I can't because it seems the DoJ holds a record that they keep private.
Lawsuit: Adjourned A1phaSniper vs puppy_lover153 SacredSpice
- Thread starter A1phaSniper
- Start date
- Status
Can you show or link the court case in which you had the offenses removed.
https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/a1phasniper-vs-goodbye_parrot.3193/
Under Matty707's final response: "He is looking for monetary compensation (funds sent to the government) and the removal of his warning."
Last edited:
I’m sorry for speaking out of turn, however I’d like to add another thing that both Sniper and I failed to mention.
Sniper was in fact the first one to shoot and kill after he killed Matty at his region, as Head of Security at M|CORP it is my duty to protect everyone from anything. I only went after Sniper as I wanted to make it even.
Proof is down below
Sniper was in fact the first one to shoot and kill after he killed Matty at his region, as Head of Security at M|CORP it is my duty to protect everyone from anything. I only went after Sniper as I wanted to make it even.
Proof is down below
Attachments
Also sorry for speaking out of turn. I must inform you that the 26 minutes in between each kill should also be noted. The other problem contains the whole point of sacred recent post. This wasn't about who killed who first. It is about the final kill.
Also, She fails to show my full record (including what I have done to receive those warnings). I only have one offense on that record.
Last edited:
Sorry. This is the last time I am interrupting. But may you please inform both parties of what this lawsuit is about? I am pretty my past infractions have nothing to with the matter at hand.
‘Past infractions’ why bring up what I said to cjhean then? I only bring it up because you have said that you asked for all of your records to be removed, when only one had infact been removed, not all of them. So why have you lied about that?
To make sure this unordered chaos will not resume, I would like to refer to the "Court rules" thread (https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/court-rules.2409/). Under "Replying to court cases" it specifically says that "Replying to a Court Case is only permitted if summoned by the presiding Judge." A law Sacred has ignored.
Moving on, I am asking permission from the presiding judge @RedFr0st to speak.
Moving on, I am asking permission from the presiding judge @RedFr0st to speak.
Last edited:
@SacredCloud do not interrupt again unless it is your turn to talk and @A1phaSniper no need to show the rules and yes you have permission to keep speaking.
Thank you, your honor.
As I have previously stated, some of the information provided by @SacredCloud is not relevant. Since I have dismissed the case against puppy_lover153, My full record was not needed. The evidence that shows I did kill Matty707 and SacredSpice was also irrelevant as this case was not about who killed who first. The mention of the event involving Sacred and Cjhaen was a recent phenomenon Sacred had treated differently. I never said I had my entire record removed; I merely stated that specific warnings were lifted in court.
As I have previously stated, some of the information provided by @SacredCloud is not relevant. Since I have dismissed the case against puppy_lover153, My full record was not needed. The evidence that shows I did kill Matty707 and SacredSpice was also irrelevant as this case was not about who killed who first. The mention of the event involving Sacred and Cjhaen was a recent phenomenon Sacred had treated differently. I never said I had my entire record removed; I merely stated that specific warnings were lifted in court.
@SacredCloud do you have any comments or questions to A1phaSniper comment?
No, can we just finish this already
SPEAKER'S RESPONSE
Analysis:
The Plaintiff has brought the Defendant @SacredCloud for false claims of unwanted PVP. Clear evidence of unwanted PVP in the city limits.
Conclusion:
Although yes the Plaintiff and Defendant were fighting before in a friendly match I find that the evidence shows that the Defendant did not want to PVP anymore a second before death, However the Plaintiff has a tenancy of unwanted PVP, and before initiating PVP a citizen should always ask for consent.
Verdict:
As temp Judge, I hereby Adjourn this case for in Favor of Defendant.
This court case is now Adjourn.
Analysis:
The Plaintiff has brought the Defendant @SacredCloud for false claims of unwanted PVP. Clear evidence of unwanted PVP in the city limits.
Conclusion:
Although yes the Plaintiff and Defendant were fighting before in a friendly match I find that the evidence shows that the Defendant did not want to PVP anymore a second before death, However the Plaintiff has a tenancy of unwanted PVP, and before initiating PVP a citizen should always ask for consent.
Verdict:
As temp Judge, I hereby Adjourn this case for in Favor of Defendant.
This court case is now Adjourn.
Court Adjourned
This case was presided by Judge RedFr0st
Last edited:
- Status