Case No NRJ001 :NR vs DUPREEJOHNSON

[dibia]

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

are you done.?

...lol...the defense counsel wishes i was done.

[COMMONCENTS]

Originally Posted by dibia

...lol...the defense counsel wishes i was done.

still going..?

[dibia]

...since defense counsel is obviously antsy, the State reserves the right to introduce further evidence as the case goes on, and formally submits a request for Chief Justice Bubus or admin maestro to subpoeana the financial records of the ID Hotpepper (a screenshot of that user's entire user history showing their donations). The plaintiff, PN, no longer has access to that account and cnnot provide them himself. The defense may state its case now.

[COMMONCENTS]

okay, seing all the evidence put up there, the first thing i'd like to do is put the plaintiff's credibility in question, lets look at evidence A.
Evidence A
The defence would like the Judges to pay attention to PN's response to Maetro's question
That is a serious issue. But if I may ask, how did he get ur account details?

PN
I really don't know, that's why I want you guys to investigate and take proper action/s. I really don't find this funny and I'm pissed like MAD. I hope hacking accounts is not new thing on NR. I'm trying not to take this o the main board so I need urgent action/s.
how could he not know? he knows it was originally DJ's account, he didnt come forth with the full story until Maestro asked him again, and he figured that Maestro must have gotten more infomation on the case.

PN Lied for his personal gain....he Lied to an NR officer, there is no doubt that he'd lie here in court if he feels like there is something to gain by it. his credibility should be put in question from this moment on.

in evidence C, i have a question for the state, was Dj's quote a response to Senator Bubus, or was that directed at PN. that evidence is a little unclear and would like for it to be dismissed unless the state has a good enough explanation.

[COMMONCENTS]

there are also a couple of points i'd like to throw out here....
1. we don’t know what the original agreement is, there’s never been a case where an i.d is sold, its impractical, it makes no sense. If he needed a new id he could have just created one, instead of paying 14 mil for ids that will be just as unknown as a newly created one.

2. there is obviously more to the story than normal, PN originally lied during questioning. He was asked how possible it was for DJ to hack into his account, and he said he didn’t know, knowing full well that dj could do it, cus well…that’s his account. It wasn’t until the question was asked again that he decided to come up with this story.

3. there is no contract between them, none…I don’t see an email, or pm that explains what their agreement was, so accusing dj of breaking an agreement based on the word of a proven liar, seems very baseless to me.

4. Dj tried to settle the matter quietly and amicably but PN wasn’t having any of that, technically, that account is DJ’s, its his email address, he created the account. Until PN can produce papers to prove that he became the rightful owner at some point in time, all that’s associated with that account is DJ’s. now if he decided to give the vbux back, it was in his good faith, he obviously was ok with the vbux being returned, that shows that my client is an upstanding nr citizen.
5. why would PN need a separate account? For money laundering? To stalk ppl? These are the questions we need to be asking, that’s the best thing that has come out of this case, opening the underground shadiness that goes on with double ids. My client just happens to be caught in the crossfires isall.

It is easy to take ppl’s words and run with it, but seriously, there just isn’t enough evidence here to find my client guilty. He has done nothing wrong. He reset the password in His account, and took ownership of what is rightfully his. Like I said, if the state provides document (that I haven’t seen) that proves that PN owns that account, then we’d have a case to even discuss.

the defense rests for now.

[dibia]

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

okay, seing all the evidence put up there, the first thing i'd like to do is put the plaintiff's credibility, lets look at evidence A.
Evidence A
The defence would like the Judges to pay attention to PN's response to Maetro's question
That is a serious issue. But if I may ask, how did he get ur account details?

PN
I really don't know, that's why I want you guys to investigate and take proper action/s. I really don't find this funny and I'm pissed like MAD. I hope hacking accounts is not new thing on NR. I'm trying not to take this o the main board so I need urgent action/s.
how could he not know? he knows it was originally DJ's account, he didnt come forth with the full story until Maestro asked him again, and he figured that Maestro must have gotten more infomation on the case.

PN Lied for his personal gain....he Lied to an NR officer, there is no doubt that he'd lie here in court if he feels like there is something to gain by it. his credibility should be put in question from this moment on.

.

..in response to the defense's claim that PN lied in Exhibit A, the State asks the court not to confuse confusion with lying. The plaintiff was distressed and truly did not know how DJ had pulled off his malicious robbery. His emotions were off-kilter, and he answered to the best of his ability. His clearer response came afterwards after he had had time to grieve over his missing Vbucks and digest the situation.

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

in evidence C, i have a question for the state, was Dj's quote a response to Senator Bubus, or was that directed at PN. that evidence is a little unclear and would like for it to be dismissed unless the state has a good enough explanation.

...as for Exhibit C, it matters not who DJ directed the words to...only that he said them, in the e-presence of a NotaRy public. Unless defense counsel has proof showing that DJ rebutted this confession in the presence of said NotaRy public, the confession should stand. The State asks the court to note that, by not contesting the actual statement by DJ, defense counsel has implicitly agreed that his client did in fact admit guilt.

[COMMONCENTS]

Originally Posted by dibia

.

..in response to the defense's claim that PN lied in Exhibit A, the State asks the court not to confuse confusion with lying. The plaintiff was distressed and truly did not know how DJ had pulled off his malicious robbery. His emotions were off-kilter, and he answered to the best of his ability. His clearer response came afterwards after he had had time to grieve over his missing Vbucks and digest the situation. .

Lol@confusion, no response to that, i hope the Judges see past that.

Originally Posted by dibia

.
...as for Exhibit C, it matters not who DJ directed the words to...only that he said them, in the e-presence of a NotaRy public. Unless defense counsel has proof showing that DJ rebutted this confession in the presence of said NotaRy public, the confession should stand. The State asks the court to note that, by not contesting the actual statement by DJ, defense counsel has implicitly agreed that his client did in fact admit guilt.

as for exhibit C, yes it does matter, that evidence is very misleading. it has obviously been tampered with, the prosecutors have chosen to present an individual comment as if its a response to something it might have had nothing to do with. or maybe it did, but it wasnt a direct response...this evidence should be thrown out.

[COMMONCENTS]

while we are making requests, can we also find out what the interest accumulation date is for premium ninja's account and Hotpepper

[dibia]

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

there are also a couple of points i'd like to throw out here....
1. we don’t know what the original agreement is, there’s never been a case where an i.d is sold, its impractical, it makes no sense. If he needed a new id he could have just created one, instead of paying 14 mil for ids that will be just as unknown as a newly created one.

Creating a new ID is impractical because member benefits are based on time put in on NR. However, that is immaterial here. The plaintiff's business savvy is not in question here. Paying 14 million doesn't have to make sense to you or any one else because that is not what this trial is about. It must have made some kinda sense though, because the plaintiff turned that 14 million into 1.2 billion....the State is just saying.

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

2. there is obviously more to the story than normal, PN originally lied during questioning. He was asked how possible it was for DJ to hack into his account, and he said he didn’t know, knowing full well that dj could do it, cus well…that’s his account. It wasn’t until the question was asked again that he decided to come up with this story.

The State contends that in spite of the fact that the ID had been sold, DJ still had access to the email account to which NR notifications are sent. Clicking on one of those links leads you right into the userid that sent the email. This is how DJ 'hacked' into the account, and this is how he stole the money. PN did not 'lie' during any questioning. Understandably, it took him a while to piece it together.

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

3. there is no contract between them, none…I don’t see an email, or pm that explains what their agreement was, so accusing dj of breaking an agreement based on the word of a proven liar, seems very baseless to me.

It would have been baseless, but your own client, in Exhibits C, D and E implied his own wrongdoing and basically admitted his own guilt. This particular sentence in Exhibit C is damning.

Originally Posted by dupreejohnson

Raising hell did not play out fair did it?

We could have come to an agreement without administration. Oblivious to late for that.

FYI:
I was not given the opportunity to follow the orders below. So 'raise hell' to the same people who deleted the vBux from my account before the 24 hour period which made it impossible for me to return vBux. They can restore the vBux to you.

You are still typing out of anger. Hit me back when a cooler mind prevails. A hot head will not get you too far on NR as you have witnessed.

Why return something you haven't taken wrongfully? His admission that he needed to return the vbux precludes any need to establish a previous agreement as his statement demonstrates that he is acting wrt already set principles.

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

4. Dj tried to settle the matter quietly and amicably but PN wasn’t having any of that, technically, that account is DJ’s, its his email address, he created the account. Until PN can produce papers to prove that he became the rightful owner at some point in time, all that’s associated with that account is DJ’s. now if he decided to give the vbux back, it was in his good faith, he obviously was ok with the vbux being returned, that shows that my client is an upstanding nr citizen.

...see above.

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

5. why would PN need a separate account? For money laundering? To stalk ppl? These are the questions we need to be asking, that’s the best thing that has come out of this case, opening the underground shadiness that goes on with double ids. My client just happens to be caught in the crossfires isall.

Once again, these questions are immaterial to this trial. Stop trying to distract the bench counselor. They are too wise to be fooled by your bait-and-switch maneuvers.

[dibia]

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

as for exhibit C, yes it does matter, that evidence is very misleading. it has obviously been tampered with, the prosecutors have chosen to present an individual comment as if its a response to something it might have had nothing to do with. or maybe it did, but it wasnt a direct response...this evidence should be thrown out.

...Chief Justice Bubus can verify the accuracy of the exchange. Your point holds no water.

[COMMONCENTS]

My client never admitted to any wrong doing...all he admitted to was that the money he found in his account wasnt his, and was willing to return it to the owner, which i think is very big of him. if i found money in my account, i surely wouldnt be returning it, neither would you. its Dj's account, prove otherwise and we'll have a case.

[COMMONCENTS]

Originally Posted by dibia

...Chief Justice Bubus can verify the accuracy of the exchange. Your point holds no water.

im not doubting the exchange, its the way the state presented the evidence that is concerning. it is deceitful and should be thrown out.

[dibia]

Originally Posted by COMMONCENTS

My client never admitted to any wrong doing...all he admitted to was that the money he found in his account wasnt his, and was willing to return it to the owner, which i think is very big of him. if i found money in my account, i surely wouldnt be returning it, neither would you. its Dj's account, prove otherwise and we'll have a case.

...lol...this line of reasoning is dead on arrival. Is it defense counsel's contention that DJ logged in to his account, found money that wasn't his and pocketed it? Never once asking how PN got access to his account? Never once bringing up, when questioned by the authorities, that PN had accessed his account without permission? Never once laying rightful claim to his ill-gotten wealth. Your client's actions speak louder than my words ever could. He never once asked how PN got access to his account because he gave him the password as part of the sale. He never once brought up illegal access by PN because there was none, and he never once claimed the money as his because IT WASN'T HIS MONEY. Period. If these spurious arguments are all the defense has to offer then the prosecution rests. We feel that the truth of this matter is self-evident and urge the court to see justice served.

[COMMONCENTS]

Originally Posted by dibia

...lol...this line of reasoning is dead on arrival. Is it defense counsel's contention that DJ logged in to his account found money that wasn't his and pocketed it? Never once asking how PN got access to his account? Never once bringing up, when questioned by the authorities, that PN had accessed his account without permission? Never once laying rightful claim to his ill-gotten wealth. Your client's actions speak louder than my words ever could. He never once asked how PN got access to his account because he gave him the password. He never once brought up illegal access by PN because there was none, and he never once claimed the money as his because IT WASN'T HIS MONEY. Period. If these spurious arguments are all the defense has to offer then the prosecution rests. We feel that the truth of this matter is self-evident and urge the court to see justice served.

i'm not stating that PN had illegal access into the account, all i'm saying here is there was an agreement between PN and DJ, we dont know what it is. PN claims he bought the account, as silly as that sounds. i dont think too much weight should be put into what PN says because his credibility is already in question here. the agreement could have been anything, the agreement could have been that PN use the account for interest accumulation but should also make sure DJ gets a cut. The agreement could have been that PN use the account for a month and after that month, ownership of account and anything in it goes back to DJ.

these are all speculations, yes..but until we find out exactly what their agreement was, with solid proof, emails, posts, pms...anything...there really isnt a case here.

[Bubus]

Commoncents, can you tell the court why your client is not in attendance?
I see no reason why I should not hold him liable for Failure to Appear and issue a bench-warrant for his arrest.

Clerk can you confirm that the Accused was duly served?