Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth v. bibsfi4a [2023] FCR 25

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kycnn1703

Moderator
Moderator
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Kycnn1703
Kycnn1703
donator1
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
245
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth
Prosecution

v.

bibsfi4a
Defendant

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

bibsfi4a made an offer to Trentrick_Lamar, former deputy secretary of commerce. This offer was to divide the profits of the offers made on the plot that the deputy secretary was interested in and that bibfia4a would buy, 50/50. Later, bibsfi4a reported that they planned to cheat on bets in order to "make a lot " as the evidence shows. The deputy secretary informed bibsfi4a that this is illegal. On top of that, bibsfi4a confirmed that they understood this and were aware that it was illegal, but wrote that it was "irl". This satisfies the conspiracy to commit fraud and more.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth
2. bibsfi4a

II. FACTS
1. bibsfi4a made offer to Trentrick_Lamar.
2.The offer was to, Increase the revenue of the auction and splitting the profits.
3. With this offer the defendant violated White-Collar Crack Down Act 5.2.
4. Trentrick_Lamar rejected the offer, arguing that it was illegal.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. The defendant violated White-Collar Crack Down Act 5.2 "Bid Rigging: Any sort of deal wherein two or more businesses and/or persons agree to not bid against one another to minimize their losses." by offering bid rigging to Trentrick_Lamar.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. 7,000$ for violating White-Collar Crack Down Act 5.2

V. EVIDENCE

Exhibit a) The communication between Trentrick_Lamar and bibsf4a

Offer_to_Trentrick_Lamar.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 14th day of february 2023
 
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 The Commonwealth of Redmont v. bibsfi4a [2023] FCR 25. 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.​
 
MOTION TO DISMISS

Lack of Evidence: It's hard to understand the entire context of a conversation with only 7 messages. This could be 2 friends joking around or it could be a serious conversation, but you can't tell with only 1 screenshot. I also want to add that no action was taken after this conversation. The plot in question was never bought by the defendant and bids were never rigged.

According to the I Admit Act 3.2 "An admission of guilt on its own cannot be used as sole evidence for a crime being committed, in order to be admissible, it must be proven the crime actually happened - the point of an Admission of Guilt is to prove who did it." With this it means that the Lawsuit should be dismissed unless the Prosecution can provide more evidence.

1676748518805.png

Dated: This 18th day of February 2023
 
I will be denying this motion to dismiss, as a lack of evidence is not a valid reason to have a case dismissed.
We will now move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, there has been a communication here between Trentrick_Lamar and bibsfi4a, and based on this conversation, we can see here that the White-Collar Crack Down Act 5.2 has been violated. That's pretty clear.

In addition. You can clearly see the proposal when we examine the evidence. Trentrick_Lamar first listens to the proposal and then comments, which shows us that it is not possible to come to an opinion on "two friends joking" here.

On the other hand, looking at bibsfi4a's explanation, it is clear that he has a plan to organize a fictional bid. But later, when Trentrick_Lamar says it's illegal, bibsfi4a says he knows it's illegal, so he is openly admitting that what he is planning to do is illegal.

This justifies our opinion on this matter. To summarize, the Defendant still makes an offer that he knows is illegal.
 
The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, I am bibsfi4a in this case, The Commonwealth of Redmont v. bibsfi4a, and I am here and will precide over this case now. This is a case concerning an egregious misunderstanding and application of the law. It appears the prosecution does not know the criminal law very well, as I, the defendant, was charged with offenses that do not match any actions I undertook. Today, the defense will prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defense is not guilty of the offenses lodged against them. Today, you will see how the defendant’s actions do not meet the criteria of the crime known as ‘bid rigging’ in the White-Collar Crack Down Act.

The White-Collar Crack Down Act, Article 3 § 1 reads that fraud is defined as “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one…” No fact has actually been misrepresented nor omitted, and in fact, the defendant was very clear about his plans and intentions. The criteria for fraud, which is an umbrella term for all offenses listed in the White-Collar Crack Down Act since it is the subject of the bill, is already not met in the first clause. Let’s move to the second clause, which reads that for an action to be fraud, it must be done “to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation” which is not met by the actions taken by the defendant in this case. Trentrick_Lamar is by no standards a victim of any fraud scheme. This is clear when the defendant and Trent discuss a partnership, not playing a rigged game of chance. Finally, to disprove this case being related to fraud, the last clause reads “the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.” The prosecution cannot prove to any degree that damages were suffered by anyone as a result of the actions of the defendant. There are no actual or quantifiable damages in this case, and the actions taken by the defendant are and remain totally victimless.

Now that we have established this case is not fraud, we will reinforce this by specifically disproving this case is even bid rigging. Bid rigging, pursuant to the White-Collar Crack Down Act, Article 5 § 2, is defined as “Any sort of deal wherein two or more businesses and/or persons agree to not bid against one another to minimize their losses.” The first issue with accusing the defendant of bid rigging is that no agreement was made. The law specifically states bid rigging is a “deal” and that two entities must “agree.” Trentrick_Lamar clearly did not agree to any sort of deal, and the prosecution even asserts in their opening statement that it is clear the two parties were not being amicable in this instance, so this offense must be tossed on that virtue alone. To buttress this, the second clause reads that these parties won’t “bid against one another to minimize their losses.” Asking a partner to rig a game of chance has nothing to do with not bidding against the other to minimize losses. The prosecution completely misunderstood this law when charging the defendant with it.

Today, in this opening, the defense has already proven that the prosecution cannot lodge a fraud case, specifically bid rigging, against the defendant as the actions do not meet the definitions of the crime by any stretch, even with a loose interpretation. The law states clear conditions for a person to be guilty of a crime, and those conditions must be respected to the extent the Constitution allows to ensure the fair and proper administration of justice and application of the law. Regardless of what the defendant actually said or did, the prosecution chose offenses to charge them with, despite the defendant’s actions not meeting the criteria laid out in the legislation, and thus the case is completely improper. The Court must find the defendant not guilty in this case. Thank you.
 
Thank you to both parties for their opening statement. Both parties now have 48 hours to provide their list of witnesses, or state that they have none.
 
Your honor, I would like to request for 24 more hours to talk to my lawyers, regarding calling witnesses.
 
A 24 hour extension has been granted for both parties.
 
Your honor , the defendant has no witness to call.
 
The Plaintiff has failed to either provide their list of witnesses, or inform the court that they do not wish to call any witnesses within the allotted time. I hereby charge Kycnn1703 with 1 count of contempt of court, and order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.

We will now move onto closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
The Plaintiff has yet again failed to post something within their allotted time. As it is the Plaintiff's job to pursue the case, and they have failed to do so, I will be dismissing this case with prejudice.

Furthermore, I hereby charge Kycnn1703 with their 2nd count of contempt of court, and order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top