Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23

[Pugsy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Bardiya_King
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

On the 3rd of December, Bardiya_King declared his intentions to run for the House of Representatives election, representing the Redmont National Party (RNP). He was an avid supporter of the RNP during the election, consistently campaigning for himself. Approximately 8 hours prior to the election results being announced, the defendant was asking the RNP leader, Krix, for assistance with voter outreach. Up until the announcement of the election results, the narrative surrounding Bardiya_King remained consistent—he was undoubtedly a legitimate RNP candidate for the House, with no indications suggesting otherwise.

On December 7th, the election outcomes were revealed, showing that the RNP had secured 5 seats in the House of Representatives. Krix received 23 votes, Gold_Blooded received 12, ItsMrFluffy2U55 and Soundi both obtained 6 votes each, while Bardiya_King only managed to secure a single vote - their own. However, merely 6 minutes after the election results were made public, Bardiya_King announced a surprising decision to switch allegiance to the BDP. Prior to the election results, Bardiya_King had been actively seeking assistance from the RNP, and it was completely due to the RNP's support that Bardiya_King was elected.

In politics this could be described as a betrayal, a dirty move, and a whole multitude of other phrases. In law, however, this is described as fraud, specifically electoral fraud.

Fraud is defined in DC law as: an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.

Electoral Fraud is defined in DC law as: Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.


“an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact”

Bardiya_King misled the RNP: this is an obvious fact of the case. He actively portrayed himself as a dedicated RNP supporter until securing the congressional seat, after which he abruptly switched parties. The RNP believed in his allegiance in the party, while in actuality, he exploited their voter base solely to secure his own victory.

“to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation”

The RNP's reliance on Bardiya_King's misrepresentation was founded on the belief that he was a genuine member and advocate of their party. They trusted his expressed allegiance and support, which influenced the RNPs decision to place Bardiya_King in their party voter pool.

“the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.”

Two parties were affected by the defendant's actions: the RNP and the voters. The RNP incurred a loss of a house seat, directly and negatively impacting their representation in congress. The voters faced disenfranchisement as their votes, originally intended for the RNP and securing 5 seats, were rendered ineffective due to the defendant's deception. This situation infringed upon the voters' fundamental right to vote in a party of their choice to represent them within the House of Representatives.

“Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.”

The defendant deceived the voters by misrepresenting his political party affiliation. A clear attempt to meddle with the elections to gain a considerable advantage.

It's very simple, the defendant pretended to be something they weren’t in order to trick not only the RNP but the voters, for his own gain.

Political parties play a pivotal role in the mechanics of the Redmont electoral process. A fundamental aspect of Redmonts democracy involves the pooling of votes through party affiliation. Hence, Bardiya_King’s misrepresentation of his allegiance to the RNP, exploiting their voter base to secure his election, meddled with a fundamental mechanism of the Redmont electoral process.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. Bardiya_King (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Bardiya_King declared candidacy for the House of Representatives under the Redmont National Party (RNP) on December 3rd, actively supporting the RNP.
2. Before election results, Bardiya_King sought RNP leader Krix's help for voter outreach, indicating allegiance to the RNP.
3. December 7th results: RNP secured 5 seats, Bardiya_King received one vote, his own. Post-results, he switched allegiance to the BDP.
4. Bardiya_King misrepresented his party affiliation for personal gain.
5. Bardiya_King's actions caused harm: RNP lost a house seat, voters supporting the RNP had their votes used for an undisclosed BDP candidate.
6. The misrepresentation disrupted the fairness of the electoral process, which is based on party-based vote pooling. This constitutes meddling with the electoral process.


III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Electoral Fraud for misrepresenting an important fact to the RNP and the RNP voters, therefore meddling in the election, to gain a considerable advantage.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Electoral Fraud, due to the severe extent of the defendant's deception, we will be seeking a 4 month ban from office. This will serve as a message to politicians that you cannot meddle with the foundations of our electoral process.
2. Upon the vacancy of Bardiya_King seat, the appropriate remedy to address the grievances of both the voters and the RNP is to allocate the seat to a legitimate member of the RNP. Putting the seat up for special election would be undemocratic and set a poor precedent for remedying a situation like this.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: 6 Minutes between posts

Spoiler: Approximately 8 hours prior to the election results being announced, the defendant was asking the RNP leader, Krix, for assistance with voter outreach.

Spoiler: Bardiya voting for himself and acknowledging Krix will be "carrying" him

Spoiler: Evidence of Public RNP Support

 

[Pugsy]

Emergency Injunction

Due to the ongoing harms Bardiya_King is causing by holding a position in the House of Representatives, we ask that the court grant this emergency injunction to:

• Reverse any actions Bardiya_King has taken when in power as a Representative.
• Prevent Bardiya_King from using any powers granted to a Representative.
• Deduct any payment Bardiya_King received when holding the position of a Representative
• Withhold any further payment to Bardiya_King while holding the position of a Representative.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Emergency Injunction

Due to the ongoing harms Bardiya_King is causing by holding a position in the House of Representatives, we ask that the court grant this emergency injunction to:

• Reverse any actions Bardiya_King has taken when in power as a Representative.
• Prevent Bardiya_King from using any powers granted to a Representative.
• Deduct any payment Bardiya_King received when holding the position of a Representative
• Withhold any further payment to Bardiya_King while holding the position of a Representative.

Your honor,

I have been retained by the defendant in this matter. I am aware the defendant has not been summoned yet, but given the gravity of this motion, the defense asks for a chance after being summoned to respond to this injunction request before it is ruled upon by the Court. I am posting this now only because Courts have been known to accept emergency injunctions tandem to summoning the defendant, essentially giving the defense no room to fight against these sorts of motions.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided to temporarily and partially grant the Emergency Injunction.

The Supreme Court, currently, will only be approving the temporary suspension of the Defendant's powers as Representative.

Currently, pay will not be deducted nor withheld and previous decisions will not be overturned.

Both parties have the ability to file a Motion to Reconsider should they desire to.

With that summary out of the way, each Justice wrote their own Concurring Opinion regarding the Emergency Injunction...

Remarks of Chief Justice Drew_Hall:

In the matter of the Emergency Injunction filed before this court, it is imperative that the filing party further expands on the pressing nature of this injunction request. The gravity of the Emergency Injunction before the court renders a comprehensive adjudication which cannot be done prior to the presentation of arguments by the Defendant. Although evidentiary submissions by the Commonwealth offer a basis for a partial concession to the relief sought by them, a total acceptance thereof is presently withheld.

The core purpose of the Emergency Injunction, to prevent irreparable harm, hinges upon the Commonwealth's argument that actions attributed to the Defendant may have contributed to irreparable harm against the state. This premise, however, does not satisfy me completely.

Furthermore, the foundational premise of the argument assumes an entitlement on the part of political parties to exclusive approbation from their members, further implying a claim to the Congressional seats occupied by their members. It is imperative to underscore that the electoral mandate only upholds legitimacy upon the individual elected, not upon the political entity with which they are associated. A judicious acceptance of the Emergency Injunction, formed upon the previously mentioned basis, would not only constitute a miscarriage of justice but also would lead to inquiries into the very fabric of our democracy.

While acknowledging the sufficiency of evidence offered by the Commonwealth to warrant a temporary suspension of the legislative rights afforded to Bardiya_King, as a Member of the House of Representatives, on grounds of supposed electoral fraud, it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to underscore just how big of an overreach this injunction accepted in its entirety at this stage would be. A total acceptance of this injunction for myself, if contemplated, would require great revision in the arguments made by the Prosecution in an attempt to have it granted so far.

Remarks of Associate Justice Matthew100x:

Given the intense difficulty of the situation, the Supreme Court has decided to come together to make a unanimous decision regarding the emergency injunction.

Emergency Injunctions are made with the goal of preventing harm. After much debate, we’ve decided to temporarily freeze Bardiya’s powers as a member of the House of Representatives to prevent any further harm. We do this under the powers granted to us by the constitution and through the powers of precedent. In Lawsuit: Adjourned - 1950minecrafter v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18, then Chief Justice Westray granted an emergency injunction preventing the Speaker and Deputy Speaker from exercising their powers. We view this Emergency Injunction as an extension of this past decision. However unlike the decision made in 1950minecrafter, we will be extending the freeze on the Representative’s power to day-to-day operations, such as bill voting, motion voting, and otherwise, to prevent harm while judicial review occurs.

However, we are  not granting the emergency injunction to reverse the decisions that Bardiya as such a decision may go too far. Nonetheless, In the interest of preventing harm, we do recognize that we need to act in the event that the actions caused by Representative Bardiya after an alleged crime that would remove him from office results in a presidential impeachment. Given the current circumstances, the Supreme Court of Redmont is moving to have a hearing on this issue by allowing both the prosecution and defendant to respond to the emergency injunction. After both sides have a chance to make their case, we will revisit the emergency injunction and decide whether or not to keep it as is, vacate it, or expand it to freeze the impeachment to prevent harm until this case is over.

Remarks of Associate Justice Dartanman:

Emergency Injunctions are made to prevent irreparable harm - not to relieve previous, reparable harms (this could be done in the verdict if the Defendant is found guilty) - thus, it is unreasonable to approve the portion of the Emergency Injunction which overturns previous actions and takes back pay.

It is also unreasonable to prevent pay, as this can be easily be solved by fining the Defendant the proper amount if found guilty.

That being said, there is some potential for great harm if it is found that Bardiya_King holds illegitimate office, and thus, his powers as a Representative should be frozen temporarily.

Additionally, a Writ of Summons will be submitted shortly.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

@Bardiya_King is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of the The Commonwalth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment based on the known facts of this case.

The court would also 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.​

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

I have been retained by the defendant in this matter. I am aware the defendant has not been summoned yet, but given the gravity of this motion, the defense asks for a chance after being summoned to respond to this injunction request before it is ruled upon by the Court. I am posting this now only because Courts have been known to accept emergency injunctions tandem to summoning the defendant, essentially giving the defense no room to fight against these sorts of motions.

As mentioned, you are permitted to file a Motion to Reconsider. Please also refrain from speaking out of turn, this serves as a warning to both parties.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Bardiya_King
Defendant


OBJECTION

Objection, your honor!

1. Bardiya_King declared candidacy for the House of Representatives under the Redmont National Party (RNP) on December 3rd, actively supporting the RNP.

Assumes facts not in evidence and council is testifying. Declaring candidacy under a party does not indicate support for that party. Furthermore, this is an analytical statement being improperly represented as a material fact.


OBJECTION

Objection, your honor!

2. Before election results, Bardiya_King sought RNP leader Krix's help for voter outreach, indicating allegiance to the RNP.

Assumes facts not in evidence and council is testifying. Seeking help in an election does not in any way indicate allegiance any person. Furthermore, this is an analytical statement being improperly represented as a material fact.


OBJECTION

Objection, your honor!

3. December 7th results: RNP secured 5 seats, Bardiya_King received one vote, his own.

Assumes facts not in evidence and prejudical over probative. The claim that Bardiya_King's only vote was himself is both unsupported by the evidence and any evidence that can be used to support this claim is inaccurate and/or fruit of the poisonous tree as voting records are private. Furthermore, this claim offers no material value to the court while being highly prejudicial.


OBJECTION

Objection, your honor!

4. Bardiya_King misrepresented his party affiliation for personal gain.

Prejudicial over probative and council is testifying. This is an opinionated statement that is highly prejudicial with no probative value. Furthermore, this is an analytical statement being improperly represented as a material fact.


OBJECTION

Objection, your honor!

5. Bardiya_King's actions caused harm: RNP lost a house seat, voters supporting the RNP had their votes used for an undisclosed BDP candidate.

Prejudicial over probative and council is testifying. This is an opinionated statement that is highly prejudicial with no probative value. Furthermore, this is an analytical statement being improperly represented as a material fact.


OBJECTION

Objection, your honor!

5. Bardiya_King's actions caused harm: RNP lost a house seat, voters supporting the RNP had their votes used for an undisclosed BDP candidate.

Perjury. The RNP did not lose a seat as there was not another candidate that actually lost the seat. The RNP only put forth five candidates and all five won their seats. Bardiya_King did not displace another RNP candidate as there was not another possible contender for the same seat. This misrepresents facts for political gain by an RNP regime. The second premise within this "fact" does not hold water either as the voters votes' couldn't have been wasted BECAUSE there was no other candidate contending the same seat as the defendant. In other words, they didn't actually lose anything because there was nothing to lose in the first place in this situation.


OBJECTION

Objection, your honor!

6. The misrepresentation disrupted the fairness of the electoral process, which is based on party-based vote pooling. This constitutes meddling with the electoral process.

Assumes facts not in evidence and prejudical over probative. The claim that Bardiya_King disrupted the fairness of the electoral process is unsupported by the evidence. Furthermore, this claim offers no material value to the court while being highly prejudicial as it is an opinion that is being misrepresented as a stipulated fact.


MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, the emergency injunction was granted on the premise that it would block irreparable harm to democracy by the defendant. In fact, granting the injunction does the harm as it prevents a democratically-elected Representative from doing their job: serving the people. The injunction is furthermore unnecessary as any activity by the defendant is under scrutiny by multiple parties including the Courts. Any harmful activity that harms democracy can be struck on a case-by-case basis by the Court. No evidence of imminent harm was provided by the prosecution. Therefore, this injunction serves only as a harmful block on democracy without providing any utility that can't be handled in a more reasonable and less obstructive manner.


MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. This is a case of malicious prosecution by a jaded RNP regime in an attempt to drag the Court into a political matter. The defense asserts the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the second prayer for relief, as this is clearly a matter of politics. Further, I have already established how, even if Bardiya wasn't in the picture, the RNP did not run any alternative candidates to take that seat. Therefore, granting this claim would essentially be giving an RNP politician that never even contended the original election a free seat. Furthermore, this prayer for relief is a civil matter and does not belong in a criminal trial, so I object to it on the grounds of improper venue. Sentencing two should be disregarded.
2. It is unreasonable and undemocratic to assert that switching political parties is inherently fraudulent. The plaintiff has failed to properly state a claim as they cannot establish mens rea, which means they cannot prove that there was any intent to defraud voters. The law stipulates a mens rea requirement, which the prosecution has substantially failed to properly address: “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact." The defendant had a change of heart and realized his values are not properly represented by the RNP, and switched to a party that more closely aligns with Bardiya's values. This is not a criminal act and the plaintiff's entire claim rests on the Court's ignorance of this. Further, the prosecution failed to explain how “the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.” As mentioned before, there was no other person to contest the RNP seat that Bardiya got elected under originally. Therefore, the RNP nor its voters were actually damaged.
3. Electoral Fraud is defined as "Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats." It is clear that the intent of this law was to prohibit specific rigging or meddling on the backend such as counting or reporting votes, or blatantly interfering with the process. It does not cover alleged defrauding of a political party as that is a political matter and not a criminal one. People switch parties all the time and it is not considered tampering with an election. This case is not any different. The letter of the law provides a list of examples, that while not exhaustive, demonstrate that the spirit of the law is to protect against blatant and direct interference with the election process itself, and not simply changing political parties after an election. Therefore, the defense alleges the prosecution has failed to state a proper claim for electoral fraud and this case should be dismissed.



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 fifteenth day of December 2023

 

[Dartanboy]

The Supreme Court reminds the Plaintiff of the 24 hour window to respond to Objections

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your Honor,

I will be taking this case over from Pugsy as he is currently unavailable.


Motion to Reconsider

An emergency injunctions purpose is to prevent harm. Currently the defendant’s vote has been huge in deciding the Speaker of Congress and the current impeachment against the President of our nation. This case is arguing that the defendant was a key vote for major impactful decisions in the legislative after he committed the crime of electoral fraud.
Because he committed the alleged crime 6 minutes after being elected, his actions are suspect. If the actions the defendant did are reversed, and he is found innocent, he can easily redo his actions. However, if the actions he has been allowed to do continue, then by the time this case has concluded, the outcomes of those actions will likely not be reversible if he is found guilty.

If we look to past cases, we find that when things are left too long, they cannot be reversed. In the case Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7, despite Krix winning the case, the judges did not grant his prayer for relief because the case was left too long, and the impact of Krix’s reinstatement would be too harmful to reverse everything.

It's possible the defendant’s decisions will highly impact the commonwealth, and potentially change the government. If the injunction to reverse his existing decisions is not granted, by the time a verdict comes in it might be too late to reverse any of the defendant’s decisions, as the consequences to do so would be severe.

The evidence before this court shows us that the defendant won a seat solely through the RNP voter pool. There is no argument against that: the facts and evidence are clear as day. Another supported fact is that the defendant switched party’s 6 minutes after the election results came in.

This case is arguing the defendant deceived the RNP voters about his allegiance to the party, and thereby manipulated their voter pool to get elected.
There is precedent in multiple cases where the courts have granted similar or even more extreme emergency injunctions for way less evidence or less potential harm.

More Extreme Injunction - Less Evidence

• In the The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24 case, an emergency injunction was accepted to suspend the President from office and strike past decisions (multiple executive orders) the President made. What was the evidence? Links to the executive orders. Our case’s evidence is stronger, and our requests for an emergency injunction are miniscule in comparison. The President vs One Representative: the bar has already been set very high, to bring it down as low as what is happening in this case is damaging the point of an emergency injunction.
  
  Similar Injunction - Less Harm
• In the 1950minecrafter v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18, the plaintiff filed an emergency injunction to prevent “218218Consumer assuming the office of Speaker and xLayzur assuming the office of Deputy Speaker.” While it does not carry the same weight as the Deadwax case in terms of how far the court went to prevent harm, this case had significantly less risk associated with the outcome. It was a civil case that did not directly harm the public, but was a meddling in the speakership electoral process. Our case is a criminal case that alleges the defendant meddled in a congress election, misrepresenting themselves to the voters. If the cases are compared, our case has a more significant impact on the community, and therefore the state feels that the ‘removal of past decisions’ part of the emergency should be granted.

Response to the Objections

These objections are a legal argument - they are not real objections.
The defendants council is employing a tactic never before used in a court of law - because you cannot use it in a court of law.
He is attempting to challenge the facts of a case without providing facts of his own. In every single court case on this server, people respond to the facts of a case following this court rule:

Rule 3.2 (Initial Answer Format Requirements)
All answers, even Small Claims, must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format and must have: An affirmation of what facts are affirmed, denied, or non contested.

Here's some examples of how it is meant to be done in court:

Spoiler: AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18

Spoiler: Sergecool v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 99

You cannot make objections to facts, and below is the explanation as to why:

If the courts hear this sort of tactic, there is an incredibly bad risk and precedent associated with ruling either way on these objections.

• If you rule in favour of the defendant on any of these objections, the court would be throwing out facts of a case that have yet to be opposed by other facts. By sustaining any of these objections you would be making a ruling against the prosecution's facts of this case - which completely violates the right to a fair trial.
• If you rule in favour of the plaintiff on any of these objections, the court would be agreeing with the plaintiffs side of the story without first hearing the defendants’. By overruling any of these objections you would be siding with the prosecution's facts of this case.

I implore the courts to completely throw out these objections. Please do not sustain them, please do not overrule them. Doing either action would violate the purpose of a court case, and deny the people real justice. I request you to completely throw them out and warn the defendant against trying such tactics again, and for violating the court rules.

The defendant should be submitting an answer to the complaint within the proper formats and court rules, as every lawyer does.

Furthermore, the defendant uses in numerous objections that there is a lack of evidence. He has used this really weird tactic to answer the prosecution's case and as a result we have skipped the process of discovery and entering a plea.
If that process hadn’t been skipped by the defendant, perhaps there would be less objections.

This weird tactic has broken multiple court rules, and has made this case more confusing than it needs to be. Either the defendants council doesn’t understand court procedure, or he has disregarded it entirely.

Nonetheless, I will amuse the defendant and respond to each objection, despite the fact that these objections should really all just be thrown out:


“Assumes facts not in evidence and council is testifying. Declaring candidacy under a party does not indicate support for that party. Furthermore, this is an analytical statement being improperly represented as a material fact.”

This is blatantly inaccurate. When an individual declares their candidacy under a party, it implies an alignment with the party's principles and policies. Declaring candidacy under a party is also a commitment to advocating for those party policies within the House of Representatives.

The DOS on their political party registration page define a party as: A political party is an organized group or organization that seeks to influence government policies, promote specific ideologies or agendas, and gain political power through participation in elections and other political processes. Political parties serve as a platform for like-minded individuals to come together, share common beliefs and values, and collectively work towards achieving their political objectives.

Fundamentally, political parties serve as organizing platforms for individuals who share common ideologies and beliefs. Declaring candidacy under a specific party indicates an agreement with their principles and signifies an intention to represent and further those ideas in governmental proceedings. Party’s organize like-minded individuals who can enter Government and represent a group idea.



“Assumes facts not in evidence and council is testifying. Seeking help in an election does not in any way indicate allegiance any person. Furthermore, this is an analytical statement being improperly represented as a material fact.”

The defendant sought assistance from the RNP leader while concurrently running for an election under the RNP's banner, and was a member of the RNP. Also notice the defendant said a “good amount of our biggest enemies got removed.” All these examples within that piece of evidence the prosecution provided indicate an allegiance.
No politician would reach out to an opponent for help with getting votes, that is common sense. Using the word “our” when referring to enemies indicates that the defendant and the RNP leader were a collective.


“Assumes facts not in evidence and prejudical over probative. The claim that Bardiya_King's only vote was himself is both unsupported by the evidence and any evidence that can be used to support this claim is inaccurate and/or fruit of the poisonous tree as voting records are private. Furthermore, this claim offers no material value to the court while being highly prejudicial.”

Prejudicial over probative is not an objection listed in rule 6.3. The defense counsel is testifying, assuming facts without evidence, by objecting to the prosecution's facts without providing the defendants facts on this case.

I’m hoping that this objection is a mistake. There is a key piece of evidence that has the defendant stating themselves: “voted myself already.” I don’t understand how the defense has missed this? The defendant got one vote in the election and said that they voted for themselves. The Prosecution did not get this evidence from the voting records, but from the words of the defendant who said they voted for themself.


“Prejudicial over probative and council is testifying. This is an opinionated statement that is highly prejudicial with no probative value. Furthermore, this is an analytical statement being improperly represented as a material fact.”

Prejudicial over probative is not an objection listed in rule 6.3. The defense counsel is testifying, assuming facts without evidence, by objecting to the prosecution's facts without providing the defendants facts on this case.



“Prejudicial over probative and council is testifying. This is an opinionated statement that is highly prejudicial with no probative value. Furthermore, this is an analytical statement being improperly represented as a material fact.”

Prejudicial over probative is not an objection listed in rule 6.3. The defense counsel is testifying, assuming facts without evidence, by objecting to the prosecution's facts without providing the defendants facts on this case.


“Perjury. The RNP did not lose a seat as there was not another candidate that actually lost the seat. The RNP only put forth five candidates and all five won their seats. Bardiya_King did not displace another RNP candidate as there was not another possible contender for the same seat. This misrepresents facts for political gain by an RNP regime. The second premise within this "fact" does not hold water either as the voters votes' couldn't have been wasted BECAUSE there was no other candidate contending the same seat as the defendant. In other words, they didn't actually lose anything because there was nothing to lose in the first place in this situation.”

The RNP won 5 seats. If the defendant vote did not count, the RNP would’ve still won 5 seats. If the RNP knew the defendant was misrepresenting their allegiance to the party, then the RNP leader would’ve executed their constitutional authority: False party affiliations will be excluded at the request of the relevant party leader. (Section 7 of the Constitution)

There were many contenders for the same seat, the RNP is a large party. Evidence from the RNP leaders’ chats with other RNP members suggests there was thought towards multiple other candidates to fill the 5th seat. This was until the defendant suggested they could run for the 5th seat.

Spoiler: Evidence of Other Candidates to Fill the 5th Seat

If the defendant revealed their true intentions before the election had concluded, then the RNP could’ve put forth one of the aforementioned candidates, or anyone else from the very large party. By hiding their true political allegiance to defraud the electoral system, the defendant removed the opportunity for the RNP to have their 5th seat, which they could’ve filled with another candidate.


“Assumes facts not in evidence and prejudical over probative. The claim that Bardiya_King disrupted the fairness of the electoral process is unsupported by the evidence. Furthermore, this claim offers no material value to the court while being highly prejudicial as it is an opinion that is being misrepresented as a stipulated fact.”

Prejudicial over probative is not a rule listed in 6.3. The defense counsel is testifying, assuming facts without evidence, by objecting to the prosecution's facts without providing the defendants facts on this case.

The defendant would not have gotten elected with his single vote. To win the most recent congress election, a candidate required support of roughly 10 votes to reach the threshold. The defendant took votes from the RNP voting pool to get elected, and then immediately upon the results of the election, switched to the BDP. It is not fair on the voters to have lost their representation in congress as a result of the defendant’s misrepresentation of his party allegiance. Moreover, the BDP received a grand total of 21 votes (18.92%) which won them 2 seats, but 6 minutes following the announcement of the electoral results, the BDP received a third seat. The RNP won the mandate to justify 5 seats, the BDP did not win a mandate to justify 3 seats, and the defendant got elected with one vote and immediately switched parties after the election announcement.
The prosecution argues that this is a criminal offence and disrupted the fairness of the electoral process: his misrepresentation cost the voters a fair election, and manipulated the electoral result.



Response to the Motion to Dismiss

The Motion to Dismiss should be denied and struck for failure to follow rule 5.1 (Rule Specification). Under the previous Supreme Court ruling in zLost v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 21, when a motion to dismiss is made that fails to adhere to Rule 5.1, it is denied and the statements made are striked from the record. Therefore, since the defendant failed to specify rules, we request the court extend the ruling per the precedent to this case as well.

Spoiler: Additional Evidence in Support of Fact 2

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Reconsider

An emergency injunctions purpose is to prevent harm. Currently the defendant’s vote has been huge in deciding the Speaker of Congress and the current impeachment against the President of our nation. This case is arguing that the defendant was a key vote for major impactful decisions in the legislative after he committed the crime of electoral fraud.
Because he committed the alleged crime 6 minutes after being elected, his actions are suspect. If the actions the defendant did are reversed, and he is found innocent, he can easily redo his actions. However, if the actions he has been allowed to do continue, then by the time this case has concluded, the outcomes of those actions will likely not be reversible if he is found guilty.

If we look to past cases, we find that when things are left too long, they cannot be reversed. In the case Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7, despite Krix winning the case, the judges did not grant his prayer for relief because the case was left too long, and the impact of Krix’s reinstatement would be too harmful to reverse everything.

It's possible the defendant’s decisions will highly impact the commonwealth, and potentially change the government. If the injunction to reverse his existing decisions is not granted, by the time a verdict comes in it might be too late to reverse any of the defendant’s decisions, as the consequences to do so would be severe.

The evidence before this court shows us that the defendant won a seat solely through the RNP voter pool. There is no argument against that: the facts and evidence are clear as day. Another supported fact is that the defendant switched party’s 6 minutes after the election results came in.

This case is arguing the defendant deceived the RNP voters about his allegiance to the party, and thereby manipulated their voter pool to get elected.
There is precedent in multiple cases where the courts have granted similar or even more extreme emergency injunctions for way less evidence or less potential harm.

More Extreme Injunction - Less Evidence

• In the The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24 case, an emergency injunction was accepted to suspend the President from office and strike past decisions (multiple executive orders) the President made. What was the evidence? Links to the executive orders. Our case’s evidence is stronger, and our requests for an emergency injunction are miniscule in comparison. The President vs One Representative: the bar has already been set very high, to bring it down as low as what is happening in this case is damaging the point of an emergency injunction.
  
  Similar Injunction - Less Harm
• In the 1950minecrafter v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18, the plaintiff filed an emergency injunction to prevent “218218Consumer assuming the office of Speaker and xLayzur assuming the office of Deputy Speaker.” While it does not carry the same weight as the Deadwax case in terms of how far the court went to prevent harm, this case had significantly less risk associated with the outcome. It was a civil case that did not directly harm the public, but was a meddling in the speakership electoral process. Our case is a criminal case that alleges the defendant meddled in a congress election, misrepresenting themselves to the voters. If the cases are compared, our case has a more significant impact on the community, and therefore the state feels that the ‘removal of past decisions’ part of the emergency should be granted.

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution responded to my motion to reconsider without being prompted to make a response. The prosecution has therefore spoken out of turn and I motion to strike these remarks from the record.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Doing either action would violate the purpose of a court case, and deny the people real justice. I request you to completely throw them out and warn the defendant against trying such tactics again, and for violating the court rules.

The defendant should be submitting an answer to the complaint within the proper formats and court rules, as every lawyer does.

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. This isn't a valid request and fails to directly respond to the objections. It also makes commentary that is out of the scope of what the response should include.

This weird tactic has broken multiple court rules, and has made this case more confusing than it needs to be. Either the defendants council doesn’t understand court procedure, or he has disregarded it entirely.

Objection, Your Honor
Argumentative. These comments serve only to harass a party in the trial and the defense therefore motions for these remarks to be struck.

Evidence from the RNP leaders’ chats with other RNP members suggests there was thought towards multiple other candidates to fill the 5th seat. This was until the defendant suggested they could run for the 5th seat.

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution is attempting to improperly submit evidence. One cannot simply pull out evidence to respond to a valid objection, there are proper times and ways to submit evidence.

Evidence from the RNP leaders’ chats with other RNP members suggests there was thought towards multiple other candidates to fill the 5th seat. This was until the defendant suggested they could run for the 5th seat.

Objection, Your Honor
Hearsay. The evidence features comments exclusively from out-of-court sources. Evidence of this nature cannot be submitted as the declarants cannot be cross examined and their comments in this picture were not made under oath. This evidence is therefore inadmissible unless the declarants testify in Court.

Response to the Motion to Dismiss

The Motion to Dismiss should be denied and struck for failure to follow rule 5.1 (Rule Specification). Under the previous Supreme Court ruling in zLost v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 21, when a motion to dismiss is made that fails to adhere to Rule 5.1, it is denied and the statements made are striked from the record. Therefore, since the defendant failed to specify rules, we request the court extend the ruling per the precedent to this case as well.

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution responded to my motion to dismiss without being prompted to make a response. The prosecution has therefore spoken out of turn and I motion to strike these remarks from the record.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution counsel is not eligible to represent the Commonwealth as he is not a member of the Department of Legal Affairs:

Spoiler: Proof 1

Spoiler: Proof 2

Spoiler: Proof 3

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution counsel is not eligible to represent the Commonwealth as he is not a member of the Department of Legal Affairs:

Spoiler: Proof 1

View attachment 39845

Spoiler: Proof 2

View attachment 39846

Spoiler: Proof 3

View attachment 39847

Your honor, I am in fact a member of the DLA and the Prosecutor that has been assigned to this case as _Pugsy is unable to respond in the time allotted. See attachments.

My lack of credentials on the forums is an issue that we are aware of that was created from the Cabinet being rearranged within 24 hours of my employment, and is on the Attorney Generals ever growing to do list.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. This isn't a valid request and fails to directly respond to the objections. It also makes commentary that is out of the scope of what the response should include.



Objection, Your Honor
Argumentative. These comments serve only to harass a party in the trial and the defense therefore motions for these remarks to be struck.



Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution is attempting to improperly submit evidence. One cannot simply pull out evidence to respond to a valid objection, there are proper times and ways to submit evidence.



Objection, Your Honor
Hearsay. The evidence features comments exclusively from out-of-court sources. Evidence of this nature cannot be submitted as the declarants cannot be cross examined and their comments in this picture were not made under oath. This evidence is therefore inadmissible unless the declarants testify in Court.



Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution responded to my motion to dismiss without being prompted to make a response. The prosecution has therefore spoken out of turn and I motion to strike these remarks from the record.

AlexanderLove, the Objections Guide is quite clear that Objections are single subject matter issues, with one Objection and one Response to Objection.

Objecting to Responses is generally against court procedure, and failure to adhere to these rules may result in Contempt of Court.

This is the only warning to both parties to make sure they have read the court procedures and commit to following then.

The Objections against Responses are hereby struck by the Supreme Court.

The remaining Motions and Objections are still being deliberated.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

AlexanderLove, the Objections Guide is quite clear that Objections are single subject matter issues, with one Objection and one Response to Objection.

Objecting to Responses is generally against court procedure, and failure to adhere to these rules may result in Contempt of Court.

This is the only warning to both parties to make sure they have read the court procedures and commit to following then.

The Objections against Responses are hereby struck by the Supreme Court.

The remaining Motions and Objections are still being deliberated.

Motion to Reconsider
Your honor, these aren't merely objections to responses. These are NEW single issues that have arisen as a result of the prosecution's response. These objections all bring up new issues. Thus, I am in compliance with the objections guide and the objections should be considered, especially breach of procedure objections.

EDIT: Furthermore, one of the objections is on new EVIDENCE that was presented (the hearsay objection). The court should not set the precedent that you have objection-immune evidence if you present it as a response to an objection.

 

[Dartanboy]

Counsel @Alexander P. Love

The Supreme Court has decided to strike all of your original objections as we do not wish to make a summary judgment on any facts, your motion to dismiss for failing to adhere to rule 5.1, and your motion to reconsider for the sake of resubmission. We feel that we have been unclear in what we have asked. We need a motion to reconsider to examine the Emergency Injunction and whether or not to vacate it, keep it as is, or expand it. If you feel that you cannot do this without challenging the facts, we kindly request that you file an answer with your motion to reconsider, though the court stresses that you can make statements regarding the facts for your Emergency Injunction without having to formally submit an answer.

The court is also rejecting your Motion to Reconsider regarding our decision to strike the second set of objections. The objection guide is clear that only one post and one counter post is for each objection matter. Your second sets of objections are a response to a counter post of an objection. Therefore the second set of objections is in violation of rule 6.3 and shall be denied.

In summary, we are striking everything you've said so far due to a miscommunication on our part. We want you to focus on the Emergency Injunction before focusing on the rest of the lawsuit, and we failed to articulate that with clarity.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

your motion to dismiss for failing to adhere to rule 5.1

Motion to Reconsider
I am frankly appalled that the Court ruled this way when I did in fact specify reasons grounded in rules.

"Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)
A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge."

"The defendant might also file a motion to dismiss because the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In other words, the plaintiff has not alleged a valid cause of action or has failed to allege all of the elements required for a particular cause of action."

This is an official reason to dismiss according to the rules. See relevant snippets of my motion to dismiss:

"2. It is unreasonable and undemocratic to assert that switching political parties is inherently fraudulent. The plaintiff has failed to properly state a claim as they cannot establish mens rea, which means they cannot prove that there was any intent to defraud voters. The law stipulates a mens rea requirement, which the prosecution has substantially failed to properly address: “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact." The defendant had a change of heart and realized his values are not properly represented by the RNP, and switched to a party that more closely aligns with Bardiya's values. This is not a criminal act and the plaintiff's entire claim rests on the Court's ignorance of this. Further, the prosecution failed to explain how “the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.” As mentioned before, there was no other person to contest the RNP seat that Bardiya got elected under originally. Therefore, the RNP nor its voters were actually damaged.
3. Electoral Fraud is defined as "Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats." It is clear that the intent of this law was to prohibit specific rigging or meddling on the backend such as counting or reporting votes, or blatantly interfering with the process. It does not cover alleged defrauding of a political party as that is a political matter and not a criminal one. People switch parties all the time and it is not considered tampering with an election. This case is not any different. The letter of the law provides a list of examples, that while not exhaustive, demonstrate that the spirit of the law is to protect against blatant and direct interference with the election process itself, and not simply changing political parties after an election. Therefore, the defense alleges the prosecution has failed to state a proper claim for electoral fraud and this case should be dismissed."


And from the motions guide: "The court does not have jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter of the case."

My motion to dismiss, reason one: "This is a case of malicious prosecution by a jaded RNP regime in an attempt to drag the Court into a political matter. The defense asserts the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the second prayer for relief, as this is clearly a matter of politics. Further, I have already established how, even if Bardiya wasn't in the picture, the RNP did not run any alternative candidates to take that seat. Therefore, granting this claim would essentially be giving an RNP politician that never even contended the original election a free seat. Furthermore, this prayer for relief is a civil matter and does not belong in a criminal trial, so I object to it on the grounds of improper venue. Sentencing two should be disregarded."


Therefore, the claim that my motion to dismiss fails to adhere to rule 5.1 is frankly bullshit. I ask the Court to reconsider their stance on the issue, thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor
The above exhibit was tendered into evidence. To be clear, this is an objection about EVIDENCE and NOT about any response to an objection that may have been made. I object on the grounds of hearsay as this features out-of-court statements from two declarants who are not present to testify. Their statements cannot be used as these statements were not made under oath nor can they be cross-examined. The defense moves to strike this exhibit from the evidence.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion to Reconsider
I am frankly appalled that the Court ruled this way when I did in fact specify reasons grounded in rules.

"Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)
A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge."

"The defendant might also file a motion to dismiss because the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In other words, the plaintiff has not alleged a valid cause of action or has failed to allege all of the elements required for a particular cause of action."

This is an official reason to dismiss according to the rules. See relevant snippets of my motion to dismiss:

"2. It is unreasonable and undemocratic to assert that switching political parties is inherently fraudulent. The plaintiff has failed to properly state a claim as they cannot establish mens rea, which means they cannot prove that there was any intent to defraud voters. The law stipulates a mens rea requirement, which the prosecution has substantially failed to properly address: “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact." The defendant had a change of heart and realized his values are not properly represented by the RNP, and switched to a party that more closely aligns with Bardiya's values. This is not a criminal act and the plaintiff's entire claim rests on the Court's ignorance of this. Further, the prosecution failed to explain how “the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.” As mentioned before, there was no other person to contest the RNP seat that Bardiya got elected under originally. Therefore, the RNP nor its voters were actually damaged.
3. Electoral Fraud is defined as "Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats." It is clear that the intent of this law was to prohibit specific rigging or meddling on the backend such as counting or reporting votes, or blatantly interfering with the process. It does not cover alleged defrauding of a political party as that is a political matter and not a criminal one. People switch parties all the time and it is not considered tampering with an election. This case is not any different. The letter of the law provides a list of examples, that while not exhaustive, demonstrate that the spirit of the law is to protect against blatant and direct interference with the election process itself, and not simply changing political parties after an election. Therefore, the defense alleges the prosecution has failed to state a proper claim for electoral fraud and this case should be dismissed."


And from the motions guide: "The court does not have jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter of the case."

My motion to dismiss, reason one: "This is a case of malicious prosecution by a jaded RNP regime in an attempt to drag the Court into a political matter. The defense asserts the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the second prayer for relief, as this is clearly a matter of politics. Further, I have already established how, even if Bardiya wasn't in the picture, the RNP did not run any alternative candidates to take that seat. Therefore, granting this claim would essentially be giving an RNP politician that never even contended the original election a free seat. Furthermore, this prayer for relief is a civil matter and does not belong in a criminal trial, so I object to it on the grounds of improper venue. Sentencing two should be disregarded."


Therefore, the claim that my motion to dismiss fails to adhere to rule 5.1 is frankly bullshit. I ask the Court to reconsider their stance on the issue, thank you.

AlexanderLove, your unruly and chaotic behavior is unacceptable in this courtroom. The Court has *repeatedly* asked that you focus on the Emergency Injunction. Now, we are ordering you - until further notice, do not file anything in this courtroom *except* for a Motion to Reconsider regarding the Emergency Injunction.

If you fail to do this, you *will* be found in Contempt of Court.

Furthermore, you claim that your Motion to Dismiss meets the requirement of Rule 5.1 via Rule 5.5 "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge" however your Motion to Dismiss doesn't actually say anything about this. The Prosecution claimed that "Bardiya_King misrepresented his party affiliation for personal gain," "caused harm," and that "the misrepresentation disrupted the fairness of the electoral process." Whilst the Court is not prepared to make a claim on whether these claims are true, they do certainly allege the crime of Electoral Fraud.

Regardless, it is quite clear that your Objections and Motions were not *Overruled*. They were *Struck* because they were not relevant to the matter at hand. File only what is related to the Emergency Injunction - and no more.

Further disrespect will not be tolerated.

The Motion to Reconsider is overruled.


EDIT: This was written by Associate Justice Dartanman, and signed by Chief Justice Drew_Hall and Associate Justice Matthew100x

 

[Alexander P. Love]

AlexanderLove, your unruly and chaotic behavior is unacceptable in this courtroom. The Court has *repeatedly* asked that you focus on the Emergency Injunction. Now, we are ordering you - until further notice, do not file anything in this courtroom *except* for a Motion to Reconsider regarding the Emergency Injunction.

If you fail to do this, you *will* be found in Contempt of Court.

Furthermore, you claim that your Motion to Dismiss meets the requirement of Rule 5.1 via Rule 5.5 "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge" however your Motion to Dismiss doesn't actually say anything about this. The Prosecution claimed that "Bardiya_King misrepresented his party affiliation for personal gain," "caused harm," and that "the misrepresentation disrupted the fairness of the electoral process." Whilst the Court is not prepared to make a claim on whether these claims are true, they do certainly allege the crime of Electoral Fraud.

Regardless, it is quite clear that your Objections and Motions were not *Overruled*. They were *Struck* because they were not relevant to the matter at hand. File only what is related to the Emergency Injunction - and no more.

Further disrespect will not be tolerated.

The Motion to Reconsider is overruled.


EDIT: This was written by Associate Justice Dartanman, and signed by Chief Justice Drew_Hall and Associate Justice Matthew100x

Your honor, the Court cannot force the defense to file a motion to reconsider the emergency injunction. The defense at this time does not want to address the injunction. If the Court feels the injunction should not stand and is looking for the defense to say the "magic words" to get it dismissed, the Court should simply skip the step and quash the injunction. The defense has followed all Court procedures up to this point. May the defense file an answer to the prosecution?

 

[Dartanboy]

Emergency Injunction

Due to the ongoing harms Bardiya_King is causing by holding a position in the House of Representatives, we ask that the court grant this emergency injunction to:

• Reverse any actions Bardiya_King has taken when in power as a Representative.
• Prevent Bardiya_King from using any powers granted to a Representative.
• Deduct any payment Bardiya_King received when holding the position of a Representative
• Withhold any further payment to Bardiya_King while holding the position of a Representative.

Your honor, the Court cannot force the defense to file a motion to reconsider the emergency injunction. The defense at this time does not want to address the injunction. If the Court feels the injunction should not stand and is looking for the defense to say the "magic words" to get it dismissed, the Court should simply skip the step and quash the injunction. The defense has followed all Court procedures up to this point. May the defense file an answer to the prosecution?

The Supreme Court, in a 2-1 decision, has decided to reverse Bardiya_King's previous decisions for the duration of this case and continue to prevent him from using his powers as a Representative for the duration of this case.

Pay is not being deducted or frozen, as this is easily reparable if the Defendant is found guilty and this is found to be a legal sentence.

All three of us are disappointed in AlexanderLove's behavior, completely ignoring the requests of the Court and, apparently, failing to represent his client's interests.

Majority Opinion
Written by Associate Justice Matthew100x, signed by Chief Justice Drew_Hall

When examining the issue of the emergency injunction, I am brought back to its basic premise, “The goal of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm” (see Guide - Court Orders Guide). As a Justice, when reviewing an emergency injunction, we should do so on a prevention of harm basis of review only. There should be no indication of whether or not a defendant or party on the receiving end of an emergency injunction is actually guilty of the charges put forth. Any assumption of guilt made by a Judge in any case could be a violation of the defendant’s IX right because a Judge is supposed to be impartial when reviewing conduct (see Government - Constitution).

To begin with, I shall review the prosecution's argument regarding the emergency injunction is as follows (see Lawsuit: In Session - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23).

This case is arguing that the defendant was a key vote for major impactful decisions in the legislative after he committed the crime of electoral fraud.
Because he committed the alleged crime 6 minutes after being elected, his actions are suspect. If the actions the defendant did are reversed, and he is found innocent, he can easily redo his actions. However, if the actions he has been allowed to do continue, then by the time this case has concluded, the outcomes of those actions will likely not be reversible if he is found guilty.

Their argument is that the alleged actions that constitute a criminal offense occurred 6 minutes after the election concluded. Therefore all decisions that he made after the alleged crime should be reversed. They argue that if the defendant’s decisions stand, it can lead to the impeachment of the president and greatly harm the government, thus it fulfills the measure of preventing harm. Additional arguments come in the form of other important emergency injunctions the court has done, citing Lawsuit: Adjourned - 1950minecrafter v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18 and more recently
Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24.

In [2021] SCR 18, then Chief Justice Westray granted an emergency injunction preventing the Speaker and Deputy Speaker from exercising their powers. The powers of the Deputy Speaker and Speaker of the House were temporarily restricted for judicial review. This court has already agreed with the basis of preventing harm and had voted to move to bar the defendant from exercising their power until the conclusion of the case. Therefore, the court has already agreed to prevent harm.

The real question then becomes, whether or not the court has any right to reverse previous decisions. In [2022] SCR 24, the Supreme Court under then Chief Justice Nacholebraa agreed to accept an emergency injunction that unilaterally declared EO’s unconstitutional without additional review. The court did so using evidence that only showed the actions committed by former President Deadwax. This unilateral action was done under the premise of preventing harm, which is what the emergency injunction does.

I would review the defendant’s argument, but their counsel has failed to submit any despite being given ample opportunity to do so. Thus there is nothing to counterbalance this assessment made by the prosecution.

That being said, the evidence here points to statements made by the defendant after they had won the election. While such conduct in and of itself is not indicative of guilt without fact finding and making a determination, the context of the situation is important. The defendant ran for the RNP, a party known for its support of President xLayzur, and then left it despite only being elected because they were on the party ticket. The defendant then proceeded to vote in an impeachment trial against the President, their vote would be critical in reaching the supermajority required to impeach the President.

All of this is pretty indisputable, but whether or not this evidence reaches beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict is not something that the court needs to determine at this time. Again, this review is only for an emergency injunction, which is aimed at preventing harm, which as established earlier should not come with any presumption of guilt or else a judge risks violating a party’s IX right.

Thus, we come to a crux, does granting the emergency injunction in full prevent harm? Currently, there is an ongoing impeachment trial happening against President xLayzur that the defendant voted on. Given the context that the court has already allowed an emergency injunction preventing the defendant from using their Representative powers, if we backtracked this decision to the timing of the alleged crime, it would retroactively stop the impeachment. The prosecution has correctly pointed out that if a president gets removed, a court is unlikely to remove the new administration and replace it with the previous one (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7).

So the court has two options before it. Keep the emergency injunction as is and potentially allow massive harm to the government via the removal of the current President or reverse the decisions to allow for proper review to occur, potentially causing harm by undoing all decisions that the defendant made. Under such a context, the decision is clear to me, the defendant who is found not guilty can redo all of his actions and thus is not greatly harmed, a president removed from their office is very unlikely to be able to undo the action. Therefore, the harm is greater in not granting the emergency injunction in full.

Courts have previously granted revised versions of emergency injunctions to prevent harm (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - xlayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 12 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - 1950minecrafter v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18). It is in my belief that the Supreme Court should do something similar. This court has already concluded that for the sake of preventing harm to grant an emergency injunction that stops the defendant from exercising their powers. Moving forward, this court should backtrack the decision to when the alleged crime occurred. Thus freezing the impeachment until the case can be properly reviewed and a verdict is thus given. This is because the defendant’s vote was critical in reaching the threshold required for impeaching the president. However, unless evidence can be shown that the defendant’s vote was critical in any other decision, all other conduct that they participated in should stand. That way the harm is minimized while judicial review is happening. So when the case is finished and the defendant is found not guilty, the impeachment trial can immediately pick up where it was left off.

Under this review, I move to grant an amended version of the emergency injunction and freeze the impeachment trial until this case is completed.

Dissenting Opinion
Written by Associate Justice Dartanman

I am appalled at the Defense’s choice to ignore the Emergency Injunction, but that is their choice to make – not ours. The Court has shown a great kindness in permitting the Defendant to respond to the Emergency Injunction – a kindness that has been greatly ignored.

Nonetheless, if the Defense wishes to ignore it, so be it.

Upon re-examining the Emergency Injunction and the Prosecution’s Motion to Reconsider, here is my opinion:

On the Emergency Injunction Request and Motion to Reconsider:
1 - The Prosecution argues that any actions Bardiya_King has taken should be reversed. Looking at the Charges in this case (Electoral Fraud), I do not see a legal way this could be done. The punishment for Electoral Fraud is “up to $25,000 in fines + issue a temporary or [permanent] barring from holding public office.”

Thus, even if Bardiya_King is found to have committed Electoral Fraud, he is still – currently – considered a legal Representative. Thus, reversing his previous actions serves no legal purpose – and even if Bardiya_King is found guilty, his previous actions still shouldn’t be overturned, as there is no legal vehicle for this to be done in this Prosecution.

To be clear, I'm saying that even if Bardiya_King is found to be guilty of Electoral Fraud, there is no law I am aware of which permits the reversal of his decisions while in office.

2 - The Prosecution also requested that Bardiya_King be prevented from using the powers of the office of Representative. This request has some legal merit to it. If Bardiya_King used a crime to gain office, there is a reasonable suspicion that he may continue to use crime as a method to accomplish tasks in office. This is by no means declaring that Bardiya_King is guilty, but declaring that the charges and evidence surrounding these circumstances give rise to enough suspicion that a temporary injunction is warranted.

We asked the Defense multiple times to provide a rebuttal to this, but they chose not to. Thus, in my opinion, we should uphold our original decision and continue to prevent Bardiya_King from using the powers granted to a Representative.

3 & 4 - Finally, the Prosecution asked to deduct any pay Bardiya_King has received and to prevent him from being paid further. I stand by what I said previously, and believe that this is not an irreparable harm, and can easily be solved by fines if Bardiya_King is found guilty. I’d also add that it might not be within the scope of this lawsuit to seek those damages.

On the Comparison to other Cases:
1 - In The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24, the Supreme Court used the power of Judicial Review to declare that the Executive Orders were unconstitutional. Furthermore, they did not limit Deadwax’s powers until he defied a court order and made a nearly identical and dangerous Executive Order after the previous ones were already declared unconstitutional by the Court. This Court is not prepared to declare that Bardiya’s past decisions were illegal, and thus, we cannot reverse them at this time.

2 - In 1950minecrafter v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18, there are some similarities. I have not seen a compelling reason to allow Bardiya_King to continue having the powers of a Representative for the duration of this case, and believe that the potential harm that can be prevented by this injunction outweighs the potential damage of Bardiya_King being unable to use his powers temporarily.

 

[Dartanboy]

(This means the impeachment trial is to be frozen for the duration of this case)

 

[End]

If it may please the court I wish to submit an amicus brief as a Member of the Congress concerning the decision to halt the impeachment.

Update: With particular reference to how Bardiya's vote would not have impacted the outcome of the impeachment vote and how it is holding up the Legislature from conducting their constitutional duties prior to the caretaker period.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

If it may please the court I wish to submit an amicus brief as a Member of the Congress concerning the decision to halt the impeachment.

The defense does not object.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your honor,

End is not a part of this case, and does not represent the defendant or prosecution and has no relevance to this case. The plaintiff is seeking that these comments be struck from the record and End charged with Contempt of Court for this interruption to the judicial process.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your honor,

End is not a part of this case, and does not represent the defendant or prosecution and has no relevance to this case. The plaintiff is seeking that these comments be struck from the record and End charged with Contempt of Court for this interruption to the judicial process.

Your honor, there is precedence of outside parties being permitted to request to submit amicus curiae briefs. This is not breach of procedure, is very common, and is warranted in this case which affects multiple stakeholders besides the parties directly involved. What is NOT common nor warranted is asking the court to charge a person with contempt of court.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISSMISS​

Your Honor,

The commonwealth would no longer wish to persecute these charges and ask that this suit be dissmissed. As the solicitor general in charge of this case, I would like to personally thank the court, the prosecutors, and the defending cousel for their time.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defense has no objections and wishes for the same.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISSMISS​

Your Honor,

The commonwealth would no longer wish to persecute these charges and ask that this suit be dissmissed. As the solicitor general in charge of this case, I would like to personally thank the court, the prosecutors, and the defending cousel for their time.

The Supreme Court recognizes that Snowy_Heart is also the Prosecutor of xLayzur's impeachment trial, and wishes to hear directly from the Attorney General that this case is to be dismissed.

We are not questioning your integrity, Snowy, but a potential conflict of interest such as the one mentioned above mustn't be ignored. Would the Attorney General @Pacman please confirm?

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honors,

As the prosecutor assigned to this case I would like to make note that I want to continue this case. I believe this case is essential to upholding democracy and it should not be dismissed. The solicitor general has in no way communicated at any point this motion with me. All I am aware of is that this case was given the approval by the Attorney General, and I have performed well on this case so far, there has been nothing to suggest this case should be dismissed - in fact its been quite the opposite. This case has merit, the courts have recognized that.

Thank you, your honors.

 

[Pacman]

The Supreme Court recognizes that Snowy_Heart is also the Prosecutor of xLayzur's impeachment trial, and wishes to hear directly from the Attorney General that this case is to be dismissed.

We are not questioning your integrity, Snowy, but a potential conflict of interest such as the one mentioned above mustn't be ignored. Would the Attorney General @Pacman please confirm?

Your honors,

The Solicitor General was not authorized to make a motion to dismiss and the prosecution would ask that it be struck from the record. The Department of Legal Affairs will continue to pursue this case on behalf of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Thank you

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honors,

The Solicitor General was not authorized to make a motion to dismiss and the prosecution would ask that it be struck from the record. The Department of Legal Affairs will continue to pursue this case on behalf of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Thank you

Your honor, I have reason to believe the Attorney General is being coerced by the executive into pursuing this malicious prosecution. The AG does not wish to pursue this case:

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DECISIONS ON THE PENDING MOTIONS AND REQUESTS

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISSMISS​

Your Honor,

The commonwealth would no longer wish to persecute these charges and ask that this suit be dissmissed. As the solicitor general in charge of this case, I would like to personally thank the court, the prosecutors, and the defending cousel for their time.

Motion to Nolle Prosequi (improperly labeled as a Motion to Dismiss) is struck as the Solicitor General did not have the authority to make that motion in this case, and seemingly attempted to derail the case. The Supreme Court is also warning all parties to not speak in court without a valid cause to do so, nor attempt to derail this court or case. Further doing so will result in Contempt of Court charges.
(3-0 decision)

If it may please the court I wish to submit an amicus brief as a Member of the Congress concerning the decision to halt the impeachment.

Update: With particular reference to how Bardiya's vote would not have impacted the outcome of the impeachment vote and how it is holding up the Legislature from conducting their constitutional duties prior to the caretaker period.

@End you may file an Amicus Curiae Brief within the next 72 hours.
(3-0 decision)

Your honor, I have reason to believe the Attorney General is being coerced by the executive into pursuing this malicious prosecution. The AG does not wish to pursue this case:

View attachment 40150

Alexander, this Objection (?) is Overruled as it does not follow the proper format according to the Objections Guide.
(3-0 decision)

Finally, we will be moving on with this case. The Defense may present their Answer to Complaint within 72 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your honor,

End is not a part of this case, and does not represent the defendant or prosecution and has no relevance to this case. The plaintiff is seeking that these comments be struck from the record and End charged with Contempt of Court for this interruption to the judicial process.

This Objection is overruled because we decided to allow End to file an Amicus Curiae Brief, which is a common practice in court.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DECISIONS ON THE PENDING MOTIONS AND REQUESTS


Motion to Nolle Prosequi (improperly labeled as a Motion to Dismiss) is struck as the Solicitor General did not have the authority to make that motion in this case, and seemingly attempted to derail the case. The Supreme Court is also warning all parties to not speak in court without a valid cause to do so, nor attempt to derail this court or case. Further doing so will result in Contempt of Court charges.
(3-0 decision)

Motion to Reconsider
The AG also wants dismissal and is simply being forced to pursue the case by the party which is angry at the defendant.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion to Reconsider
The AG also wants dismissal and is simply being forced to pursue the case by the party which is angry at the defendant.
View attachment 40151

Overruled. Your private conversation with the Attorney General is superceded by his literal appearance in this courtroom. We will take the Attorney General's word over yours when it comes to what the Attorney General and DLA want to do.

(3-0 decision)

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DECISIONS ON THE PENDING MOTIONS AND REQUESTS


Motion to Nolle Prosequi (improperly labeled as a Motion to Dismiss) is struck as the Solicitor General did not have the authority to make that motion in this case, and seemingly attempted to derail the case. The Supreme Court is also warning all parties to not speak in court without a valid cause to do so, nor attempt to derail this court or case. Further doing so will result in Contempt of Court charges.
(3-0 decision)

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER​

Your Honor,
It is under the office of the solicitor general that a prosecutorial case is filed, and it is my responsibility to oversee which prosecutor gets put on which case and which cases are put up to the court for prosecution furthermore I am responsible for overseeing case progress and have stepped in to take lead in cases before as the prosecutor. I am the deputy secretary of the DLA and I have the authority to decide which prosecutors are on which cases. I am taking MrFluffy2U94 off if this prosecution and putting myself on as prosecutor as is my authority to do so.






​

 

[End]

AMICUS BRIEF

The purpose of this brief is to address concerns regarding the recent emergency Injunction to halt the impeachment trial and its potential implications on constitutional principles, specifically highlighting the creation of a technicality and the undue interruption of the rights of those involved.

Congressional Voting Quorums are Dynamic
Traditionally, congressional years-long convention and the Legislative Standards Act have recognised dynamic voting quorums, adapting vote thresholds according to the number of members who have submitted a vote. However, the Court's ruling now considers abstention as a conscious decision not to vote. This departure from long standing congressional convention poses significant challenges to the legislature, previous bills passed under this convention, and creates uncertainty in future congressional votes (discussed below).

Congress has had to legislate to return convention.
The ruling the Supreme Court has made requires Congress to discern a conscious decision not to vote from a non-vote, excluded or otherwise. This lack of clarity could impede the legislative process as it introduces ambiguity into the determination of vote outcomes.

Bardiya's Vote is Inconsequential
In the specific case of Bardiya's vote exclusion, the total number of voters would be reduced to 10, requiring a supermajority threshold of 7-3 for the impeachment to pass. Regardless of Bardiyas' vote, the impeachment achieved the required supermajority.

Rights to a Fair Trial
Impeachment proceedings are a constitutional mechanism designed to address the highest of offences. The recent decision to halt the trial through emergency injunction raises concerns about the rights of the Prosecutor and President to a speedy and fair trial. Delays in the impeachment process may compromise the effectiveness of this accountability mechanism. If the House of Representatives has introduced and passed articles of impeachment, then the Court needs to recognise that there is a serious risk that they are withholding accountability mechanisms against high crimes.

Impact on Legislative Accountability
The interruption of the trial, particularly as the congressional term approaches its end, hampers the ability of the legislature to hold individuals accountable for alleged high crimes. The Court's involvement in this manner disrupts the constitutional balance between branches of government and interferes with the legislature's essential function of oversight and accountability.

Creating Harm
While the Court's intervention may be driven by the intent of preventing harm, it has inadvertently given rise to unintended consequences that may, in fact, create harm in other aspects of the constitutional framework. The introduction of a technicality regarding voting quorums, as discussed earlier, disrupts long-standing congressional conventions and introduces uncertainty into the legislative process. This has necessitated the enactment of additional legislation to clarify the implications of the Court's ruling.

The interruption of the impeachment trial itself, intended to prevent harm to the rights of the Prosecutor and President, has created a different form of harm by impeding the timely and effective functioning of a constitutionally mandated accountability mechanism. The urgency of addressing high crimes through impeachment is undermined by delays imposed by the Court, potentially eroding public trust in the efficacy of the legislative process and the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values.

This is Politics
While Bardiya's vote is inconsequential, Bardiya was elected to Congress as a Representative, regardless of their party affiliation. The court is playing with fire in ruling on such a political topic - if you cannot change party in the days after an election, then when can you change party? Where do you draw the line between electoral fraud and just switching party? Where do you draw the line between the Court enforcing a political mandate? This is a matter of politics, not law. Bardiya has not broken any law. Will politicians now be held to law for misrepresenting their voting intentions to colleagues and the public? There is an accountability mechanism for politics already and that is elections - not the courts. I warn the court.

Urgency of Resolution
Given the seriousness of the charges at hand, further delays in the impeachment trial could have lasting consequences. The Court's intervention has created an urgent need for resolution to ensure that the constitutional framework for checks and balances is preserved and that the accountability mechanisms of the legislature remain effective.

I petition and urge the Supreme Court to carefully consider the unintended consequences of its recent decision, both in terms of creating a technicality in voting quorums and unduly interrupting the rights of those involved in the impeachment trial. The Court's role in preserving the constitutional principles of separation of powers, due process, and legislative accountability is of paramount importance.

If you must maintain the Emergency Injunction, I would petition the court to institute strict reply timelines to ensure that the matter is resolved with urgency.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

AMICUS BRIEF

The purpose of this brief is to address concerns regarding the recent emergency Injunction to halt the impeachment trial and its potential implications on constitutional principles, specifically highlighting the creation of a technicality and the undue interruption of the rights of those involved.

Congressional Voting Quorums are Dynamic
Traditionally, congressional years-long convention and the Legislative Standards Act have recognised dynamic voting quorums, adapting vote thresholds according to the number of members who have submitted a vote. However, the Court's ruling now considers abstention as a conscious decision not to vote. This departure from long standing congressional convention poses significant challenges to the legislature, previous bills passed under this convention, and creates uncertainty in future congressional votes (discussed below).

Congress has had to legislate to return convention.
The ruling the Supreme Court has made requires Congress to discern a conscious decision not to vote from a non-vote, excluded or otherwise. This lack of clarity could impede the legislative process as it introduces ambiguity into the determination of vote outcomes.

Bardiya's Vote is Inconsequential
In the specific case of Bardiya's vote exclusion, the total number of voters would be reduced to 10, requiring a supermajority threshold of 7-3 for the impeachment to pass. Regardless of Bardiyas' vote, the impeachment achieved the required supermajority.

Rights to a Fair Trial
Impeachment proceedings are a constitutional mechanism designed to address the highest of offences. The recent decision to halt the trial through emergency injunction raises concerns about the rights of the Prosecutor and President to a speedy and fair trial. Delays in the impeachment process may compromise the effectiveness of this accountability mechanism. If the House of Representatives has introduced and passed articles of impeachment, then the Court needs to recognise that there is a serious risk that they are withholding accountability mechanisms against high crimes.

Impact on Legislative Accountability
The interruption of the trial, particularly as the congressional term approaches its end, hampers the ability of the legislature to hold individuals accountable for alleged high crimes. The Court's involvement in this manner disrupts the constitutional balance between branches of government and interferes with the legislature's essential function of oversight and accountability.

Creating Harm
While the Court's intervention may be driven by the intent of preventing harm, it has inadvertently given rise to unintended consequences that may, in fact, create harm in other aspects of the constitutional framework. The introduction of a technicality regarding voting quorums, as discussed earlier, disrupts long-standing congressional conventions and introduces uncertainty into the legislative process. This has necessitated the enactment of additional legislation to clarify the implications of the Court's ruling.

The interruption of the impeachment trial itself, intended to prevent harm to the rights of the Prosecutor and President, has created a different form of harm by impeding the timely and effective functioning of a constitutionally mandated accountability mechanism. The urgency of addressing high crimes through impeachment is undermined by delays imposed by the Court, potentially eroding public trust in the efficacy of the legislative process and the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values.

This is Politics
While Bardiya's vote is inconsequential, Bardiya was elected to Congress as a Representative, regardless of their party affiliation. The court is playing with fire in ruling on such a political topic - if you cannot change party in the days after an election, then when can you change party? Where do you draw the line between electoral fraud and just switching party? Where do you draw the line between the Court enforcing a political mandate? This is a matter of politics, not law. Bardiya has not broken any law. Will politicians now be held to law for misrepresenting their voting intentions to colleagues and the public? There is an accountability mechanism for politics already and that is elections - not the courts. I warn the court.

Urgency of Resolution
Given the seriousness of the charges at hand, further delays in the impeachment trial could have lasting consequences. The Court's intervention has created an urgent need for resolution to ensure that the constitutional framework for checks and balances is preserved and that the accountability mechanisms of the legislature remain effective.

I petition and urge the Supreme Court to carefully consider the unintended consequences of its recent decision, both in terms of creating a technicality in voting quorums and unduly interrupting the rights of those involved in the impeachment trial. The Court's role in preserving the constitutional principles of separation of powers, due process, and legislative accountability is of paramount importance.

If you must maintain the Emergency Injunction, I would petition the court to institute strict reply timelines to ensure that the matter is resolved with urgency.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The Amicus Brief provided by xEndeavour fails to provide facts and legal analysis, and acts primarily as a Motion to Reconsider the emergency injunction. It is precedent in the Commonwealth of Redmont v. MilkCrack [2023] FCR 74 case that the point of an Amicus Brief is to "provide the Court with a legal analysis of the case presented and additional facts that may have been left out." The brief xEndeavour provided is not providing the course with a fair and unbiased legal analysis, and is instead primarily doing the job of the defense - arguing as to why the injunction should be reconsidered. Frankly, the defense was given numerous opportunities to present this sort of argument and refused to do so. It is entirely against legal precedent to allow a non-party to this case to act as the defense litigator.

Furthermore, in the cited case, the court did not allow for the brief to attack a decision made by the court - the ‘amici’ (literally latin for friend) is meant to act as a friend of the court and provide unbiased advice. It was inappropriate for xEndeavour to suggest that the court's decision would erode "public trust in the efficacy of... the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values." He also made suggestions that the court's decisions would disrupt the checks and balances of the government system. While making these inappropriate remarks, xEndeavour has also been creating laws to override any decision this court is making. As soon as the injunction got approved, we saw xEndeavour post a bill that would remove any judicial checks on the removal of a president (Impeachment Act). We also saw that xEndeavour has proposed a bill to change how absentee votes function, which is a key argument of his defense… oh sorry I mean amicus brief.

The states point is this… xEndeavour is not acting as a friend of the court, but rather speaking harshly toward the court, making arguments that the defense attorney should really have made last week, advising with bias, while also creating legislation to remove the injunction powers this court has already exercised. It must also be taken under consideration that xEndeavour has a vested interest in the impeachment trial continuing, making his opinion influenced by his personal goals. Based on the precedent set in the FCR 74 that saw the entire Amicus Brief struck from the record, for similar reasons, the state asks that either all of his Amicus Brief should be struck for its bias and failure to fulfill its purpose of being a friend to the court.

Thank you, your honors.

On this 29th day of December 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

Finally, we will be moving on with this case. The Defense may present their Answer to Complaint within 72 hours.

A reminder that despite the Objections, Motions, and Amicus Brief, this deadline has not changed.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The Amicus Brief provided by xEndeavour fails to provide facts and legal analysis, and acts primarily as a Motion to Reconsider the emergency injunction. It is precedent in the Commonwealth of Redmont v. MilkCrack [2023] FCR 74 case that the point of an Amicus Brief is to "provide the Court with a legal analysis of the case presented and additional facts that may have been left out." The brief xEndeavour provided is not providing the course with a fair and unbiased legal analysis, and is instead primarily doing the job of the defense - arguing as to why the injunction should be reconsidered. Frankly, the defense was given numerous opportunities to present this sort of argument and refused to do so. It is entirely against legal precedent to allow a non-party to this case to act as the defense litigator.

Furthermore, in the cited case, the court did not allow for the brief to attack a decision made by the court - the ‘amici’ (literally latin for friend) is meant to act as a friend of the court and provide unbiased advice. It was inappropriate for xEndeavour to suggest that the court's decision would erode "public trust in the efficacy of... the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values." He also made suggestions that the court's decisions would disrupt the checks and balances of the government system. While making these inappropriate remarks, xEndeavour has also been creating laws to override any decision this court is making. As soon as the injunction got approved, we saw xEndeavour post a bill that would remove any judicial checks on the removal of a president (Impeachment Act). We also saw that xEndeavour has proposed a bill to change how absentee votes function, which is a key argument of his defense… oh sorry I mean amicus brief.

The states point is this… xEndeavour is not acting as a friend of the court, but rather speaking harshly toward the court, making arguments that the defense attorney should really have made last week, advising with bias, while also creating legislation to remove the injunction powers this court has already exercised. It must also be taken under consideration that xEndeavour has a vested interest in the impeachment trial continuing, making his opinion influenced by his personal goals. Based on the precedent set in the FCR 74 that saw the entire Amicus Brief struck from the record, for similar reasons, the state asks that either all of his Amicus Brief should be struck for its bias and failure to fulfill its purpose of being a friend to the court.

Thank you, your honors.

On this 29th day of December 2023.

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. MrFluffy is no longer the prosecutor according to the Solicitor General. Therefore he spoke out of turn and his remarks should be struck. Thank you.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. MrFluffy is no longer the prosecutor according to the Solicitor General. Therefore he spoke out of turn and his remarks should be struck. Thank you.

Your Honor,
I appologize for speaking yet again out of turn. I wish for my previous motion to reconsider to be struck. My behavior in this case has not been a reflection of mine, the dla's or the courts values and expectations. I will be recusing myself from this case hense further and mrfluffy will be reinstated as prosecutor. My sincerest appologies for my behavior to the courts, to the prosecution, and to the defense for any confuesion or delay this has caused. I accept any and all responisbility and consequences that come forth due to my actions.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Emergency Injunction

Your honors, the defendant is ignoring court orders and is casting abstain votes in the house. This is in direct contempt of court and needs to be immediately addressed before any further harm is caused. The defendant is showing a clear lack of regard or respect for the law and is unlawfully influencing our nations democratic systems. As seen in the screenshots provided, the defendant is still exercising his powers as a Representative to "Abstain" from all motions that have been presented. See attached.

The Clarity Act established the Oxford Dictionary as the official dictionary to find definitions for legal terms. The term abstain is only ever defined to be an action word. To abstain is to "choose not to use a vote, either in favour of or against something."

Furthermore, in the Legislative Standards Act, it states that "If there’s a tie (this is there are the same number of votes in favour and against independently of the number of abstains), the poll will be held again without the abstain option." The defendant cannot cast a vote, therefore he cannot abstain. If there is a 5-5 tie and the abstain option is removed, it remains 5-5 because the defendant cannot cast votes, even to abstain. The defendants vote is defined as excluded as their seat is in contention.

Combining these two pieces of legislation, along with the evidence, we can see the defendant is in violation of the emergency injunction by casting abstain votes.

We ask the court take action, and immediately remove him from having any access to congressional powers. We also ask that the defendant is held in contempt of court for each individual violation. See attached evidence.

Spoiler: Evidence 1 : Vote on "Motion to override EO 30/23"

Spoiler: Evidence 2 : Vote on "Motion to Censure Matthew100x"

Spoiler: Evidence 3 : Vote on "Motion to Censure DOC"

Spoiler: Evidence 4 : Vote on "Motion to Censure IncompleteRiver"

Spoiler: Evidence 5 : Vote on "Motion to Fund"

Spoiler: Evidence 6 : Vote on "Motion for Urgent Consideration"

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. MrFluffy is no longer the prosecutor according to the Solicitor General. Therefore he spoke out of turn and his remarks should be struck. Thank you.

 Overruled. The Attorney General made it quite clear that the Solicitor General is not involved in this case.

(3-0 decision)

 

[Dartanboy]

AMICUS BRIEF

The purpose of this brief is to address concerns regarding the recent emergency Injunction to halt the impeachment trial and its potential implications on constitutional principles, specifically highlighting the creation of a technicality and the undue interruption of the rights of those involved.

Congressional Voting Quorums are Dynamic
Traditionally, congressional years-long convention and the Legislative Standards Act have recognised dynamic voting quorums, adapting vote thresholds according to the number of members who have submitted a vote. However, the Court's ruling now considers abstention as a conscious decision not to vote. This departure from long standing congressional convention poses significant challenges to the legislature, previous bills passed under this convention, and creates uncertainty in future congressional votes (discussed below).

Congress has had to legislate to return convention.
The ruling the Supreme Court has made requires Congress to discern a conscious decision not to vote from a non-vote, excluded or otherwise. This lack of clarity could impede the legislative process as it introduces ambiguity into the determination of vote outcomes.

Bardiya's Vote is Inconsequential
In the specific case of Bardiya's vote exclusion, the total number of voters would be reduced to 10, requiring a supermajority threshold of 7-3 for the impeachment to pass. Regardless of Bardiyas' vote, the impeachment achieved the required supermajority.

Rights to a Fair Trial
Impeachment proceedings are a constitutional mechanism designed to address the highest of offences. The recent decision to halt the trial through emergency injunction raises concerns about the rights of the Prosecutor and President to a speedy and fair trial. Delays in the impeachment process may compromise the effectiveness of this accountability mechanism. If the House of Representatives has introduced and passed articles of impeachment, then the Court needs to recognise that there is a serious risk that they are withholding accountability mechanisms against high crimes.

Impact on Legislative Accountability
The interruption of the trial, particularly as the congressional term approaches its end, hampers the ability of the legislature to hold individuals accountable for alleged high crimes. The Court's involvement in this manner disrupts the constitutional balance between branches of government and interferes with the legislature's essential function of oversight and accountability.

Creating Harm
While the Court's intervention may be driven by the intent of preventing harm, it has inadvertently given rise to unintended consequences that may, in fact, create harm in other aspects of the constitutional framework. The introduction of a technicality regarding voting quorums, as discussed earlier, disrupts long-standing congressional conventions and introduces uncertainty into the legislative process. This has necessitated the enactment of additional legislation to clarify the implications of the Court's ruling.

The interruption of the impeachment trial itself, intended to prevent harm to the rights of the Prosecutor and President, has created a different form of harm by impeding the timely and effective functioning of a constitutionally mandated accountability mechanism. The urgency of addressing high crimes through impeachment is undermined by delays imposed by the Court, potentially eroding public trust in the efficacy of the legislative process and the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values.

This is Politics
While Bardiya's vote is inconsequential, Bardiya was elected to Congress as a Representative, regardless of their party affiliation. The court is playing with fire in ruling on such a political topic - if you cannot change party in the days after an election, then when can you change party? Where do you draw the line between electoral fraud and just switching party? Where do you draw the line between the Court enforcing a political mandate? This is a matter of politics, not law. Bardiya has not broken any law. Will politicians now be held to law for misrepresenting their voting intentions to colleagues and the public? There is an accountability mechanism for politics already and that is elections - not the courts. I warn the court.

Urgency of Resolution
Given the seriousness of the charges at hand, further delays in the impeachment trial could have lasting consequences. The Court's intervention has created an urgent need for resolution to ensure that the constitutional framework for checks and balances is preserved and that the accountability mechanisms of the legislature remain effective.

I petition and urge the Supreme Court to carefully consider the unintended consequences of its recent decision, both in terms of creating a technicality in voting quorums and unduly interrupting the rights of those involved in the impeachment trial. The Court's role in preserving the constitutional principles of separation of powers, due process, and legislative accountability is of paramount importance.

If you must maintain the Emergency Injunction, I would petition the court to institute strict reply timelines to ensure that the matter is resolved with urgency.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The Amicus Brief provided by xEndeavour fails to provide facts and legal analysis, and acts primarily as a Motion to Reconsider the emergency injunction. It is precedent in the Commonwealth of Redmont v. MilkCrack [2023] FCR 74 case that the point of an Amicus Brief is to "provide the Court with a legal analysis of the case presented and additional facts that may have been left out." The brief xEndeavour provided is not providing the course with a fair and unbiased legal analysis, and is instead primarily doing the job of the defense - arguing as to why the injunction should be reconsidered. Frankly, the defense was given numerous opportunities to present this sort of argument and refused to do so. It is entirely against legal precedent to allow a non-party to this case to act as the defense litigator.

Furthermore, in the cited case, the court did not allow for the brief to attack a decision made by the court - the ‘amici’ (literally latin for friend) is meant to act as a friend of the court and provide unbiased advice. It was inappropriate for xEndeavour to suggest that the court's decision would erode "public trust in the efficacy of... the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values." He also made suggestions that the court's decisions would disrupt the checks and balances of the government system. While making these inappropriate remarks, xEndeavour has also been creating laws to override any decision this court is making. As soon as the injunction got approved, we saw xEndeavour post a bill that would remove any judicial checks on the removal of a president (Impeachment Act). We also saw that xEndeavour has proposed a bill to change how absentee votes function, which is a key argument of his defense… oh sorry I mean amicus brief.

The states point is this… xEndeavour is not acting as a friend of the court, but rather speaking harshly toward the court, making arguments that the defense attorney should really have made last week, advising with bias, while also creating legislation to remove the injunction powers this court has already exercised. It must also be taken under consideration that xEndeavour has a vested interest in the impeachment trial continuing, making his opinion influenced by his personal goals. Based on the precedent set in the FCR 74 that saw the entire Amicus Brief struck from the record, for similar reasons, the state asks that either all of his Amicus Brief should be struck for its bias and failure to fulfill its purpose of being a friend to the court.

Thank you, your honors.

On this 29th day of December 2023.

In a 3-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to allow the Amicus Brief to stay, however note that we feel we have failed to adequately define what an Amicus Curiae Brief is in the Commonwealth. In the future, we will add this to the Court Rules and Procedures.

That being said, we do recognize that an Amicus Brief cannot stand-in for the Defense - even when their Attorney fails to do so sufficiently - and we will not be considering it as such.

I will also mention that many of the points in the Brief were mentioned in my dissent already - they are not new arguments and neither Matthew nor Drew were swayed by them.

No actions will be taken regarding the Amicus Brief.

The Defense's deadline remains unchanged.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Emergency Injunction

Your honors, the defendant is ignoring court orders and is casting abstain votes in the house. This is in direct contempt of court and needs to be immediately addressed before any further harm is caused. The defendant is showing a clear lack of regard or respect for the law and is unlawfully influencing our nations democratic systems. As seen in the screenshots provided, the defendant is still exercising his powers as a Representative to "Abstain" from all motions that have been presented. See attached.

The Clarity Act established the Oxford Dictionary as the official dictionary to find definitions for legal terms. The term abstain is only ever defined to be an action word. To abstain is to "choose not to use a vote, either in favour of or against something."

Furthermore, in the Legislative Standards Act, it states that "If there’s a tie (this is there are the same number of votes in favour and against independently of the number of abstains), the poll will be held again without the abstain option." The defendant cannot cast a vote, therefore he cannot abstain. If there is a 5-5 tie and the abstain option is removed, it remains 5-5 because the defendant cannot cast votes, even to abstain. The defendants vote is defined as excluded as their seat is in contention.

Combining these two pieces of legislation, along with the evidence, we can see the defendant is in violation of the emergency injunction by casting abstain votes.

We ask the court take action, and immediately remove him from having any access to congressional powers. We also ask that the defendant is held in contempt of court for each individual violation. See attached evidence.

Spoiler: Evidence 1 : Vote on "Motion to override EO 30/23"

View attachment 40178

Spoiler: Evidence 2 : Vote on "Motion to Censure Matthew100x"

View attachment 40179

Spoiler: Evidence 3 : Vote on "Motion to Censure DOC"

View attachment 40181

Spoiler: Evidence 4 : Vote on "Motion to Censure IncompleteRiver"

View attachment 40182

Spoiler: Evidence 5 : Vote on "Motion to Fund"

View attachment 40183

Spoiler: Evidence 6 : Vote on "Motion for Urgent Consideration"

View attachment 40187

Response, your honor?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion for Extension
Your honor, my deadline for posting a response is today, New Year’s Eve. Pursuant to a Court announcement, I am entitled to an extension as my deadline falls on one of the days indicated in the announcement. Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion for Extension
Your honor, my deadline for posting a response is today, New Year’s Eve. Pursuant to a Court announcement, I am entitled to an extension as my deadline falls on one of the days indicated in the announcement. Thank you.

You have until 2pm EST January 2

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Bardiya_King
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS the defendant ran for office initially under the RNP, but DISPUTES that running for office in this manner is equivalent to "supporting" the RNP.
2. The defense AFFIRMS the defendant went to Krix for help in getting elected, but DISPUTES that this indicates allegiance to Krix or the RNP as one can ask even an enemy for help.
3. The defense AFFIRMS the results of the election as the prosecution established, but DISPUTES that the person who voted for Bardiya_King was necessarily himself.
4. The defense DISPUTES that Bardiya_King misrepresented his party affiliation for personal gain.
5. The defense DISPUTES that Bardiya_King's actions caused harm as there was no other RNP candidate lined up for a seat in the election, therefore no RNP-allied candidate actually lost out on the seat.
6. The defense DISPUTES that there was a misrepresentation and DISPUTES that the actions of the defendant disrupted the fairness of the electoral process.

II. DEFENCES
1. The White-Collar Crackdown Act (link) defines fraud as "an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.” Furthermore, the law categorizes electoral fraud as a type of fraud, therefore it must meet the criteria of fraud in the definition above to be a criminal offense in addition to the stipulations in the definition of electoral fraud.
2. The prosecution has not established the defendant intentionally misrepresented anything, even if he did misrepresent anything. Furthermore, the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone relied on that misrepresentation. They claim the defendant voted for himself, which would mean no other RNP member actually relied on any representation of any fact.
3. The definition of electoral fraud, from the Electoral Act (link), is "any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats." The defendant, even if he misrepresented a fact, which he didn't, did not rig or meddle in an election. This law is meant to punish those who directly tamper with the election by cheating the system. Simply changing party allegiances is not consistent with the examples or the definition above, and any reasonable person would not see it as fraud especially since changing party allegiances is a common practice, being done by even the Speaker of the House himself without punishment.
4. The defendant, according to the Constitution, has the right to peaceful assembly and association. These rights were established with the mindset of freely joining parties without punishment. These rights trumps any criminal offense against switching parties. What would be a misrepresentation is being forced to stay in a party one no longer believes in. The defendant exercised his rights to switch to a different political party after the election. The current administration is RNP, and they are using the law to try and punish people for exercising their rights to freely and peacefully assemble and freely associate.


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 2nd day of January 2024

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you. There is now a 7-day Discovery period.

It may be skipped if both parties agree to.