Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sustained, The witness may answer questioning as they see fit however I ask that the witness be transparent and answer the questions directly.OBJECTION
The Plaintiff does not have the right to demand my client, or any witness, limit their answers in anyway. My client, or any witness, has the right to answer however they wish. This is just further chicanery on the part of the Plaintiff to entrap my client. As such I ask that all these questions be struck from the record.
Your honor I request that the Plaintiff be reprimanded in someway for this extreme overreach.
Denied, I’d like to apologize to both parties for the delay on my behalf I just spent the week in hospital was discharged today, so although I acknowledge the delayed interaction from myself, I will be able to carry out my duties as normal from now on therefore I see no reason to recuse myself from this case going forwardIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x
Plaintiff
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO RECUSE
I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case.
As the presiding officer, the Chief Justice has again failed to answer within a reasonable timeframe - especially beyond the time expected of the complainant and the defendant to reply to the court - on several occasions now.
I have a right to a speedy trial and the Chief Justice is impeding this right, now on several occasions. It is only reasonable that he step aside if he cannot reply to this case in a reasonable time frame.
It will soon be 7 days since the CJ has spoken in this case.
OBJECTIONSustained, The witness may answer questioning as they see fit however I ask that the witness be transparent and answer the questions directly.
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONOBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Why is this objection being sustained when it was made by a non-party to the case? The defendant fired his attorney and resumed pro se representation.
The Supreme Court is no place for jokes, if you are not the primary counsel on this case I ask you refrain from speaking unless the Defendant be unable to speak for themselves.RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
I thank the Plaintiff for informing me that my client had fired me from the case, my client had not informed me that this was his intention.
This is obviously a joke. My client has every right to represent themselves, I merely serve as co-counsel.
Overruled, The Courts Opinion does not change, however The_Donuticus will refrain from speaking unless the Defendant is unavailable again.OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Why is this objection being sustained when it was made by a non-party to the case? The defendant fired his attorney and resumed pro se representation.
The Defendant indicated to the court that he’d be resuming self representation before deleting the message, that is what the plaintiff is referring too.This is an extremely unorthodox request for the court to make as I previously stated the Defendant made no indication he wished to drop me as Co-Counsel. This just points to further chicanery and bad faith by the Plaintiff, I question why the court is even entertaining it.
Nevertheless.
View attachment 30067
1. This is similar to the original motions to dismiss presented earlier by the defendant. The motion to dismiss doesn't highlight how this case is moot.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
Matthew100x
Plaintiff
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that:
1. The Speaker did not action any changes to the constitution, any law, make any announcement, or enact any other significant changes in relation to the Department Reform Act. Therefore, there was no damage to the stability of government nor headache caused for anyone on the part of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
2. When advised that the Department Reform Act was a complex change, I immediately announced a public referendum. I don't deny that I made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes and I immediately worked to correct my mistake to carry out my duties as prescribed by the constitution.
3. The act has now passed into law.
DATED: This 7st day of December 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that:
The Supreme Court is in breach of the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act in hearing the case, which outlines that Criminal cases are brought on by charges laid by the State or in appeal to the State.
(1) The Court of Redmont hears all non-constitutional legal matters in the first instance and is the appellate court for criminal charges and civil actions. It is presided over by a single Judge. Lawsuits are made in the Courthouse forum. Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).- REDMONT CONSTITUTION
Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act.
(1) Any new crimes may be cited as to whether they are to be considered a Indictable Offence or a Summary Offence. If the crime is not cited as either respective classification, it is to be automatically assumed as a Summary Offence.- CRIME SEVERITY ACTThe Court would be in direct contravention of the wording in the constitution to deny this motion to dismiss as it clearly states that the state is only able to bring on criminal charges. Treason is clearly determined to be a summary offence by law in the crime severity act, and by extension, is criminal by nature.
DATED: This 7st day of December 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff has not responded to the witness in over 80 hours.
This case has been dragged out across two courts on three separate occasions. across 5.5 weeks. There is a clear lack of respect for the Defence and Court's time.
DATED: This 7st day of December 2022
The Court would never attempt to deprive a citizen of their right to representation in Court; however the defendant Has indicated they wish to defend themselves - therefore you are no longer the primary attorney representing the defence and as such the Court asks that the primary attorney speak on behalf of the defence unless otherwise unavailable.I would question this statement from the court however "however The_Donuticus will refrain from speaking unless the Defendant is unavailable again.", surely the Court does not wish to gag a member of the Defense for no reason? May the court please clarify?
Furthermore if the decision of the court is that I cannot respond to this case unless xEndeavour is avalible I would ask if this is a whole court discussion?
Very well, The Defence may present a list of questions to witness xEndeavour within the next 24 hours.Your honor,
The Defense has not had the opportunity to cross examine the witness.
So are you withdrawing your wish to self represent? , or are you serving as co-counsel? This is getting rather confusing with the constant lawyer switches and primary and secondary counselsMy Primary attorney will remain @Lord_Donuticus
My Primary counsel will remain @Lord_DonuticusSo you are you withdrawing your wish to self represent, or are you serving as co-counsel? This is getting rather confusing with the constant lawyer switches and primary and secondary counsels
1. Why did you not originally put the Department Reform Act up for referendum?
2. Do you now regret the actions surrounding the referendums for the Department Reform Act?
3. Put us in your shoes, what were you thinking when you chose to defy the court order?
4. Do you think you acted maliciously during the events for which you are accused of treason?
5. Why did you call the court corrupt?
Remarks about the Court:
Calling the Court Corrupt after watching it infringe my rights to representation in a Court case is me exercising my right to freedom of political communication. The Supreme Court is allowing a Citizen to unconstitutionally prosecute me in a civil case, without any legal authority to do so and for a charge which the Crime Severity Act prescribes as a Summary Criminal Offence.
Contempt of Court Charges:
I did not comply as I was not able to comply. As Speaker of the House I don't have access to the information the Court requested.
5. Why did you call the court corrupt?
I was angry. I was expressing myself through my constitutional right to political communication. I will now categorically state I do not believe this court is corrupt, but I do believe it is bias against me and I've been vocal against this. The Court has been secretive in their rulings and failing to post their individual verdicts as required by law. The Court has failed to afford constitutional rights to the defence, and the Court is allowing a Citizen to prosecute in defiance of the constitution.
Furthermore, the Chief Justice has been engaging in ex parte communication with the plaintiff and has failed to recuse themselves.
Denied, due to the timeframe elapsing already.Perhaps the court requires a recess of 24 hours in which to contemplate and understand this. As such the Defense requests a 24 recess to do as such.
Objection (1) Perjury:Objection:
Perjury.
Defendant has removed and deleted a post from this case in order to hide the fact that they had stopped self representing themselves and so that they can assert that @Lord_Donuticus is their attorney (Evidence 1).
Objection:
Relevance.
Objection:
Improper Evidence, Hearsay, and Calls for a conclusion
My apologies for getting this in late, I have been sick and unable to timely post this objection.
Denied, the Defense already had the oppurtunity to call witnesses before this court and failed to act upon it.Following on from xEndeavour's witness testimony the defence would like to request calling further witnesses for testimony.
I'd like to apologize for the delays; due to real life circumstances I had a severe backlog of work due to other circumstances I explained earlier - I have nothing but free time up until the 15th of Janaury now and I see no reason to further delay this case.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x
Plaintiff
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO RECUSE
I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case.
I have now moved three separate motions to recuse against the Chief Justice due to their extreme disregard for mine and the plaintiff's time, as well as infringing on my constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Motion to Recuse 1It took the Chief Justice 6 days to respond to a motion to dismiss, even after it was requested that the court facilitate a speedy trial before a period where I would be unavailable.The Chief Justice denied this recusal on the basis that they are a university student and that they are consulting the court.After an appeal to an associate Justice, the Chief Justice was encouraged to respond in a reasonable timeframe.Motion to Recuse 2The Chief Justice didn't respond to the case for 7 days.The Chief Justice denied this recusal because they had been discharged from hospital and saw no reason as to why they couldn't carry out their duties as normal.It has now been 2 months since the original case against me was filed and just short of 2 months since this case was filed. If the Chief Justice continues to be absent from proceedings for a week at a time, this case will not be finalised until early next year noting the Defence has requested to call upon more witnesses.
Denying this third request for recusal for a pattern of behaviour that has negatively impacted the progression of this case would be in direct contravention of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
If the Chief Justice does not voluntarily recuse, I'd like to refer this recusal to the Associate Justice.
The Defence requests that the Chief Justice is recused from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case and failing to recognise that they need to recuse themselves on multiple occasions due to their IRL commitments impacting this case.13 - Recusal
(1) Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in a case due to a conflict of interest.
(2) A motion to recuse can be filed at any point in a case prior to the verdict. A Judge must consider whether or not to voluntarily recuse themselves.
(3) Where a judge does not voluntarily recuse, a second Judge will respond to the motion and either accept or deny it. In the instance the judge accepts the motion, that judge will then preside over the case.
(4) Conflict of interest may involve:
a. Bias/appearance of bias.
b. Interest.
c. Ex Parte Communications.
d. Breach of Judicial Conduct.
e. Prior Work as a Lawyer for either party.
"Has this sabotaged the stability of government? . Was this malicious?"
The Supreme Court wishes to decide on both these points of contention in open court.
"Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act."
Treason has not been codifed as a Criminal charge and thus the court must make a rulling to determine its validity in a civil court proceeding.
"Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf."
I wish to hear this argument made further in court proceedings.
The Court hereby sustains this objection, It is clear witness/co-counsel xEndeavour deleted a statement from the court thread without asking the presiding judge permission to do so - this caused undue confusion to his own representation, the defense and the court at large.
I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of perjury, the setencing will be layed down in the verdict upon the conclusion of the trial.
2. The charge of perjury for removing a comment with the reasoning 'redacted' does not meet the definition of Perjury nor the spirit of the law. By charging me with perjury, you are likening me deleting a notification that my representation status had changed - with the reason that is available to the court set as 'redacted' - as equal to directly lying to the court during testimony. This seems unreasonable and is a poor precedent to have been set.(3) Perjury charges may be made against any individual and no individual may be convicted of Perjury without a trial.
Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government shall be considered Perjury.
The Defence requests that this motion be answered following the motion to recuse to prevent any unnecessary mixups and or delays following on from the recusal decision.The Court hereby calls upon the plantiff to deliver their closing statement to the Court within the next 48 hours.
"Has this sabotaged the stability of government? . Was this malicious?"
The Supreme Court wishes to decide on both these points of contention in open court.
"Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act."
Treason has not been codifed as a Criminal charge and thus the court must make a rulling to determine its validity in a civil court proceeding.
"Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf."
I wish to hear this argument made further in court proceedings.
Due to Justice JoeGamer's response to the previous motion, I have delivered the decision for this motion because it requires another justice.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x
Plaintiff
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO RECUSE
The Defence requests that a second Judge respond to the motion to recuse the Chief Justice.
The Defence requests that the Chief Justice is recused from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case and failing to recognise that they need to recuse themselves on multiple occasions due to their IRL commitments impacting this case.
I have now moved three separate motions to recuse against the Chief Justice due to their extreme disregard for mine and the plaintiff's time, as well as infringing on my constitutional right to a speedy trial. Not only is this pattern of behaviour present in the current case, but also most other cases before the Supreme Court.
Motion to Recuse 1It took the Chief Justice 6 days to respond to a motion to dismiss, even after it was requested that the court facilitate a speedy trial before a period where I would be unavailable.The Chief Justice denied this recusal on the basis that they are a university student and that they are consulting the court.After an appeal to an associate Justice, the Chief Justice was encouraged to respond in a reasonable timeframe.Motion to Recuse 2The Chief Justice didn't respond to the case for 7 days.The Chief Justice denied this recusal because they had been discharged from hospital and saw no reason as to why they couldn't carry out their duties as normal.It has now been 2 months since the original case against me was filed and just short of 2 months since this case was filed. If the Chief Justice continues to be absent from proceedings for a week at a time, this case will not be finalised until early next year noting the Defence has requested to call upon more witnesses.
Denying this third request for recusal for a pattern of behaviour that has negatively impacted the progression of this case would be in direct contravention of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Chief Justice has made excuse after excuse as to their absence and I anticipate this will not change going forward based on past patterns of behaviour. Noting it took the Chief Justice 62 hours to respond to this motion previously while he was active on Discord and in game, there remains a continued disregard for the time of those present before the court.
The Court denied several motions to dismiss based on the fact that it would like to discuss the matters which it denied. Noting that the witness testimony did not fully cover the areas the court wished to discuss, the Defence would like to call upon witnesses based on the issues that remain undiscussed:
Therefore, noting the Defence intends to object to moving to closing statements, there is an implicit need for the case to be presided over by an active Justice.
Motion to ReconsiderDue to Justice JoeGamer's response to the previous motion, I have delivered the decision for this motion because it requires another justice.
After considering the information presented to the court, I will reject this motion to recuse. As previously stated by Justice JoeGamer, the burden of proof falls upon the filer of the motion and not the Justice. Response times to a case are not a defined reason for recusal and cannot simply be used as such. I would ask the Chief Justice to respond in a reasonable period. For the above reason, the motion to recuse is rejected.
Denied - It is clear to the Court that you misrepresented yourself and caused undue confusion, you were previously warned in this very case for modifying statements/deleting them without the expressly granted permission of the presiding judge.Objection
Point of Law
1. Perjury is required to be referred to the DLA for prosecution, therefore the court has illegally declared me guilty outside of a trial for perjury.
2. The charge of perjury for removing a comment with the reasoning 'redacted' does not meet the definition of Perjury nor the spirit of the law. By charging me with perjury, you are likening me deleting a notification that my representation status had changed - with the reason that is available to the court set as 'redacted' - as equal to directly lying to the court during testimony. This seems unreasonable and is a poor precedent to have been set.
No court procedure exists for having to ask permission to remove a trivial notification of the status of my counsel, particularly when it was removed with the reasoning - which is visible to the court - saying 'redacted.
Denied - The Defence already had the oppurtunity to call witnesses forward before this court and chose not to.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x
Plaintiff
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
The Defence requests that this motion be answered following the motion to recuse to prevent any unnecessary mixups and or delays following on from the recusal decision.
The Defence requests that the court reconsider its position to disallow the Defence from calling forward witnesses, during the witness stage of the trial, based on the absence of several topics from the case which the court wishes to have inform its decision, as noted previously:
The Defence does not see it unreasonable to request witnesses based on the initial witnesses' testimony and or the lack of testimony on a given part of the case prior to closing statements.
Denied - Already resolved due to plantiffs delay in delivering their closing statement.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x
Plaintiff
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
The Defence requests that this motion be answered following the motion to recuse to prevent any unnecessary mixups and or delays following on from the recusal decision.
The Defence requests that the court reconsider its position to disallow the Defence from calling forward witnesses, during the witness stage of the trial, based on the absence of several topics from the case which the court wishes to have inform its decision, as noted previously:
The Defence does not see it unreasonable to request witnesses based on the initial witnesses' testimony and or the lack of testimony on a given part of the case prior to closing statements.
GrantedYou’re honors,
I will need 48 additional hours to complete the closing statements. I would like to note that the defendant is posting in place of their attorney. I would also like to note that I find it odd that the defendant testified that they do not believe themselves above this court yet continuously rejects the court denying their motions.
Sustained - The Court had already answered this previously, we ask that your primary attorney lead in engagements with this court - however you are entitled to self representation and multiple attorneys as the right is not limited to one, however this does not excuse the deletion of court statements or misrepresenting your actions.Objection
As I have noted previously, I have a co-counsel. There is nothing that precludes me from having a defence team for representation.
I have a right to appeal and file motions, it does not give rise to your claim that I am above this court.
1. The defendant, by failing to post a referendum for a complex change of a constitutional amendment, maliciously undermined the government through incompetence. By shuffling the government positions around and creating two new departments and creating headaches for all members involved through improper procedure; the defendant damaged the stability of the government.
2. Treason is not a criminal charge per the Crime Severity Act (Act of Congress - Crime Severity Act), and though it’s alluded to, is not labeled a crime under its authorizing statute (Act of Congress - LDV Treason Act).
(1) The Court of Redmont hears all non-constitutional legal matters in the first instance and is the appellate court for criminal charges and civil actions. It is presided over by a single Judge. Lawsuits are made in the Courthouse forum. Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).
(1) Any new crimes may be cited as to whether they are to be considered a Indictable Offence or a Summary Offence. If the crime is not cited as either respective classification, it is to be automatically assumed as a Summary Offence.
IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence.
The department is charged with legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government. The department is charged with the employment of Commonwealth Prosecutors and Legal Officers. The Department of Legal Affairs is to act in the best interests of the Government. The Department will act ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction. The Department oversees Freedom of Information requests. The Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs is the Attorney General and will be referred to in an official capacity as the Attorney General.
"Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).
4. End has called the Supreme Court corrupt within court and in public, has disobeyed court orders and injunctions, and has refused to respect court decorum in his initial treason case. This resulted in 50 contempt of court charges resulting in a fine of $122,000 dollars and a total of 1 hour of jail time. End is currently refusing to pay the fines.
5. End, in open defiance of an active injunction to shelve the referendum until all constitutional issues can be resolved, has decided to repost the referendum and actively campaign on the issue to see it passed.
6. The DLA has defended the defendant in the prior court case and has a conflict of interest in prosecuting a case against them for this matter.
7. While the Plaintiff insists these are civil charges, there exists evidence of citizens being allowed to make criminal charges.
8. This case will have Supreme Court Jurisdiction because only the Supreme Court shall hear cases that would remove a person/persons from the following positions: Representatives, Secretary, Senator, Judge, Vice-President, Principal Officers, General Advisors, President, Executive Officers.
The Court does not have the authority to halt a public referendum, even the loosest interpretation of the section of the Constitution ‘The Supreme Court of Redmont is responsible for resolving disputes between Government Institutions.’ does not give the Court unlimited powers and unrestricted actions in order to achieve this goal, in particular ordering others to violate their constitutional duty.
(1) The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns.
The Judicial arm of Government, consisting of the District Court, Federal Court, and Supreme Court, interpret the law as written by the legislature and administered by the Executive.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.1. A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.2. A supermajority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.3. Presidential Assent or Veto Override.
