Lawsuit: Adjourned Kukkinekko v. FTGWop [2022] FCR 96

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jakovus

Jakovus

Citizen
Jakovus
Jakovus
attorney
Joined
Oct 14, 2021
Messages
36
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Kukkinekko (Represented by Solid Law Firm)
Plaintiff


v.


FTGWop
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


Your honour,

Entirety of the Commonwealth of Redmont, and its institutions, rely on trusting public officials and duty holders to responsibly execute their duties. However, when one knowingly and falsely presents themselves as a public worker or other official, they defraud the person they are holding victim, and the entire Commonwealth. In that light, I am filing this suit to tackle a case of identity fraud.


The Plaintiff, as a Trainee Doctor, sought to receive an evaluation from a Medical Specialist to become a Doctor and to start regularly attending to patients. The Defendant, in a capacity as a Doctor, not a Medical Specialist, wrongfully and misleadingly presented themselves as a Medical Specialist and under no grounds issued a wrongful instruction the Plaintiff can begin to attend to patients as a Doctor. Furthermore, the Defendant tried to extract the payments for medical services from the Plaintiff, claiming the Plaintiff works for them, while in reality they work for the Department of Health.


I. PARTIES
1. Kukkinekko
2. FTGWop


II. FACTS
1. On 28th November, 2022, the Defendant claimed they were a Medical Specialist

2. On 28th November, 2022, the Defendant claimed they can evaluate a Trainee Doctor to the position of a Doctor, furthermore stating their clear intention they will evaluate the Plaintiff to the position of a Doctor

3. According to the official communication of the Department of Health, the Defendant was not, at the time, a Medical Specialist

4. On 4th December, 2022, the Defendant stated the Plaintiff works for them, which is untrue, as both the Defendant and the Plaintiff worked for the Department of Health at the time

5. Complement to the previous fact, the Defendant tried, and failed, to extract money from the Plaintiff given to them for medical services under the justification the Plaintiff works for the Defendant

6. The “White-Collar Crackdown Act” regulates Identity Fraud as “The act of fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else or fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don't”, furthermore stating the circumstance of False Credentials as “The Act of fraudulently misrepresenting yourself or someone else as having a certification, commendation or another type of credential for personal gain.”


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiff was defrauded by the Defendant, the latter falsely presenting themselves as a Medical Specialist, and wrongfully appointing the Plaintiff as a Doctor without holding the authority to execute such an action. The Plaintiff lost revenue they would have accrued working as a Doctor.

2. The Defendant wrongfully presented themselves as an employer of the Plaintiff and tried to extract $1000 and $13 given to the Plaintiff for medical services, respectively, thus breaching the White-Collar Crackdown Act.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $2000 as stipulated in the White-Collar Crackdown Act, for breaching the False Credentials when presenting as a Medical Specialist

2. $2000 as stipulated in the White-Collar Crackdown Act, for breaching the False Credentials when presenting as an employer of the Plaintiff

3. $1600 of losses as a result of the Plaintiff’s inability to work as a Doctor because of the fraud, assuming they play 4 hours a day

4. $750 legal counsel fees


EVIDENCE
Exhibit A: The Defendant wrongfully claims they are a Medical Specialist and defrauds the Plaintiff
prva kopija.png


Exhibit B: The Defendant claims the Plaintiff will be evaluated to the position of a Doctor
druga kopja.png


Exhibit C: The DoH list of Medical Specialists, Defendant is nowhere to be found
lNJCGE8.png


Exhibit D: The Defendant demands $1000 from the Plaintiff
I596r37.png


Exhibit E: The Defendant claims the Plaintiff is their employee and tries to extract $13
3zXAyWw.png


Proof of Consent to Represent:
1670369529345.png


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 6th day of December 2022
 
federal-court-png.12082

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Kukkinekko v. FTGWop [2022] FCR 96. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor 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.​
 
1: I havent done anything wrong the evidence is very weak and nothing he is accusing me off proves that I commited white collar crime

2: also MS doesnt mean Medical specialist MS can stand for alot of other stuff. also the thing with robbery has nothing to do with white collar crime in anyway
3: he is asking for relief in money when he wasnt even affected by anything he accuses me off
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

1. The Defendant failed to provide a regular and formated reply to Plaintiff's complaint, and am for that reason asking the Court to strike the previous comments from the Defendant.

DATED: This 7th day of December 2022
 
I will be denying the motion to strike for the following reason:
While the response wasn't formatted like a typical response that you might see in a court case, there is no set rule on how a response needs to be formatted. The Defendant just needed to respond when he was summoned and he did.

We will be moving on to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good evening, your Honour, counsel of the opposing bench.

I. INTRODUCTION
I will start my opening statement by addressing the causes why this suit was filed, and why there are damages being sought.

The Plaintiff, as can be seen in the provided evidence, sought to be trained and evaluated to the position of a Doctor within the Department of Health. Seeing this, the Defendant knowingly and wrongfully presented themselves as a Medical Specialist, promised the training and evaluation to the position of a Doctor. Despite knowing otherwise, the Defendant never made any attempts at disclaiming their inability to perform promised actions; in other words, the Plaintiff was utterly oblivious to the lies being told by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff believed the Defendant was acting in good faith, which is now clear was not the case. For this, the Plaintiff accuses the Defendant for a breach of the White-Collar Crackdown Act, and is seeking damages stipulated within it.

In the second instance, the Defendant tried to extract sums of money from the Defendant, by claiming, among other things, the Plaintiff is their employee, and as such demanded from the Plaintiff payments earned by attending to patients. After curing a patient and receiving monetary compensation for the done work, the Defendant sought to discredit the Plaintiff and take their money. Suffice to say, the Defendant failed in these aspirations. For this, the Plaintiff accuses the Defendant for a breach of the White-Collar Crackdown Act, and is seeking damages stipulated within it.

Complement to the first paragraph, the Plaintiff lost money they would have otherwise earned working as a Doctor, but lost as a result of fraud by the Defendant. Damages are sought here as well, $1.6k, were the Plaintiff to work 4 hours per day.

II. RESPONSE TO DEFENCE'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Concerning Defence's first statement: "I havent done anything wrong the evidence is very weak and nothing he is accusing me off proves that I commited white collar crime"

The Plaintiff unequivocally rejects the questioning of the strength of the evidence, as it clearly incriminates the Defendant and shows the extent of the fraud committed by the Defendant. Plaintiff's accusations are based purely and soley on the provided evidence, and the evidence clearly shows breaches of the White-Collar Crackdown Act.

2. Concerning Defence's second statement: "also MS doesnt mean Medical specialist MS can stand for alot of other stuff. also the thing with robbery has nothing to do with white collar crime in anyway"

Firstly, MS is an official designation as an acronym, standing for Medical Specialist. Furthermore, the setting in which the Defendant used the acronym, responding to a request for an evaluation from a Trainee Doctor, it is clearly visible the letters MS indicated the Defendant is claiming they are a Medical Specialist and are holding the authority to evaluate the Plaintiff to the position of a Doctor. The Plaintiff asks the Defendant to elaborate further on what other terms MS can stand for.

When saying robbery has nothing to do with white-collar crime, that is true, but this was not a robbery, as it failed, and no party was damaged for assets. This was using False Credentials, furthermore trying to set them in stone by announcing on a public forum (the general chat) the Plaintiff is the Defendant's employee, for the Defendant's monetary benefit. Thus, this is a case of White-Collar Crime.

3. Concerning Defence's third statemet: "he is asking for relief in money when he wasnt even affected by anything he accuses me off"

Categorically wrong. The Plaintiff was affected in many ways by the illegal behaviour of the Defendant, some of which have already been explained. Aformentioned earnings the Plaintiff would have accrued working as a Doctor, were it not for the Defendant's fraud, the discreditation of my client by proclaiming they work for the Defendant. Everything the Defendant is accused of stands, and damages are also sought from breaches of the White-Collar Crackdown Act.

III. SUMMARY
Summa summarum, the Defendant acted in bad faith, and they tried to further only their self-interests. The evidence is very clear, the Defence tried to extract money from the Plaintiff in a very distasteful way, furthermore, the Defendant without any remorse tried to defraud the Plaintiff by presenting as someone they were not. It is toxic to the State and its structure for an individual to be lying about their qualification, because in doing so they are discrediting all of the individuals who worked to get their qualifications and who are acting in good faith.

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 8th day of December 2022.
 
Thank you to the plaintiff for their opening statement. The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

the plaintiff as seen provided very bad evidence also I find it very weird that they want damages from when I where allegedly robbing another player. I mean even if I where robbing another player which I didnt that still dont make any damages for the plaintiff also It exist no evidence of me saying I where a medical specialist. I think that this case is politically motivated

II. Response to plaintiffs complaint
1. yes I do reject the strength of the so called evidence because I know this case is politically motivated and the evidence doesnt prove anything and this is not fraud. You are saying that I commited fraud which is slander in itself fraud is when you are earning money I didnt earn money and I didnt get any money from Kukkineko so its not fraud

2. You are claiming that MS stands for the same thing for everybody which shows that you dont know what you are talking about

3. Again you claim I did fraud its not fraud If I dont make any money you can also see that I wherent out for any money the picture where I allegedly tried to rob somebody is not the same thing as fraud if you think fraud and robbery is the same thing then you are wrong. and the plaintiff wherent effected by me robbing somebody else

III. SUMMARY
the plaintiff is acting in bad faith by suing somebody only for political reasons this is an attack on our democracy he is trying to sue me because he didnt like me as a politican this is attacking freedom of speech in a democracy you should not get sued for being a politican and I hope you can realize that this case and the evidence is very weak.
 
We will now move onto witnesses. Both parties have 48 hours to give their list of witnesses, or state that they have none.
 
OBJECTION
PERJURY

FTGWop said:
I find it very weird that they want damages from when I where allegedly robbing another player.
Click to expand...
Your honour,
In the provided extract, it is visible the Defendant is claiming they were allegedly robbing another player, and that the Plaintiff was not the target of their speech nor fraud. The evidence clearly shows the player in question, and the one their language is directed at, is the Plaintiff. The Defendant has for this reason perjured themselves.
 
I want to summon HingedMoon as my sole witness.
 
federal-court-png.12082

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

@HingedMoon is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Kukkinekko v. FTGWop [2022] FCR 96 as a witness.

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 question both witnesses. The Defendant will then have a chance to cross-examine both 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​
 
QUESTIONS

To HingedMoon:
1. Did the Defendant, FTGWop, try to extract a sum of $1,000 from the Plaintiff, Kukkinekko?

2. Has the Defendant acted professionally and in line with their position as a Doctor when treating you/others?

3. Did the Defendant use arms to persuade you to leave the Hospital ground?

4. Did the Defendant, in the past, also presented themselves wrongfully to you?
 
Jakovus said:
QUESTIONS

To HingedMoon:
1. Did the Defendant, FTGWop, try to extract a sum of $1,000 from the Plaintiff, Kukkinekko?

2. Has the Defendant acted professionally and in line with their position as a Doctor when treating you/others?

3. Did the Defendant use arms to persuade you to leave the Hospital ground?

4. Did the Defendant, in the past, also presented themselves wrongfully to you?
Click to expand...
1. I sincerely don't know anything about this affirmation

2. The defendant didn't show any acts of professionalism at all

3. Indeed, the defendant FTGWop held me at gun point while asking me in a rude manner to leave the hospital

4. Yes, he did try to do multiple acts of Fraudulence/wrongful represantations , thinking that he could manipulate me that easily.
 
Thank you to the Plaintiff and the witness for posting and answering the questions the Defendant has 48 hours to cross-examine the witness.

I hereby charge HingedMoon with one count of contempt of court and order the DOJ to fine/jail him appropriately.
 
Your honour, will the Court make a ruling on my objection soon?
 
I will be rejecting the objection for perjury as the Defendant's statement was not an intentional false statement, but rather a statement expressing his confusion about a certain aspect of the case that he thought was true.
 
to hingedmoon
1: both you and me know that I didnt try to take 1k from Kukkineko if you look at the evidence when I said pay me 1k you where the one I where talking to. so In that case kukkineko is not the victim since you where the one getting robbed.

2: can you pls explain how I didnt show any professionalism

3: yes I did hold you at gun point since you where the one I tried to get 1k from

4: trying to rob somebody is not the same thing as doing fraud.
 
To FTGWOP

1.As I said I am not really sure when it comes to this statement, so I don't know who is the one that's lying here.
2. Threatening someone with a gun does not show any professionalism whatsoever, especially in an institution.
3.A doctor is supposed to help a patient, not rob him
That automatically breaks the law.
4. You just confessed to a federal crime, +you tried manipulating me into helping you win this case.
 
To HingedMoon
1. well you can always go up and check the evidence
2. when I threatened you with the gun it wasnt under my duty as a doctor since I wherent the one attending you
3. again in this case I wherent the one attending you so you wherent my patient
4 I didnt confess to a federal crime and I didnt try to manipulate you I just said that robbing somebody and fraud is not the same thing
 
FTGWop, this was your time to question the witness, not argue with them and prove your innocence to them. In your 8 statements, you have provided 1 question. Everything that you have said with the exception of question #2 from your first post will be stricken from the record. Furthermore I hereby find FTGWop in contempt of court and order the DOJ to fine/jail him appropriately.

We will now move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honour, counsel of the opposing bench.

I. Recapitulation of the charges
I have, as the Plaintiff's representative, stressed enough already the seriousness of the crimes committed by the Defendant. They have:
a) Recklessly and knowingly lied to the Plaintiff about their authority and qualification, depriving him of the ability to work as a Doctor
b) Openly and falsely presented themselves as the employer of the Plaintiff, thus committing identity fraud, and under that veil tried to extract money from the Plaintiff for the medical services the Plaintiff performed

The Defendant has done this knowingly, with only their pocket on their mind. It is regrettable knowing a qualified Doctor in Redmont is capable of such crimes, and executing them in such a manner. Imagine all other medical workers, trying to become Doctors, only to encounter this conduct by someone they were told to trust. I know that would put me off instantly. To evade these types of frauds in the future, and to make sure the Defendant never again dares use their position to continue engaging in these malicious practices, I urge the Court to find in favour of the Plaintiff.

II. Recapitulation of the trial
During the course of this trial, I have been able to witness how the Defendant acts in this courtroom, and the way they present their defence. I have, for a lack of a better term, been flabbergasted.

1. The Defendant has, contrary to accepted courtroom practice, posted an incomplete answer to the Plaintiff's complaint. While that is not in any way unallowed, it was greatly unprofessional and unhelpful from their side. I have not been able to find out what facts do they agree with/dispute, how do they want to proceed with this case, nor what do they find most contentious. I greatly condemn this behaviour.

2. The Defendant has, instead of properly engaging in a cross-examination of a witness, started bickering and arguing with the witness, furthermore failing to ask proper questions. They have shown no respect to the witness, or this Court, and that is why I deem their behaviour as such.

The Defendant also did not show any remorse for their actions throughout this trial, which is why I see them unfavourably. In spite of the evidence clearly showing otherwise, the Defendant never tried to rationally apologise or even recognise their possible faults.

III. Conclusion
For everything I have stated above, and more, I reinforce the Plaintiff's charges, state the Defendant is guilty of these crimes, and believe this Court will accordingly punish the Defendant. I hope the Court will recognise the Plaintiff's claims and make the right ruling, one in favour of the Plaintiff.

I thank the Court and the Defendant for their time.
 
Thank you to the Plaintiff, the Defendant now has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
This case should be dismissed since the evidence is very weak also if you look at the picture where I demand 1k you can clearly see that it is hingedmoon I am speaking too. the plaintiff has shown no respect to the real victim who got robbed instead the plaintiff is trying to use this case as a opportunity to earn money. the only crime I did commit where that I where holding guns in a safe zone.

I didnt argue with the witness I where asking him more questions and therefor I where in no way disrespectful to the witness but to be honest the witness where the real victim since he where the one getting robbed so it is disrespect from the plaintiffs side. Also the last evidence show Hinged paying 13 dollars to Kukki but when I demanded from Kukki I where demanding 13 dollars not 1k so that he is trying to get damages from a crime where he wasnt affected is very disrespectful towards the real victim.

Also I did say he is working for me but I never said who I refered too also if you look at the evidence he only shows me saying He is working for me but he isnt showing the chat over it which means he possibly has something to hide that wouldnt benefit him in this case. This court should be dismissed due to evidence that are very misleading.
 
Your honour, may I deliver a rebuttal to the motion to dismiss?
 
@FTGWop was that a motion to dismiss or your closing statement? (You have 24 hours to answer)
 
Jakovus said:
Your honour, may I deliver a rebuttal to the motion to dismiss?
Click to expand...
Because FTGWop considered that his closing statement and not a motion to dismiss, you are not able to post a rebuttal. This also means that I will not rule on whether to dismiss the case or not, but rather post a verdict within a couple days.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Kukkinekko v. FTGWop [2022] FCR 96

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant committed fraud by presenting himself as a medical specialist despite not being one.
2. He demanded the Plaintiff pay him the $13 that he got from treating a patient, and then demanded $1,000 on top of that.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The evidence is weak, and it's a politically motivated case.
2. As for the fraud, he never mentioned a person when he said "You work for me," and MS could stand for many things, not just Medical Specialist.
3. It's not fraud since the Defendant didn't make any money off of the Plaintiff.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Firstly whether or not the Defendant successfully extracts money from the Plaintiff, it doesn't affect whether the Defendant committed fraud or not.
2. While the Defendant didn't say what MS stood for, and didn't mention a person when he said "You work for me," he was clearly talking to the Plaintiff, and it was or should have been implied by both parties because of the context of the conversation.
3. While fraud comes with a wide range of possible penalties, these are penalties for a criminal case, however the White-Collar Crack down act does state that the person who committed fraud is responsible to pay punitive damages and compensation to the defrauded party which is the Plaintiff.
4. When it comes to the Defendant asking for $1,000, it appears he is asking for it from the patient, HingedMoon, and not the Plaintiff. For that reason I will be dismissing that specific part of the claim and prayer for relief.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff, and order the DOJ to fine FTGWop $1,763, and unfine Kukkinekko the same amount.
2. Because this was a civil case and not a criminal case, the Defendant can't be punished with all of the fines for fraud or jail time, but can only be punished for compensation to the defrauded party.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top