Lawsuit: Adjourned xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
The coroner reports show us who was killed, who started the fight and at what location it happened ( coords ) in the reports I provided u can see that dwerpy got killed twice by 2 different people and did not consent for it.
 
Your honor, I wish to add 2 more questions

2. Is it true that with bows, the coroner report is bugged?

3. If it is true, could you explain how they are bugged?
 
Let me awnser your 2 questions with 1 awnser. The bow itself is not bugged.. the plugin that reports murders to us in the form of coroner reportes does not show/report bow kills ( was I/ were we told ) so yea.. its a problem with the plugin.. i cant tell you more about it because im not a specialist on the plugins.
 
Thank you

No further questions, Your Honor.
 
Thank you. The Defendant may now cross-examine the witness.
 
Did the Defendant wish to cross-examine the witness?
 
Apologies for the delay, I, the Attorney General will be handling this case due to the recent resignation of GoodMorning9.

Questions for Mr. Sergecool:
1. What is the Department of Justice's policy regarding murder shown by coroner reports?

2. Did the plaintiff make a Department of Justice ticket regarding the alleged false arrest?

3. Were the arresting officers in the right to arrest the plaintiff's because of the evidence at the time?
 
Objection, your honor.

Number one has no relevance in this case. The way DOJ policy is, is the crux of why we are gathered in this Court. Therefore, asserting DOJ policy as law is highly incorrect as it is the duty of the Court to interpret the law, which includes statutes and precedents, not departmental policy.

Number three is not within the scope of the witness's expertise. No witness should be able to answer a question of this nature, for the Court is being asked to determine the answer to this question. It is a question that calls for a subjective answer, and only objective facts should be presented in Court. Witnesses are supposed to be providing testimony based on what they perceive or facts pertaining to their field of experise, not opinions and answers to legal disputes between two parties.
 
Thank you for the points raised.

The objection to question one will be overruled, I believe it is pertinent to this case to understand how the DOJ policy operates - especially if they may be operating in an unlawful department policy, one that conflicts with statute and precedent, as claimed by the Plaintiff.

The objection to question three will be sustained, it is not within the scope of the witness to provide an expert opinion on whether the Department of Justice had rightfully arrested someone. This case in itself is supposed to determine whether the Department of Justice acted within law, not the witness.

@sergecool to clarify, you should now answer questions 1 and 2:

JoeGamer said:
Questions for Mr. Sergecool:
1. What is the Department of Justice's policy regarding murder shown by coroner reports?

2. Did the plaintiff make a Department of Justice ticket regarding the alleged false arrest?

3. Were the arresting officers in the right to arrest the plaintiff's because of the evidence at the time?
Click to expand...
 
1) if the murder is not out of self defense, it happened inside the city, and the victem does not consent we arrest the murderer. If they claim its a false arrest I personally tell hem to work with me ( go to jail and be fined ) and then make a doj ticket to provide evidence it was a false arrest. I ask them to work with me and go to jail before making a ticket because if our investigators find it was a valid arrest then they are already in jail and fined. ( if they first make a ticket and then are found guilty by the investigators they can still run and we lost them... ) if the investigators conclude that it was a false arrest then they get their jail time removed, fine removed and even get extra back for each minute they spend in jail. Also the false arrest will be removed from their record.

2) because it happened some time ago and we as normal po dont keep all the doj ticket ( elaina may ) i cant tell you if they made a ticket because i dont know. It can even be IF they made it that i was not online on discord. I could even have been asleep. So truthfully i dont know i have asked AlexThelilLion ( the arresting officer if i remmeber right from the criminal records, or atleast he made that record if i remember correctly ) if he knows if the plaintiff made a ticket but i have not received an awnser yet.
 
2.5) alex said the plaintiff did not make a doj ticket. Or does not recall it atleast. He does remember that he was typing in chat "IM SUING, IM SUING"
 
sergecool said:
2.5) alex said the plaintiff did not make a doj ticket. Or does not recall it atleast. He does remember that he was typing in chat "IM SUING, IM SUING"
Click to expand...
Your honor, could we get a court order for the chat logs as well as the DoJ ticket logs to confirm this?
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Your honor, could we get a court order for the chat logs as well as the DoJ ticket logs to confirm this?
Click to expand...
Given the timeline of this case, I recognize it may be difficult to find the chat logs and for the Department of Justice to retrieve DoJ ticket logs from so long ago, if they do not already have them on hand. Therefore I will be asking the Defendant first, if it is possible for evidence of the DoJ ticket logs to be retrieved.

Additionally, while I am not aware of the attorney-client discussions, it may be in the interest of the Plaintiff's counsel to speak to the Plaintiff in regards to this claim, as to refute or confirm what was stated by the witness. I notice LTSlade respectively has not been online in over a month and have some concern he has not been present to provide proper perspective in this case.

Thank you.
 
Westray said:
Therefore I will be asking the Defendant first, if it is possible for evidence of the DoJ ticket logs to be retrieved.
Click to expand...

After talking to the Justice Department Secretary, the plaintiffs never made a ticket, so there is nothing to retrieve
1630635612591.png

1630635635671.png
 
Your honor, there seems to have been a miscommunication. The Lovely Law Firm no longer believes the Plaintiffs created a DOJ ticket, however, there is no law stating that they are supposed to. The law only provides that the DOJ should properly arrest people if they have committed a crime, which the Plaintiffs did not. The Plaintiffs should not have to be forced to create a ticket with the very entity that already violated their rights.
 
Noted. Were there any additional questions for the witness?
 
The Plaintiff has no further questions.
 
Thank you. The court would like to thank both parties for the arguments they have presented here thus far, as well as the witnesses for their insight.

Was there any additional witness testimony or evidence that either party wished to present before we proceed to closing statements?
 
The plaintiffs wish to proceed to closing statements, Your Honor
 
Alright, thank you. We will proceed to closing statements.

First, I will ask that the Plaintiff presents their closing statement, followed by the Defendant.
 
The Plaintiff wishes to skip closing statements and move to the verdict. The Court may move on without the Plaintiff's closing statement, as we feel all facts and arguments presented throughout the rest of the trial should compel the Court to rule in the Plaintiff's favor.
 
Alright, thank you. The Defendant may now present their closing statement.
 
Your honor, in the interest of not prolonging this lawsuit, the plaintiff requests that the defendant responds within a certain amount of time decided by the court.
 
The court will ask that the Defendant provides their closing statement within 48 hours, or the court will proceed to a verdict without it.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade(The Lovely Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

1. As shown by witnesses and the DOJ ticket logs, neither Mr. xxTigOlBittiesxx or Mr. LTSlade made a Department of Justice ticket. When making an arrest, the DOJ uses the evidence they have on hand, usually in the form of the coroner report. However, the DOJ realizes that sometimes the coroner report is inaccurate, the DOJ will investigate the situation. These investigations can only be done when a citizen makes a ticket. Because Mr. xxTigOlBittiesxx or Mr. LTSlade never made a ticket, the DOJ was unable to serve justice. The lack of action by the plaintiffs cannot be held against the DOJ. To set a precedent of not making tickets and going directly to the courts would result in the DOJ not being able to serve justice. This entire matter could have been avoided if the evidence used against Dwerpy would have been presented to the DOJ.

2. I would like to call into question the activity of the plaintiff’s. Unfortunately I am unable to find the exact time of Mr. xxTigOlBittiesxx because his name is spelt wrong in the original post. However, Mr. LTSlade has been absent from Redmont for 2 months and 15 days, and has accumulated a total active time of 4 hours. The plaintiff is wanting to give two inactive players $10,000 that won’t go anywhere. The fact that this case has little to no input from the plaintiffs is a point of concern.

With that the State rests. I thank the Honorable Justices for their continued patients.
 

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Appealed: Case No. 07-2021-06

I. ORIGINAL CASE DECISION
1. On July 17 2021, the Federal Court of Redmont dismissed the case per the verdict issued by the Hon. MilkCrack.
2. This appeal was accepted July 23 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 Plaintiffs, xTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade, represented by the Lovely Law Firm, alleges that they killed Dwerpy in self-defence after he assaulted them.
2. The Plaintiffs claim that Dwerpy then sent screenshots of the murder to mislead Trainee Officer Alexthelillion, who proceeded to wrongfully arrest the Plaintiffs.
3. The Plaintiffs assert 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, 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.
2. The Defendant, the Department of Justice, allege that the officer acted with the evidence that was presented to them. There was no departmental ticket filed by either of the Plaintiffs to try and explain their situation.
3. The Defendant, the Department of Justice, claim that neither of the Plaintiffs have been online in over a month to even claim the compensation.

IV. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs should have been shared with the Department of Justice via a departmental ticket. As established in nnmc v. DoJ, the Plaintiffs should have utilized all exhaustive measures, including reporting the crime via a departmental ticket, before filing a lawsuit.
2. The court also believes that as examined by the Hon. Matt_S0 in Case No. 02-2021-21, the Constitution requires the DoJ to "[maintain] the peace and good order of the server"; and while such a burden is demanding, it doesn't require infallibility. In that case, the Department of Justice was sued for not enforcing the law, simply because it was not reported to the police. If the Plaintiffs had an issue with the conduct of the police officer or an individual, they should have reported it and contacted the Department via a departmental ticket.
3. While some of the claims by Dwerpy in committing perjury may have proven that some element of misleading may have occurred, it is the responsibility of the Plaintiffs to make note of that to the Department of Justice and try to resolve it there before filing a lawsuit.

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

I believe that this decision is beyond reasonably justified, considering its respect for past precedent and the fundamental principles of justice. It is evident that the Plaintiffs did not take measures to adequately report their situation to the Department of Justice, and therefore the Department of Justice operated with the information given properly. As examined in previous cases, such as nnmc v. DoJ, the Plaintiff clearly sought out and informed the Department of Justice via a ticket, and then filed a lawsuit after their issue was not resolved.

You cannot expect the Department of Justice to be the seeing eye of all, and to instantaneously have an awareness of all criminal situations. The Plaintiffs effectively withheld evidence from the Department of Justice, and then used it to sue them. It would be an unreasonable burden and restrain the operability of the Department of Justice if instead of reporting a crime, players just sued the Department for not being aware of it. In addition, the Plaintiffs to this case, have not once been seen attempting to communicate their concern, with LTSlade not responding to a witness summons, and both having fallen inactive. If the Plaintiffs had a care about injustice, they would have made a significant effort to contact the Department before and show up in this case.

- Westray, Chief Justice
Click to expand...

Remarks from the Hon. Matthew100x:
After reviewing over the evidence it's clear to me that the plaintiffs didn't take any appropriate measures in trying to get the DoJ to do their jobs before suing the department. Thus this makes the decision process rather easy because of the case Lord_Donuticus vs The DoJ & Executive Branch. The Hon. Judge Matt_SO dismissed the case because the plaintiff did not take any steps in reporting the crime. They then charged that the DoJ failed to uphold their constitutional duties. That was simply not a fair accusation because the DoJ did not have any report or ticket to go after the person who murdered the plaintiff. Much of that case holds over here where the plaintiff here is charging the DoJ in not doing anything when they themselves have not given the information to the DoJ in order to allow the department to handle their claims. It's simply not a fair accusation to make, therefore I vote in favor of the defendant in this case.

- Matthew100x, Justice
Click to expand...

V. DECISION

The Supreme Court hereby unanimously adjourns to uphold the original verdict of Case No. 07-2021-06, adjourning the verdict in favour of the Defendant.

The Court will also be ordering the Department of Justice to fine Dwerpy $2000 for perjury.

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

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top