Lawsuit: Adjourned nnmc v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 15

[Courts]

APPEALED CASE

Original Case: nnmc v. Department of Justice [Case No. 07-2021-06-01]
Appeal Link: Case No. 07-2021-06-01 - Appeal Request

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


nnmc
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. nnmc (Plaintiff)
2. Deekade1004 (Trainee Officer accused of misconduct)
3. MoyUwU (Witness)
4. CoCoLocoDog (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. CoCoLocoDog began to randomly assault and murder citizens on the roundabout that is just outside the spawn zone. This could only be described as a rampage.
2. There were 3 people killed in CoCoLocoDog's rampage. Those 3 people are MoyUwU, Trainee Officer Deekade1004, and nnmc (myself, the plaintiff).
3. Trainee Officer Deekade1004 was one of the people killed by CoCoLocoDog. Additionally, Deekade1004 witnessed the murders of MoyUwU and nnmc (myself, the plaintiff). Thus, nnmc (myself, the plaintiff) requested that Deekade1004 arrest CoCoLocoDog. This was because the Trainee Officer had witnessed the crimes of assault, if not murder, being committed against nnmc and MoyUwU; the Trainee Officer was also a victim themself of the crime of assault, if not murder. This should have been sufficient reason for the Trainee Officer to arrest & jail CoCoLocoDog for committing assault, if not murder, multiple times.
4. However, the Trainee Officer did not arrest & jail CoCoLocoDog. Instead, the Trainee Officer issued a verbal warning to CoCoLocoDog.
5. CoCoLocoDog then took advantage of the Trainee Officer's failure to enforce the law & maintain order; CoCoLocoDog left the server to evade justice.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Law 15.18, established by the "Protection of the Public Act", is about the crime of police misconduct. This law states that a police officer is guilty of the crime of police misconduct, if the officer issues "punishments that conflict with the punishments specifically outlined" by the law. This crime is punishable by "a fine of at least $500 and at most $10,000".
2. Laws 13.1, 13.4, and 13.5 are about the crimes of assault, attempted murder, and murder, respectively. CoCoLocoDog murdered multiple people and could plausibly be charged with murder, but at the very very least, CoCoLocoDog should be charged with assault. Even in the situation where CoCoLocoDog is charged with assault (the least serious crime of the bunch), Law 13.1 says that assault, even on the first offense, should be punished with a fine of $20 and 5 minutes of jail time. Law 13.1, and especially Laws 13.4 and 13.5, do not allow a verbal warning as sufficient punishment.
3. Trainee Officer Deekade1004 violated Law 15.18 and committed the crime of police misconduct. This is because the Trainee Officer issued to CoCoLocoDog the punishment of a verbal warning. That issued punishment conflicts with the punishments for assault, attempted murder, and/or murder as specifically outlined by Laws 13.1, 13.4, and 13.5.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Trainee Officer Deekade1004 committed police misconduct in a particularly outrageous way. There were multiple murders and assaults just steps away from the spawn area, witnessed by the Trainee Officer, and the Trainee Officer themself was a victim of the murders and assaults. Despite the highly brazen and very public nature of the murders and assaults, the Trainee Officer failed to issue the punishment specifically outlined by the law. That is very damaging to the rule of law, very damaging to the peace & stability of Redmont, will embolden other brazen criminals, and it creates the worrying perception that 3 people being murdered in public is no big deal.
2. Thus, I am seeking the maximum punishment that is allowed by Law 15.18 and that can be provided by a civil case: I am seeking $10,000, to be paid by the DOJ.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
Evidence1.png shows CoCoLocoDog aiming his weapon at an unknown citizen.
Evidence2.png shows nnmc (myself, the plaintiff) being killed by CoCoLocoDog.
Evidence3.png shows CoCoLocoDog aiming his weapon. In the chat at the bottom left, MoyUwU states that they have been killed (by CoCoLocoDog).
Evidence4.png shows CoCoLocoDog aiming his weapon at Trainee Officer Deekade1004.
Evidence5.png shows a conversation in chat between nnmc (myself the plaintiff) and Trainee Officer Deekade1004. In this conversation, it is seen that Deekade1004 issues a verbal warning ("stop the killing please "), which conflicts with the necessary punishment for CoCoLocoDog's crimes specifically outlined by the law. This verbal warning also implies and confirms that the Trainee Officer witnessed the assaults and murders, which is proof of CoCoLocoDog's crimes, but the Trainee Officer acts oblivious to that when he says that "do you have proof?"
NOTE: I may be able to provide the court with further evidence soon. In the chaos of the events of the rampage, I was unable to screenshot all of the evidence. So I am currently in the process of obtaining chat logs from server staff that are dated just after the chat in Evidence5.png. If I obtain these chat logs, I will present them to the court.


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 July 2021

 

[Westray]

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

As an appeal has been granted to the case that was heard in the Federal Court on July 6, this case has hereby been brought to the Supreme Court.

The Plaintiff and Defendant are required to appear before the court in the appealed case of nnmc v. Department of Justice. Failure to appear within 72 hours, or this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.​

 

[nnmc]

I am present. I’d also like to remind the court and the defendant that my evidence for this case can be found in the original thread of this case on the Federal Court subforum. My evidence includes 6 .png files.

 

[GoodMorning9]

Your Honor,
Due to the recent change in the office of the attorney general, I would like to request an additional 48 hours to respond to this case

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor,
GoodMorning9 was the state prosecutor who requested this appeal (during the tenure of the previous AG SumoMC), and is also the state prosecutor who is leading the defendant’s case here. I see little to no direct involvement in this case by the Attorney General themself, so consequently I don’t see how a change in the AG should require such a long delay. I believe a more appropriate extension would be 24 hours.

 

[GoodMorning9]

Your honor,
As the head of the office of the attorney general, the attorney general oversees and assigns all cases in which the government is prosecuting or defending itself. Each attorney general has their own opinions on how a case should be handled, it is only fair to allow the attorney general to submit their input on this case. A full 48 hour extension is fair.

 

[Westray]

I appreciate the points raised by both parties.


The matter is that this case was originally considered without fully hearing both arguments. Therefore I find it extant that an adequate amount of time is provided to effectively ensure a proper defence is made.

An extension of 48 hours has been granted. Please respond promptly after that, especially given the Defendant remains the one who filed the appeal.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, the 48 hour extension has elapsed. I ask that the defendant quickly provide their response to the case. Otherwise, the court should move on without it.

 

[GoodMorning9]

Your honor,
the 48 hours was an extension of the original 72 and has not expired yet

 

[Westray]

The Defendant was summoned on Saturday July 24 at 1:36am EST.

The original 72 hours elapsed on Tuesday July 27. This means the additional 48 hours will elapse on July 29.

The Plaintiff has brought up a reasonable point about prolonging this case, so the court would ask the Defendant to ensure they respond by the agreed upon date of tomorrow.

 

[GoodMorning9]

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

nnmc
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiffs claimed they need compensation for this case, however they never showed why they need so much money due to a single death
2. The plaintiffs never showed any evidence, other then a claim by MoyUwU, that MoyUwU was actually killed and therefore MoyUwU should not recieve compensation nor be listed as a party in this case
3. The plaintiff never showed evidence of filing a DoJ ticket, which would have been proper procedure in this case.
4. According to the protection of the public act compensation for police misconduct should be, " fine of at least $500 and at most $10,000, jail time of at most 30 minutes, and the offending officer may be stripped of their officer position and be temporarily or permanently barred from serving as an officer in the future, at the court’s discretion." This is clearly meant to punish the officer not the department because jail time is mentioned and a department cannot be jailed
5. The plaintiffs asked for the maximum fine, despite not showing any reasoning why this even harmed them financially whatsoever, they are clearly just trying to use the court as a means of making money.
6. The judge in the original case should have asked questions of this claim, because clearly there are issues with this
7. In conclusion, the plaintiffs did not provide any evidence showing that they deserve maximum compensation, or really any compensation at all, the original court case was slightly mismanaged, and the plaintiffs are trying to use the court as a means of making money instead of bringing justice. For those reasons, this case should be dismissed in favor of the defendant.

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 28th day of July

 

[nnmc]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

This motion to dismiss is utterly ridiculous and should NOT be granted. The motion does not assert any valid reason to dismiss the case. I will respond to each point.


Apologies for any spelling or grammar errors; I am typing this from my phone.

In response to point 1, the compensation is for the emotional stress of the police doing nothing to arrest the rampage perpetrator, of which I was a victim. The compensation is meant to be highly punitive because the DoJ problematically employed an officer who unjustifiably issued a verbal warning for mass murder. Regardless, I don’t see how lack of justification for compensation is a reason to dismiss. It’s not an inaccuracy or frivolity. The court could always choose to grant in the verdict a lesser amount of money if they so wished.

In response to point 2, first of all, I am not even responsible for MoyUwU winning damages in this case. When the Federal Court judge issued the verdict, the judge unilaterally decided to grant damages to MoyUwU even though I did not ask for that. Second of all, the defendant is alleging lack of evidence and trying to use that to dismiss the case. Lack of evidence is not a valid reason for dismissal.

In response to point 3, the lack of evidence of me opening a DoJ ticket is not a reason to dismiss. This is because lack of evidence is never a reason to dismiss. In fact, I did open a ticket with the DoJ and they did not help appropriately. I will provide evidence of this during the evidence/witness testimony stage of the trial.

In response to Point 4: This makes absolutely no sense, because it is a rule of the courts that when you are suing for police misconduct, the defendant should be the DoJ and not the individual police officer. Thus, the DoJ as the defendant is to be punished, and the way to punish the DoJ as the defendant is with a monetary fine. Of course you can't imprison a department, but the DoJ still needs to be punished with the fine because they are responsible for employing a bad officer and (per the court's rules) the DoJ is the defendant in any case against a police officer. It appears that the defendant is misinterpreting the punishments for police misconduct. The correct punishments are: any fine is to be paid by the DoJ, and any jail time and/or being fired from the job is the punishment for the individual officer. This is backed up by precedent such as nnmc v. Department of Justice. This is also backed up by basic logic: most police officers can't afford a $10k fine so it doesn't really make sense for officers to pay the fines. Furthermore, if an officer commits misconduct, it makes logical sense for the DoJ to be punished with the fine for employing a bad officer. There is no inaccuracy when it comes to who should be the defendant in this case, so there is no reason here to dismiss the case.

Defendant’s Point 5 is basically the same as Point 1. so my response to Point 5 will be the same as Point 1, please re-read the point 1 response.

in response to point 6, this is definitely not a reason to dismiss. You can’t blame a lower court judge and use it as an excuse for a dismissal in the appeal in the higher court. Also, if the DoJ really wanted to question my claims in that lower court, they should have actually responded to the federal court judge’s summons.

In response to point 7, lack of evidence is not a reason to dismiss, any mismanagement was on the part of the DoJ for failing to respond to summons, and my case is not frivolous. It is in fact a pursuit of justice. The DoJ should be punished for employing an ineffective officer and their poor actions during and after that murder rampa

 

[Westray]

As mentioned in prior appealed cases, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear this case and we will hear this case in full. The motion to dismiss has not alleged any frivolous or inaccuracies in the case, but instead presented a defence. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is hereby rejected.

We will proceed with the court procedure accordingly, starting with opening statements. These opening statements can act as rebuttals to the initial motion / response to motion if appropriate. The Defendant is hereby asked to present their opening statement first. Thank you.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, it has been more than 48 hours since you asked for the defendant’s opening statement, and the defendant has not said anything at all. I’d like the court to set a deadline for the defendant’s opening statement.

 

[Westray]

@GoodMorning9 understanding your involvement in two ongoing Supreme Court cases I continue to allow a more permissive timeline, while also recognizing the importance of continuing this case in a timely manner. Therefore I am setting a deadline of 48 hours for you to respond with your opening statement or we will proceed without it. Thank you.

 

[GoodMorning9]

Your honor,
I am having technical issues and I cannot login to discord. It is possible the attorney general will have to take over this case if these issues persist. I will keep the court updated.

 

[GoodMorning9]

Your honor,
My technical issues have persisted. I request a 72 hour extension as everything should be functioning by then. If the court prefers instead that the attorney general take over this case, I request 36 hours for them to be able to file an opening statement.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, in the interest of moving these proceedings along at an appropriate speed, I believe the Attorney General should take over this case.

 

[GoodMorning9]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

The plaintiff mentioned that the requested compensation is for emotional stress, however, emotional stress is not a reason to request the maximum punishment. The court should not set the precedent that the maximum punishment for alleged police misconduct, which should be reserved for intentional misconduct involving large crimes, can simply be given if someone claims "emotional distress". The plaintiff is correct that they did not ask that MoyUwU be awarded compensation, and we believe that since they were simply a witness in this case and there is no significant evidence they were financially harmed, they should not receive any compensation in this case. We would also like to urge the plaintiff to please provide evidence of them filing a DoJ ticket. The fourth point in their motion to dismiss response is unreasonable. They mention that according to the court rules the DoJ should be a defendant, yet they never actually mention what rule or precedent this follows. Then they say that most officers cannot afford a $10k fine, this is why that maximum punishment should be strictly reserved for major incidents. Such as taking bribes, helping with organized crime, etc. The protection of the public act specifies fines and jail time as a punishment. Because the punishments are grouped together in the law, they should be interpreted to be intended to punish the same entity. Because a department cannot be jailed, this entity should be the officer in question. The plaintiff also used this original case in federal court as precedent. It is unfair for this case to be referred to as precedent, because then appeals could never be won in court. In conclusion, the plaintiffs misinterpreted the law, have presented a lack of evidence, are asking for an unreasonable amount of money, are unfairly referencing this case as precedent, and are trying to set the precedent that emotional distress warrants the maximum punishment for alleged police misconduct. For these reasons, the defendant should win this case.

 

[nnmc]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT

First of all, I apologize for any spelling or grammar errors. This is being written from my phone.

I see in the defendant’s opening statement a few instances where they ask me to produce evidence to prove my claims. I will happily do so. The defendant asked for proof of my DoJ ticket. I am attaching 2 screenshots of the ticket. As the screenshots show, the DoJ refused in this ticket to take proper action and they told me that all they could do was charge CoCoLocoDog with assault despite the proof of murder. This was eventually remedied by the Federal Court judge’s verdict in the original case, where I was awarded $5000 for my troubles and the judge ordered CoCoLocoDog to be arrested for murder. It is essential that the Supreme Court allows the Federal Court verdict to stand because it properly punished CoCoLocoDog and it compensated me fairly for the troubles caused by the DoJ’s incompetence at every stage of this situation.

The defendant also asked for proof that the court requires me to sue the DoJ and not the individual officer. I am attaching a screenshot of the info page titled “Creating a Lawsuit in the Supreme Court”. This screenshot includes text at the bottom that clearly shows that I am supposed to sue the DoJ for police misconduct. The info pages about how to create a lawsuit in the District and Federal Court also say the same thing.

The defendant throughout this appeal is trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the prayers for relief I was awarded in the Federal Court verdict. The defendant’s opening statement makes claims that emotional stress is not a reason for the maximum punishment, and only corruption and ties to organized crime are reasons for maximum punishment. But the defendant is not providing any laws, precedents, or rules that support those made up claims; if the defendant has any actual proof for these claims, then the defendant should present it. Otherwise, the court should ignore those unsubstantiated claims.

In the verdict of the original case, the Federal Court did right by me and gave me compensation for the ineptitude of the officer at the scene and the continued ineptitude when I opened a ticket and the DoJ still refused to press murder charges. The court should look at the screenshots I posted in the original case, where the officer on scene literally admits to being one of the murder victims, and the screenshots show plenty of murders. It is obvious that mass murder took place and it is equally obvious that the officer and the DoJ at large failed their duties. I ask that the Supreme Court uphold the lower court’s verdict, which rightfully punishes both the officer and the DoJ for both of their incompetence.

Lastly, I don’t know how many times the defendant wants to claim that I am misinterpreting Law 15.18 but that claim is wrong every single time. The law as written says that punishments inconsistent with the law are a crime. As the law is written, It doesn’t matter whether it is too much punishment or too little punishment; either way, the punishment is inconsistent and it is a crime.

 

[Westray]

The court would like to thank both parties for the arguments they have presented here thus far.

Was there any witness testimony or additional evidence that either party wished to present before we proceed to closing statements?

 

[GoodMorning9]

Your honor,
The defendant will not be calling any witnesses nor presenting any additional evidence at this time.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor,
I would like to summon MoyUwU. This player was one of the people murdered by CoCoLocoDog.

 

[Westray]

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

@MoyUwU is hereby summoned to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 07-2021-06-01 as a witness. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.

I would ask that the plaintiff provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness 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. When the plaintiff is ready, they may post questions to the witness.

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 of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses of the plaintiff have been questioned, the defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine.
​

 

[Moyfr]

Your Honor,
I am here as summoned to the court through the judicial process. I have gone through the case and familiarized myself with the situation. As a witness I am open to any questions any party may have for me, under the oath of god, I shall answer all questions honestly. Thank you all for your time.

 

[nnmc]

Questions for MoyUwU:

1) Were you murdered by CoCoLocoDog?

2) Did the police officer on the scene at spawn, Deekade1004, arrest CoCoLocoDog if you were murdered by CoCoLocoDog?

 

[Moyfr]

Questions for MoyUwU:

1) Were you murdered by CoCoLocoDog?

2) Did the police officer on the scene at spawn, Deekade1004, arrest CoCoLocoDog if you were murdered by CoCoLocoDog?

1) Yes I was murdered by CoCoLocoDog at spawn.

2) I cannot quite recall if they were arrested right after my death, but I am almost certain it was within a small period of time following the murder itself. Again this was almost over a month ago so my mind is not all there as far as this incident is concerned.

Thank you for your questions.

 

[Westray]

Does the Plaintiff have any further questions for the witness before we proceed to cross-examination?

 

[nnmc]

Further question for MoyUwU:

3) Your response to my 2nd question does not suggest you are certain about your answer. Do the screenshots I am attaching (specifically the chat messages in these pictures) to this post jog any memories or clarify your answer in regards to Question 2?

 

[Moyfr]

Further question for MoyUwU:

3) Your response to my 2nd question does not suggest you are certain about your answer. Do the screenshots I am attaching (specifically the chat messages in these pictures) to this post jog any memories or clarify your answer in regards to Question 2?

3) I remember there being an argument about whether or not there was valid evidence for it. I can confirm that the officer did forward the incident to DOJ tickets, but I do not believe I saw an official arrest made on the murderer. After this I was not informed or told anymore information regarding the case so that is all I know. I assumed that it had been taken care of as far as an arrest but I am not certain, so I did not see or witness CocoLocoDog get arrested for their crime.

 

[nnmc]

Thank you, no further questions.

 

[Westray]

The Defendant may now cross-examine the witness if they wish to do so.

 

[GoodMorning9]

Your Honor,
I have no questions for the plaintiffs witness

 

[Westray]

That concludes witness testimony. Was there any additional evidence that either party wished to present before we proceed to closing statements?

 

[nnmc]

No, Your Honor.

 

[GoodMorning9]

Your honor,
The attorney general asked secretary of Justice Elaina to explain why CocoLocoDog was not arrested for alleged murder, A screenshot of the conversation is below:

We are now ready to procede to closing statments.

 

[nnmc]

Objection!

This conversation with the Justice Secretary is just hearsay, and it should be ignored by the court. The defendant should have included the Justice Secretary in witness testimony and given me the opportunity to cross-examine the Justice Secretary.

 

[GoodMorning9]

Your honor,
The Secretary of Justice approved the use of that evidence as an affidavit, and since they did not make those comments until the court said witness testimony had concluded, we were not aware they wished to testify.

 

[nnmc]

The Secretary of Justice does not decide whether or not it’s valid evidence; the presiding Chief Justice will decide that. Your Honor, no matter whether the defendant calls it testimony, an affidavit, or something else, the fact is that this is just hearsay that should have been provided during the official testimony phase of this trial, which allows me my right to cross-examine.

and since they did not make those comments until the court said witness testimony had concluded, we were not aware they wished to testify.

This is a poor excuse. The defendant should have done a better job of obtaining witnesses and testimony at the appropriate time. Now it is too late.

 

[Westray]

I believe that the argument of the Plaintiff has the most merit in this instance, given that this written testimony by the Justice Secretary was presented without providing the opposing counsel the opportunity to cross-examine and question the remarks made in such statement.

Fortunately, I have determined a compromise on the matter, which will be to summon the Justice Secretary to this case in order to allow the Plaintiff to properly cross-examine and evaluate the remarks that were made in such statement.

In the future I would advise the Defendant's counsel to ensure they are not presenting opinionated affidavits after witness testimony was supposed to conclude.

 

[Westray]

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

@ElainaThomas29 is hereby summoned to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 07-2021-06-01 as a witness. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the plaintiff.

I would ask that the plaintiff provides a list of all the questions they want answered by the witness 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. When the plaintiff is ready, they may post questions to the witness.

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 of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses of the plaintiff have been questioned, the defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine.
​

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, to clarify, the defendant will be re-questioning the Justice Secretary here and then I can cross-examine. Or are we skipping straight ahead to cross examination?

 

[Westray]

Your Honor, to clarify, the defendant will be re-questioning the Justice Secretary here and then I can cross-examine. Or are we skipping straight ahead to cross examination?

You will be given the opportunity to cross examine first, given that the Justice Secretary has already provided their remarks for the Defendant's case in the written testimony.

 

[ElainaThomas29]

Your Honor,
I am in attendance and have familiarized myself with this case. I am prepared to answer all questions honestly and truthfully.

 

[nnmc]

1. Isn’t it true that witness testimony is an acceptable form of evidence in a court of law?
2. Do police officers, under DoJ policy and the law, need merely probable cause to arrest someone, or do they need absolute certainty beyond a reasonable doubt?
3. Isn’t it true that when the incident in question took place in early July 2021, the DoJ did not have any investigators who could have helped in this scenario?
4. Since you mentioned that screenshots are needed and that the word of police officers isn’t good enough, why didn’t your officer take screenshots when he was killed and when he saw others being killed?

 

[ElainaThomas29]

1. Isn’t it true that witness testimony is an acceptable form of evidence in a court of law?
2. Do police officers, under DoJ policy and the law, need merely probable cause to arrest someone, or do they need absolute certainty beyond a reasonable doubt?
3. Isn’t it true that when the incident in question took place in early July 2021, the DoJ did not have any investigators who could have helped in this scenario?
4. Since you mentioned that screenshots are needed and that the word of police officers isn’t good enough, why didn’t your officer take screenshots when he was killed and when he saw others being killed?

1. At the time of this incident, and in general, witness testimony is not a commonly acceptable form of evidence within the DoJ. This is due to the Department relying on concrete evidence in the form of screenshots. Unfortunately, when someone kills others with a bow, no coroner report is produced and therefore no concrete evidence is available. This is something that existed prior to my time as DoJ Secretary, and I therefore don’t really have an answer as to why this was. This is why since my time as Secretary I have implemented the Investigator system which went into effect on July 23rd.

2. There is nothing that codifies restrictions on when someone can or cannot be arrested. However, the DoJ does not arrest anyone based on probable cause.

3. That is correct. The investigator program was implemented on July 23rd, 2021.

4. Even in a scenario where the officer may have taken screenshots, these screenshots would not have been enough to charge someone for murder. There would be no way to show who had started the fight due to the coroner report issue to know if the incident that occurred was an act of murder or self defense. This is again, why I introduced the investigator system to help with incidences such as this. However, that system did not go into effect until after this situation had occurred. Former Officer Deekade could have taken screenshots, but in this specific case, they likely would not have provided the evidence to account for all of the different murders that may have occurred. Additionally, as seen, Officer Deekade was doing what they could to encourage the person to stop the killing because while an arrest may not have been a possibility due to a lack of evidence, he could try to deescelate the situation which is what the Officer did. I believe that the main issue here lies in the flaws of this plug-in, which is out of the control of any Officer or the Department of Justice. I would encourage the courts to speak with the Staff team as this incident primarily stems from the faulty plug-in, which is a staff matter, not one of the DoJ.

 

[Westray]

Did the Plaintiff or Defendant have any additional questions for the witness before we proceed?

 

[nnmc]

I don’t believe the Secretary has properly answered my first question. I asked her whether or not witness testimony is acceptable in the courts, but she answered whether or not it’s acceptable in the DoJ.

As a follow up to question 2, if probable cause isn’t good enough to arrest someone, then why does the DoJ arrest people based off of coroner reports? Coroner reports are probable cause, but they certainly don’t create absolute certainty. coroner reports are known to be occasionally faulty when bows/crossbows are used and for other reasons, and you even acknowledged that when you introduced the investigator system.

follow up to Question 4: If a Federal Court judge was able to use my screenshots as proof of murder and issued an arrest warrant for murder, then why can’t the DoJ do the same thing? After all, Screenshots were literally accepted as evidence by your DoJ in this case. I opened a ticket with the DoJ (see attached proof photo), they saw and accepted my screenshots and then issued an arrest warrant for assault, which was still not good enough. A judge then finally, based on screenshots, issued an arrest warrant for murder (see the arrest order in the verdict of the original case which is linked in the first post on this thread)

Spoiler: Proof of DoJ ticket

 

[ElainaThomas29]

I don’t believe the Secretary has properly answered my first question. I asked her whether or not witness testimony is acceptable in the courts, but she answered whether or not it’s acceptable in the DoJ.

As a follow up to question 2, if probable cause isn’t good enough to arrest someone, then why does the DoJ arrest people based off of coroner reports? Coroner reports are probable cause, but they certainly don’t create absolute certainty. coroner reports are known to be occasionally faulty when bows/crossbows are used and for other reasons, and you even acknowledged that when you introduced the investigator system.

follow up to Question 4: If a Federal Court judge was able to use my screenshots as proof of murder and issued an arrest warrant for murder, then why can’t the DoJ do the same thing? After all, Screenshots were literally accepted as evidence by your DoJ in this case. I opened a ticket with the DoJ (see attached proof photo), they saw and accepted my screenshots and then issued an arrest warrant for assault, which was still not good enough. A judge then finally, based on screenshots, issued an arrest warrant for murder (see the arrest order in the verdict of the original case which is linked in the first post on this thread)

Spoiler: Proof of DoJ ticket

View attachment 15123

Whether or not witness testimony is accepted in court is not within my jurisdiction so I cannot say yes or no. I do not work in the courts. I don’t know how the courts run.

2. The coroner reports are more reliable than a he-said-she-said-basis. Other than the coroner reports being faulty in scenarios such as bows, they are reliable. Again, in the case of bows not showing on coroner reports, that is a case for the staff team and not the DoJ.

4. As stated previously, the screenshots provided can show a case of assault. However, there’s no way to know based on the screenshot provided of murder did in fact occur and if someone was killed, to know who started the fight. Again, a flaw in a plug-in to recognize bow kills which is a staff problem, not one of the DoJ. Additionally, I do not work for the courts so I cannot sit here and say how they do or do not come to their conclusions and how that differs from the work that we do within the DoJ. I have recognized that there are issues and done what I can to improve upon the flaws that we are unfortunately presented with. However, there will always be limitations present that will cause disagreement.

 

[nnmc]

Thank you for your cooperation with my questions thus far. I apologize for the large number of questions, but this is my last question for you:

Following up on question 4, so then isn’t it true that Trainee Officer Deekade1004 should have at least arrested CoCoLocoDog for assault or attempted murder? You just said that screenshots create a case for assault, so that’s why I ask this question.

 

[ElainaThomas29]

Thank you for your cooperation with my questions thus far. I apologize for the large number of questions, but this is my last question for you:

Following up on question 4, so then isn’t it true that Trainee Officer Deekade1004 should have at least arrested CoCoLocoDog for assault or attempted murder? You just said that screenshots create a case for assault, so that’s why I ask this question.

It would be hard for the Officer to have provided the proper evidence for the assault of other players as their screenshots would not have provided evidence of a loss of hearts. The Officer could have taken screenshots of his own assault to count towards a charge for assault, but that would be up to the officers own discretion to press charges or not as the victim to his own assault.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, I have no further questions.

 

[Westray]

Does the Defendant have any additional questions to pose to the witness?

 

[ElainaThomas29]

Your Honor,
I’ve just come across important evidence regarding this case. Would I or the AG/Prosecutor be granted the ability to share such here on behalf of the Defendant?

 

[Westray]

In the interest of hearing the complete facts, the Defendant can share such evidence prior to closing statements, provided it allows the opportunity for the Plaintiff to provide response to it.

I have to say I am not impressed with the surprise introduction of evidence presented by the Government in this case. In the future it should be noted that evidence needs to be presented early-on, to allow for both parties to argue on it and not pro-long this case.

 

[ElainaThomas29]

Your Honor,
I was going through unresolved open charges yesterday in order to take care of them per the Open Charge Act. In doing so, I discovered an open charge for CoCoLocoDog from the 5th of July. This led to me searching through government support transcripts from that same date. In doing so, I found that a ticket was opened by whoAmI (nmnc) on the 5th of July in order to bring attention to the officers of the events that had taken place. Officer IcedxSync had responded to the ticket and explained that the evidence provided could lead to CoCoLocoDog’s arrest for assault. This means that the DoJ did respond to such events, however due to a lack of activity from CoCoLocoDog, they just had not been arrested for their crimes yet.

linked here is the transcript:

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Attached are files that show the transcript dialogue as well as the open charge from the DoJ discord for CoCoLocoDog.

My apologies for this later found evidence. As stated previously, I found it while taking care of some of our unresolved open charges per the Open Charge Act (Act of Congress - Open Charge Act)

Thank you for your time.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor, this evidence is not new. I had previously presented it in older arguments, specifically I posted it in post #20 of this thread which was my opening statement. Yes, an open charge for assault was issued, but that does not change the fact that Officer Deekade1004 abandoned his duty, leaving me with the hassle of going to open this ticket and filing the lawsuit. If Officer IcedxSync issued an open charge for assault, then I don’t see why Deekade1004 couldn’t have the done the same since Deekade1004 saw the same things that those screenshots depict. And regardless of that, an assault charge is still not enough and it is still neglect of duty. The Federal Court Judge in the original case concurred with me that the screenshots prove that murder took place, and that Judge issued an arrest warrant for murder.

In conclusion, this evidence is not even “new” and it is prolonging the case for no reason. This evidence changes nothing, as the DoJ still neglected its duty to arrest CoCoLocoDog for murder. In the ticket, the DoJ haphazardly tried to fix the negligence by issuing an open charge for assault, but that is not an adequate fix. The adequate fix was the Federal Court verdict that issued an arrest warrant for murder and awarded me $5000 for all of the damages and hassle. I continue to ask that the Supreme Court uphold the Federal Court verdict that adequately fixed the issue and compensated me for my troubles.

 

[Westray]

Alright, thank you. Provided either party has nothing more to present or pose to the respective witnesses, I will ask that the Plaintiff presents their closing statement.

 

[nnmc]

CLOSING STATEMENT

During the massacre at spawn, the ticket I opened, and this court case, the DoJ has shown severe negligence. Officer Deekade1004 failed to issue the proper punishment to the mass murderer CoCoLocoDog. When I opened the DoJ ticket, they hardly did any better than the officer; the person who responded to my ticket merely issued an open charge for assault. I was finally served justice by the Federal Court's verdict that fired Deekade1004 for his negligence, issued an open charge for murder against CoCoLocoDog, and awarded me compensation for the troubles of having to open the ticket and then go through the courts.

But now, the DoJ is trying to use this appeal to take justice away from me. They have made excuses to justify what happened to me. They claim that Officer Deekade1004 couldn't have arrested CoCoLocoDog because there were no screenshots/coroner reports/"concrete evidence" for the crime. This is ludicrous because if Officers can only arrest someone if they have 100% certainty and 100% foolproof evidence for it, then a lot of criminals would get away with their crimes. Furthermore, I'd hardly consider coroner reports a gold standard of evidence either, considering that they completely fail when bows/crossbows are used.

There was certainly clear evidence for a murder charge. My screenshots clearly show proof of at least one murder, as the Federal Court judge said in his verdict. Officer Deekade1004 could and should have taken more screenshots in order to build a stronger case, if that's what DoJ policy insists on. Even if that's not possible, the officer should have made the arrest and then testified to the court about the murders he saw. The DoJ Secretary testified that they can't use witness testimony, but that's simply unacceptable and ridiculous because the courts (the ultimate arbitrators of justice) are able to accept witness testimony under penalty of perjury. To conclude this paragraph, the screenshots I took, the screenshots Deekade1004 should have taken, and the witness testimony that MoyUwU offered and Deekade1004 could have offered would have been more than enough cause to arrest CoCoLocoDog and more than enough evidence to justify that arrest in the courts if it came to it. But sadly, the DoJ neglected to make the arrest and is to this day continuing to make excuses for it.

The Federal Court's verdict in the original case is the only thing that has provided me justice and closure for the mass murder incident. That verdict rightfully compensated me for my troubles in dealing with the DoJ, fired and jailed Deekade1004 for his negligence, fined the DoJ for their negligence, and arrested CoCoLocoDog for committing murder. Your Honor, I believe that this court should uphold the verdict of the lower court in order to preserve justice.

The plaintiff rests.

 

[Westray]

Thank you, I will ask the Defendant posts their closing statement next.

 

[nnmc]

Your Honor,
It has been a significant amount of time since the defendant’s closing statement was requested. I don’t want to unnecessarily rush the defendant, but I don’t believe it should take longer than another few days. Perhaps imposing a deadline would be beneficial here.

 

[Westray]

Given it has been 8 days since the court has asked for a closing statement from the Defendant, I will be arranging a deadline for the matter.

If the Defendant does not provide their closing statement within 48 hours then the Supreme Court will reconvene to consider a verdict without it.

 

[lawanoesepr]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

nnmc
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

Your honor,

The plaintiffs claimed they need compensation for this case, however they never showed why they need so much money due to a single death. Also
the plaintiffs never showed any evidence, other then a claim by MoyUwU. The law for police misconduct states "A fine of at least $500 and at most $10,000, jail time of at most 30 minutes, and the offending officer may be stripped of their officer position and be temporarily or permanently barred from serving as an officer in the future, at the court’s discretion." This is clearly meant to punish the officer not the department. The plaintiff is suing for emotional distress not a financial loss, Therefore should not be granted any monetary compensation. In conclusion, the plaintiffs misinterpreted the law, have presented a lack of evidence, are asking for an unreasonable amount of money, are unfairly referencing this case as precedent, and are trying to set the precedent that emotional distress warrants the maximum punishment for alleged police misconduct. For these reasons, the court should rule in favor of the defendant in this case.
With that the defense rests.

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The Supreme Court will review this case and convene to deliver a verdict within the next two weeks.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Appealed: Case No. 07-2021-06-01

I. ORIGINAL CASE DECISION
1. On July 9 2021, the Federal Court of Redmont ruled with a default judgement by the Hon. Judge Matthew100x, as the result of the Defendant's failure to respond due to inadequate counsel.
2. The Federal Court granted the full compensation to be split between the Plaintiff and the other respective victim of the crime, along with a court-ordered termination of Deekade1004.
3. This appeal was accepted July 24 2021, and therefore the Supreme Court has now been able to convene on a respective judgement with all arguments presented.

II. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, nnmc, alleges that CoCoLocoDog murdered them and MoyUwU. When the murder was reported, the Plaintiff claims that Trainee Officer Deekade1004 did not arrest CoCoLocoDog and instead gave him a verbal warning.
2. The Plaintiff claims that even after opening a ticket with the Department of Justice, they did not charge MoyUwU with murder, instead opting to charge him with merely assault, even though evidence indicated otherwise.
3. The Plaintiff asserts that the Department of Justice neglected their duty of care by refusing to investigate the situation further.

III. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Department of Justice, claims that the compensation granted in the original case does not correlate to the result of a single death.
2. The Defendant, the Department of Justice, alleges that since the law for police misconduct also enforces jail time, it was only intended to apply to only police officers as individuals that can be charged with police misconduct.
3. The Defendant asserts that the Department acted within the resources that they had, as CoCoLocoDog used a bow, which bugs the coroner reports.

IV. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the the unconditional reliance on the coroner plugin is fundamentally flawed with a severe disregard of the fundamental principles of justice. While the coroner report is often reliable, the Department of Justice must exercise its discretion in situations where guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The evidence indicated by the Plaintiff in picture format proves beyond a reasonable doubt the murder that CoCoLocoDog had committed, along with the witness account of MoyUwU. Even when presented with picture evidence, the Department of Justice did not act to provide protection to the citizens of Redmont.
3. The court believes that the Department of Justice has a lawful duty of care - one specified with its constitutional duty to maintain peace and good order - and that by not acting on this evidence or even investigating further, they have breached such duty.
4. While agreeing with much of the verdict in the original case, we do believe that an unlawful injustice has occured in the court ordered termination of Trainee Officer Deekade1004. The Employee Protection Act examines that a government employee cannot be held legally responsible if they are acting within department directions and policy. We believe that Deekade1004 was acting within the directions of the department on their pre-existing coroner report policy and has not committed any sort of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

Although the most rigorous tool for determining guilt of murder is the coroner report - it should not be the sole indicator. This is a matter the Department of Justice has even admitted to, by creating the investigator job after this incident. It is a grave injustice when the victims of a murder have had to go as far as to take legal action against the Department of Justice, instead of having their concerns investigated by the Department of Justice. The matter of this case is one of a very simple rhetorical: if our justice system is supposed to follow the principle that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proves guilt, why doesn't the Department of Justice abide by that?

Additionally, I believe that the accusation made against Trainee Officer Deekade1004 is one not grounded in reasonable justice. The Employee Protection Act exists to protect employees from being punished for acting in the direction of Department leadership and or their policies. I hope that this case acts as a protection for employees who have been stifled with accusations of guilt simply at the direction of department policy. With such considered, it is my belief that this case is fundamentally about an outdated policy of inaction - one that exhibits basing our entire justice system for murder around a coroner report.

I hope that this case being upheld by the Supreme Court will remain a lesson to those trusted to enforce the law. The Department cannot simply blame the coroner report for not properly enforcing the law, when tools evidently exist beyond the scope of such. It should be stressed that coroner reports do play a fundamentally important tool as is, however that tool should not act as a hindrance to alternative evidence that may prove culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.

- Westray, Chief Justice

Remarks from the Hon. 218218Consumer (Acting as Interim Justice as Speaker):

While I understand and respect the Department of Justice's commitment to the fair, accurate, and impartial exercise of justice through the coroner plugin, it is my belief that when evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the information provided by a coroner report or a lack thereof, it is the Constitutional responsibility of the Department of Justice to exercise discretion to ensure the safety of Redmont's citizens. I hold that the Department of Justice is grossly negligent in said responsibilities through its current unconditional reliance on the reports, particularly in the face of evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiff argues that coroner reports are far from a "gold standard of evidence": taking the unregistered nature of bow murders into consideration, I am inclined to agree. This is not to say that coroner reports should be disregarded. In fact, they are frequently the most reliable (and only) evidence available to the Department of Justice, but when even stronger evidence presents itself, the Department can and must act on it. This is especially considering the fallibility of reports.

Further, while it is my opinion that the $5,000 compensation provided to the plaintiff was not proportionate to any emotional damage from his murder, it holds merit in the time taken by the plaintiff toward assembling a legal argument and arguing a case, which is an incredibly arduous process for the sole purpose of receiving justice. As a result, I believe the relief granted was appropriate.

The defense argues that the law of Police Misconduct was designed to target individual officers and not the Department of Justice: however, this interpretation would force the court to consistently undermine the Employee Protection Act and punish officers for following a department policy entirely unrelated to their personal discretion.

The unreliability of coroner reports in all instances has been a long-standing issue on this server, and the Department of Justice must adapt a more flexible and reasonable policy in response. It is irresponsible to rely on absolute certainty from coroner reports when coroner reports cannot provide absolute certainty themselves. As a result, I concur with the ruling of the Hon. Matthew100x.

- 218218Consumer, Speaker of the House (Interim Justice as constitutionally mandated)

V. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby unanimously adjourns to uphold the original verdict of Case No. 07-2021-06-01, while also enforcing a modified order on the termination of Deekade1004.

Since it would be rather irrelevant to retroactively overturn the court-ordered termination of Deekade1004 given the three week period he was barred from had ended, the Supreme Court would simply prefer to express formal discontent with the initial termination of the officer, while leaving it up to the Department of Justice on whether they wish to reinstate him.

Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.