Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 40

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dartanman

Citizen
President of the Senate
Senator
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Aventura Resident
Dartanman
Dartanman
presidentofthesenate
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,049
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On August 26, 2022, the Plaintiff was informed that there was an open Bank Robbery charge against him. Completely confounded as to why such a charge was placed, he opened a DoJ ticket. It is clear from the evidence provided by the DoJ that the only reasonable charge is Bank Trespassing, however they were adamant that they were keeping it as a Bank Robbery charge.

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanman (Plaintiff and also myself)
2. The Department of Justice (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Officer Mask3D_WOLF informed the Plaintiff that there was an open Bank Robbery charge against him.
2. The Plaintiff opened a DoJ ticket and was shown the evidence that had been collected, which was two screenshots. One showed beyond reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff was behind the "No Trespassing" signs, while the other was simply a screenshot of the inside of the Bank Vault.
3. The Plaintiff said that the evidence provided only seems to support a Bank Trespassing charge, so they should change the Bank Robbery charge to a Bank Trespassing charge.
4. Multiple times, the DoJ asked the Plaintiff to provide proof that they did not rob the bank.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DoJ produced no evidence that the Plaintiff committed Bank Robbery.
2. The DoJ repeatedly attempted to violate the Plaintiff's rights by requiring that the Plaintiff prove their innocence to not be charged. This is entirely unreasonable, as it is the DoJ's job to prove guilt, not the citizen's job to prove innocence.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The DoJ changes my Bank Robbery charge to a Bank Trespassing charge
2. The DoJ commits to not requiring citizens to prove their innocence to change a charge, and only charge criminals with the crimes they have evidence of.
3. $500 in legal fees, as I have my own law firm, and the time I am spending on this case is time I could have spent with clients had the DoJ simply cooperated with the law.
($500 is my law firm's standard for this kind of case -- see KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20 -- a very similar case to this one where I charged $500)

Evidence:
I have no evidence to submit that would prove my innocence, as in a free society, I am assumed innocent until proven guilty.
That being said, I have two screenshots from within the DoJ ticket that should show I exhausted every possible measure outside of court to deal with this charge, apart from 100% proving my innocence, as again, citizens are not required to prove their innocence. The DoJ is required to prove guilt.

Exhibit A: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/751247541450047582/1012833336701501440/unknown.png

Exhibit B: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/751247541450047582/1012833520017747999/unknown.png

Additionally, the Plaintiff requests an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION preventing the DoJ from acting on the Bank Robbery charge, as this case is specifically about this charge.

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 26 day of August 2022
 
Last edited:
1661551804623.png



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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 48 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.​
 
I will be rejecting the emergency injunction request since the court has yet to find out whether the charge is illegitimate or not.
 
Before any motion to dismiss or opening statements are presented, I would like to remind both parties about the option of having an in-game trial
 
I would like to inform the court that I am open to participating in an in-game trial, should we be able to find a suitable time to do so.
 
The DLA would not like an in-game trial and would like to request that this trial be kept on the forums. Thank you.
 
The Commonwealth shall present their Opening Statment or Motion to Dismiss.
 
Your Honor, to be clear we have 45 hours?
 
I will be rejecting the emergency injunction request since the court has yet to find out whether the charge is illegitimate or not.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Plaintiff moves that the emergency injunction be approved, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. An Emergency Injunction, according to the Court Orders Guide (Guide - Court Orders Guide), is to prevent harm.
2. If the DoJ is allowed to act upon the open charge of Bank Robbery while this case is still in progress, this could cause harm to the Plaintiff by being wrongfully jailed and fined, should the charge later be found to be illegitimate.
3. If this injunction is not approved, the Plaintiff will be unable to enjoy his rights inside Redmont until after the court case.

DATED: This 28 day of August 2022
 
After more careful consideration, I will be approving the emergency injunction that was requested by the plaintiff. The Department of Justice, for the duration of the trial, shall not be allowed to act on the Bank Robbery charge.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

1. A Supreme Court precedent in a previous but related case was set stating that “the Plaintiffs should have utilized all exhaustive measures… before filing a lawsuit” given that the Plaintiff did in fact open a DOJ ticket and stated that they wanted the charge lowered but stated they didn’t want to dispute shows that the defendant had nothing to argue within the ticket and the officers were trying to help.

2. It is evident that the Plaintiff did not take measures to adequately report their situation to the Department of Justice, and therefore the Department of Justice operated with the information given properly.

3. Therefore, considering everything above, and considering precedent set in xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16, the defendant is alleging that this lawsuit has no real purpose other than to try to sue the DOJ. As stated by Fmr. Justice Westray, "You cannot expect the Department of Justice to be the seeing eye of all, and to instantaneously have an awareness of all criminal situations. The Plaintiffs effectively withheld evidence from the Department of Justice, and then used it to sue them[.]" That almost exactly applies to this case, considering that even when the DOJ requested chatlogs, and even offered to link the guide to how to obtain chatlogs, the defendant still did not provide them.

The defendant would also like to provide the ticket logs in good faith as evidence to the court so that everyone has full context of what transpired. Tickets Dashboard

*If you cannot view the ticket, please let me know and I can provide a text transcript
 
The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss. I would also like to point out that we cant see the ticket.
 
Your honor, I request that an extension be made to be 48 hours after the ticket is available, as I do not have a copy of it (the screenshots in the original filing were taken before it was closed), and believe that the ticket log itself has key evidence showing the exhaustive measures the Plaintiff took to get the charge lowered.
 
I will be rejecting the request made by the plaintiff since the burden of proof relies on the plaintiff, however I would like to ask that the defendant presents the transcript in a reasonable amount of time.
 
Your honor, I have obtained an HTML copy of the ticket. May I present it to the court?
 
Here is the ticket.
 

Attachments

  • doj_ticket.zip
    256.7 KB · Views: 108
Thank you, you still have about 47 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

In response to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff respectfully alleges:

1. The Defendant claims that I did not dispute the charge. I would argue that by the nature of claiming that they should lower the charge to a Bank Trespassing charge, I disputed the charge (although, I did not dispute it officially, for reasons outlined later).

2. In point 2, the Defendant claims, “the Plaintiff did not take measures to adequately report their situation to the Department of Justice,” however, this is not the case. As seen throughout this ticket, I repeatedly made clear that the precedent for this situation is to be charged with Bank Trespassing, however, they wanted me to prove my innocence to lower the charge, essentially assuming I am guilty until proven innocent, which is unjust in a free and democratic society.

Unfortunately, this HTML copy of the ticket does not include any images sent, only the accompanying text. Regardless, the majority of the ticket is unimpacted by this small inconvenience. Let’s go through some of it to show the exhaustive measures I took to lower this charge.
ecMraKwz3nnQwwhBfVRvo-l4vLjaTuwbALMb6-td8fH8OUhvcgKzsazk5qM5eH852EmZUioZf3i0QOJr5FNXsMm7CRMAq5-pWM3RkJfQetwZ1xqbxo44CRNq651g8P_7aJq-HN1IatYRG7H1l2u-R3o

As clearly seen here, the Plaintiff exercised his rights which do not require the Plaintiff to prove his innocence to the DoJ. If the DoJ does not have evidence of a crime, they cannot be allowed to act as though they do.
Further in the ticket, we see this:
GTWJYNA6JRH5Vr_-UYw1V2_erlj1Jet_8q9tBE-ADXF__k0XluDgm7nkOFPO_7TMpuD6AUYF_aq4aRGAL-F4fFGWzvhDqEBt1J40rtKvF0m39pO-ue67tRMZYYhDDE22srZZGOi2yx4SWkdYsH3-mZo

As you can see, the DoJ claims that the mere breaking of the Vault Door is enough for bank robbery, but in KP56 v. Commonwealth [2022] DCR 20, the Plaintiff admitted to breaking the Vault Door and was even proven to be inside the Bank Vault via a screenshot, yet it was still found that the evidence provided was only enough to be found guilty of Bank Trespassing, not Bank Robbery. In the words of the honorable Judge Banana: “It is the opinion of the court that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt presented that the Plaintiff in this case stole from a bank. There is certainly proof that the Plaintiff violated the law of bank trespassing, but as noted before, this is not inherent proof that the Plaintiff also violated the additional conditions of bank robbery,” and “This verdict does not protect the Plaintiff under the double jeopardy clause in the Constitution from being sued to upgrade the charge again to bank robbery. It is possible that the Plaintiff was not proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty because different parties had had different ideas about what that proof consisted of. I am not finding the Plaintiff definitively not guilty of bank robbery, I am ruling that there has been a standard of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ in this case that has led to a premature charge of bank robbery.” Thus, the actual precedent is that merely being present beyond the “No Trespassing” signs, even if the Bank Alarms are going off, is not sufficient evidence to charge someone with Bank Robbery. The DoJ is considering me ‘guilty until proven innocent’ in that they are charging me with Bank Robbery unless I can prove my innocence, which is absurd, and according to the precedent set by [2022] DCR 20, it is illegal and the charge should be lowered. I tried to explain this, but the DoJ would not listen.

I’ve reached out to Tech about whether it is possible for the gold blocks to be floating without a robbery taking place, but have not yet received a response. Regardless, even if there was definitely a Bank Robbery, there is no reason to believe the Plaintiff was even inside of the Bank Vault, let alone believe that the Plaintiff was one who committed the robbery.

Further on, we see this:
k5VaB06HeclxXmtJo8fM03Io9Yhsmi4vWRcummsxfhArQDea44rU9NlYkzrq_UilkYGhrHpuYk1uwB5d9wJUGdbn5BdEYxMH-YCbG9uTljR6MtWrrdoyFe7u0wBZjpy_dWZc4-K3Flw4ErqznHy2GAk

As you can see, I was fully willing to dispute the charge insofar as the idea that I was improperly charged with Bank Robbery. I was not willing to proclaim my innocence as it would require that I show proof of my innocence, which is entirely unacceptable. The Department of Justice cannot simply assume a crime has taken place and then punish citizens for such supposed crime. Allowing this would set the precedent that the DoJ can punish people for crimes without proof, allowing for a completely dictatorial government.

Later in the ticket, we see:
QBkFk5gU0mOuHMD_HywQ28fC2QtscuUqrSue_2DNBcnrdvHlwxGDKZblHOBUQr_pJjVb54ZsM0gORKqSq0dXuHnFcfJa-D8VG4E_U9q1t9TpyOpMvEDQfl_AKHZrTXssEYOE1HV0fWUusOyqw8m42nQ

The DoJ repeatedly quoted another case, saying “You cannot expect the [DoJ] to be the seeing eye of all, and to instantaneously have an awareness of all criminal situations. The Plaintiffs effectively withheld evidence from the [DoJ], and then used it to sue them.” This is entirely irrelevant, as I repeatedly said, I have no evidence for the DoJ or for the courts. This case is due to the fact that in Redmont, citizens are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. If the DoJ cannot produce proof of someone committing a crime, they cannot charge someone with that crime.

Near the end of the ticket, we see this:
wINUqDpytZfPn6zcCx8tjtDBN7bGxi7ysmV_JtX3OcGdF4JKwn7X_NjD8dkhtgtUHFFPWbxZMv7SbL4iWA-isMdoS7cv633GZ-p-Rhsou_nf34Sr_korQYPaxEn6rV_z4hKvM65_L2-kF10B_3cIhLE

Two major things happen here, first of all, the DoJ once again requires that I prove my innocence, which again, is unacceptable, according to court precedent. Secondly, the DoJ admits that they regularly violate Clause V of Section IV of the Constitution, which further strengthens the necessity that this lawsuit is heard in court.

3. I believe that I essentially disputed this charge to the best of my ability without allowing my rights to be violated. It is clear that the DoJ was not interested in lowering my charge without me proving my innocence, and I was not willing to allow my rights to be violated in such a way. For this reason, I was essentially unable to cooperate, and a lawsuit was the only reasonable way for me to get through this situation.

4. In point 3, the Defendant again makes the same quote from SCR 16: “You cannot expect the Department of Justice to be the seeing eye of all, and to instantaneously have an awareness of all criminal situations. The Plaintiffs effectively withheld evidence from the Department of Justice, and then used it to sue them[.]” Again, I am not withholding evidence and then using it to sue them. I am arguing that the DoJ cannot charge someone for a crime they have no evidence of.

I know that this rebuttal is very long, but that is because there is a mountain of evidence supporting that this case be heard. As it is very long, I will provide a brief summary of the contents of this rebuttal:
1. I disputed the charge to the best of my ability without being required to prove my innocence, but the DoJ would not allow that. They required me to provide proof of my innocence in order to get the charge lowered – a practice that has previously been disallowed in court.
2. The Defendant claimed that I did not take adequate steps to deal with the improper charge before filing a lawsuit, but as shown throughout the DoJ ticket, I did everything I possibly could apart from violating my rights protected by the Constitution. The DoJ even admitted that this violates my rights and that they regularly require a violation of the rights of citizens in order to lower improper criminal charges.
3. While I never “officially disputed” the charge, this was due to the immense (and admitted) violation of my rights. I did everything I could reasonably do to deal with the issue.
4. The Defendant is trying to suggest this case be dismissed because I am withholding evidence from them in order to use said evidence to sue them later, however this is not the case. I am refusing to prove my innocence as in Redmont, citizens are assumed innocent until proven guilty, and the DoJ has failed to prove that I am guilty.

Lastly, I would like to note that much of this evidence will again be re-used in my Opening Statement, as much of it supports the fact that the DoJ abused their power to charge me with Bank Robbery even though the evidence only supports a Bank Trespassing charge, but for now it is being used to show that this case carries with it immense importance to be heard.

The Plaintiff thanks both the opposing counsel and the court for their time,

DATED this 28 day of August, 2022.
 
Objection, your honor.

The plaintiff is lying in this rebuttal. They multiple times say that they had no evidence to turn over to the DOJ, however this is false. They have chatlogs that they failed to turn over despite the DOJ deputy secretary asking for them.
 
I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss since this is a clear case for litigation, I will take the defendant's objection into consideration for the verdict but please refrain from speaking without being allowed to. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant have 48 hours to present their opening statements.
 
Your honor, may I respond to the Defendant's claim that I was lying? He seems to be misunderstanding the meanings of "I have no evidence to to turn over to the DoJ" vs. "I have no evidence."
 
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The plaintiff was summoned to provide his opening statement and not a rebuttal to an objection.
 
Your honor, may I respond to the Defendant's claim that I was lying? He seems to be misunderstanding the meanings of "I have no evidence to to turn over to the DoJ" vs. "I have no evidence."
you may. But once you finish I won't accept any more responses unless they are opening statements.
 
you may. But once you finish I won't accept any more responses unless they are opening statements.
Thank you, your honor.

@Mask3D_WOLF "I have no evidence to turn over to the DoJ" is the same as saying, "I have no evidence that I want to turn over to the DoJ." I am not claiming that I do not have chat logs, I am simply saying I do not wish to give them to you or the courts, as by nature, chat logs are automatically potentially self-incriminating. Regardless of whether I committed any crimes, it is potentially possible to find numerous criminal evidence inside of any player's chat log, including evidence of:
1. Bank Robbery
2. Slander
3. Conspiracy
4. Corruption
5. Many more, these are just a few examples off the top of my head.

Therefore, because of the potential self-incrimination that is inherent in a chat log, all citizens are protected by Clause V of Section IV of the Constitution, which protects citizens from being required to submit self-incriminating evidence, and thus preventing citizens from being required to submit their chat logs as evidence.

I hope this clears up any confusion for you.
 
Now both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have about 47 hours to present their opening statements.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The defense moves that the current magistrate should be recused from this case, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Magistrate broke procedure by stating that an objection is regarded as just a statement and told the defendant to not speak out of turn again. An objection should not adhere to this ruling given that an objection is something that can happen at almost any point within a court case and is logged.
2. After the objection was lodged the Magistrate did not act upon the objection and gave the event listed in reason 1.
3. The second objection, the magistrate also did not reply to at all.

DATED: This 28th day of August 2022
 
I will be rejecting the motion to recuse since I at no point said that you were going to be punished, I stated to please do not speak without the given permission so this does not turn into a circus. I also mentioned that I would take your objection into consideration for the verdict, if I missed replying to one objection I apologize but no human being is perfect. If that is all both of you still have time to present opening statements.
 
Your Honor, co-counsel @RelaxedGV will be taking the case from this point forward
 
Before any opening statements get presented, I would like to remind both parties about the option of having an in-game trial
 
As stated before, the DLA would not like an ingame trial. Thank you.
 
Your Honor, co-counsel @RelaxedGV will be taking the case from this point forward
Here you mentioned that RelaxedGV would be taking over this case, so there is no reason for you to continue speaking in this lawsuit. For this reason, I hereby charge Mask3D_WOLF with 1 count of Contempt of Court.
 
Now both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have about 47 hours to present their opening statements.
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

You stated that both the Plaintiff and Defendant had to present their opening statements at the same time however in every other case it has gone Plaintiff then Defendant making this a breach of procedure.
 
This is a friendly reminder that there are 27 hours left for opening statements.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

1. Dartanman opened a DOJ ticket after being notified they are wanted for Bank Robbery. They then asked for evidence which Mask3D_WOLF gave. Dartmanman then stated it should be Bank Trespassing and not Bank Robbery. When asked if they are disputing Dartanman stated they were not. The officers then stated that without them disputing nothing can be changed. Given that Dartanman was not disputing then it means they were fine with the charge and it stands with nothing changing. It is a common practice that has happened for at least a year.

2. The fourth Clause in the RIghts and Freedoms states “IV. All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state.” Dartanman was allowed to appeal the charge and dispute however did not want to dispute making it that they did not appeal given they did not want to dispute the charge.

3. The fifth clause in the Rights and Freedoms states “V. No citizen is to be made to produce self-incriminating evidence in a court of law, Congressional hearing, subpoena, or impeachment trial.” The Deputy Secretary A__C, Mask3D_WOLF, and RelaxedGV all asked for chat logs to prove their innocence. The Officers were not breaking the Clause given without the chat logs or any other proof nothing can be changed. Dartanman refused to give the chat logs to prove innocence and stated it was breaking Clause 5 which is untrue given the chat logs can prove their innocence.

4. A Public Advocate was proposed to Dartanman which said they would not like one. Despite how little Public Advocates there are they can still be a mediator in a DOJ ticket and can get the charge lowered, removed, kept, etc. Given Dartanman denied having a Public Advocate means they did not in fact want to dispute the charge even further.

5. Dartanman used all exhaustive efforts to get the charge removed i.e. opening a DOJ ticket. Thus Dartanman cannot open a court case given they exhausted all efforts they wished to do. Without them wishing to dispute nothing can be done to get the charge removed/lowered. Without agreeing for a Public Advocate the charge cannot be removed/lowered. Given these are done within a DOJ ticket and Dartanman opened a DOJ ticket states that they did use the efforts they were willing to use before filing a lawsuit which goes against the court case of xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade vs. The Department of Justice (case linked below).

6. Dartanman can continue to defend/sue for other people at their law firm given nothing is stopping them from doing multiple lawsuits at the same time. Given they also have a law firm that implies they have other employees who can take cases over Dartanman.

Lawsuit: Adjourned - xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16 | Page 2 | DemocracyCraft

bN62fNVD5g8Rzf4eSc8kK87DEN_x05jaetF2LIHdaDUk83viTKfPikB9TYi23rrcPGJjBaD6yqbaUFXWO5b61iUYJBDSHf5xx3Q4esp0YmAAxxUAtbk1uEmLhapgvS9MwauTSEzNmeZEbhoiuZBvew


Z2vrF1fIHKGZ4EQ4zn6VURAsZ13k8LNsUKhtSH4bxtji46hYQNh0bQVvDUVGoNfjvTt7BKcmGEumeW-Medp0egFun8yzzD9yyRrVHbRsahKUlkBbv-laaPUDxheu8AypOHCdorXRs8Y9zrNYQmAKZQ


6Y6i2MSAxfzegHzPwRZ0YOAt_RMpEZlPrSrc7kUrWAS_T6vd4mSzm_9qvNqc2X5vOpnoX2XpI0fuI8ZpTc8CTswQRSbStR9S4YN8HKF8Qq_pJW99eH3nrn0yjCZVqyFJJAXcsUcsO2dVpWONjxJ3lw
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I apologize in advance for how long this particular filing is going to be. There is simply a mountain of evidence in favor of the Plaintiff, and it all must be addressed.

On August 26, 2022, the Bank Alarms went off. This occurs when someone breaks the Vault Door. Shortly thereafter, Officer Mask3D_WOLF cuffed the Plaintiff, who was walking beyond the “No Trespassing” signs, but was not even inside the Vault. Without saying anything, Mask3D_WOLF let the Plaintiff go, so the Plaintiff left. As far as the Plaintiff can remember, there was no communication between the two until significantly later, in global chat, when the Plaintiff was informed of an open Bank Robbery charge against him.

Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff opened a DoJ ticket to lower the Bank Robbery charge to a Bank Trespassing charge. Like the Motion to Dismiss, I will walk through parts of the ticket and provide arguments that typically correspond with part of the ticket.

6hlJhVFiDOaiBPOIhwKcI7f2Vn_CZn3GAZYTfShifzBHkLeKnIO60vuVfCm36VAwRcQigRsjQLAslDqjzxRTo1CZgHuMoctSzODbIN-eqEhA0AAYHwNTNpREzU-DfoA_ei48SHAAnKXMa8P3Tp0nndEVOg_Kqb5d6uayPTwag-EJ98j3VbjC1jqo1w

In this part of the ticket, just after the DoJ asked me if I “dispute that [you, the Plaintiff,] robbed the bank,” I informed the DoJ that such a question was illegal, as it violated my rights under Clause V of Section IV of the Constitution (which later, the DoJ agreed that this is true). So of course, exercising my rights as a citizen of Redmont, I refused to answer.

Continuing,
Po6l989ciefmHvRdbnSHdfe2mm9IQ-6BsG7TFvEkZ0mOabDgjCS--pIG3Sms7W7aHTjsrL2PFCv_TLgiDt67HzRzUgZggT4UzKP02AzCvUI_Zfu5eL1W_jH2GPu9w7JdD5P4Ifk5h0DgbdYpS1GymUwGFvtLKhmYdTdIj5gn7uHh1vActVcmYguVlQ

The DoJ supposedly provided evidence that the Bank was being robbed via a chat log showing that the Bank Alarm went off. As I pointed out, the chat log says that only once the Bank Vault Door is broken, and it has nothing to do with whether or not any money was stolen. Mask3D_WOLF claimed that he proved the money was stolen (referring to a screenshot taken that shows a “floating” gold block), however, there are two major issues with this “proof.”
1. Mask3D_WOLF provided no evidence to back up the claim that the “floating” gold block is only possible if money was stolen from the bank, and
2. Even if this is proof that money was stolen from the bank, this does not prove it was the Plaintiff who stole the money.

Just after, we get here:
BT9HgWqtgz5utZMKBIZlfkSUsZkOqg8oAnZqbKYolFtWFaTLyk7aycmSwbNo03hM6QYstE5p-WdMKeGabVPGzzSYK_BYXzSK4XV3gvmP06QmOIgvsGQhC2cym8S21Lx_NCHkUQ1x0LutEQbm63d4bTqbuOKTCkO0OjzQIIcuP71l_MbVkFptUNuL2A

The DoJ claims there is precedent from “a court case” that breaking the vault door is enough for bank robbery. This does not seem to be true, as in a very recent case, KP56 v Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20), exactly the opposite was said. I will quote from the honorable Judge Banana’s verdict of DCR 20:
1. Bank trespassing is defined in the Bank Trespass Act as “[Trespassing] behind the “no trespassing signs” in the bank, which includes going behind the glass and/or entering the vault.”
2. Bank robbery is defined in the Bank Robbery Act as “The act or instance of stealing from a bank.”
3. The wording of the two acts is clearly complementary, so that they completely cover the possible crimes in the bank. It is possible to trespass inside the bank without actually stealing from it, which is where the Bank Trespass Act takes over. Once the trespasser has received money, they have stolen from the bank and thus committed bank robbery as it is defined.
4. In any legitimate justice system, including Redmont’s, the burden of proof in a criminal accusation lies on the prosecution. This means that the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt guilty of having committed a particular crime in order to be found guilty and punished for said crime.
5. This rule is even more crucial when considering a crime wherein conditions of some nature must exist before a separate charge can be made. The individual must trespass into the bank, at which point they can be charged with bank trespassing, and then the individual must steal from a bank in order for them to be charged with bank robbery. If the second part does not happen, then it logically follows that the individual cannot be punished for the second crime. If they were assumed to be guilty of a second crime based on the fulfillment of the preliminary conditions, this would violate the burden of proof standards described above.
6. By this logic, the question would come down simply to this: Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the second conditions were fulfilled? Was there sufficient proof that the Plaintiff stole from a bank? (The bank trespassing charge was admitted, so I will not be questioning its validity)
7. It is the opinion of the court that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt presented that the Plaintiff in this case stole from a bank. There is certainly proof that the Plaintiff violated the law of bank trespassing, but as noted before, this is not inherent proof that the Plaintiff also violated the additional conditions of bank robbery.
I, the Plaintiff, bolded some portions of the quote to emphasize them, as I believe they are particularly important and relevant to this case.

Thus, we can see that in the laws (as mentioned by Judge Banana), the Bank Trespassing Act and the Bank Robbery Act, evidence of merely being present beyond the “No Trespassing” signs is insufficient to charge someone with Bank Robbery. So both the laws and court precedent lead us to the conclusion that unless the DoJ can produce evidence that a Bank Robbery was committed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff can only be charged with Bank Trespassing.

It is also worth mentioning that DoJ Secretary ElainaThomas29 was a witness in DCR 20. Also, now-Attorney-General Mask3D_WOLF left a “like” on the verdict, so the DoJ and DLA should have already been aware of the laws and precedent, making this charge even more egregiously inappropriate.

Continuing,
qPUnLJdQxf6FlCqdwzaE3ml5CHoJTuRvdT-90M5L-xVoOj4U2gkOpUCDMzDmfSXzxTLaNIzkw_1MxsgTD6Ql5ZodxdgCJQul4tQF_lBfhjkq3E2rP-j5r7tXuz4eVnTIO7nnJyobU-HwiknxxBHN27M00c8Bqbzs0Gw18kTDlDUtqF4tFNhX02wbWA

As we can see, the DoJ informed me that everything I said will be used against me should I sue the Commonwealth. Here we are, in court, and I am trying to be as transparent as possible about everything said in the ticket, even so far as to be the one who provided the ticket transcript. The DoJ accused me of refusing to cooperate, which I suppose, I did refuse to cooperate with orders that directly violated the law, specifically:
1. Clause V of Section IV of the Constitution and
2. The precedent that the DoJ must prove guilt, it is not a citizen’s duty to prove innocence.

Apart from that, I believe I was almost entirely cooperative.

Further on,
z2ZhCi1GsXZZuWt_xNq-k7-pTaFmLjPvzBA74JFZU9J8PLw7b3IdU4dmBVVCyx737r2UDsdsuVehaeMqOMpjL8J9uhVtpW1Y0ttsCYq7Uy-rvcNK7U92VqNNt02vtx3F7_uPzTEYD67aQo8x5Fx1fmGQwZHplYSVL7ZQXXZU3upYphcMYypkd6Sxuw

Here, the DoJ again requested that I provide evidence to prove my innocence. Again, I said, “I do not wish to prove I am innocent[.] You cannot charge someone without proof[.]” The DoJ then told me I have no grounds to sue the Commonwealth. I responded, “Yes I do[.]” I must again mention DCR 20’s verdict, requiring the DoJ provide proof of the crime they wish to charge someone of, specifically Bank Robbery, as this is the crime in question in both DCR 20 and this case. Again, I was informed that this is my fault, because I was refusing to cooperate. Again, I must say, it is my duty as a citizen of Redmont not to cooperate with unlawful requests.

Continuing in the ticket,
RJgu7oJGpG-p4z3WwFJF-sWdK0jl_yiRZ1Q4JJLrx-n8By_v0L4cIGUZH-WQuwYXZRCdQVDabCqnm8Ox4G6HvC47aH6CFQ8n78uUp-72FfepjaJyUZ4_Mp8wZhoApXABs4KpjIDpLqHIKEPzblY8I_E8LbBKdU98qM3rSUvdZymOHYjwbDvQae78kw

As we can see, the DoJ claimed that until I cooperate (which meant, to cooperate with their unlawful request that I prove myself innocent), I would not be allowed to open a lawsuit. They provided several quotes from [2021] SCR 16, but I believe all of them to be irrelevant for the following reasons:
1. I do not expect the DoJ to be the seeing eye of all or to be instantaneously aware of all criminal situations, however, I do expect the DoJ not to charge citizens with crimes there is no evidence of.
2. I did not withhold evidence from the DoJ and then use that evidence to sue them.
3. I have clearly communicated my concern inside a DoJ ticket multiple times, repeatedly asking that the charge be lowered to Bank Trespassing, and even provided a similar court case (DCR 20) that showed the precedent showing this situation being a Bank Trespassing charge.
4. I made a significant effort to contact the Department, and they were immensely unhelpful and repeatedly made unlawful requests of me.

Continuing,
6V1EHiwtja07d45-vZpfDgrbQYvugNvdBlsap85nRHY6nSCzPCGBuVywUMtyNAEQ4uvIeeRBIdb9OInlMWLv8nrtGKw1oR20ZNC_YmaAJI7aMMr-gf1eNwNxQGiqp27auyMGFcr1R-i5UX0dhtRU3t5378ifnbHb8jAgrAmypmoXZZkkjupOuNe99w

Again, I was fully willing to dispute the charge insofar as the idea that I was improperly charged with Bank Robbery. I was not willing to proclaim my innocence as it would require that I show proof of my innocence, which is entirely unacceptable. The Department of Justice cannot simply assume a crime has taken place and then punish citizens for such supposed crime. Allowing this would set the precedent that the DoJ can punish people for crimes without proof, allowing for a completely dictatorial government.

Further on,
SwKRWfWkKcYlIU1SThHXAMvYjKn2GFOzvJh0Doz__SFEhv7rt6IN6NAn7RpiTbzFXWl44nNm4Wuq9Bc39uRvNjXpos_7Pl_SevIkqppkRyiz5hUVpqnvM78qEZotJd4KeV_0rBa4I68i-HpS_gTiGTx9s3UNm0Xv_DvfoPaeRWuwLgrp8gePR6NTzA

Again, I was informed that unless I dispute, which would require I prove my innocence, nothing else can be done. As I said in the ticket, and will say again here, I am not required to prove my innocence. The DoJ is required to prove I committed a crime. At this point, it became very clear to me that I had no choice but to file a lawsuit.

Finally, we approach the end of the DoJ ticket again:
GclunEAVUBWqNgPs1bTu4HpetZmClVQITa_3c-OQWXnCLPPu5Qs5wtrbvfYeBu0XsTSYCg4MlO2xep6W9A4sHs_2bF7mPSacxfVz2n-rvA_58RgVPTMKGqXUGinkVVz93ks6e-CzWkX7m7DLox2K4WYmbxmCxtP2Yj3j9TBMsEo-yQzWd5w8OeNWcQ

As we can see, the DoJ once again requests my chat logs, directly violating Clause V of Section IV of the Constitution. By the DoJ’s own admission, any time they had a disputed charge, they were breaking Clause V. This further necessitates Part 2 of the Prayer for Relief: “The DoJ commits to not requiring citizens to prove their innocence to change a charge, and only charge criminals with the crimes they have evidence of.” The burden of proof in a criminal case always lies with the Commonwealth, and no citizen should ever be required to prove their innocence.

Now that we’ve gone through much of the ticket, let me make clear the importance brought about in this case:
1. Allowing the DoJ to charge the Plaintiff with Bank Robbery could set the precedent that trespassing is sufficient evidence for robbery, which would render the Bank Trespassing law entirely useless, and also go directly against the precedent set by DCR 20.
2. Additionally, allowing the DoJ to charge the Plaintiff could even set the precedent that the government is allowed to charge citizens for crimes there is absolutely no evidence of, which allows for a completely dictatorial government where there is no longer the necessary idea of the “rule of law.”
3. The DoJ admitted to the Plaintiff that they were violating his rights under the Constitution, and even made the astonishing statement that they regularly violate citizens’ rights under Clause V of Section IV of the Constitution, in this quote: “for literally everything that disputes a charge at all then its breaking Clause V[.]”

Finally, a brief summary of the arguments I’ve presented in this Opening Statement:
1. Requiring me to answer the question of whether or not I committed a crime violates Clause V of Section IV of the Constitution. (DoJ admitted this)
2. Expecting me to prove I am innocent goes against the precedent set by DCR 20, and also makes no sense in a legitimate justice system (see the honorable Judge Banana’s remarks in DCR 20).
3. The DoJ only provided evidence of Bank Trespassing, not Bank Robbery, thus, they can only charge the Plaintiff with Bank Trespassing.

Once again, I apologize for how long this filing is, but it was absolutely necessary that it be this long, as every bit of evidence must be addressed when it is available.

DATED: This 30 of August, 2022
 
I would like to ask both parties to present a list of witnesses (If any) that they would wish to call in the next 24 hours.
 
Friendly reminder that there are approximately 8 hours to present a list of witnesses if any.
 
The Plaintiff calls upon Officer Mask3D_WOLF and Owner Technofied as witnesses.
 
Your Honor, the Defense would like to call A__C.
 
The Plaintiff calls upon Officer Mask3D_WOLF and Owner Technofied as witnesses.
I assume that Technofied would be summoned as staff capacity, is that correct?
 
district-court-png.12083



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

@Staff Team, @Mask3D_WOLF, and @A__C are hereby summoned to the District Court in the case of Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 40 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.
 
The Plaintiff may now begin to question the witnesses.
 
For Mask3D_WOLF:
1. What did you see that caused you to charge the Plaintiff with Bank Robbery?
2. Will you provide the two screenshots you used as evidence to charge the Plaintiff?

For Staff Team:
1. Is it possible for a Gold Block to be in the corner against the ceiling of a room without anyone actually stealing any money from the Bank?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top