Lawsuit: Adjourned Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97

Status
Not open for further replies.
ko531

ko531

Citizen
Judge
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
ko531
ko531
Judge
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
1,911
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

ko531
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On Feburary 4th the Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed into effect by President Derpy. This amendment states that Murder is a indictable offense. According to the Standardized Criminal Code Act, Indictable offense is definded as "Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offense must be proven in a trial." An Indictable Offense is a crime that needs a trial by jury. Since this Amendment was sign I have been arrested for 377 counts of murder by the DOJ and served 1670 minutes in jail and not a single charge was taken and proven in court. For each murder charge I was arrested for I was also fined $100 each by the DOJ totaling $37,700


I. PARTIES
1. Ko531
2. Department of Justice

II. FACTS
1. The Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed by President Derpy on Feburary 4th.
2. It states Murder as an "Indictable Criminal Offense" meaning it has to be proven in court
3. Since that time I have bee charged with 377 counts of murder, fined a total of $37,700 and served 1670 minutes in prison.
4. All of these murder charges were never taken and proven in court

III. Claims for Relief
1. Wrongful Conviction

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $37,700 returned as it was fined for wrongfully convicted crimes
2. $16,700 for the time served in jail ($10 for each minute)
3. $10,000 in Punitive damages
4. Murder charges removed from Ko531 criminal record

V. EVIDENCE

Evidence A

Act of Congress - Violent Offences Act

A BILL To Establish Offences under the Standardized Criminal Code The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net

Evidence B
1699326761658.png


Evidence C

Murder3.PNG

Murder4.PNG

Murder5.PNG

Murder6.PNG

Murder7.PNG
Murder8.PNG

Murder9.PNG

Murder10.PNG

Murder11.PNG

Murder12.PNG

Murder13.PNG

Murder14.PNG
Murder15.PNG

Murder16.PNG

Murder17.PNG

Murder18.PNG

Murder19.PNG

Murder20.PNG

Murder21.PNG
 
Last edited:
MORE EVIDENCE

Murder22.PNG


Murder23.PNG


Murder24.PNG


Murder25.PNG

Murder26.PNG

Murder27.PNG

Murder28.PNG

Murder29.PNG

Murder30.PNG

Murder31.PNG

Murder32.PNG

Murder33.PNG

Murder34.PNG

Murder35.PNG
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Neemfy is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
I just noticed I accidentally put 48 instead of 72. You have 72 hours from this message. Apologies for the mistake.
 
Due to the Commonwealth failing to appear, a default judgement will now occur. We are in recess until the verdict is finished.

I also charge the Department of Legal Affairs with one count of Contempt of Court and order the Department of Justice to jail & fine appropriately.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Due to the Commonwealth failing to appear, a default judgement will now occur. We are in recess until the verdict is finished.

I also charge the Department of Legal Affairs with one count of Contempt of Court and order the Department of Justice to jail & fine appropriately.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
I appologize deeply, I never got the ping for the summons since it was directed @Neemfy and not @attorney general it has only now been brought to my attention. I request a small extension so that I may get our answer to the compliant to thr court
Thank you,
my apologies again,
Your Honor.
 
Even though we are in recess, I will ask. Would the Plaintiff like to go ahead and continue through a full lawsuit or stay with summary judgement?
 
I would like the summary Judgement your honor
 
Alright, the summary judgement will continue then. I'll have a verdict out either tonight or tomorrow night.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Alright, the summary judgement will continue then. I'll have a verdict out either tonight or tomorrow night.
Click to expand...
Motion to reconsider
You Honor,
A verdict on a case of this magnitude, and importance could cause a cascading affect of lawsuits to the common wealth and could set precedent on such matters. It would be unjust for both the common and the citizens the common wealth represents to not thoroughly look through the evidance, concequences, and facts through a trial, all because our office was not pingged. Depriving a case like this of a trial is going to be doing the whole server a disservice.
My appologies for speaking during recess.
Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
I am disappointed in the Department of Legal Affairs to appear within the allotted time. This is the reason as to why the Department was and still is charged with Contempt. Given Neemfy is still the Acting Attorney General they were pinged and thus the Attorney General was pinged. I also pinged the Attorney General role within the Discord summons. There is no excuse for the failure to appear,

Despite this, I will be granting the Motion to Reconsider. The Defendant has 24 hours to provide a Motion to Dismiss or Answer to Complaint.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

ko531
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff is someone who goes on random killing sprees to collect heads for his museum, his case is frivolous as this is the way it has always been done. The plugin logs murders, who started it and even auto jails you if you die while wanted.

2. With the plugin being the way that it is, there is no reason for the murders to have to be proven in court as they are auto logged and some even auto arrested. If we where to allow this case too be ruled in favor of the plaintiff the commonwealth would be bankrupt with refunds of fines and jail time minutes.

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 13th day of November 2023
 
Thank you for your timely response. I will be however rejecting Motion to Dismiss given this is not a case on what the Plaintiff has killed for nor the way the plugin is. This is a case focusing on the legality of the Plaintiff's arrests.

We will now be moving onto Opening Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide one.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

This case is pretty simple. This case is about one thing, The Rule of Law. The Rule of Law states that no one is above the law. No One, including departments and The Commonwealth. The Law clearly stated that Murder was an Indictable Criminal Offense meaning that it must be proven in court. This did not happen. The DOJ disreguarded the law and acted as their own judge, jury and executioner. The DOJ acted above the law while trying to enforce the law which is counterintuitive to say the least.

This is an arguement on whether my arrests were legal which they clearly weren't. The defense will say many things but those many things probably do not matter in this case. Example of things that do not matter:

1. The Intent of the crimes
2. How the plugin works
3. How the DOJ is supposed to/always make murder arrests
4. Whether or not I am gulity of each murder

The only thing that matters is the word of the law and the law stated that Murder was an Indictable Criminal Offense which needs to be proven in court. For the 377 counts of murder I have been convicted of, I did not see one court room.

The defense mentioned in their motion to dismiss that "If we where to allow this case too be ruled in favor of the plaintiff the commonwealth would be bankrupt with refunds of fines and jail time minutes." And to that I say the Commonwealth should have thought about that before disreguarding the law. The problem with the wording of this law was brought up multiple times and each time was ignored until it was too late. So to rule against me would break all faith in government and in the law itself. This belief in the Law comes from the Rule of Law and that no one is above said law so to let the Commonwealth free because of the possibility of backruptcy would be saying that someone is above the law and to that the law holds no power.



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 13th day of November 2023
 
Thank you, the Defendant may present their Opening Statement. They have 72 hours to do so.
 
Your Honor,
May it please the court,
The opposing councel claims that "this case is pretty simple" but, that can't be further then the truth.

This is no ordinary case, and I belive that the complexity of this extrodoinary cricumstance has to be acknowledged. Along with its consequences. In order to fully understand the complexity of this we must look at how it all started. On january 25th 2023 the violent offenses act was amended. During this change the term summary judgement was unintentionally replaced with indictment. While the admendnent itself is inarguable we must scritinize the change in terms of consequence. Changing that one little word may not seem like a big change but that change completly reworks an entire plugin dedicated on charging, tracking, and organizing murder charges. This plug-in is a foundation of our law force here in Redmont and works a long side but independently from the DOJ and police officers.
Changing murder from a summary offense to a indictable offense would nulify this plugin changing its complex use.

According to the constitution a complex change is defined as the following:

'"A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President:
  • Changes to the System of Government.
  • Plugin-related changes.
  • Changes involving significant staff involvement.
  • Creation of new towns/cities/urban establishments.
  • A Rights & Freedoms change."
However, during the passing of this bill no owner aproval was achieved.

This complex change makes the original admendnent an illegal bill meaning that the change between murder being an indictable offense and a summary offense did not occur and the plugin and law should have been and was, followed as it has been since the installment of the plugin.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Thank you, we will now move onto Witnesses, both sides have 72 hours to declare they have witnesses or none.
 
I wish to call Dartanman and Technofied as my Witnesses your honor
 
Can you please provide reasoning as to why you decide to call them?
 
Technofied because he is the DOJ Secretary and Dartanman as Former AG and because of this Screenshot

1700083426674.png
 
Thank you, once the Defendant posts their Witnesses or declares they have none, I will issue summons.
 
Your Honor,
We would like to call LilDigiVert as a witness because he was the one who created the bill in the first place.
 
1700235606604.png

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

@LilDigiVert @Technofied @Dartanman are required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97 as witnesses.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

The Court asks 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 the witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.
(Read the highlighted part thoroughly, as it is often misunderstood)

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, subject to the penalties of perjury.

The Witnesses are to identify themselves in this case thread in the next 72 hours. Failure to comply with this summons may result in being held in Contempt of Court.​
 
I am present, your honor.
 
Alright, would the Plaintiff like for me to Dismiss Technofied or would we rather wait a week for the return of Technofied? This would put the case into recess should we wait for a week until Technofied's return.
 
You may dismiss Technofied, Your Honor
 
Your Honor it has been 72 hours and LilDigiVert has not shown up, can I go ahead and start questioning my witness?
 
LilDigiVert is hereby charged with Contempt of Court and I order the Department of Justice to fine/jail appropriately.

The Plaintiff may start questioning Dartanman.
 
1700517940973.png

Dart According to this screenshot you alerted End, who at the time was a senator, to this problem about Murder not being a summary crime back in july.

1. What was End's response to your report?

2. Were any actions taken to solve this problem to your knowledge because of your report?
 
OBJECTION
Hearsay

Your honor,

I don't care to answer questions which don't meet the standard required to be in this courtroom. Question 1 is asking me what someone else said, which is literally hearsay.
 
As for the second question, I don't think I followed up on it. I'm not privy to the inner workings of Congress.
 
The Objection is Granted the Plaintiff is to rewrite the question or strike the question.
 
Dart

1. Did End respond to your concern?

2. If you never checked up then would you consider it be safe to assume that no major course of action was taken to fix this problem?
 
ko531 said:
Dart

1. Did End respond to your concern?

2. If you never checked up then would you consider it be safe to assume that no major course of action was taken to fix this problem?
Click to expand...
1. Yes

2. Again, I'm not privy to the inner workings of Congress. I'm not in the business of making assumptions.
 
End knew about this problem for his entire 4 month term

All that needed to be fixed was one word

End could have wrote a bill to amend 1 word or at the very least asked someone to write a bill

The problem wasn't even addressed publicly until after End's term

With this information I will ask one more time, Would you consider it a safe thing to assume that no major course of action was taken by End to solve this problem?
 
ko531 said:
End knew about this problem for his entire 4 month term

All that needed to be fixed was one word

End could have wrote a bill to amend 1 word or at the very least asked someone to write a bill

The problem wasn't even addressed publicly until after End's term

With this information I will ask one more time, Would you consider it a safe thing to assume that no major course of action was taken by End to solve this problem?
Click to expand...
Objection
Leading question

Your Honor,

The plaintiff if trying to lead their witness to a specific answer through their question.

Objection
 Asked and answered

Your Honor,
The plaintiff has already asked this question multiple times. They are now searching for a specific question that fits their narrative.

Objection
calls for conclusion

Your Honor
The plaintiff is asking for the witnesses opinion not based on fact.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor

Most of, if not all of, this "question" is just compunded statements not backed by any fact layed down by any foundation inside of this court room and relies on opinion based commentary.

I think its clear that the only reason why the plaintiff is asking this question is to sneak in their own opinions into the comments above. I request that these comments be struck from court.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Last edited:
Answer to Objection
Your Honor this is extremely important to know. Dart during his time as AG reported a problem with the law. It is important to understand if there was any effort by the commonwealth to fix a problem that had been alerted to.

Leading the Witness: The Witness did not answer the question because of Ignorance on the inner workers of congress, I informed them about how the problem could have been fixed and how long End had to fix it and asked the question again.

Asked and Answer: The question was very much not answered as the witness refused to answer stating "I'm not in the business of making assumptions."

Calls for Conclusion: It is extremely important to understand Dart's opinion on whether any action was taken due to his report. Dart by reporting this believe that action need to be taken to fix this problem. By understanding whether Dart felt that the proper actions were taken following his report can shed light onto whether the commonwealth failed to fix the law and allow the DOJ to act outside of said law
 
All Objections and Motion to Strike are overruled the Plaintiff can continue their questioning of Dartanman.
 
ko531 said:
End knew about this problem for his entire 4 month term

All that needed to be fixed was one word

End could have wrote a bill to amend 1 word or at the very least asked someone to write a bill

The problem wasn't even addressed publicly until after End's term

With this information I will ask one more time, Would you consider it a safe thing to assume that no major course of action was taken by End to solve this problem?
Click to expand...
I don't consider it a safe thing to assume something I have minimal knowledge about.
 
Your Honor,

I am done questioning Dart and the commonwealth may cross exame

Due to Dart being Extremely Ignorant and unable to answer some of the questions asked I wish to call End as a Witness to help answer some of those questions left unanswered by Dart
 
ko531 said:
Your Honor,

I am done questioning Dart and the commonwealth may cross exame

Due to Dart being Extremely Ignorant and unable to answer some of the questions asked I wish to call End as a Witness to help answer some of those questions left unanswered by Dart
Click to expand...
objection
Breach of procudure

Witnesses have already been called. Xendevour was not called previously when asked which witnesses the plaintiff wanted to call.
 
Answer to Objection

Your Honor, I didn't plan to call End but after Dart not being able to answer some of the important questions asked I feel End is the next best option. In order for this case to have the best possible verdict it is critical to have and understand all the information including whether the Commonwealth ignore this problem or not.
 
Snowy_Heart said:
objection
Breach of procudure

Witnesses have already been called. Xendevour was not called previously when asked which witnesses the plaintiff wanted to call.
Click to expand...
The Objection will be overruled other cases have had witnesses called one by one rather than all at once. I will issue summons for xEndeavour once I am home.
 
1700620073303.png

@End is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97 as a witness.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

The Court asks 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 the witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.
(Read the highlighted part thoroughly, as it is often misunderstood)

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, subject to the penalties of perjury.

The Witnesses are to identify themselves in this case thread in the next 72 hours. Failure to comply with this summons may result in being held in Contempt of Court.​
 
End

1. What was your response to Dart's concern?

2. Did you take any action to fix the problem?

3. Why wasn't the problem fix within the 4 months you were senator?
 
ko531 said:
2. Did you take any action to fix the problem?

3. Why wasn't the problem fix within the 4 months you were
Click to expand...

Objection
Relevence

Your Honor,
End is not the one on trial here nor is he the one who wrote the law in the first place.
Why he didn't "fix" the law is irrelevant to case at hand further more End, during the time the law was in affect was a senator
Not a representative. Senators are not responsible for ammending or instituting laws, representatives would be.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Answer to Objection
It is extremely important to understand the reasoning behind why 1 word wasnt changed or amended in a 4 month period and see whether there is good reasoning or if it was ignored. Other people can author and write bills besides Representatives including Senators and even Presidents, They must only be proposed by Representatives.

As someone who is a multiple time Senator and Representative, Former President and Former Cheif Justice, End out of all people should understand why this problem needed to be fixed and the process on how to fix it. This makes it very curious how in 4 months this 1 word wasnt amended and that is why this question is so crucial.
 
1. What was your response to Dart's concern?
I'll write a piece of legislation to fix the issue.

2. Did you take any action to fix the problem?
No

3. Why wasn't the problem fix within the 4 months you were senator?
I'm human and forgot. Dart also didn't follow it up.
 
Objection overruled. This is focusing on whether the Commonwealth made an effort to correct the mistake the Plaintiff is arguing. xEndeavour may not be a Representative however they can still write a bill and provide it to a Representative.
 
No further questions Your Honor
 
Alright, the Defense can cross examine both Dartanman and xEndeavour. Please post questions or declare you have none within 72 hours.
 
Your Honor,

May I request a 24 hour extension to my time. Its holiday here in america and Ive been with family and away from my computer with all my notes on it. I just found out I wont get back to my computer until tommarow afternoon.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Extension granted you have until 1:35 PM PST tomorrow to provide an opening statement.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Extension granted you have until 1:35 PM PST tomorrow to provide an opening statement.
Click to expand...
Sorry your Honor,
Just to clarify, you mean to post my cross examination questions correct?
Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Yes, apologies.
 
XEndevour:

During the time that dart brought the criminal code to your attention, were you a senator or representative?

Are representstives or senators in charge of proposing legislation and changes thereof.

why was the murder plugin put into place?

Why is murder a summary offense and not an indictable offense

Dartanman:

Why did you not bring the problems you saw in the criminal code up with house of represntatives?

Why is murder a summary offense and not an indictable offense?
 
1. I did.

2. I don't know.
 
During the time that dart brought the criminal code to your attention, were you a senator or representative?
Senator

Are representstives or senators in charge of proposing legislation and changes thereof.
Representatives propose legislation. Anyone is able to write to their representative and have a bill proposed.

why was the murder plugin put into place?
I don't know, you'll have to ask staff.

Why is murder a summary offense and not an indictable offense
So that they can charge people on the spot.
 
I have no more questions your Honor.
 
Alright, with that being all the Witnesses we will move onto Closing Statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide theirs.
 
This is an open and close case. At the end of the day there was a problem with one word in the law. The Commonwealth knew of this problem that was harming citizens and did nothing to fix it until it was too late. The AG told a Senator and Representative to fix this problem months ago with no avail. It is sickening that the Commonwealth allowed the DOJ to act outside the law and be their own judge jury and executioner when at the time these crimes had to be proven in court.

There are 2 arguements that the Defense may use against my claims and I am going to prove why they are false.

1. The bill was a complex change because it changed the DOJ plugin and needed owner approval
This is wrong because back when this bill was signed there were no auto arrests yet. The only thing the plugin did was let people do /complaint when murdered which would put a wanted point on the murderer and tell the police that a murder has occurded. They should have taken this information and given it to the DLA. Even if we say that this was infact a complex change and rescind the bill for being non law then murder would just not be a crime as that is the only bill making murder a crime. This would make the arrests even worse since the DOJ would be arresting citizens for no crimes.

2. The Punishment was Imposed before the Trial
According to the Standardized Criminal Code Act punishment can be Imposed before the trial if there is a continued threat to player safety. The DOJ never arrested anyone for this reason. They have made thousands of arrests for murder in the 9 months murder was a Indictable Crime and not one person was taken to court for murder. So many of these murder charges can no longer be tried since it has been past 4 months and statute of limitations would prevent it. According to that same act if someone is arrested prior to trial and is found not guilty then they should be awarded $50 per minute in prison and not the $10 I am requesting. This would just be an after the fact justification to try and explain their wrong doings.

The Constitution states that the DOJ has the power to "Maintaining the peace and good order of the server, through lawfully exercising its power equally to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont." The DOJ must abide by the law when maintaing the peace and by arresting people for an indictable offense they were acting unlawfully. Deparments and the Commonwealth need to abide by the law as well as citizens otherwise the faith held in the law is broken. The Commonwealth knew there was a problem with the law and did nothing to fix it. They made their bed and they must now lie in it.

If you do not find in favor of I the plaintiff then you will be setting a precedent that the Commonwealth is above the law. The Commonwealth can willingly ignore problems in the law and in turn harm citizen without any punishments and I must ask the courts today. Is that the Precedent you want to be setting?
 
Thank you, the Defendant has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.
 
Your Honor,

May I have an extension for my closing statements due to irl conflicts.

Thank you,
Your Honor
 
You may have a 24 hour extension. The new deadline with this added is tomorrow at 1 PM PST.
 
Your Honor,
I appologize,
I very very rarely ask for a second extension but due to my attention being split between studying, work, and other personal matters I was not able to complete my closing statements in time. May I request another 24 hours. I promise you they will be done this time.
I appolgize again
Your Honor.
 
Extension granted this is the last extension that will be granted. You have until Monday at 1pm PST to post your Closing Statement.
 
Your Honor,
Opposing counsel.
First off thank you both for your patience during this busy and difficult time of the year.

I implore the court to consider a few facts. The idea of charging every murder is unfeasible and ridiculous. Thats why they put the auto arrest plug in in place. to make an unmanageable system manageable. the error that the plaintiff speaks of was simply a mistake made when copying over the original law. The intent of the law was never to be an indictable offense as shown by the most recent amendment, the murder quick fix act where it claims that "Murder has mistakenly been classified as an indictable offence, it should be a summary offence." there are correct avenues put in place to acknowledge out of date and erroneous bills such as the discord support channel. This copy and pasting error should not fall on the hands of the common wealth. I ask the court to recognize these solutions before setting precedent on the matter. I also ask the court to recognize the consequences for awarding the plaintiff with their requested relief. In doing so will flood the courts with every single murder charge that has ever been actioned.
Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Thank you. We will now be in recess pending a verdict.
 

Verdict



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Commonwealth can only arrest someone for murder via a lawsuit given the law stated Indictable offense.
2. All murder arrests against the Plaintiff are illegal given this fact.
3. The Commonwealth knew of the change and failed to amend the law to fix the error.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. It is not feasible for the Commonwealth to prosecute for every murder committed.
2. The intended method was meant to be summary and was simply an error when changing laws.
3. A Senator is unable to to get the issue amended and fixed due to the proposal needing done by a Representative.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The definition at the time of the lawsuit being published was "Indictable" and not Summary thus all murders that were arrested as summary technically an illegal arrest.
2. Despite the method not being feasible it is still the method that was listed within the law and thus is the way that the murder charges should be done through.
3. There is a bill that was proposed and passed after the the filing of this lawsuit which did amend the law from Indictable to Summary which means all arrests after the passing of the bill can be arrested via the auto plugin.
4. Although a Senator is unable to propose an amendment to fix the issue they can write an amendment and send it to a Representative to have it proposed. This is not unusual and highly common from President's, Senators, Secretaries, etc.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby find in favor of the Plaintiff and order the Department of Justice to expunge all crimes pertaining to murder from ko531's criminal record after the passing of the Violent Offenses Amendment Act. I also order the Department of Justice to refund all fines and compensate for all jail time served after July 6th, 2023 at $50 per minute in accordance with the Standardized Criminal Code Act.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
In accordance with Appeal FCR 97. The Verdict will be adjusted slightly to comply with the acceptance of the Appeal.

For starters, all fines dating back to the signing of the Violent Offenses Act. Along with all jail time served will be compensated at the $50 rate going back to the same date.

The reasoning given for the original time was that, I had asked the Chief Justice during Summary Judgement about whether I could grant relief dating back during Statue of Limitations or back until the signage of the bill. I was told Statue. The reasoning for the expungement going longer is, Expungements are a way to remove your Criminal Record past Statue of Limitations which is also a power awarded to the Federal Court and can be Presided over by Federal Court or Supreme Court.

Acceptance Message of the Appeal for both sides to read should they wish.

Appeal: Accepted - FCR 97 Appeal Request

- Client Name: ko531 - Counsel Name: ko531 - Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plantiff - Reason for the Appeal: First let me state this I DO NOT WANT THE VERDICT OVERTURNED. I believe my prayers of relief werent fully granted. I was returned the fines and compensated for the...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top