Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1

Alexander P. Love

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Construction & Transport Department
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Willow Resident
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
790
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont (As Special Prosecutor)
Prosecution

v.

xLayzur
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I was appointed by the Attorney General to investigate oval office corruption and prosecute independently. xLayzur rigged and is attempting to rig the recent HOR election in his favor, failed to cooperate with questioning, and failed to do his duties in the Congress.


I. PARTIES
1. xLayzur
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. The Department of State

II. FACTS
1. xLayzur refused to cooperate with DLA questioning, going beyond his rights.
2. xLayzur attempted to interfere with an election by intimidating the Secretary of State.
3. xLayzur has failed to hold Speaker of the House elections in a timely manner, ignoring Representatives.
4. xLayzur fired the Secretary of State because she didn't rig the election on behalf of the President.
5. xLayzur hired a new player with no experience who stated he would be reviewing past elections, further evidence of rigging.

III. CHARGES
1. x1 Count of Obstruction of Justice
2. x2 Counts of Corruption
3. x2 Counts of Electoral Fraud
4. x1 Count of Treason

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For obstruction of justice, one verbal warning.
2. For two counts of corruption, $50,000 fine and barring from holding public office for four months.
3. For two counts of electoral fraud, $50,000 fine and permanent barring from holding public office.
4. For one count of treason, $25,000 fine and barring from holding public office for two months.

V. EVIDENCE
1705030861552.png
1705031208229.png
1705031663527.png
1705031692563.png

All other evidence will be posted by Discovery. Due to the urgency of the timeline of events, I am pushing out this case before I am able to post all of the evidence.

VI. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to the President's propensity to fire those disloyal to him and because I am prosecuting the President himself, I motion to have the Court block any attempts to fire me from my Special Prosecutor role or remove me from this case. I further ask the Court to block any attempt by the Department of Legal Affairs to motion to nolle prosequi. If I am fired before this motion is heard, I ask the Court to reinstate me for the purposes of this case and other cases pertaining to my mandate as a Special Prosecutor.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 11th day of January 2024.
 
Last edited:
Emergency Injunction
The Commonwealth motions for the Court to compel the President to commence Speaker of the House elections pursuant to Congressional Standing Orders.
 
Emergency Injunction
The President has abused his position to try and remove political enemies from office and obstruct the House of Representatives, he does not have this power. Due to the immense power associated with the Office of the President and the severity of the charges being alleged, the Commonwealth requests that xLayzur be removed from office for the duration of this lawsuit. We will utilize the following precedent: Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24

and

Lawsuit: In Session - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23
 
Alex, please provide proof you have the authority to represent the Commonwealth in court.
 
IMG_2253.jpg
 
As there appears to be a lack of response when reviewing the case docket within the court.

The court requests that the prosecution recertify the filing before we re-issue the summons or request that the prosecution withdraw their claims.

Please have an answer submitted to the court within 48 hours.
 
I will be continuing these cases under authority as a special prosecutor within the Department of Legal Affairs, your honor.
1712162763143.png
 
The court will require the Attorney General to confirm this authority has been given in person. While you have submitted a picture to the court, we will require confirmation as no public announcement was given, as is standard practice from the DLA.

Once confirmation is acquired, the court will re-issue the summons for the defendant.
 
Your Honor,
I confirm that I gave alexander love permission to continue this prosecution as a special prosecutor
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
The defendant failed to appear before the court. A public defender will be assigned to the case when one is available.

The court will be in recess until one can be assigned.
 
Although a Public Defender has been hired, due to a lack of another available Justice, this case will remain in recess.
 
Due to Justice SumoMC's nomination passing earlier this morning, we will be moving forward.

Due to the Defense not presenting, a Public Defender will be summoned.
They have 72 hours to give an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

xLayzur
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. We deny that "xLayzur refused to cooperate with DLA questioning, going beyond his rights."
2.We deny that "xLayzur attempted to interfere with an election by intimidating the Secretary of State."
3. We neither affirm or deny that "xLayzur has failed to hold Speaker of the House elections in a timely manner, ignoring Representatives.
4. We deny that "xLayzur fired the Secretary of State because she didn't rig the election on behalf of the President.
5. We neither affirm or deny that " xLayzur hired a new player with no experience who stated he would be reviewing past elections, further evidence of rigging.

II. DEFENCES
1. The defence will prove throughout the case that the alleged actions either do not match the charges brought forward, or the evidence provided is not sufficient for alleged actions.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 15th of May, 2024
 
Apologies for not moving this case sooner. We will now be moving into Discovery, this will last for a period of 7 days.
 
Interrogatory

1) Isn't it true xlayzur refused to cooperate with DLA questioning given the lack of straight answers in exhibit C?
2) Isn't it true xlayzur, as President, told his subordinate, the Secretary of State, to "fix" election results and announce wetc as the winner of the Representative election? "this better get fixed tonight..."
3) Isn't it true xlayzur fired somehumanonearth shortly after she didn't "fix" the election results and announce xlayzur's political ally, wetc, as winner of the Representative election?
4) Isn't it true Crobi268, who had less than an hour of playtime, was appointed as acting Secretary of State?

The prosecution reserves the right to ask up to one more question during discovery.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Inquiry to the Court​


Most Honourable Court,
As per the nature of my assignment as a Public Defender, I often have very little, unhelpful or in many cases non existent communication with my clients. As such, it may not be plausible to respond to the interrogatories. I will attempt to get answers, but I cannot guarantee a timely response.

Please instruct on how you wish us to proceed,
 
ColonelKai said:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Inquiry to the Court​


Most Honourable Court,
As per the nature of my assignment as a Public Defender, I often have very little, unhelpful or in many cases non existent communication with my clients. As such, it may not be plausible to respond to the interrogatories. I will attempt to get answers, but I cannot guarantee a timely response.

Please instruct on how you wish us to proceed,
Click to expand...
So long as the answers are provided within a timeline or an extension is asked then all is fine on our end.
 
The problem is that I often represent those who no longer have a presence in the server, and do not respond. I might not get an answer at all.
 
ColonelKai said:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Inquiry to the Court​


Most Honourable Court,
As per the nature of my assignment as a Public Defender, I often have very little, unhelpful or in many cases non existent communication with my clients. As such, it may not be plausible to respond to the interrogatories. I will attempt to get answers, but I cannot guarantee a timely response.

Please instruct on how you wish us to proceed,
Click to expand...
Your honor, the defense attorney should be able to answer the questions with or without consultation. The evidence attached contains all the answers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, the defense attorney should be able to answer the questions with or without consultation. The evidence attached contains all the answers.
Click to expand...
Please don't respond unless asked. This is struck.

ColonelKai said:
The problem is that I often represent those who no longer have a presence in the server, and do not respond. I might not get an answer at all.
Click to expand...
As a Public Defender, the defense responding is not needed and more often you'll have them not responding.
Given that you are to act as a normal attorney just without communicating with your client.
 
1) Isn't it true xlayzur refused to cooperate with DLA questioning given the lack of straight answers in exhibit C?
Click to expand...
From what can be seen in exhibit c, there was a single question asked to the defendant and the defendant asked a single question back. Hardly any proof towards refusal of cooperation on behalf of the defendant.

2) Isn't it true xlayzur, as President, told his subordinate, the Secretary of State, to "fix" election results and announce wetc as the winner of the Representative election? "this better get fixed tonight..."
Click to expand...
The evidence does have a quote of the latter, yes. If you are intending to ask whether or not the defendant has told the secretary to "fix" the election results in a malicious manner, I would not be able to tell you.

3) Isn't it true xlayzur fired somehumanonearth shortly after she didn't "fix" the election results and announce xlayzur's political ally, wetc, as winner of the Representative election?
Click to expand...
I would not be able to answer this question.

4) Isn't it true Crobi268, who had less than an hour of playtime, was appointed as acting Secretary of State?
Click to expand...
I cannot attest to the playtime of the mentioned person at the mentioned time.
 
ColonelKai said:
I would not be able to answer this question.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Non-responsive. The defendant can state whether or not the secretary was fired in those circumstances.
 
ColonelKai said:
I cannot attest to the playtime of the mentioned person at the mentioned time.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Non-responsive. I asked if the person in question was appointed, not what his playtime was.
 
3) Isn't it true xlayzur fired somehumanonearth shortly after she didn't "fix" the election results and announce xlayzur's political ally, wetc, as winner of the Representative election?
Click to expand...

I do not have access to the reasoning behind the firing of the secretary. Neither can I attest to the fact that it was due to the actions or inactions of the secretary, or whether wetc was a political ally.
 
With Discovery now over we will be moving into Opening Statements.

The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
AlexanderLove is hereby found in Contempt of Court and I order the DHS to fine/jail appropriately.

The defense now has 72 hours to file their Opening Statement.
 
RelaxedGV said:
AlexanderLove is hereby found in Contempt of Court and I order the DHS to fine/jail appropriately.

The defense now has 72 hours to file their Opening Statement.
Click to expand...
I never received the notification, but whatever. Holding in contempt for that is so lame. My opening statement could be “ “.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statements​



Good morning everyone,
Your honour and the honourable courts, I would like to begin my opening statement by drawing attention to the list of charges brought forward unto my client by the prosecution. They all share the same doctrine of creating a large, impressive, albeit baseless list of accusations to create a certain weight, when the complaint holds none.
For the following reasons, I believe that the charges are either unfounded, unproven or does not fall within the word of the law.

1. Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of justice is defined as such by the Savior* Act.
Willfully interfering with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer or by providing false information.
Click to expand...

The defence assumes that this is related to Exhibit C. To begin with, the validity of any resistance in that regard if not minimal is questionable. The prosecution claims that the defendant "refused to cooperate". Not only would that be an exaggeration of what happened, even if it were true, it would not prove Obstruction of Justice. Not answering questions is not providing false information, and this does not fall into the first part of the provision either, as the defendant in this case would himself be the witness.

2. Treason
A day does not go by in Redmont without a political figure being prosecuted for Treason. Under the Corruption and Espionage Offenses act, the act of Treason is defined as such;
The act of a party in federal office who is caught attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.
Click to expand...
The wording and purpose of treason being illegal is clear. As the provision itself states, the undermining of the stability, sovereignty etc must be malicious in nature. The omitting of this requirement makes Treason an often misused venue for prosecuting political misconduct in the commonwealth.
Treason charges should be used to prevent people from attempting to harm commonwealth, not from their personal view of themselves or their political ideologies, but straight up attempt to harm the commonwealth out of a hatred or any other motivation against the commonwealth.
Even if a person were to commit a crime in order to get to a position of power in the commonwealth, this should be considered to be a myriad of other crimes, but not Treason, for they saw their rise to power as something inherently good for the commonwealth, and thus had no malice against the commonwealth. Again, the burden of proof in regards to this falls to the prosecution.

3. Corruption & Electoral Fraud (General Argument)
Our argument generally comes from the fact that the amount and quality of evidence provided to the courts during this case has been unsatisfactory and small. Considering the severity of the allegations, we believe the following burdens of proof must have been fully satisfied for any of this to be valid, while no proof supporting any of them was provided to the court;

1. That another candidate won the vote definitively,
2. The defendant's claims of possible electoral discrepancy were unfounded, OR the claims were made with a malicious intent & illegally to gain political advantage
3. The election therefore was overturned illegally,
4. The state secretary was fired due to such malicious reasons.

The lack of evidence towards such crucial components of the case is striking. We cannot make an argument against evidence that does not exist.

Therefore, that will be all.

Best Regards,
 
Thank you, due to neither side filing witnesses we will be moving straight into Closing Statements.
The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top