Matthew100x
Citizen
Justice
Education Department
Supporter
4th Anniversary
3rd Anniversary
1st Anniversary
Change Maker
Matthew100x
Justice
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2020
- Messages
- 633
- Thread Author
- #1
- Client Name: Nexalin
- Counsel Name: Prodigium | Attorneys at Law, designate Trial Attorney as Matthew100x
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant
- Reason for the Appeal: The defendant, now appellant of this case, believes that the trial court erred in its decision to render a guilty verdict against their favor in The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79, requests for a writ of certiorari to set aside the aforementioned decision and move to have the cases either remanded to the trial level for further review or have the guilty verdict struck from the appellant’s record.
In this case, the defendant was found guilty on two charges of corruption and one charge of treason. The appellant would like to make note of the charges and the legal basis supporting this appeals request to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
On the first count of Corruption and Treason:
“With regard to the charges of Corruption, Embezzlement, Treason, and three counts of Conspiracy arising from the loan issued from the Defendant to the government via the Commonwealth Reserve Board (hereafter CRB),”
For Corruption:
The Honorable Judge BananaNova, who penned the Court’s Opinion wrote:
“It is the opinion of the court that, similarly to the case of FCR 68, the Defendant did use their position inside of a government institution to unfairly benefit themselves. The Defendant was in a special position to influence government policy and stood to gain $15,000 from the transaction, which the average citizen could never accomplish.”
On this count, the appellant wishes to revisit SCR 16, where the corruption test is established. The court looks for two factors when determining corruption: 1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? 2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office? The appellant believes that the facts from FCR 79 differ from SCR 16 and FCR 68 enough that allow for a review of this charge.
The reasoning is that we believe that the corruption test was not applied correctly in this case. The appellant argues that the act in question was not inconsistent with the official duty of their office. As a member of the Commonwealth Reserve Bank Board, their vote to apply a loan to a failing government balance was consistent with 7.3 of the Commonwealth Reserve Act, as they were acting in such a manner that they believed would have best contributed towards 5.1(a) “the stability of the currency of Redmont;” and 5.1(c) “the stability of the currency of Redmont;”. The government balance was in crisis. Efforts were made to provide liquidity to the government balance through the use of a loan to prevent instability in the currency of Redmont and to allow for continued government spending which allowed for programs that created economic prosperity, via DCE programs, and welfare of the people of Redmont, through the funding of the UBI. Therefore, the appellant argues that they are not guilty of committing Corruption.
For Treason:
The Honorable Judge BananaNova, who penned the Court’s Opinion wrote:
1. “Treason is defined as ‘attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.’”
2. “It is the opinion of the court that by attempting to profit off of the government’s low balance, and squeeze money out of a cash-deficient government, the Defendant did attempt to undermine the stability of the government of Redmont for their own gain.”
In SCR 16 and FCR 68, the defendants in those cases were also brought up on treason charges for the same reasoning. The reasoning is that simply offering a loan through the CRB was an act of treason because it “attempt to force the Government to take out a loan” (Prosecutor’s Complaint, II. Facts 1. FCR 79). This is argued the same in SCR 16 and FCR 68 with no difference between the three cases. In the other two cases, this level of reasoning, with the similar evidence provided, was found to not rise to the level of treason. The appellant wishes to note to this court the discrepancy and wishes to assert their XIII right and request a review of the charges for equal protection and equal benefit of the law. Thus the appellant argues that they are not guilty of committing treason.
On the second count of Corruption:
“3. With regard to the charges of Corruption, Treason, and Conspiracy arising from the Defendant’s contracts with individuals involving the government balance,”
For Corruption:
The Honorable Judge BananaNova, who penned the Court’s Opinion wrote:
“It is the opinion of the court that the Defendant did use their position of influence over the government balance (as seen by the evidence establishing a $300,000 temporary boost to the government balance) to attempt to deceive others and profit.”
“This does constitute Corruption, as the government balance numbers were public, but the Defendant was in a position to alter the numbers after a contract was already signed.”
For this charge, the prosecution argued that the defendant had “used their position within the CRB to scam citizens”.
On this count, the appellant wishes to once again revisit SCR 16, where the corruption test is established. The court looks for two factors when determining corruption: 1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? 2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office? The appellant believes that their actions do not match the criteria of the test for the reasoning that this was a private equity deal that was declined between two mutual parties and was not made in the capacity of a government official. Per the contract displayed by the prosecution, the defendant clearly states that they are acting in a private capacity.
The appellant would also like to note that the Honorable Judge BananaNova wrote that there “is insufficient evidence to prove malice aforethought with regard to this count of Corruption”. While this is not necessary to prove a charge of corruption, the judge did not believe that there was any negativity or otherwise malingering planning associated with the equity deal that the defendant offered.
- Additional Information:
Link to Case being appealed:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79
Cited Case Law:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16
Cited Statutes:
Government - Constitution - Right XIII
Act of Congress - Commonwealth Reserve Act - 5.1(a and c) and 7.3.
- Counsel Name: Prodigium | Attorneys at Law, designate Trial Attorney as Matthew100x
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant
- Reason for the Appeal: The defendant, now appellant of this case, believes that the trial court erred in its decision to render a guilty verdict against their favor in The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79, requests for a writ of certiorari to set aside the aforementioned decision and move to have the cases either remanded to the trial level for further review or have the guilty verdict struck from the appellant’s record.
In this case, the defendant was found guilty on two charges of corruption and one charge of treason. The appellant would like to make note of the charges and the legal basis supporting this appeals request to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
On the first count of Corruption and Treason:
“With regard to the charges of Corruption, Embezzlement, Treason, and three counts of Conspiracy arising from the loan issued from the Defendant to the government via the Commonwealth Reserve Board (hereafter CRB),”
For Corruption:
The Honorable Judge BananaNova, who penned the Court’s Opinion wrote:
“It is the opinion of the court that, similarly to the case of FCR 68, the Defendant did use their position inside of a government institution to unfairly benefit themselves. The Defendant was in a special position to influence government policy and stood to gain $15,000 from the transaction, which the average citizen could never accomplish.”
On this count, the appellant wishes to revisit SCR 16, where the corruption test is established. The court looks for two factors when determining corruption: 1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? 2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office? The appellant believes that the facts from FCR 79 differ from SCR 16 and FCR 68 enough that allow for a review of this charge.
The reasoning is that we believe that the corruption test was not applied correctly in this case. The appellant argues that the act in question was not inconsistent with the official duty of their office. As a member of the Commonwealth Reserve Bank Board, their vote to apply a loan to a failing government balance was consistent with 7.3 of the Commonwealth Reserve Act, as they were acting in such a manner that they believed would have best contributed towards 5.1(a) “the stability of the currency of Redmont;” and 5.1(c) “the stability of the currency of Redmont;”. The government balance was in crisis. Efforts were made to provide liquidity to the government balance through the use of a loan to prevent instability in the currency of Redmont and to allow for continued government spending which allowed for programs that created economic prosperity, via DCE programs, and welfare of the people of Redmont, through the funding of the UBI. Therefore, the appellant argues that they are not guilty of committing Corruption.
For Treason:
The Honorable Judge BananaNova, who penned the Court’s Opinion wrote:
1. “Treason is defined as ‘attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.’”
2. “It is the opinion of the court that by attempting to profit off of the government’s low balance, and squeeze money out of a cash-deficient government, the Defendant did attempt to undermine the stability of the government of Redmont for their own gain.”
In SCR 16 and FCR 68, the defendants in those cases were also brought up on treason charges for the same reasoning. The reasoning is that simply offering a loan through the CRB was an act of treason because it “attempt to force the Government to take out a loan” (Prosecutor’s Complaint, II. Facts 1. FCR 79). This is argued the same in SCR 16 and FCR 68 with no difference between the three cases. In the other two cases, this level of reasoning, with the similar evidence provided, was found to not rise to the level of treason. The appellant wishes to note to this court the discrepancy and wishes to assert their XIII right and request a review of the charges for equal protection and equal benefit of the law. Thus the appellant argues that they are not guilty of committing treason.
On the second count of Corruption:
“3. With regard to the charges of Corruption, Treason, and Conspiracy arising from the Defendant’s contracts with individuals involving the government balance,”
For Corruption:
The Honorable Judge BananaNova, who penned the Court’s Opinion wrote:
“It is the opinion of the court that the Defendant did use their position of influence over the government balance (as seen by the evidence establishing a $300,000 temporary boost to the government balance) to attempt to deceive others and profit.”
“This does constitute Corruption, as the government balance numbers were public, but the Defendant was in a position to alter the numbers after a contract was already signed.”
For this charge, the prosecution argued that the defendant had “used their position within the CRB to scam citizens”.
On this count, the appellant wishes to once again revisit SCR 16, where the corruption test is established. The court looks for two factors when determining corruption: 1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? 2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office? The appellant believes that their actions do not match the criteria of the test for the reasoning that this was a private equity deal that was declined between two mutual parties and was not made in the capacity of a government official. Per the contract displayed by the prosecution, the defendant clearly states that they are acting in a private capacity.
The appellant would also like to note that the Honorable Judge BananaNova wrote that there “is insufficient evidence to prove malice aforethought with regard to this count of Corruption”. While this is not necessary to prove a charge of corruption, the judge did not believe that there was any negativity or otherwise malingering planning associated with the equity deal that the defendant offered.
- Additional Information:
Link to Case being appealed:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79
Cited Case Law:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68
Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16
Cited Statutes:
Government - Constitution - Right XIII
Act of Congress - Commonwealth Reserve Act - 5.1(a and c) and 7.3.
