Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. modzy_ [2024] FCR 13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anthony

Anthony

Moderator
Moderator
Justice Department
State Department
Legal Affairs Department
Commerce Department
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
xAntho_ny
xAntho_ny
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
412
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
For the safety of the citizens, we ask that the court grants the following:

We ask that the court temporarily suspends the defendant from the Department of Justice until the ending of this case.
We ask that the court writes a Writ of Mandamus to the Justice Secretary ordering the secretary to remove permissions from the defendant until the ending of this case.
We ask that the court seize any items that are owned by the Department of Justice that are in the defendant’s inventory, properties, or command chests but not limited to Police Car, Handcuffs, Tasers, and whatever the defendant has taken from the department until the ending of this case.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

modzy_
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
On January 25th, 2024 the Department of Justice received a report about the defendant, who is a Recruit for the department hiding another player from the map in order to not be arrested. It is the defendant’s job to use /dynmap show in order to arrest the player, not hide the player in order for them not to be arrested. We also received a report from a Whistleblower about the “captain” wanting others to murder another player for $500 each time.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. modzy_ (Defendant)
3. Whistleblower A (Reporter)
4. Whistleblower B (Reporter)

II. FACTS
1. On January 25th, 2024 we received a report from a player about how the defendant was using /dynmap hide to keep a criminal from getting caught.
2. On January 27th, 2024, we received a report about the “captain” ordering others to murder another player for $500, the department confirmed the defendant is the “captain” by one of the whisleblowers.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 count of Corruption.
2. 2 counts of Conspiracy.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
For 1 count of Corruption in accordance with the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act: $12,000 fine and 60 minutes in prison.
2. For 2 count of Conspiracy in accordance with the Accomplice and Conspiracy Offenses Act: $2,000 fine and 30 minutes in prison.
2. Barred from applying or working for the Department of Justice for one year.


In order to keep the Whisleblower’s identity private we request that all evidence is submitted through closed 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 27th day of January 2024
 
MOTION TO RESCUE
The prosecution ask that Neemfy be rescued from being the judge or any decision making of this case due to them being a Lieutenant in the Department of Justice, ensuring both parties have a fair trial.
 
Anthony said:
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
For the safety of the citizens, we ask that the court grants the following:

We ask that the court temporarily suspends the defendant from the Department of Justice until the ending of this case.
We ask that the court writes a Writ of Mandamus to the Justice Secretary ordering the secretary to remove permissions from the defendant until the ending of this case.
We ask that the court seize any items that are owned by the Department of Justice that are in the defendant’s inventory, properties, or command chests but not limited to Police Car, Handcuffs, Tasers, and whatever the defendant has taken from the department until the ending of this case.
Click to expand...
Given the actions in question, I will be granting the Emergency Injunction. The Defense may Motion to Reconsider this should they wish.
 
Anthony said:
MOTION TO RESCUE
The prosecution ask that Neemfy be rescued from being the judge or any decision making of this case due to them being a Lieutenant in the Department of Justice, ensuring both parties have a fair trial.
Click to expand...
This will not be an issue given I was assigned and not Judge Neemfy though I do understand your concerns.
 
Seal_Judiciary.png



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

@Modzy is required to appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. modzy_. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Modzy_
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense can neither affirm nor dispute that a random individual claimed that they abused the /dynmap function however we do Dispute that the function was abused in such a way for personal gain.
2. The defense Disputes that Modzy_ is a "captain".
3. the defense can neither Affirm nor Dispute that Modzy_ ordered other players to murder A whistleblower since we do not know who the whistleblower is, although we do dispute the illegality of setting bounties on another player.

II. DEFENSE
1. The defense denies that the /dynmap was used in any nefarious ways or to purposefully manipulate the DOJ for personal gain.
2. The claim that modzy_ is a captain has no relevance in this prosecution. Its unsupported by any of the facts provided by the prosecution and is a vague title with no weight to it.
3. due to the whistleblowers being anonymous we cannot confirm whether or not bounties were set on them by the defendant however as highlighted in "Make Bounties Legal and Amend the Violent Offences Act" setting a bounty on an individual is not illegal.

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. according to the court guide "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." The plaintiff alleges that a whistleblower made claims about my client that led to them deciding upon a corruption charge, however. they never explained whether or not they had substantiated these claims or did the basic requirements to determine if these claims were true. They have not supplied to the court nor the defense any proof of substantiation that the /dynmap function was used for malcontent or mispurpose. the defense request that the sentencing 1 be dismissed.

2. according to the Make Bounties Legal and Amend the Violent Offences Act " (i) Bounties are considered legal, and the Department of Justice may not arrest a citizen for setting one. (ii) No citizen may be persecuted for setting a bounty in a court of law." the defense has provided no evidence that these bounties occurred and even if evidence of these bounties were provided, The Prosecution cannot charge my client for setting bounties per the Make Bounties Legal and Amend the Violent Offences Act" we request that sentencing 2 be dismissed.

3. The '‘Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act'' states that the maximum sentencing for violating corruption is "Maximum Sentencing: $25,000 Fine + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months" however sentencing 3 asks the court to ban my client from the DOJ for up to a year. Not only does the exceed the maximum sentencing by a whole 10 months but a ban from holding a position in the doj is not a ban from a public office. Therefore, the charge does align with the sentencing outlined in the "Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act" and such I request that sentencing "3" be dismissed.
Thank you, Your Honor.


DATED: This 28th day of January 2024
​
 
May the prosecution respond to the motion to dismiss your honor?
 
Thank you you’re honor.

The defense claims that the prosecution did not provide the court with evidence of the /dynmap. The prosecution does not have to supply evidence until we are in discovery, furthermore the prosecution requested a closed court to submit all evidence so the prosecution is confused why the defense is saying that when according to Court Rules and Procedures we can enter evidence during discovery.

The defense also claims that the “Legal Bounties Act” makes bounties legal, but the bounty did not go through the bounty plugin and the defendant was promoting others to murder with not a bounty.
 
Also you’re honor the prosecution would like to drop number 3 of the sentencing and still keep 1 and 2.
 
Snowy_Heart said:
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. according to the court guide "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." The plaintiff alleges that a whistleblower made claims about my client that led to them deciding upon a corruption charge, however. they never explained whether or not they had substantiated these claims or did the basic requirements to determine if these claims were true. They have not supplied to the court nor the defense any proof of substantiation that the /dynmap function was used for malcontent or mispurpose. the defense request that the sentencing 1 be dismissed.

2. according to the Make Bounties Legal and Amend the Violent Offences Act " (i) Bounties are considered legal, and the Department of Justice may not arrest a citizen for setting one. (ii) No citizen may be persecuted for setting a bounty in a court of law." the defense has provided no evidence that these bounties occurred and even if evidence of these bounties were provided, The Prosecution cannot charge my client for setting bounties per the Make Bounties Legal and Amend the Violent Offences Act" we request that sentencing 2 be dismissed.

3. The '‘Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act'' states that the maximum sentencing for violating corruption is "Maximum Sentencing: $25,000 Fine + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months" however sentencing 3 asks the court to ban my client from the DOJ for up to a year. Not only does the exceed the maximum sentencing by a whole 10 months but a ban from holding a position in the doj is not a ban from a public office. Therefore, the charge does align with the sentencing outlined in the "Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act" and such I request that sentencing "3" be dismissed.
Thank you, Your Honor.


DATED: This 28th day of January 2024
​
Click to expand...
The Motion to Dismiss will be overruled as although evidence is a reason for dismissal, the reasoning is used too early. Evidence is to be provided during Discovery which is when the reasoning for a motion to dismiss should be used. I understand this reasoning is short however this is simply the reasoning for the overruling of this.

Given an Answer to Complaint was also filed we will now be moving onto Discovery. This will last 7 days. I'd also like to remind both sides of the rules of Discovery.

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.
 
You’re honor,

the prosecution requests to use a closed court to submit evidence.
 
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honor,

We have reassessed this case and its evidence and do not think prosecuting it at this time is in the best interest of the commonwealth. We would like to have this case dismissed without prejudice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top