IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
This case started after the Plaintiff came to the Department of Justice and asked that the Bank Robbery charge become a Bank Trespassing charge, as there was no evidence to support a Bank Robbery charge. The Department of Justice proceeded to show the Plaintiff the evidence that allegedly proved the Plaintiff guilty of Bank Robbery. The Plaintiff explained that this evidence was only sufficient for a Bank Trespassing charge, and even showed the precedent of KP56 v. Commonwealth to back up his claim. Despite this, the Department of Justice chose to ignore the law and continue with the Bank Robbery charge. This egregious disrespect for the law eventually became so clear, the Plaintiff realized he had no choice but to sue the Department of Justice.
It is also worth remembering that this case is not an attempt to prove the Plaintiff’s innocence, but it is to protect all citizens’ rights. The Department of Justice has failed to recognize
two major issues. One, citizens are innocent until proven guilty. This is foundational to any legitimate justice system (see KP56 v. Commonwealth). And two, all citizens are protected from producing self-incriminating evidence (see Constitution, Section IV, Clause V). The Department of Justice ignored both of these requirements, insisting that unless the Plaintiff proved his innocence by providing chat logs, he would still be considered guilty of Bank Robbery.
Your honor, Department of Justice Deputy Secretary A__C said that Department of Justice policy in the event of an invisible person being found in the immediate vicinity of the vault after the bank alarm rings is to “Check to see if it is within a short timeframe of the bank alarm and if there are any gold blocks missing. Anyone found right outside or inside the vault during that time is considered robbing or having robbed the bank because we have no other way to get proof.” Whilst I do not believe the Deputy Secretary is guilty of perjury, I must insist that either A__C is incorrect, or the Department of Justice policy is immensely out of line with the law. We once again look to KP56 v. Commonwealth, where we not only see KP56 in the vicinity of the vault, but actually
WITHIN THE VAULT DURING A BANK ROBBERY, AND EVEN HAVING A CONFESSION OF BREAKING THE VAULT DOOR. Still, the court found this to be insufficient evidence to charge KP56 with Bank Robbery.
Alas, even if A__C is correct and that merely being near the Bank Vault after gold blocks have been stolen is enough to charge someone with Bank Robbery, there is no evidence that any gold blocks were stolen, showing that in this instance, the Department of Justice violated both the law and their apparently illegal policy.
The defense’s Closing Statement also uses Mask3D_WOLF’s testimony. While hearing from witnesses is immensely important, it cannot be the primary evidence used to find someone guilty of a crime. If this were the case, anyone could be found guilty of anything as long as a police officer was willing to testify against them. Furthermore, Mask3D_WOLF’s testimony specifically says that she found places where she did not
think it should be. Your honor, this testimony clearly leaves much room for doubt as to whether or not any gold blocks were actually stolen, or if Mask3D_WOLF merely believed this to be the case.
Finally, I will provide various quotes from different points of law, link them, and provide brief commentary.
1. Court Opinion of KP56 v. Commonwealth (
Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20)
“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.”
The Department of Justice has clearly not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff committed Bank Robbery, and thus, clearly
the Plaintiff cannot be found guilty and punished for Bank Robbery.
2. Verdict of KP56 v. Commonwealth (
Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20)
“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.”
Clearly, the Court can see that if new evidence came to light proving the Plaintiff did rob the bank, there would be no problem charging the Plaintiff with that crime, however, without such evidence,
the standard of “guilty until proven innocent” has already been found illegal by the court.
3. The Constitution, Section IV, Clause V (
Government - Constitution)
Although the Defense is correct that Clause V specifically says “in a court of law, Congressional hearing, subpoena, or impeachment trial,” I believe it still applies to interactions with the Department of Justice, for two reasons. 1) Any incriminating evidence provided to the DoJ would almost certainly be used in court, thus providing it to the DoJ would be indirectly providing it to the court, therefore it is protected under this Clause, and 2) in the real world, countries that have this right have clearly interpreted it to be more protective than that, for example, the United States Constitution is worded in such a way that it could be interpreted to only apply in a criminal court case, but has clearly been found to protect citizens in civil cases, police interactions, and more.
There are more cases, but in accordance with the Court Procedures, I am not allowed to submit more evidence.
Alas, even if it is found that it is not illegal for the DoJ to request potentially self-incriminating evidence, it is abundantly clear that merely being present at the scene of a crime is not sufficient evidence to punish someone for said crime (again, I point out that in KP56 v. Commonwealth,
KP56 was literally inside the Bank Vault during the Robbery). Now, in the current case, the Plaintiff was found
outside the vault with no evidence of any money being robbed. This couldn’t be clearer – the Department of Justice cannot charge the Plaintiff with Bank Robbery.
The Plaintiff thanks the court, the opposing counsel, and all witnesses for their time.
DATED: This 14 day of September 2022.