Lawsuit: Adjourned The People V. Topte & Squifot

Discussion in 'Courthouse' started by Cooleagles2005, Dec 30, 2020.

Not open for further replies.
    Creepsteve05 and GarMen like this.
  1. Cooleagles2005

    Cooleagles2005 Judge Judge

    cooleagles2005
    Hello Your Honor, I am Cooleagles2005, Partner Attorney at Inperium & Partners, and I will be launching a prosecution on behalf of my clients at the BC Bid Auctions & the DoJ against Topte for Unlawful Incitement. (Permission for said prosecution can be found in Evidence 1)


    The story of this case begins December 10, 2020 where defendant Topte created an Auction for plot bc-020 on behalf of Omega Corporation. The auction had been going normal until a mysterious bidder by the name DownRangeBanana had joined. One of my clients LashGaming had questioned the validity of this player as he rightfully could. An investigation went underway and my client GarMen concluded that since there was no proof of him being an actual player or having the money, the bid would go back to Lash’s 22,000kr bid. (Evidences 2 & 3). It wasn’t until later another mysterious player, Squifot, had made a bid of 30,000kr. At first it was questioned to see if Squifot actually had the money, where it was determined he did when he first posted the bid. However, after further investigation it was found by a staff member that Topte had given Squifot the 30,000kr and then after posting his bid had given it back to Topte. (Evidences 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8) After this the BC Bid Staff came to the conclusion that Lash will buy the plot from Topte for 22,000kr, seeing that the only other auctions after that were invalid. This situation could have ended much longer ago had Topte committed to what he said. He claimed that he would give the plot to Lash as per the agreement, however he passively jumped and dismissed any attempts by Lash to ensure this. Eventually the plot was put up for sale for a grand 40,000kr, and eventually lowered to the 31,000kr that current owner LouderLeo had bought it from. (Evidences 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15)


    As the law states, Unlawful Incitement occurs when one player pays another to commit a crime. As mentioned above a staff member by the request of the Bc Bid Staff found that Topte paid 30,000kr to squifot that very same day. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Topte did this to increase the incentives of my client’s bidding and gain a higher profit.

    May I also remind the court that this is not the first time Topte has brought outsiders into Bc territory. Earlier in the month, Topte had been banned from the Discord for allowing raiders to spam the BC Discord. His Ban Appeal (linked here) is still up for debate in the forums.


    Your honor, although this is a prosecution and hearing for the name of justice, my clients do wish for small retributions which will remedy the damages made by Topte. They ask,

    • The current owner of plot Bc-020, LouderLeo, be evicted and refunded the 31,000kr that he spent on it. (Note: LouderLeo is alright with giving up the plot as long as he is properly and rightfully refunded)
    • Lashgaming be given plot Bc-020 for free (We ask of this to one compensate for the drastic amount of time and stress my client has been put through over this plot, and two to ensure that Topte makes no profit off of his crimes and damages. We do understand it is a large ask and would be willing to pay the 22,000 though.)
    • We ask that Topte be properly punished within the law, and even go as far to say some kind of banning of him from BC grounds due to not only the repetition of his crimes but the degree at which they are done. The first case of him bringing in outside players caused minor damages to the discord server, all of which would be fixed over time. His most recent transgressions attacked a well known businesses sovereignty as well as scamming numerous players for his own economic gain. It is to our understanding that DownRangeBanana has no account on BC whilst Squifot does, Squifot is even an employee at Topte’s company Omega Corporation. Meaning that Topte perhaps had some influence over Squifot to do his bidding. If this pattern increases his next crime could be exponentially destructive.

    Your honor, I hope the following evidence appeals to the court and enlightens your decision on which will ultimately decide the well-being of my clients today and future victims tomorrow. Thank you

    Evidences (Click here)
     
  2. Topte

    Topte Citizen Donator

    Topte
    It was actually in resell for 30100.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2020
  3. Matthew100x

    Matthew100x Helper Helper Judge Donator

    Matthew100x
    Topte, you have not been called to court yet. Please do not make a post until you are called to the courts. This is a verbal warning, if you continue you will be charged with contempt of court.

    Cooleagles you are missing a few elements in your case. First, you are charging Topte with incitement of a crime, what crime is Topte inciting? Second is if Topte is inciting a crime, then that means that Squifot committed a crime on Topte's behalf. So if Squifot committed a crime, is he being charged as well? If so please amend the title to "The people v. Squifot and Topte". If there is no crime within the BC code that covers this then I will allow a supplemental inclusion of a charge from the Common Law legal system. Third, considering the previous sentence, is there another charge that the prosecution would like to add against Topte, or is the prosecution only looking at Incitement of a Crime?

    I will give the Prosecution 48 hours to respond to the questions asked and amend the title and/or the opening arguments of the case.
     
  4. GarMen likes this.
  5. Cooleagles2005

    Cooleagles2005 Judge Judge

    cooleagles2005

    Your honor,

    My apologies for any confusion, your honor, allow me to clarify any of my and/or the prosecution’s mishaps. The prosecution would first like to drop the charge of unlawful incitement against Topte, simply to make way for the new additional charge we tend to plea. The prosecution will be adding a charge of collusion against both Squifot and Topte. The title of this prosecution will no longer rest as The People V. Topte but The People V. Topte & Squifot. Let it be known the prosecution seeks minimalistic punishment towards Squifot, for the master of this conundrum & crime still rests in the hands of Topte.


    Now as the court well knows, collusion is not a law written in BC Books, however due to past precedents such as Blacksyth v. Dwerpy such discussion and argument of the charge can take place. The legal definition of collusion as the Legal Information Institute [LII] states is,

    “A collaborative agreement, usually secret, amongst rivals to prevent open competition through deceptive means in order to gain a market advantage. The parties may collude by agreeing to fix prices, limit or restrict supply, share insider information, or divide the market.”

    Granted the law states that such crime takes place “amongst rivals,” our argument in contrast to this is that the overall wording of the law is an agreement between two in which through deception they gain advantage on a market. Though we can not speak for if they’re rivals or not, we can look at the previous evidence and see a conspiracy of collaboration to gain from the bid server or “market” if you will. A collaboration which will only unfold further as this case propels until the final ruling and its closing. A collaboration the public had no idea about, a collaboration that the government has no law preventing again or impressions of it. This is a compelling case in our eyes, your honor. If actions like the ones both defendants pulled off were to freely walk a bad precedent might as well walk with it. I apologize if my tone is off your honor, but this is certainly the case for it. I hope my argument has compelled you.


    I hope that this brings clarity to my original mishaps, if you need any further will shall provide. Thank you, your honor
     
  6. Topte and GarMen like this.
  7. Matthew100x

    Matthew100x Helper Helper Judge Donator

    Matthew100x
    @Topte is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Topte , does not acknowledge the case as a reply in 2 days, the case will close in the Plaintiff's favor.

    Court is in Session

    This case is presided by Judge Matthew100x Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!


    @Topte, how do you plea to charges brought forward? When you reply, please only respond with how you plea.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2021
  8. Topte likes this.
  9. SiriGamer15

    SiriGamer15 Citizen

    SiriGamer15
    Your Honor, I SiriGamer15, will be Topte’s defence lawyer in this case.

    My client would like to plead not guilty to the charge of collusion. May I have the floor to respond to the prosecution's claims?


    Thank you Your Honor.
     
  10. Topte likes this.
  11. Matthew100x

    Matthew100x Helper Helper Judge Donator

    Matthew100x
    The floor is yours for opening arugments SiriGamer.
     
  12. IncompleteRiver and Topte like this.
  13. SiriGamer15

    SiriGamer15 Citizen

    SiriGamer15
    Thank you Your Honor


    Firstly, my client would like to counter sue to regain 2000 for legal fee’s


    The definition the prosecution has used (Found here) states, “A collaborative agreement, usually secret, amongst rivals to prevent open competition through deceptive means in order to gain a market advantage. The parties may collude by agreeing to fix prices, limit or restrict supply, share insider information, or divide the market.”


    Cooleagles stated, “Granted the law states that such crime takes place amongst rivals, our argument in contrast to this is that the overall wording of the law is an agreement between two in which through deception they gain advantage on a market.” This is clearly bent to benefit the lawsuit. while someone can supplement real legal terms as set by the precedent case Blacksyth V. Dwerpy. There is no legal precedent that I am aware of, unless the plaintiff would like to give evidence otherwise, that a side can adjust a real world law to fit the needs of their lawsuit.


    The definition relies on the fact that Topte and Squifot are rivals, which they are clearly not. Firstly both Topte and Squifot do not consider themselves rivals (exhibits 1 and 2). Second, Squifot does not own any businesses that could rival Topte’s company Omega Corporation (exhibit 3), and was actually employed at Omega Corporation. Third, Squifot has actually added Topte to a plot of his own.

    Finally, I would like to address the punishments the prosecution has brought up. Firstly it is unjust that lash should not have to pay for the plot. According to my client (exhibit 4) lash only asked 2 times for the plot, and each encounter lasted less than 5 minutes. As precedent set by Spicy Fridge V. Doeboy2234, if a very high amount is listed for a case then nothing can be awarded. Doing the math in the Spicy Fridge V. Doeboy2234 case 222kr/per min/per player for time wasted, trespassing and murdering one individual. This case is listed at 2200/per min/per player, and that is only for time wasted.

    My client has never committed collusion before the time in question (exhibit 5). So I find it unprofessional for the prosecution to call him out for the “repetition of his crimes” when they did not provide any evidence of my client committing collusion before the time in question. So I find it strange that the prosecution is asking for a permanent ban from the court.


    Exhibits: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ygwQbHATgaVd6PbKomyGrB7lIRxdnYAPImqmvdt10UA/edit?usp=sharing


    Thank you for your time, your honor.
     
  14. Topte likes this.
  15. Matthew100x

    Matthew100x Helper Helper Judge Donator

    Matthew100x
    Sirigamer, as we're currently in Criminal Court, I'm not going to focus on any civil matters here. Both the Prosecutor and the Defendant will not have anything reimbursed or asset transferred as a result of this specific court. Any matter revolving around the transferring of the plot or paying krunas or paying legal fees will not be examined in this Court. Please make a separate court case after this case is over.

    "There is no legal precedent that I am aware of, unless the plaintiff would like to give evidence otherwise, that a side can adjust a real-world law to fit the needs of their lawsuit." Since our law may be lacking, I am allowing the prosecution to argue on Common Law ideas. If the defendant is found guilty, I will push parliament into investigating this area of law to create something so we don't have to argue on arcane standards. Additionally, xLayzur and I have already discussed potential laws stemming from this area of law previously.

    "The definition relies on the fact that Topte and Squifot are rivals, which they are clearly not. Firstly both Topte and Squifot do not consider themselves rivals (exhibits 1 and 2). Second, Squifot does not own any businesses that could rival Topte’s company Omega Corporation (exhibit 3), and was actually employed at Omega Corporation. Third, Squifot has actually added Topte to a plot of his own."

    Cooleagles the defendant brings a good point. In order for Topte and Squifot to be guilty of collusion, they'd have to be rivals. But how can they be rivals if they are not in competition with each other? Squifot and Topte work for each other, and that Squifot has a record of being amicable with Topte.

    The bar set for a crime of 'collusion' is "is an agreement between two in which through deception they gain advantage on a market". It would be hard to separate the aspect of rivalry from the crime of 'collusion' since it's an integral part of the original definition. This is because, in collusion, it is usually market competitors agreeing to work with each other to gain an advantage in a market.

    So my questions to the Prosecutor are the following. How are Topte and Squifot rivals? How does a single sale constitute trying to gain an advantage in a market (With the market being the Real Estate market)? How has Topte shown a "repetition of his crimes" when the prosecution has only one example listed?

    In addition, why should the court ask the DoJ to institute a "Lifetime Ban" (Presumedly from the BC Bid Server) as a punishment towards the Defendant? It is an incredibly strong punishment to be requesting.

    To wrap up what I have to say. I, as a Judge, am looking for evidence that will put all reasonable doubt to rest. If the evidence and argument do not match up to the profile of the crime then my decision will be clear. With that, the prosecution has the floor. You have 48 hours to make a counterargument @Cooleagles2005.
     
  16. Marco G and xlayzur like this.
  17. Cooleagles2005

    Cooleagles2005 Judge Judge

    cooleagles2005

    Thank you, your honor.


    {Discussion of the Charge}
    Firstly to answer your questions, your honor. In regards to the charge of collusion, the prosecution will not deny what is in front of our eyes, that particular definition does state it is “amongst rivals.” However, as this is a real world charge, numerous definitions can follow. For example, what does it mean to collude in the first place? For two people to collude, would mean to “cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.” That is the definition of collude from the dictionary (found
    here), notice it mentions no sort of rivalry. Another even more reliable definition can be found on the well known law page, The Law Dictionary where it does state the following in regards to collusion,


    “A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right, Cowell. A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or to obtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or its officers.”


    Take notice that once again, unlike the first given definition, it fails to mention the needed factor of rivalry to fall under the law. Another fair perspective to admire would be an overview perspective. Perhaps, they were not in competition with each other but cooperatively in competition with other bidders. Although this perspective is a bit non traditional, it is an interesting thought on how this case can be previewed. Overall to answer your questions and concerns of this charge, your opinion on how the rivalry is a finite point of the law is well respected. However, from other definitions and perhaps even perspectives it is not the common or continuous point. The most important point or the common factor is an agreement which is used to take advantage over others, which has clearly happened here today but we will come back to that. If they happen to be rivals, then I suppose it would come into play. However, it is not the single and only definition of the law.

    As we began to discuss above, they are not rivals. However, the evidence, in which the defense has put no time towards debating shows that every other piece of this law has occurred. Every other word, every other letter has taken place. To further this idea, I remind the court of what exactly has taken place here. DownRangeBanana, a player who has no known account in BC, enters the BC Bid server and on that same day makes a bid of 23,000kr. The evidence suggests this was Topte’s doing, he has done it before and this time had even more of a reason to do so, that reason being profit. When the staff found no reason to believe the bid was real, and asked Topte if he wished to consider it, Topte said he did. That shows 2 things, your honor. It furthers the idea that Topte invited him for he was taking his side, and secondly it shows once again it was never about the crime, never about the people, never about a fair advantage, it was about profit. We are sitting here debating the crimes validity in this case, which is fair, The prosecution understands your points. However, the defense has made no point, argument, or recollection of Topte’s actions. That is only the beginning as well. Squifot, joined the BC Server on the 15th, same day bidded 30,000kr this time. There is proof from staff that this money was given to him by Topte, then used to bid on the auction, and then given back. Yet the defense has made no argument or even a mention of this. I would also like to make it known, the defense has mentioned the connections between Topte and Squifot. If they are not rivals, they are close friends who would do anything for another. Friends who would break a law not even made in our world for each other. If not every single one of the points mentioned above is to be answered, at least the court deserves an explanation for randomly giving 30,000kr to someone, and then having it returned. Especially when that 30,000kr is used to bid on your very own building. That is not a theory, it is not something to ponder. It is a fact found by BC Staff. I ask that some of the prosecution's questions be answered, at least the 30,000kr situation between Topte and Squifot.

    {Discussion of The Market}
    Continuing on, you ask how a single sale constitutes a market advantage. To answer this to the best of my ability, first hand it most likely will not. However, as we have all said, there is no law in BC. Your honor, you yourself say you are pushing towards laws in this area. Today if this goes unnoticed, if this goes unpunished. Tomorrow, up to the very day some good soul creates said law. It will be known to our world, that these actions are simply excusable. That any persons or companies could gather, rivals or not, and gain advantages on any market. We are allowed to argue outside crimes in place of the inactive ones in our world, however when they go unanswered. Up until the very day they are, there is a bad precedent set. As I’ve said before your honor, “your decision on which will ultimately decide the well-being of my clients today and future victims tomorrow.”

    {Discussion of the Banning}
    In regards to the banning. Many have gotten confused with our position on this, and we agree it can be a harsh punishment. However, our exact words were, “We ask that Topte be properly punished within the law” even when we did mention banning him we said, “some kind of banning.” Let it be known the Prosecution never suggested a lifetime ban, let it also be known that this ban is in reference to BC not Bc Bid. Most likely a permanent banning on BC Bid will happen no matter the ruling of this case. We are simply pushing for a couple days, a couple weeks at most banning from BC grounds. We have not listed any specific type of banning, and that fault rests in our hands your honor. Understand now, that the prosecution is looking for a couple days to a couple weeks max banning from BC grounds overall. If this punishment is too harsh which is understandable, we would suggest a sizable amount of jail time plus any fines you wish to add, your honor. On a side note, in regards to “repetition of his crimes” we were speaking of his previous ban on the discord for inviting a non-BC individual onto it, not collusion. He had done what was most likely repeated today with DownRangeBanana, he let a random person into a BC sanctuary. The use of the word repetition speaks not only of him doing this before, but the fact that this time he did it and took advantage of it. The repetition not only supports the two incidents but the increase at which they were done. Overall let it be known that we never mentioned a lifetime ban and the repetition does not rest with collusion but with his actions which led to collusion. I hope that this brings clarity.

    {Additional Points}
    Finally some other points in which the defense had brought up. The defense spoke as if we were attempting to gain profit for damages in this case. Though the judge has made his decision on this, I would like to clarify something. My clients, nor the government would ever attempt to gain profit for damages in a case such as this. Unlike the person in question, profit is not everything. We are here for justice and what is right, the other claims earlier on with the building was simply to fix the mistakes and damages done by Topte. It is unjust for anyone in all honesty to make profit off a suit which questions and hopefully punishes a guilty man and his accomplice.
    Secondly, the defense made the claim that Topte was only messaged twice in regards to gaining the price. That however is false, since Topte himself said that he was also messaged a beaming 6 times from GarMen. GarMen even claims himself that he asked many more times than that. This can be found in the Defense’s own evidence, evidence 4 specifically. The defense most likely left this large point out to bend it towards their own side.
    Also a final point we’d like to make, after reviewing the defense’s evidence it all either falls under as compound/leading questions or biased opinion. Siri asks if Topte had committed collusion “before this”, since there is no law or rule to be striked on a record, we have no clue if he is telling the truth or not. Another fair point is the whole rival situation, they could be putting up a front which suggests they are not rivals. If they could lie about working together, perhaps they could lie about liking each other. Simply put, the prosecution would like to make it known that some of their evidence is a bit untrustworthy or has no actual facts behind it.

    We hope that this brings clarity to any questionable pieces. We also hope that some of the unexplained facts as mentioned earlier can be clarified by the defense. Thank you, your honor


    (Evidences to support any new claims made)
     

    Attached Files:

  18. Topte and xlayzur like this.
  19. Matthew100x

    Matthew100x Helper Helper Judge Donator

    Matthew100x
    Before I can even begin with my response I must make it clear what I can do in regards to remedy or punishment. I am not staff and I do not have the power to ban anyone from the server. The government currently has an anti-staff punishment policy with many laws being edited to remove staff-related punishments as consequences. My powers are as follows: Jailing, Fining, Community Service, Restricting Access to an area under threat of contempt of court/trespassing punishment, and compelling organizations to stop giving access to their service under threat of contempt of court. I cannot ban someone unless the god Koalition decides otherwise. I am not staff and this is not a punishment request thread.

    That being said, I agree with your points though I am frustrated by the prosecutions moving definition of collusion. This area of law will certainly need to be looked at by parliament when there is available time.

    Arguments that I accept:
    -Repetition of crime: I now understand that the contrast between DownRangeBanana and Squifot was used to show how Topte had attempted to do the same thing multiple times over. The question remains to be determined if it is illegal.

    Arguments that I go not accept:
    - Banning Topte: Read my first paragraph again if you do not understand why.
    - “your decision on which will ultimately decide the well-being of my clients today and future victims tomorrow.”: We are arguing on Common Law. We have no easy answer for the problems that we face and no confirmed definition in our law book for the crime that we are discussing. I understand that my decision affects the well-being of your clients. I however also understand that my decision affects the well-being of Topte and Squifot. We're still in the process of determining if Topte is guilty of the crime of 'collusion'.

    The defendant's lawyer @SiriGamer15 now has the floor for 48 hours to make a counter-argument.

    My Questions are as follows. What is the relationship between yourself (Topte), Squifot, and DownRangeBanana? How do you explain the transfer of money from Topte to Squifot who then immediately places a bid on Topte's building? Barring the non-existent rivalry argument, how could a reasonable person conclude that Topte and Squifot were not working together to raise the price of the bid?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2021
  20. Topte and Der_s like this.
  21. SiriGamer15

    SiriGamer15 Citizen

    SiriGamer15
    Thank You Your Honor,



    First I would like to notify the court that Der_s will be assisting me in this case, which provides reasoning to why he may be asking the questions in evidence.


    {Answers To Questions}


    To Begin, I would like to state that the relationship between Topte & Squifot is more acquaintances than friends. Proven by Evidence One, and the relation between DownRageBanana is shown in Evidence 2 that Topte has had contact with the person before, but hasn't talked to him in months. Shown in Evidence 3 is a screenshot of all DMS DownRangeBanana and Topte have had. In Evidence 3, you see him mention a contract, unfortunately it has been lost since it has been 5 months since the contract was made, However if we are able to find it we will immediately update the evidence document to include a screenshot of it.


    Secondly, the transfer between money is also given reasoning in Evidence One, Which backs up the claim that they were not trying to raise the bid on the property. My client is open to questions if further investigation is needed, and we are open to asking staff to see if they can retrieve logs of this.


    {Easing Concerns}



    Lastly I would like to address concerns the prosecution had in their previous statement.


    First, it is stated that our evidence is “Simply put, the prosecution would like to make it known that some of their evidence is a bit untrustworthy or has no actual facts behind it.” Which we feel is a fair argument, However we would like to say that while this is possibly true, it can also be said about some of their evidence, as is with many cases, in real life, and in BC. While we do agree that the screenshots look suspicious, we feel that we have given evidence, and can continue to do so if needed, that prove that they are nothing beyond suspicions.


    Finally, while the Collusion Charge has changed definition throughout the case, we would like to bring to the judges attention that the first collusion definition is very similar to the new one brought up. The quotes “whose interests are apparently conflicting” and “collaborative agreement, usually secret, amongst rivals to prevent open competition through deceptive means in order to gain a market advantage” are largely similar, only changing a few words, but we feel it is clear that they mean the same thing, our reasoning behind this is;


    • The new definition used chooses the words “Whose interests are apparently conflicting” and the first definition used states “collaborative agreement, usually secret, amongst rivals to prevent open competition through deceptive means in order to gain a market advantage” with what the Judge has stated saying “Barring the non-existent rivalry argument, how could a reasonable person conclude that Topte and Squifot were not working together to raise the price of the bid?” and what we feel is sufficient evidence that they were not trying to raise the price of the bid, would remove all criteria from both definitions of the law as being collusion.


    Thank You Your Honor.


    Evidence Document: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1JFGiIH5SeK6Y27It5vpZpXRgTz38JNXbO4f6HX2Dxkc/edit?usp=sharing
     
  22. Topte and xlayzur like this.
  23. Matthew100x

    Matthew100x Helper Helper Judge Donator

    Matthew100x
    In response to the Defendant's counterargument:

    The defendant's response to my questions is inadequate in my opinion and does not offer an adequate explanation of the situation.

    The defendant's claim that Topte and Squifot were acquaintances doesn't make sense for the following reasons:
    • Both parties transferred a large sum of Krunas (30,000 kr) between themselves multiple times over.
    • Both parties have a history with each other where Squifot used to work for Topte
    • Squifot trusted Topte enough to hold onto 30,000 kr for him and then gave it back to him after he quit the server.
    These are the actions of friends, not acquaintances in my opinion. I reject this argument that did not know each other that well.


    I agree with the prosecution that something fishy has occurred here and I will put together a definition of the charge when the case is done regardless of the verdict and push it towards Parliament to implement. The determination that we as a Court have to figure out is whether or not it is illegal.

    In any case, I must address this quote:

    SiriGamer, I have verifiable evidence that you've lied to this courtroom in relation to my question regarding the relationship between DownRangeBanana. This can be confirmed with both evidence and logic shown in "The reasoning for charges" section. So I will be requesting charges against you and your clients from the DoJ.


    Charges against the Defendant and Defendant's Lawyer mid-case:

    I am hereby charging the defendant's lawyer @SiriGamer15 with Perjury and @Topte and @DownRangeBanana with Obstruction of Justice. Since we do not have a Perjury crime established I will request the punishment be the same as Obstruction of Justice and request DoJ minister @ReaperEduardo to please jail @SiriGamer15 for 5 minutes in addition to jailing @Topte and @DownRangeBanana for 5 minutes. In addition, I will be having a conversation with the DoJ after this case to investigate whether or not SiriGamer should be allowed to continue practicing law.

    In addition, I am also issuing a warning towards @Der_s in relation to the charges of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. The Court knows when it is being lied too. I caution against assisting this specific case any further.

    The reasoning for charges:

    The defendant's lawyer willfully lied to the court by offering doctored evidence and making arguments in bad faith based on falsified evidence.

    The evidence given by the defendant's lawyer in their latest proof shows an empty chatlog between his client Topte and DownRangeBanana. DownRangeBanana has no player data on the server as confirmed by both evidence given by the prosecutor (Prosecution's Opening Argument Evidence 3) and my own independent investigation (Evidence 1). This means one of two things, either the Defendant communicated with DownRangeBanana on another platform and the Defendant's lawyer refused to give this up and chose to show a blank discord, or the client and DownRangeBanana willfully deleted their discord messages and the Lawyer knowingly showed this as evidence. We know this because in-game communication would've been impossible since DownRangeBanana has never joined.

    This logic hinges on the fact that DownRangeBanana never joined the server. Since he has no data on the server, then that means he never joined at all. If he never joined at all, then DownRangeBanana shouldn't have known about the existence of BC Bid, much less put a bid specifically on Topte's plot that he could not afford since he had no money. Instruction would have needed to have been given by Topte in order for DownRangeBanana to do these things. This instruction has been hidden from the court against the Judge's question by the Defendant's Lawyer who lied about the relationship between DownRangeBanana and Topte. Thus the Perjury Charge for Sirigamer15 and the Obstruction of Justice Charges for Topte and DownRangeBanana.

    Continuing the Case:
    I am requesting that the case please continue on. I am now asking for closing arguments starting with the Prosecution and ending with the Defendant. I will give my verdict after the closing arguments.

    The Prosecutor @Cooleagles2005 may now post their closing argument, please post it within 48 hours.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 8, 2021
  24. Creepsteve05 and GarMen like this.
  25. Cooleagles2005

    Cooleagles2005 Judge Judge

    cooleagles2005
    Thank you and Good Evening, your honor

    It upsets me and the prosecution to hear the shocking facts found about my opposing counsel, though we are relieved a sense of truth has been given light to the court. In regards to the case, it appears that the defendants are quite guilty of a crime, if it is still in debate, the new evidence you have found your honor surely supports the statement. It also appears that whilst being guilty of a crime, the debate mainly rests if that crime happens to be collusion. Your honor, the charge of collusion in this case has been one of the most debated factors, and before you make your decision I would like to say once more. Though the firstly given charge of collusion rests with the idea of collaboration through rivalry, other definitions as well as the action of collusion (colluding) mentions nothing of rivalry. Although bringing this idea late into the court is frustrating, it is very clear that collusion can go both ways. It is not fixated on rivalry, yet it is also not fixated on affiliation. I hope that this final persuasion pushes you off the middle line in which many witnesses of this case are seated.

    To wrap up what has been a very tasking case, and a very difficult debate. Let the defendants not fool you, let the facts speak, let justice be not only demanded but be served on a platter of this here court. Whether or not Topte and Squifot, serve the sentence they deserve. Whether or not they are due a few minutes in jail. Whether or not they pay a fee. This case will spark change, no matter the size. This case will be looked upon in the future of our law. We can not be bested by a mastermind of the craft in which is crime, and hopefully with the right decision today. Hopefully with all the evidence presented, all the little details. It is found that Topte and Squifot are guilty of Collusion. The prosecution now rests all arguments.

    Thank you, your honor
     
  26. Ferngrove2004 and GarMen like this.
  27. Matthew100x

    Matthew100x Helper Helper Judge Donator

    Matthew100x
    The defendant's lawyer @SiriGamer15 may now post their closing arguments. Since I am posting this very late into the night, I will give 60 hours (2 and a half days) for the defendant to create their closing argument.
     
  28. SiriGamer15

    SiriGamer15 Citizen

    SiriGamer15
  29. GarMen, Natalie Anonymous and Topte like this.
  30. Matthew100x

    Matthew100x Helper Helper Judge Donator

    Matthew100x
    I have spoken with Topte and he has elected to not get a lawyer to finish the closing arguments for the case, therefore we will be moving onto the breakdown.

    Breakdown:
    The case revolved around Topte involving his friends to make bids on his plot to raise the value of the plot as to make more money. This is not hyperbole, this is literally what happened. The problem with the case was that there was no basis for criminality because of our lack of law. In order for behavior to be considered criminal, it has to be breaking a law.

    The prosecution's original charge of inciting a crime did not make sense in retrospect because there was no crime being committed. In order for Topte to have incited a crime, Squifot would have needed to commit a crime. Because Squifot had not committed a crime, Topte, therefore, could not have incited a crime. This was the original problem in the prosecution's efforts to accuse Topte of a crime. I could have allowed the case to be dismissed but I wanted to let it be argued and see where it went.

    The Defense team of the defendant, led by Sirigamer_15 and assisted by Der_s made interesting but ultimately unconvincing arguments in defense of their client. Their initial rebuttal to the opening arguments of the Prosecution allowed for a more narrow definition of a 'crime' of collusion, which I will be recommending to Parliament at the end of this response.

    It was unfortunate that during the midst of the court case, that I had to charge Sirigamer with Perjury and Topte and DownRangeBanana with Obstruction of Justice. Perjury is a charge that is unwritten in our legal books but is very much ingrained in common law legal stature, it is a charge of lying to the courts, which I am equivalating to obstruction of justice since we have no Perjury charge. In accordance with the verdict and because we do not have a perjury charge written in our law books, I am revising my judgment to only include the 5 minutes of jail time for SiriGamer and I am not going to request the DoJ restrict his ability to practice law since that would be unfair to him. In addition, the Obstruction of Justice charges for Topte and DownRangeBanana is for the destruction of evidence, plain and simple.

    The reason for these charges is mostly because it left too many questions as to why both DownRangeBanana and Squifot took the actions that they did. We did not receive chat messages from Squifot but we know that there is an empty discord chat between Topte and DownRangeBanana. This is impossible. Even if you don't message a person for a long time, those messages do not auto delete. In addition, because DownRangeBanana had not been on since July (originally thought that he had never been online) it would have been impossible for Topte to communicate with DownRangeBanana save for some other communication method that the court was not informed of. DownRangeBanana had no motive to make a bid on BC Bid on Topte's plot because he had essentially not been playing on the server for a long time. It would have had to been communicated, and those communications were either deleted or purposely hidden. Sirigamer, as the lawyer leading the defense, should have known that something was up and not placed it as evidence within the case to be taken as fact. It was a lie given to the court to mislead it.

    In the end, I am convinced that there was enough evidence that showed Topte repeatedly attempting to fraudulently raise his own plot's price colluding with his friends to make bids on his behalf to make more money off the deal. However, since there is no crime that covers this (No crime of collusion or fraud), I cannot charge Topte guilty of anything. In the end, Topte is innocent and if the law were to change would be free from being charged again due to Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy.

    Verdict:
    I hereby find the defendant Topte and Squifot not guilty of the crimes accused by the prosecution. Though I do find Sirigamer guilty of perjury and Topte and DownRangeBanana guilty of committing Obstruction of Justice.

    This has been a challenging case, and I thank both the prosecution and the defendant for working with me through this. I agree with the idea that something has gone awry here and that our current law does not cover the actions of Topte, Squifot, and DownRangeBanana. Therefore we needed to argue on Common Law in order to come to a resolution. This is why I allowed a supplemental inclusion of common law.

    Now in normal criminal law, there is a concept called "Nulla poena sine lege" which means "no penalty without a law". As much as I agree that something here has gone wrong, I cannot punish someone without there being established law. My job as a Judge is to interpret the law, I am not allowed to create law. I can 'make' law through my interpretations of the law, I cannot create it, that is the legislative branch's job.

    Now I know that this verdict will be frustrating for many, especially those working with the prosecution because this whole court case can be seen as an exercise in futility, but I want to recognize the efforts of those involved for critically analyzing this section of the law and it's shortcomings. This gives impetus to Parliament as to why we need a Collusion/Fraud crime.

    I will be making recommendations to Parliament for law changes to ensure that this does not happen again.


    Recommendations to Parliament:
    Due to the nature of this case, I need to make several bill recommendations to Parliament

    - Title: Topte Collusion and Anti-Monopoly law.
    - Type: (Amendment/Removal/Creation): Creation
    - Reasoning: This area of law is lacking in terms of preventing people from working with each other to gain an unfair advantage in the market.
    - Bill: It is illegal to purposely work with someone to defraud your buyers by creating artificial demand to raise the price of a product/item/property or any other item of tangible value. In order to be charged with this crime, the seller must be gaining a market advantage through this arrangement. The relationship between the colluding parties does not matter, only the agreement matters.

    Punishment:
    All Offenses: 10 min jailtime + a 150% fine proportional to the profits made from the collusion or monopoly.



    - Title: Perjury
    - Type: (Amendment/Removal/Creation): Creation
    - Reasoning: It should very much be illegal to lie in Court and there should be consequences for it.
    - Bill: It is illegal to lie to the courts or to purposely put evidence that is designed to mislead or lie to the courts. It is also illegal to purposely submit evidence that you know is to be false. As long as it can be demonstratively proven that you lied to the courts, you can be charged for it.

    Punishment :
    1st offense: 5 min jailtime
    2nd offense: 5 min jailtime + discussion with DoJ to see if the offender should continue practicing law.
    3rd offense: 5 min jailtime + automatic expulsion from the bar (Fired from the lawyer job).



    - Title: Fraud criminalization
    - Type: (Amendment/Removal/Creation): Creation
    - Reasoning: We've had issues in the past revolving around not having a fraud law. Between the people v. Topte and Squifot + Inperium and Partners at Law vs MeepdaMeep123, it's clear that we need some sort of definition for fraud and punishment for it. I recommend not giving punishments based on how many times the offense was committed due to the nature of fraud being different each time. Sometimes it is big, sometimes it is small, in either case, it still needs to be dealt with. Let the Judge decide the proper course of action.
    - Bill: Fraud is a false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct designed to gain something of value by misleading or deceiving someone into believing something that the perpetrator knows to be false.

    Punishment:
    All Offenses: Judge's Discretion with jail time not exceeding 15 minutes and fines with reasonable limits between 25% to 150% of the case's overall value.

    Case Wrap-up:
    Thank you for reading this case! I once again would like to recognize the efforts of both the Prosecution and the Defense team for working their hearts out on this case. I hereby adjourn this criminal court, may everyone have a wonderful day.

    Court Adjourned

    This case was presided by Judge Matthew100x
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2021