Reviewed SR 2.5, GR 6.4 | 99128,135347,141372

[CommanderMalo]

Please once again lock for senior state curators, thank you.

Court trial part 2: Electric Boogaloo, this time including State rule 2.5.

Day 2 following the previous: On consideration - ForceRP, Gen rule 6.4 | 141372, 91999, 99128

POV#1

Point 1: Refusing to show documents related to the case under the rule of discovery. Corruption + SR 2.5

Since I have some folks crying about "B-b-b-b-but the overlays!!111!!" in the comments here, you can clearly see at 1:23 I use the microphone to speak, and then leave it on because I never end up finishing my statement.

POV#2

Point 2: Judges chambers where I am again refused the documents under the premise of "not being related to my client" Which is incorrect. In order to prove this entire case file is valid, I need to see the OFPI (Order of First Person Investigation), which in turn means it counts as evidence against my client.

FULL POV
Timestamp 0:00-0:21 shows the prosecution and the SCJs walking out together. Could be coincidence, looks like corruption.


Throughout the course of the POV, you can clearly see the bias in regards to the objections made by the defense, in which I am having to do so repeatedly to actually get a point in, and then having it overruled regardless.

As stated in the forum prior, It is becoming more difficult to handle this ICly due to the rank and lack of knowledge of the people involved.

 

[Maarsh Walker]

Please once again lock for senior state curators, thank you.

Court trial part 2: Electric Boogaloo, this time including State rule 2.5.

Day 2 following the previous: On consideration - ForceRP, Gen rule 6.4 | 141372, 91999, 99128

POV#1

Point 1: Refusing to show documents related to the case under the rule of discovery. Corruption + SR 2.5

POV#2

Point 2: Judges chambers where I am again refused the documents under the premise of "not being related to my client" Which is incorrect. In order to prove this entire case file is valid, I need to see the OFPI (Order of First Person Investigation), which in turn means it counts as evidence against my client.

FULL POV
Timestamp 0:00-0:21 shows the prosecution and the SCJs walking out together. Could be coincidence, looks like corruption.


Throughout the course of the POV, you can clearly see the bias in regards to the objections made by the defense, in which I am having to do so repeatedly to actually get a point in, and then having it overruled regardless.

As stated in the forum prior, It is becoming more difficult to handle this ICly due to the rank and lack of knowledge of the people involved.

Well Regarding the Looks like corruption when the judges and Mr Mohil walked out toghter he was asked to come in to present the evidence that was given to the judges yesterday when i was not present.
Rest of the alligations will let the Admin decide.

 

[vAnimated]

Well Regarding the Looks like corruption when the judges and Mr Mohil walked out toghter he was asked to come in to present the evidence that was given to the judges yesterday when i was not present.
Rest of the alligations will let the Admin decide.

Evidence that you guys refused to provide to the defense correct? Nice corruption. Once again. Completely biased Judges letting everyone else speak other than the defense by the way. Before you even try to say that he was given opportunity to speak, he was actually not given the fact that every time he made a valid point he was consistently being interrupted. Completely biased also in the fact that no points brought up by the defense were even acknowledged as well, judges only commented against the defense for everything the prosecutions side was saying. Not even once did the judges even think to acknowledge anything that the defense said and the entire pov shows this.

 

[Maarsh Walker]

Please once again lock for senior state curators, thank you.

Court trial part 2: Electric Boogaloo, this time including State rule 2.5.

Day 2 following the previous: On consideration - ForceRP, Gen rule 6.4 | 141372, 91999, 99128

POV#1

Point 1: Refusing to show documents related to the case under the rule of discovery. Corruption + SR 2.5

POV#2

Point 2: Judges chambers where I am again refused the documents under the premise of "not being related to my client" Which is incorrect. In order to prove this entire case file is valid, I need to see the OFPI (Order of First Person Investigation), which in turn means it counts as evidence against my client.

FULL POV
Timestamp 0:00-0:21 shows the prosecution and the SCJs walking out together. Could be coincidence, looks like corruption.


Throughout the course of the POV, you can clearly see the bias in regards to the objections made by the defense, in which I am having to do so repeatedly to actually get a point in, and then having it overruled regardless.

As stated in the forum prior, It is becoming more difficult to handle this ICly due to the rank and lack of knowledge of the people involved.

By the way would you mind recording all overlays Leo ?
To the reviewing admin - Please check the evidences some of them do not have all overlays

 

[vAnimated]

By the way would you mind recording all overlays Leo ?
To the reviewing admin - Please check the evidences some of them do not have all overlays

Very nice try at this by the way but the entire pov includes all overlays. I even made sure before he posted this forum to ensure you guys get punished this time for your favoritism, corruption, and blatant disregard for the law.

 

[Maarsh Walker]

Evidence that you guys refused to provide to the defense correct? Nice corruption. Once again. Completely biased Judges letting everyone else speak other than the defense by the way. Before you even try to say that he was given opportunity to speak, he was actually not given the fact that every time he made a valid point he was consistently being interrupted. Completely biased also in the fact that no points brought up by the defense were even acknowledged as well, judges only commented against the defense for everything the prosecutions side was saying. Not even once did the judges even think to acknowledge anything that the defense said and the entire pov shows this.

If you think i did not give a chance to speak to the defence i hope you have the bodycam did i ask him to stop everytime he was speaking were there not points where Prosecution was also overruled ?
And sit around and saying stuff is quite easy if you think you are good enough give your Bar exams become a judge and then teach us to be the Judge.
It is always easy to sit around and say trash to the person working if you are good become like us then have a talk.

 

[vAnimated]

If you think i did not give a chance to speak to the defence i hope you have the bodycam did i ask him to stop everytime he was speaking were there not points where Prosecution was also overruled ?
And sit around and saying stuff is quite easy if you think you are good enough give your Bar exams become a judge and then teach us to be the Judge.
It is always easy to sit around and say trash to the person working if you are good become like us then have a talk.

You watch the pov and tell us then. Did you adequately respond to any of the points brought up by the defense? Or did you just sit there meat riding the AG because he's in the same org as you? You guys are biased and these are facts. You play favorites amongst your own people. Everyone can clearly see this so you have to think, as a judge, hmmmm. Are my actions biased? Or is there something I am doing that just looks that way?

 

[nikowebb]

You do know in a Court of law when someone says objection they are then meant to talk and then a judge say’s sustained or overruled . If they agree with what’s been said or not.

 

[Rishav Raj]

I wonder who issued you the lawyer license Because the document you have been requesting cannot be defined as a case file or a evidence (very common knowledge that someone with lawyer license should have) , (please get your facts right)
1.3.1 The Principle of Discovery is a principle in law to ensure that any Legal Proceedings are
conducted fairly between all Parties.
a) A Lawyer must be granted full access to any Case Files and/or evidence against their Client
and this request cannot be refused.
i) Where a Lawyer has not been granted access to this information, a Lawyer may
petition a Judge of the Court in order to gain access to this information.

Answer to your question is right there, you just refuse to accept it as you probably know the result already.
And since you talking about corruption so much, what is trespassing inside NG base? And in the POV we can see who are there so lets not talk about corruption atleast
+making same forum again and again

 

[Mohil Yami]

Based on the information shared in the forums, the first thing I want to address is that Leo Malone must provide the full POV (Point of View) of this situation. He failed to record all the overlays, which is a direct violation of General Rule 6.17. Specifically, in POV #1, between 2:40 and 2:45, Leo's failure to include all overlays is evident, and this breach is clearly visible in his own submission. Should he attempt to remove or edit his POV to avoid penalties, I have already captured the same violation in my own POV, recorded from 1:40 to 1:47, where it clearly shows the violation at the same 2:40 to 2:45 mark.

As for his refusal to disclose certain documents, the legislation explicitly states who is entitled to access those materials. Nowhere in the legislation is it written that the investigation report or first-person immunity motion must be shared with individuals not designated in the rules. The proper recipients of those documents have already received them, and I am not obligated to provide them to someone who lacks a proper understanding of state laws and the trial procedures.

Regarding trial proceedings, Leo's ignorance is clear. According to the rules of court procedure, at Stage 5, the defendant is allowed to present their opening statement. His lack of knowledge in this area demonstrates that he is not fit to act as a lawyer.

Moreover, Leo has accused us of corruption, but he has no evidence that he is the official legal representative of the defendant. He has not even signed a contract with the defendant for this trial. By falsely presenting himself as the defendant’s legal advisor without any formal agreement, he is engaging in actual corruption general rule 6.4, which is what corruption truly means. It is due to his limited understanding of state laws and processes that he sees others as corrupt, when it’s obvious to anyone with knowledge that his claims are unfounded. The FIB, lacking familiarity with the state's legislation, is not in a position to properly assess these matters. Every detail related to this case has already been documented in my investigation report.

I also ask that Leo provides the complete POV of this trial, so it becomes clear to everyone that he is unqualified as a lawyer. His conduct has been inappropriate, with him using improper language twice in court and citing irrelevant legislation that does not apply to the situation.

Lastly, he mentioned prior forums he filed against us that were closed for replies by Yashwant. I request that those forums be reopened, as his claims are completely baseless. I have all the POVs and necessary documentation that align with state legislation and can provide valid explanations for everything that was raised.

 

[nikowebb]

this might get me a forum punishment but i really don't care this is a game and all your boys are taking this like its your real life job or something i have one phrase and thats grow the fuck up and play the game to have a good time fuck!!!!!!

 

[Aryan mishra]

I think he should get the punishment for corruption as he did not even signed a contract with bam asiri and without a contract he is not his lawyer so he can't fight the case on behalf of bam.

 

[vAnimated]

I think he should get the punishment for corruption as he did not even signed a contract with bam asiri and without a contract he is not his lawyer so he can't fight the case on behalf of bam.

He is the lawyer of FIB he does not need to sign any contract. The only people he can represent are those within FIB. Can you show where in the law it states that he needs to sign a contract with his own org in order to represent them?

 

[Aryan mishra]

He is the lawyer of FIB he does not need to sign any contract. The only people he can represent are those within FIB. Can you show where in the law it states that he needs to sign a contract with his own org in order to represent them?

Whatever Rishav raj said everything was right, check lawyers code

 

[Mohil Yami]

He is the lawyer of FIB he does not need to sign any contract. The only people he can represent are those within FIB. Can you show where in the law it states that he needs to sign a contract with his own org in order to represent them?

If you want to engage in this debate, I suggest you study the relevant laws yourself. We're not here to spell everything out for you like you're a child. If you need legal clarification, consult your own attorney.

 

[Arsenic69]

---

Let’s get this straight. You’re questioning the abilities of the prosecution and the integrity of the judge, yet you’re the one who doesn’t even know the basic procedure for signing a contract? Then, you have the audacity to claim, "This is a small mistake that could happen to anyone." Let me make this clear—this is not a trivial error. It’s a fundamental oversight that no competent lawyer should ever make. It’s not a "mistake anyone could make"; it’s negligence, plain and simple. And to top it off, you used inappropriate, slang-ridden language in the courtroom, violating numerous legal standards and committing contempt of court—an act that alone undermines your credibility as a lawyer.
And now you expect this court to believe your client is pleading not guilty? How can I not question your competence? You have blatantly disregarded the very rules that govern the behavior of legal professionals, and now you stand here claiming moral superiority over supposed "corruption"? Let’s not even get started on corruption, because someone who doesn’t understand the legal codes should never throw that word around. If you had even a shred of knowledge of the legal basics, you would have never downplayed your error as “a small mistake.”
Now, let’s talk about trespassing on NG Base. The evidence is clear; we all saw who was there. So, please, spare us the hypocrisy of your lectures on corruption. When it comes from someone so ignorant of legal codes and courtroom conduct, it falls flat.
Now, let's discuss the matter of evidence. You were shouting about discovery, so let me educate you.
1.3.1 The Principle of Discovery ensures that legal proceedings are conducted fairly between all parties. This principle mandates that a lawyer must be given full access to all case files and evidence against their client, and this request cannot be refused.
And yet, the prosecution has already provided everything to you. Everything. So your claim that documents were used as evidence against your client is utter nonsense. It was not withheld; it was provided and properly used to revoke his rights. This is not some conspiracy or oversight—it’s the law.

 

[NoFearEN2]

---

Let’s get this straight. You’re questioning the abilities of the prosecution and the integrity of the judge, yet you’re the one who doesn’t even know the basic procedure for signing a contract? Then, you have the audacity to claim, "This is a small mistake that could happen to anyone." Let me make this clear—this is not a trivial error. It’s a fundamental oversight that no competent lawyer should ever make. It’s not a "mistake anyone could make"; it’s negligence, plain and simple. And to top it off, you used inappropriate, slang-ridden language in the courtroom, violating numerous legal standards and committing contempt of court—an act that alone undermines your credibility as a lawyer.
And now you expect this court to believe your client is pleading not guilty? How can I not question your competence? You have blatantly disregarded the very rules that govern the behavior of legal professionals, and now you stand here claiming moral superiority over supposed "corruption"? Let’s not even get started on corruption, because someone who doesn’t understand the legal codes should never throw that word around. If you had even a shred of knowledge of the legal basics, you would have never downplayed your error as “a small mistake.”
Now, let’s talk about trespassing on NG Base. The evidence is clear; we all saw who was there. So, please, spare us the hypocrisy of your lectures on corruption. When it comes from someone so ignorant of legal codes and courtroom conduct, it falls flat.
Now, let's discuss the matter of evidence. You were shouting about discovery, so let me educate you.
1.3.1 The Principle of Discovery ensures that legal proceedings are conducted fairly between all parties. This principle mandates that a lawyer must be given full access to all case files and evidence against their client, and this request cannot be refused.
And yet, the prosecution has already provided everything to you. Everything. So your claim that documents were used as evidence against your client is utter nonsense. It was not withheld; it was provided and properly used to revoke his rights. This is not some conspiracy or oversight—it’s the law.

Lets check the Lawyers Code 3.4.2 An Organisation Lawyer is contracted to that Organisation and may act as an Attorney and provide all forms of Legal Services on behalf of their "Employer" and their Organisation.

b) An Organisation Lawyer is not required to Contract for Essential Legal Services and may not charge for these services as these are offered free of Charge to "Employees" of their Organisation.
c) An Organisation Lawyer must Contract for Additional Legal Services or Special Legal Services ONLY with "Employees" of their Organisation and may charge a fee for those services.

Where does it say you have to sign a contract with "Employer" as a District Attorney before providing legal service for him ?
Lets look at the definition of Employer and Employee for state organisations in the Labour Law Article 2

2.1.1 An Employer is an individual who has entered into an agreement with an Employee through either an Agreement of Employment or a Contract of Employment.
a) For a State Organisation, the Employer is formally defined as the State, represented by:
i) The Leader of the State Organisation. ii) The Deputy Leaders of the State Organisation.

An Employee is a person who has entered into a term of Employment with their Employer through either an Agreement of Employment or a Contract of Employment

You are talking about respect and language in court, wasn't it Mohil Yami who said "Poppy is talking shit" right in front of 2 judges short time ago and didn't get hold for "Contempt of Court" + Wasn't it Mohil Yami who was blacklisting people without opening a case file or revoking their lawyers license + Wasn't it Mohil Yami who was suspending lawyer without any investigation ? + Wasn't it Mohil Yami deciding on court time on his own without consulting the other side about their availability to that time ?

Every single document against Bam and what was presented inside, is evidence and you can not deny to give that evidence to DA of FIB Leo Malone as per Lawyers Code again + give Leo reasonable time to review it and prepare his own arguments against them.

You guys are absolutely disappointment of Department of Justice, no wonder there is no lawyer and no one wants to be a lawyer while DOJ is under your control.

 

[CommanderMalo]

By the way would you mind recording all overlays Leo ?
To the reviewing admin - Please check the evidences some of them do not have all overlays

Hey brother, instead of skimming the POVs, WATCH them. at 1:23 you see me turn on the microphone, and then proceed to leave it on.

But hey, since you guys keep throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, I edited the post to mention this fact, so thank you.

 

[CommanderMalo]

I wonder who issued you the lawyer license Because the document you have been requesting cannot be defined as a case file or a evidence (very common knowledge that someone with lawyer license should have) , (please get your facts right)
1.3.1 The Principle of Discovery is a principle in law to ensure that any Legal Proceedings are
conducted fairly between all Parties.
a) A Lawyer must be granted full access to any Case Files and/or evidence against their Client
and this request cannot be refused.
i) Where a Lawyer has not been granted access to this information, a Lawyer may
petition a Judge of the Court in order to gain access to this information.

Answer to your question is right there, you just refuse to accept it as you probably know the result already.
And since you talking about corruption so much, what is trespassing inside NG base? And in the POV we can see who are there so lets not talk about corruption atleast
+making same forum again and again

Let me get this straight.

In order to even ATTEMPT to come after a state leader, you need an OFPI (Order of First Person Investigation)

Which in turn, if valid, leads to the creation of the case file.

So therefore, if you need THIS document to validate the OTHER document, then both are considered evidence, because you cannot have one without the other.

Nice touch of disrespect by the way, and its not the same forum "again and again" if they keep doing it in every court session. These are 24 hours+ apart, and different situations, warranting different forums.

But naturally, you wouldn't know. Good day, sir.

 

[CommanderMalo]

---

Let’s get this straight. You’re questioning the abilities of the prosecution and the integrity of the judge, yet you’re the one who doesn’t even know the basic procedure for signing a contract? Then, you have the audacity to claim, "This is a small mistake that could happen to anyone." Let me make this clear—this is not a trivial error. It’s a fundamental oversight that no competent lawyer should ever make. It’s not a "mistake anyone could make"; it’s negligence, plain and simple. And to top it off, you used inappropriate, slang-ridden language in the courtroom, violating numerous legal standards and committing contempt of court—an act that alone undermines your credibility as a lawyer.
And now you expect this court to believe your client is pleading not guilty? How can I not question your competence? You have blatantly disregarded the very rules that govern the behavior of legal professionals, and now you stand here claiming moral superiority over supposed "corruption"? Let’s not even get started on corruption, because someone who doesn’t understand the legal codes should never throw that word around. If you had even a shred of knowledge of the legal basics, you would have never downplayed your error as “a small mistake.”
Now, let’s talk about trespassing on NG Base. The evidence is clear; we all saw who was there. So, please, spare us the hypocrisy of your lectures on corruption. When it comes from someone so ignorant of legal codes and courtroom conduct, it falls flat.
Now, let's discuss the matter of evidence. You were shouting about discovery, so let me educate you.
1.3.1 The Principle of Discovery ensures that legal proceedings are conducted fairly between all parties. This principle mandates that a lawyer must be given full access to all case files and evidence against their client, and this request cannot be refused.
And yet, the prosecution has already provided everything to you. Everything. So your claim that documents were used as evidence against your client is utter nonsense. It was not withheld; it was provided and properly used to revoke his rights. This is not some conspiracy or oversight—it’s the law.

Go read the law and come back, sweetheart. When you find it, come back so we can laugh at you.

Let’s get this straight. You’re questioning the abilities of the prosecution and the integrity of the judge, yet you’re the one who doesn’t even know the basic procedure for signing a contract?

If you don't know what part of the law states that I don't need one, then you have about as much knowledge they do in the matter, and should just go sit back down. Good day to you, sir.