following as witnesses:

• Nexalin, on behalf of Discover Bank
• The Staff Team
• MilkCrack in his capacity as President of the Senate

 

[RelaxedGV]

In response to the Objection, I will be overruling the objection to strike Evidence F. 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. Given that unless evidence can be provided that eb was not included within this the evidence will remain.

On the Objection for Breach of Procedure it will be sustained given that the deadline was in fact missed, if an extension was asked for even a little after the 24 hours the situation would be different however that was not done.

On the Objection of Perjury, this will be overruled as by the image below the objection is of no grounds.

Finally in terms of the last Objection, I will also be overruling this as not only was Representative xEndeavour not acting within a staff capacity but also no matter the position it was taken from the matter at hand is that $5 million was taken out of the Government account without proper authorization. That is the question at hand and not whether a Senator can unfine.

Now for the Motion to Dismiss. This will be overruled as this as well is just relisting things from the earlier Motion with more detail and a few more reasons. Nothing of substantial substance was added between the two Motions to justify me sustaining this one or even warranting another Motion. I know this reasoning is short however I cannot add much given nothing much was added.

Discovery will continue with about 4ish days left (just under 4 days I believe).

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Now for the Motion to Dismiss. This will be overruled as this as well is just relisting things from the earlier Motion with more detail and a few more reasons. Nothing of substantial substance was added between the two Motions to justify me sustaining this one or even warranting another Motion. I know this reasoning is short however I cannot add much given nothing much was added.

Motion to Reconsider
My motions to dismiss were very different. One alleged this is a staff matter and the other went into several rule 5 citations. I urge you, your honor, to read my motions more carefully. If you will not reconsider, I urge the Court to please specify detail as to why my second motion to dismiss was denied in greater detail. Thank you.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

1. No one
2. Yes, depositing money into a bank account is a normal and financially prudent activity

OBJECTION
nothing pending. In answer number 2. Your honor the defense answered the question and proceded to offer information that was not relevent to the already answered question.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Motion to Reconsider
My motions to dismiss were very different. One alleged this is a staff matter and the other went into several rule 5 citations. I urge you, your honor, to read my motions more carefully. If you will not reconsider, I urge the Court to please specify detail as to why my second motion to dismiss was denied in greater detail. Thank you.

I would like to apologize as I read the Answer the Complaint as your first Motion to Dismiss. With that I will still be overruling the Motion to Reconsider as all of the reasons listed are either not backed by proof (such as point one) or were proven wrong within this very Court Room (again point one).

Point two, 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.

Point three is supported and valid. Thus I won't comment on this further.

Point four, whether working for the Government or not the money was still taken out by permissions provided by a position that only those who work for the Government would have. Yes, this could have been a glitch in which case it would be a staff matter primarily. Given that the Staff Team has been called as a Witness we will wait before assuming this. Until then we will continue as such assuming there was no glitch and they had the appropriate permissions to do so. The Defense has also not proven that the Defendant was not working for the Government at the time.

The underlying argument both side must prove here is whether the Defendant was working for the Government at the time which has been failed to do so as of now.

Point Five, this also stands and thus is not a reason for rejecting the Motion.

The Defense also has 24 hours to respond to the Objection.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION
nothing pending. In answer number 2. Your honor the defense answered the question and proceded to offer information that was not relevent to the already answered question.

Your honor, this is wholly relevant as it gives the Court a larger picture, IE, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The answer I gave was fully within the scope of the question as it all pertains to whether or not the defendant v__d deposited money in Discover Bank, and more importantly, whether he laundered it or not.

 

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION
nothing pending. In answer number 2. Your honor the defense answered the question and proceded to offer information that was not relevent to the already answered question.

The Objection will be overruled given the Defendant's attorney is not a Witness within this case. Nothing Pending according to the Objections Guide may only be used on a Witness. AlexanderLove is not a Witness and is simply the Defendant's Attorney.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
The plaintiff would like to skip the rest of discovery.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Discovery actually ended yesterday and I'd like to apologize to both sides for my delay in this. Had irl things going on.

We will be moving on from Discovery and into Opening Statements, the Prosecution has 72 hours to provide theirs.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Discovery actually ended yesterday and I'd like to apologize to both sides for my delay in this. Had irl things going on.

We will be moving on from Discovery and into Opening Statements, the Prosecution has 72 hours to provide theirs.

Your Honor, I have been caught up completing school work. May I request a 48 hour extension. Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Extension is granted you have 48 hours from this message.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

Snowy has resigned from the DLA and as Solicitor General, I will be taking over this case.

Nothing like coming into the middle of a case as controversial and consequential as this one, but I will take a stab at it.

Circling back to the facts, the defense has affirmed 2 of the 3, that the defendant did take $5,000,000 from the government, and they did not have the permission to do so, that much is not contested. What is contested, is whether or not the sentencing is valid.

For corruption, it is defined as “To use 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. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.” The defense argues that the defendant did not use their government position for this as they were not a senator at the time. However, they still had permissions granted to that role otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to h fine, therefore they did use the government position, and I think nobody can argue that an instant $5 million dollars isn’t an advantage inconsistent with the role.

For embezzlement it is defined in the white collar crack down act as “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.” Your honor, this is exactly what the defendant did. They withheld government assets, in this case cash, for the purpose of conversion. As the defense stated previously the funds were spread out and diverted and converted. The assets were entrusted to the defendant, otherwise they would not have had permissions allowing them to fine/unfine.

Money laundering is defined as “Any act to conceal funds illegally obtained, through commercial transactions, business deals, or any means otherwise." The defense again has affirmed that the defendant did exactly this. They illegally acquired the funds, then spread those funds out through commercial transactions. Why would the defendant do this? Clearly to spread the money out and conceal those funds.

You see, it boils down to whether the sentencing is applicable to the actions that were performed, and but the letter of the law all seem to apply. To allow this act to go unpunished simply because some (previously mentioned $4,456,743.11) was recovered is a tremendous injustice to the magnitude of the crime committed. If this goes unpunished, every single person granted fine/unfine permissions that are crucial to the governments operations will be able to use the government treasury as their own bank account as long as they pay it back, which is NOT acceptable and would set a terrible precedent. Therefore I implore you as the judiciary to make this right and send a message to all criminals that this behavior is unacceptable, as I know you will.

Thank you for your time.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, the Defense has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I ask for a 48 hour extension due to the beginning of college and needing to get this posted in the weekend.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The 48 hour extension is granted from this message. Good luck in college.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, this case is simple. $5million was taken from the treasury but this was not a criminal act due to the letter of the law.

For corruption, it is defined as “To use 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. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.” The defense argues that the defendant did not use their government position for this as they were not a senator at the time. However, they still had permissions granted to that role otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to h fine, therefore they did use the government position, and I think nobody can argue that an instant $5 million dollars isn’t an advantage inconsistent with the role.

The defense admits that my client was not a Senator at the time. As staff will testify in this trial, the bugged permission is not necessarily due to their old position, it was a system glitch that cannot be proven to be linked to my client's former job as a Senator.

For embezzlement it is defined in the white collar crack down act as “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.” Your honor, this is exactly what the defendant did. They withheld government assets, in this case cash, for the purpose of conversion. As the defense stated previously the funds were spread out and diverted and converted. The assets were entrusted to the defendant, otherwise they would not have had permissions allowing them to fine/unfine.

This is false. They had the permissions due to an error, and in fact were not entrusted with the assets. He was a former Senator, and Senators can't even take from the treasury since Congress as a whole makes appropriation decisions. Even if he was still a Senator, he wouldn't have been entrusted with those assets. He cannot be guilty of embezzlement if he was not entrusted with the assets.

Money laundering is defined as “Any act to conceal funds illegally obtained, through commercial transactions, business deals, or any means otherwise." The defense again has affirmed that the defendant did exactly this. They illegally acquired the funds, then spread those funds out through commercial transactions. Why would the defendant do this? Clearly to spread the money out and conceal those funds.

This is speculation. My client, as he will testify, did it because banks offer incentives such as no taxation, interest yield, and investing to grow wealth. This was a financially prudent decision, not a criminal one. Simply spreading money out isn't money laundering. If that was the case, every single person is probably guilty of money laundering. Laundering focuses on whether or not the intent was to conceal the money. Banks don't conceal money as the DOC monitors their transactions. How can a known banker who knows what the DOC sees expect to conceal money by depositing it into banks? The illogical statements made by the prosecution simply don't add up.

This was a special case involving a bug. Because of that bug, the normal laws don't apply to this situation. If he was still with the Government and had role-specific permissions, he would certainly be guilty of embezzlement. But he was not. The Court must find him not guilty. Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Given the Opening Statement was provided after the 48 hour extension I will be charging AlexanderLove with Contempt of Court and order the Department of Justice to jail and/or fine them accordingly.

I will not strike the Opening Statement however as due process and charging with Contempt is enough. If I strike the Opening Statement I would be doing harm against the Defendant without a full trial when it was their Attorneys fault.

We will now be moving onto Witnesses, given only the Defendant listed out Witnesses as soon as the Witnesses appear the Defense may start questioning. The Summons will be in a different message.

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@v__d, @Nexalin, The Staff Team and @Milkcrack are required to appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. v__d as Witnesses. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in Contempt of Court.​

 

[Nexalin]

Present

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Given the Opening Statement was provided after the 48 hour extension I will be charging AlexanderLove with Contempt of Court and order the Department of Justice to jail and/or fine them accordingly.

I will not strike the Opening Statement however as due process and charging with Contempt is enough. If I strike the Opening Statement I would be doing harm against the Defendant without a full trial when it was their Attorneys fault.

We will now be moving onto Witnesses, given only the Defendant listed out Witnesses as soon as the Witnesses appear the Defense may start questioning. The Summons will be in a different message.

Umm no? Original was noon EST. I posted before that

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Literally had 14 minutes left still. Total of 96 hours.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The 48 hour extension is granted from this message. Good luck in college.

Extension granted from that message.

 

[Milkcrack]

Present?

 

[v__d]

Present

 

[RelaxedGV]

After discussing with the Chief Justice, the Staff team will not be charged with Contempt and will be removed from the Witness list. This is due to the fact that when pinging Staff I was meant to ping a member of its Leadership which I did not know. Despite this to keep the trial moving we will not be resummoning and rather moving forward. Apologies if this was a key Witness however we have to keep moving.

With that said, the Defense may begin questioning.

 

[Staff Team]

Staff team is present if required

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, due to the above, I motion to readd them to the list, so that my client’s right to a fair trial be preserved.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Given they are now here, they are readded.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Defense has 48 hours to provide questioning all of the Witnesses.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Defense has 48 hours to provide questioning all of the Witnesses.

Your honor, I request a six hour extension as I have class today and then a family event that was unexpected. I apologize to the Court for the short notice.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Extension is granted you have an additional 6 hours to respond. It will end at 10:34 pm PST.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Witnesses, please answer your questions in a yes/no format where applicable. Otherwise, please keep your answers as concise as necessary to answer the question given.

Staff Team:

1. Was v__d able to run /unfine due to a bug / glitch? (Yes/No)
2. Do Senators normally have fine/unfine permissions? (Yes/No)

Nexalin:

1. Does Discover Bank offer interest to account holders? (Yes/No)
2. What is the interest rate?
3. Can the Department of Commerce see every transaction involving a bank, in your experience? (Yes/No)
4. Does Discover Bank report required information to the Department of Commerce? (Yes/No)
5. Would you say that money deposited into your bank is hidden from the Government? (Yes/No)

Milkcrack:

1. Were you President of the Senate on December 25th, 2023? (Yes/No)
2. Was v__d, under his current or former aliases, a Senator on December 25th, 2023? (Yes/No)
3. Do Senators normally have fine/unfine permissions or the authority to execute treasury transactions? (Yes/No)
4. Was v__d entrusted with the authority to execute treasury transactions? (Yes/No)

v__d:

1. Were you a Senator on December 25th, 2023? (Yes/No)
2. Were you aware Discover Bank yields interest? (Yes/No)
3. As a person in the banking sector, do you usually seek to grow your wealth by putting money in interest-bearing accounts, accounts that relieve your tax burden, or invest your money? (Yes/No)
4. Given your experience as Avalon's head, are you aware of the Department of Commerce FITA system that tracks all transactions involving banks, including deposits to banks? (Yes/No)

Depending on the answers received, the defense may have follow-up questions.

 

[Nexalin]

1. Does Discover Bank offer interest to account holders? (Yes/No) - Yes
2. What is the interest rate? - 2% Monthly
3. Can the Department of Commerce see every transaction involving a bank, in your experience? (Yes/No) - Yes
4. Does Discover Bank report required information to the Department of Commerce? (Yes/No) - Yes
5. Would you say that money deposited into your bank is hidden from the Government? (Yes/No) - No

 

[Milkcrack]

Were you President of the Senate on December 25th, 2023?
I was yes.

Was v__d, under his current or former aliases, a Senator on December 25th, 2023?
No, they weren't.

Do Senators normally have fine/unfine permissions or the authority to execute treasury transactions?
Not as far as I am aware.

Was v__d entrusted with the authority to execute treasury transactions?
Not to my knowledge.

 

[v__d]

1. Were you a Senator on December 25th, 2023? (Yes/No) - No
2. Were you aware Discover Bank yields interest? (Yes/No) - Yes
3. As a person in the banking sector, do you usually seek to grow your wealth by putting money in interest-bearing accounts, accounts that relieve your tax burden, or invest your money? (Yes/No) - Yes
4. Given your experience as Avalon's head, are you aware of the Department of Commerce FITA system that tracks all transactions involving banks, including deposits to banks? (Yes/No) - Yes

 

[Staff Team]

1. Was v__d able to run /unfine due to a bug / glitch? (Yes/No)
   He was able to run it because his rank had access to permissions which he should not have had. It was an administrative error.
   
   
2. Do Senators normally have fine/unfine permissions? (Yes/No)
   No

 

[Alexander P. Love]

No further questions, your honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, the Prosecution may cross-examine the Witnesses. Please provide questions within the next 48 hours.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Staff Team,

What rank did the defendant hold on December 25th that allowed him to have fine/unfine permissions?

When and why was this rank given to the defendant?

VD,

Were you aware when you unfined yourself that you were not legally entrusted with the funds that you were taking?

Why did you think that it was okay to unfine yourself $5,000,000 from the government without seeking approval from anyone?

Given your extensive resume in politics, have you ever previously used permissions given to you to unfine yourself large sums of money without justification?

Is it true that only $4,456,743.11 has been recovered by the government at this point?

If so, where did the remaining $543,256.89 go?

Nexalin previously testified that Discover bank was paying 2% interest on their accounts, did you receive any interest payments or financial compensation as a result of depositing any of the money that was received on December 25th?

Nexalin,

In your expert opion, and experience in the banking industry, would you consider suddenly receiving $5,000,000 an advantage in this server?

 

[Nexalin]

In your expert opinion, and experience in the banking industry, would you consider suddenly receiving $5,000,000 an advantage in this server?

Yes, receiving a sudden influx of $5,000,000 can be considered an advantage in many contexts, due to the significant financial flexibility and opportunities it provides.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

When and why was this rank given to the defendant?

Objection, your honor. Compound question.

In your expert opion, and experience in the banking industry, would you consider suddenly receiving $5,000,000 an advantage in this server?

Objection, your honor. Question calls for conclusion.

Were you aware when you unfined yourself that you were not legally entrusted with the funds that you were taking?

Objection, your honor. Question relies on facts not in evidence and also lack of foundation. Also calls for conclusion and incompetent as the witness isn’t qualified to testify to the legality of an issue.

Why did you think that it was okay to unfine yourself $5,000,000 from the government without seeking approval from anyone?

Objection, your honor. Lack of foundation and assumes facts not in evidence (particularly the last part, and assuming he thought it was okay).

What rank did the defendant hold on December 25th that allowed him to have fine/unfine permissions?

Objection, your honor. Relevance. We already heard he wasn’t a Senator, so any answer to this is irrelevant and outside the scope of the trial.

Given your extensive resume in politics, have you ever previously used permissions given to you to unfine yourself large sums of money without justification?

Your honor, my client will be invoking the fifth right at this time for this question.

Is it true that only $4,456,743.11 has been recovered by the government at this point?

Your honor, my client will be invoking the fifth right at this time for this question.

If so, where did the remaining $543,256.89 go?

Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence and lacks foundation since the last question is unable to be addressed.

Nexalin previously testified that Discover bank was paying 2% interest on their accounts, did you receive any interest payments or financial compensation as a result of depositing any of the money that was received on December 25th?

Objection, your honor. Relevance. Whether or not he was actually paid interest is not of interest in this case, only the thought process behind depositing money in the first place. Furthermore, compound question as interest payments and financial compensation are separate. Also ambiguous as it specifies Discover initially, then the question seems to ask about all global forms of payments.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

In your expert opinion, and experience in the banking industry, would you consider suddenly receiving $5,000,000 an advantage in this server?

Yes, receiving a sudden influx of $5,000,000 can be considered an advantage in many contexts, due to the significant financial flexibility and opportunities it provides.

Objection, your honor. Narrative (or nothing pending). The witness has answered beyond the scope of the question. He was only asked to provide whether or not he thought something to be true, not to explain the rationale behind it.

Your honor, I motion to strike if my objection to the question or to this answer is granted.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Objection, your honor. Compound question.


Objection, your honor. Question calls for conclusion.



Objection, your honor. Question relies on facts not in evidence and also lack of foundation. Also calls for conclusion and incompetent as the witness isn’t qualified to testify to the legality of an issue.



Objection, your honor. Lack of foundation and assumes facts not in evidence (particularly the last part, and assuming he thought it was okay).



Objection, your honor. Relevance. We already heard he wasn’t a Senator, so any answer to this is irrelevant and outside the scope of the trial.



Your honor, my client will be invoking the fifth right at this time for this question.



Your honor, my client will be invoking the fifth right at this time for this question.



Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence and lacks foundation since the last question is unable to be addressed.


Objection, your honor. Relevance. Whether or not he was actually paid interest is not of interest in this case, only the thought process behind depositing money in the first place. Furthermore, compound question as interest payments and financial compensation are separate. Also ambiguous as it specifies Discover initially, then the question seems to ask about all global forms of payments.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

Your honor,

This is absurd. The Defense is clearly trying to hinder the Plaintiffs right to cross-examination. We did not object or nitpick any of the questions asked by the Defense.

1- “Compound Question” I will withdraw and resubmit :

Staff Team

When was the defendant given this role?

Why was the defendant given this role?

2- “Calls for Conclusion” The defense called this witness to act as an expert witness and literally asked the same type of question in their question 3 to the witness.

3- “Assumes facts not in evidence” your honor, I was referencing where the defense themselves have stated such. The defendant has had a long history in politics and is well aware of the permissions granted and laws pertaining to fining and unfining.

4-“lack of foundation” This directly attests to the defendants intentions which are crucial in establishing both embezzlement and corruption charges. The “assumes facts not in evidence” is also absurd as the defense has stated previously that they did not seek approval.

5- “relevance” Also absurd. This is EXTREMELY relevant, as the charge of corruption requires “using a government position” which this question seeks to establish. I recognize that the previous Prosecutor has mentioned the role being due to the defendants previous time served in the Senate, however if it was ANY government position that provided the role, the charge of corruption still applies.

6- “5th amendment” -Fair enough, however I don’t believe that invoking the 5th amendment right to avoid disclosing past criminal history is proper.

7- “5th amendment (in regards to balance repaid) - Your honor, confirmation of this fact is crucial to determining a proper verdict in this trial. If the full amount originally unfined has not been recovered, this needs to be addressed. The 5th amendment allows for one to forgo providing self-incriminating evidence in a court of law. Nothing that’s requested would be self-incriminating, as the fact that the unfine happened has already been established. This is merely confirming whether or not the entire balance that was illegally unfined has been recovered. The defense has previously stated that all $5,000,000 has been received by the government, but the evidence and this very Court have stated that only $4,456,743.11 has been recovered.

8-“assumes facts not in evidence” “lacks foundation” I was merely attempting to provide the defendant with a fair and speedy trial by not wasting time providing this as a follow up question. If the incorrectly proposed 5th amendment statement is overruled in item 7, this question will have both foundation and the facts in evidence required.

9- “Narrative / Nothing Pending” your honors, this argument contradicts several that the defense made before but that’s besides the point. The question serves to establish the criteria required for embezzlement and corruption. The defendant should not only have the funds repaid from their actions, but also have any profit made from the use of the illicit funds repaid to the government as well. No criminal should be allowed to profit from committing a crime, even if the money is paid back. Confirmation of if the defendant has profited from these actions is also crucial to proving corruption, as the Stan states “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.” Any interest paid or financial incentives form ANY of the financial institutions listed would unfairly benefit the defendant.

Your honors, again, it is absurd that the defense would unnecessarily attempt to block the prosecution from cross-examination, and I simply request you overrule these objections.

Thank you for your time.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Objection, your honor. Narrative (or nothing pending). The witness has answered beyond the scope of the question. He was only asked to provide whether or not he thought something to be true, not to explain the rationale behind it.

Your honor, I motion to strike if my objection to the question or to this answer is granted.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor,

The witnesses response is perfectly within the scope of what was asked. The rationale does not exceed the bounds of what is reasonable within a response.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Why was the defendant given this role?

Objection, your honor. Relevance

 

[Alexander P. Love]

6- “5th amendment” -Fair enough, however I don’t believe that invoking the 5th amendment right to avoid disclosing past criminal history is proper.

Objection, your honor. Counsel is testifying. I motion to strike this from the record.

 

[RelaxedGV]

All of the Objections will be overruled given the question is relevant, was solved later on, is providing clarity, or holds no ground. Given that, the questions are to be answered by the Witnesses. The Objections regarding invoking the fifth right are to be answered by the Defendant and not their Attorney. The questions are directed at them and not their Attorney. The Defendant does have every right to invoke the Fifth however I would rather hear it coming from them to a question that is directed at them than their Attorney and the Attorney doing so in the form of an Objection.

All of the Witnesses that are being cross-examined have 48 hours to respond to the Questions.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, my client will need an additional 24 hours to answer the questions.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Extension granted however the Courts are disappointed by the fact that the Staff Team have failed to respond within the timeline and beyond that. I'd also like to apologize that I did not respond sooner I was awaiting for some guidance from the Supreme Court regarding the Staff Team's failure to abide by the deadline. Because of this the extension will be starting now rather than before.

 

[v__d]

1. I was not entrusted with the funds that were taken, or any government money.
2. I plead the fifth.
3. I plead the fifth.
4. No, all money has been returned. You even acknowledged it earlier in the interrogatory.
5. Not applicable
6. I did not, as the money was promptly returned to the Government upon staff action.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Prosecution may ask any follow up questions should they have any. They have 48 hours to do so.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Prosecution may ask any follow up questions should they have any. They have 48 hours to do so.

No redirect necessary, your honor.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

No redirect necessary, your honor.

OBJECTION

Breach of Procedure

Your honor,

Either Mr. Love is not aware that he represents the defense, or he has spoken out of turn, when the Courts directed their instructions to the prosecution. I ask that this response be struck as the prosecution is still deliberating any follow up questions we may way to ask.

Thank you.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Mr. VD.

Your question for number 1 was whether or not you were aware of the fact that you were not entrusted with the money at that time. Your response did not properly answer the question so I will ask again.

Were you aware, at the time that you made the unfine, that you were not entrusted with the money that you paid yourself?

Follow up for response 4:

Please provide some clarity here. As established earlier in the case, evidence has only been provided that $4,456,743.11 has been repaid. Your response only stated “all
Money has been returned.” Which could imply that all the money you had at that time was returned, and not the entire amount that was originally unfined.

For transparencies sake, have you returned exactly $5,000,000 to the government?

If this is true, why has your legal counsel not provided evidence that the entire $5,000,000 has been repaid?

Also your honor,

I would provide the same questions again for the staff team :

What rank did the defendant hold on December 25th that allowed him to have fine/unfine permissions?

When was this rank given to the defendant?

Why was this rank given to the defendant?

These questions are absolutely crucial to establishing the case for corruption, as the definition states that the defendant must have used a government position to receive an advantage inconsistent with the position. We have already established that the unfine of $5,000,000 was an advantage inconsistent with the office, so if the “rank” that the staff mentioned the defendant had was in fact due to the defendants holding or previous holding of a government position, then it very well meets the requirements of corruption, and without the answers to this question, the Commonwealth is being denied its right to a fair trial. The defendant was able to ask the staff team questions and receive a response, and the prosecution needs to be given that same right.

Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION

Breach of Procedure

Your honor,

Either Mr. Love is not aware that he represents the defense, or he has spoken out of turn, when the Courts directed their instructions to the prosecution. I ask that this response be struck as the prosecution is still deliberating any follow up questions we may way to ask.

Thank you.

I just got done with 3 exams, I misread it.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Were you aware, at the time that you made the unfine, that you were not entrusted with the money that you paid yourself?

Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. My client answered it perfectly clear. If it wasn't phrased in the way the prosecution would have liked, perhaps the prosecution should have asked a better question.

Please provide some clarity here. As established earlier in the case, evidence has only been provided that $4,456,743.11 has been repaid. Your response only stated “all
Money has been returned.” Which could imply that all the money you had at that time was returned, and not the entire amount that was originally unfined.

Objection, your honor. Counsel is testifying.

For transparencies sake, have you returned exactly $5,000,000 to the government?

Objection, your honor. Asked and answered.

If this is true, why has your legal counsel not provided evidence that the entire $5,000,000 has been repaid?

Objection, your honor. Incompetent and speculation. v__d is not a legal expert nor can he ascertain the reasoning behind the decisions of his lawyer with absolute certainty. Furthermore, your honor, this question is irrelevant. Reasoning behind not submitting evidence does nothing to actually advance the facts of this case, instead it seeks only to antagonize counsel. Furthermore, it is also innocent until proven guilty. The defense is under no obligation to prove any fact true or false.

These questions are absolutely crucial to establishing the case for corruption, as the definition states that the defendant must have used a government position to receive an advantage inconsistent with the position. We have already established that the unfine of $5,000,000 was an advantage inconsistent with the office, so if the “rank” that the staff mentioned the defendant had was in fact due to the defendants holding or previous holding of a government position

Objection, your honor. Counsel is testifying.

 

[RelaxedGV]

OBJECTION

Breach of Procedure

Your honor,

Either Mr. Love is not aware that he represents the defense, or he has spoken out of turn, when the Courts directed their instructions to the prosecution. I ask that this response be struck as the prosecution is still deliberating any follow up questions we may way to ask.

Thank you.

Objection Sustained given AlexanderLove is the defense and not the Prosecution, I do understand misreading however I will still grant this Breach of Procedure and the message will simply be struck.

The Prosecution has about 12 hours remaining (from the moment the Objections were posted) to respond to all of the Objections listed about

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Objection, your honor. Asked and answered. My client answered it perfectly clear. If it wasn't phrased in the way the prosecution would have liked, perhaps the prosecution should have asked a better question.


Objection, your honor. Counsel is testifying.


Objection, your honor. Asked and answered.


Objection, your honor. Incompetent and speculation. v__d is not a legal expert nor can he ascertain the reasoning behind the decisions of his lawyer with absolute certainty. Furthermore, your honor, this question is irrelevant. Reasoning behind not submitting evidence does nothing to actually advance the facts of this case, instead it seeks only to antagonize counsel. Furthermore, it is also innocent until proven guilty. The defense is under no obligation to prove any fact true or false.


Objection, your honor. Counsel is testifying.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honor,

Once again we have Mr. Love trying to obstruct our right to a fair trial with absurd objections.

1- "Asked and Answered". My question was asked, and not answered actually. I asked if the defendant was AWARE that they were not entrusted with the funds. They responded stating that they were not entrusted. They did not answer if they were aware of that at the time of the event taking place, which directly affects their intentions. If they knew that they were not entrusted, then it helps strengthen the argument for corruption and embezzlement, and that fact should weigh on the Courts decision for the severity of the punishment handed out.

2- "Counsel is testifying" By definition this is used when "counsel is "leading" or "argumentative" or "assumes facts not in evidence". I am doing none of these things, simply justifiying why I am asking a follow up. Also, this objection is improper as Mr Love has not identified which of these things he is accusing me of.

3- "Asked and answered." Again, the lack of clarity in the defendants response leaves the question, which amount has beebn fully repaid, the sum of $4,456,743.11, or the sum of $5,000,000? This is VITAL information for the Courts to issue a fair and accurate judgment on this case and needs to be clearly answered.

4- You know, I think I have to hand it to Mr. Love, this is the first objection in this case that actually somewhat makes a little bit of sense, I should have directed this question to Mr. Love himself, which if the Court will allow me to, I would like to offer that solution. It solves the objection of "Competency" and "Speculation".

So, Mr. Love, if the defendant has paid $5,000,000 why have you not provided evidence of this?

The prosecution has provided evidence that only $4,456,743.11 has been recovered, and if this other sum is not accounted for, t hen the Courts should rule that the defendant pay back the ENTIRE sum that was taken, and that makes is EXTREMELY relevant to this case.

5- "Counsel is testifying" Your honor, I was merely trying to avoid this very predictable waste of the courst time, and preserve both parties right to a fair and speedy trial and provide Mr. Love and the Court with my justification on the front end, and hopefully avoid another 2 day delay due to the defenses nonsensical objections, apparently to no avail.

I ask that these absurd and unwarranted objections yet again be overruled so that the prosecutions right to cross examination is upheld, just as the defenses right was upheld earlier in the case. I also ask that you compel the staff team to respond, as these questions were not objected to by the defense.

Thank you your honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

All of the Objections will be sustained for the following reasons:

Asked and Answered #1 - The question was in fact asked and answered beforehand, maybe not to what the Prosecution wanted however the question is similar enough and was asked and Answered already.

Testifying #1 - The Prosecution although argues they were providing reasoning for the question, the question itself does not need justifying for why it needs to be asked unless objected to.

Asked and Answered #2 - although this is a little harder to understand, the Objection not only holds merit but can be agreed it was Asked and Answered beforehand. The question was only split in two pertaining to and the evidence of which is shown below. Although not the same question, I find them to be of similar nature to be deemed the same question and thus the second asking is being Stricken given the Objection.

"Is it true that only $4,456,743.11 has been recovered by the government at this point?

If so, where did the remaining $543,256.89 go?"

Incompetence - This is simply true, the Defendant is not a legal expert and was not summoned to this Court as one. The Defendant primarily spends their time within the Economic Sphere rather than the Legal Sphere thus the Objection of Incompetence is completely true and factual.

I also am disappointed in the Prosecution for their statements within their response to the Incompetence Objection. Although this is a criminal case, the matters are meant to be taken with civility in mind and not being outright disrespectful to the opposition.

I will also be striking the question asked to AlexanderLove given they were not summoned to this case as a witness and if any questions were wished to be asked it should've been done in Interrogatory.

When it comes to compelling the Staff Team to answer, I can only do so much. The Staff Team was summoned and after discussing with Supreme Court Officials I was unable to charge the Staff Team with Contempt. This is one of the key manners the Courts take to compelling someone to answer and given I am unable to do so, furthest I can go is notifying staff they need to respond which was done earlier in the case. Thus I cannot fulfill this and I apologize to the Prosecution and we must move on.

With all of that said, the Prosecution has 48 hours to post any amended questions or new follow-ups to the Witnesses.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Follow up question:

Staff Team,

Was the rank that the defendant had on December 25th that of a government position?

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Staff Team has 48 hours to respond otherwise we must move on to Closing Statements.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to the Staff Team still failing to respond and given we cannot hold up an entire case over this matter we must be moving on. The Prosecution has 72 hours to post their Closing Statement.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honor,

I apologize for the delay as I had to travel for work the last few days and have been very inactive.

This question and evidence is a crucial piece that the defense has used to argue against the charges presented. The defense simply cannot be allowed to use the argument that the defendant did not hold a government position, while the Staff team refuses to attest to whether or not this is true. This is denying the State the right to fair trial, and I request that you compel the Staff Team to respond. The staff team is NOT above the law, and is required to respond when the court orders them to just as any other citizen and it appalling that the court has allowed them to simply ignore the question without any consequence whatsoever.

In order to preserve the States right to fair trial, I also request an injunction to prohibit this case from moving forward until we are able to get a simple answer to this one simple question.

Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honor,

I apologize for the delay as I had to travel for work the last few days and have been very inactive.

This question and evidence is a crucial piece that the defense has used to argue against the charges presented. The defense simply cannot be allowed to use the argument that the defendant did not hold a government position, while the Staff team refuses to attest to whether or not this is true. This is denying the State the right to fair trial, and I request that you compel the Staff Team to respond. The staff team is NOT above the law, and is required to respond when the court orders them to just as any other citizen and it appalling that the court has allowed them to simply ignore the question without any consequence whatsoever.

In order to preserve the States right to fair trial, I also request an injunction to prohibit this case from moving forward until we are able to get a simple answer to this one simple question.

Thank you.

Motion to Compel is overruled as already the Staff Team was asked to respond and time was already provided for the Staff Team to answer the questions. I have already given more than enough time for the Staff Team to respond and I am sorry that they have no responded however in fairness to the Defenses right to a Speedy Trial I am not going to put this case into Recess over a single question. No matter how crucial the question may be to your argument it does not warrant the entire upholding of a case for the argument.

Coming to the without consequence, I discussed with the Supreme Court regarding the ability to charge with Contempt of Court and was told I cannot which means I have done all I can do at this current moment within time. I stated this before when the Staff Team originally did not respond. In regards to a Fair Trial for the State, I believe I covered that within my entire response.

With that said, you still have about 16 hours left to provide your Closing Statement.