Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa [2024] SCR 37

Status
Not open for further replies.
Freeze_Line

Freeze_Line

Citizen
Attorney General
Justice Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
2nd Anniversary Change Maker Legal Eagle
Freeze_Line
Freeze_Line
Attorney General
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
136

Case Filing


EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Your Honor,

Due to the seriousness of this case, the prosecution urgently requests that the defendant be suspended from their position as a senator. This suspension is necessary to prevent any potential wrongdoing, interference with the proceedings, or harm to the integrity of the legislative process.



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Nacholebraa
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
The defendant, Nacho, has deliberately acted outside the bounds of legal authority, unlawfully representing the Commonwealth of Redmont without the required authorization from the Attorney General. A comprehensive list of cases is outlined in P-001. Nacho’s actions were not just improper, they actively destabilized the government, eroded trust in the Department of Justice, and undermined the very foundation of our legal system.

Among Nacho’s most egregious actions were attempts to remove key government officials, including the President and the Speaker of the House. These actions were carried out entirely outside the law, with no regard for proper legal protocols. Rather than pursuing a civil suit or bringing the matter before Congress, Nacho chose to exploit legal processes for personal and political interest.

The XIII right guarantees that every citizen is equal under the law, with the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. Nacho’s actions blatantly disregarded this principle, creating an unequal and unjust system where unauthorized individuals could act as if above the law.

These were not accidental missteps. Nacho acted with purpose and malice, knowing full well the consequences. The intent was clear: to destabilize the government, disrupt its leadership, and undermine the rule of law for personal interest. Such reckless and unauthorized behavior cannot be tolerated. It threatens the very stability of the Commonwealth and violates the rights of its citizens.


I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Nacholebraa

II. FACTS
1. Nacho has represented the Commonwealth of Redmont in multiple cases without the authorization of the Attorney General.

2. By acting without authorization, Nacho bypassed legal protocols and unlawfully misused prosecutorial authority, an authority that solely belongs to the Attorney General, for political interest.

3. Nacho continued the cases even after the Attorney General's disapproval.

4. Nacho acted outside the scope of the law, despite available legal pathways. He violated the Constitution, intentionally destabilized the government, undermined the legal system, eroded trust in the Department of Justice, and acted with malice.

5. Nacho's unauthorized lawsuits were targeting key government officials, such as the President and the Speaker of the House, aiming to destabilize the government and undermine its leadership.

6. Nacho's actions have compromised the integrity of the legal system by acting as an unauthorized individual on behalf of the Commonwealth.

7. As a result of Nacho's actions, public trust in the legal system, the Department of Justice, and the government has been undermined.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Treason - The Defendant has committed treason by representing the Commonwealth without authorization, undermining our legal system's stability and damaging trust in our government.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A fine of $25,000.
2. Removal from public office.
3. Exclusion of Nacho from public office for two months.


V. EVIDENCE

The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Aladeen22 [2024] SCR 30
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Bezzergeezer [2024] SCR 31
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. CaseyLeFaye [2024] SCR 32
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Shadownba [2024] SCR 33
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. UnityMaster [2024] SCR 34


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 9 day of December 2024

 

Writ of Summons



@Nacholebraa is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

Court Order


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

Upon review of the merits of the case, the Court has determined to accept a modified emergency injunction.

The Defendant is hereby suspended from partaking in any votes, or decisions that bear strict relation to this case. They are permitted to continue their legislative duties, as the court fails to find sufficient evidence of any continued misconduct.

 
Dr_Eksplosive said:

Court Order


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

Upon review of the merits of the case, the Court has determined to accept a modified emergency injunction.

The Defendant is hereby suspended from partaking in any votes, or decisions that bear strict relation to this case. They are permitted to continue their legislative duties, as the court fails to find sufficient evidence of any continued misconduct.

Click to expand...

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Prosecution respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the emergency injunction. Given the charge of treason, which fundamentally seeks to destabilize the government, it is imperative that the Defendant be fully suspended from all legislative activities during the trial.

Any votes or decisions, even those unrelated to this case, have the potential to indirectly affect the stability of the government and the integrity of this proceeding. Allowing the Defendant to remain active risks undermining both the government and the legislature.

We respectfully urge the Court to revise the injunction to suspend the Defendant from all legislative participation until the case concludes.

 
Your honors,

I will be representing the defendant, Nacholebraa, in this matter. We are present in this matter.

Yours truly,
Matthew100x
Managing Partner at Prodigium | Attorneys at Law
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-12-11 at 9.01.19 PM.png
    Screenshot 2024-12-11 at 9.01.19 PM.png
    277.9 KB · Views: 32
Freeze_Line said:

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Prosecution respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the emergency injunction. Given the charge of treason, which fundamentally seeks to destabilize the government, it is imperative that the Defendant be fully suspended from all legislative activities during the trial.

Any votes or decisions, even those unrelated to this case, have the potential to indirectly affect the stability of the government and the integrity of this proceeding. Allowing the Defendant to remain active risks undermining both the government and the legislature.

We respectfully urge the Court to revise the injunction to suspend the Defendant from all legislative participation until the case concludes.

Click to expand...
In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to reject this motion.

The court finds that there is not enough evidence nor structured argument to warrant a complete incapacitation of the Defendant's legislative activities. The modified injunction will remain in place.
 
Matthew100x said:
Your honors,

I will be representing the defendant, Nacholebraa, in this matter. We are present in this matter.

Yours truly,
Matthew100x
Managing Partner at Prodigium | Attorneys at Law
Click to expand...
Thank you.

The Defense now has 72 hours to enter a plea.
 
Matthew100x said:
Your honor,

Discovery comes before a plea. (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures).
Click to expand...
My apologies. The previous order is null and void.

Discovery is set for a maximum of 3 days. If both parties agree, discovery may be ended prematurely.

Upon the premature end of discovery, or after 72 hours have passed from this message, whichever falls first, the Defense shall have an additional 48 hours to enter a plea to the court.
 

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The defense moves that the honorable Chief Justice Aladeen recuse himself in this case, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under 16(4)(a) of the Judicial Standards Act (see Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act), a justice can be recused based on bias or the appearance of bias. The Honorable Aladeen was prosecuted by the defendant while sitting as a judge. This creates a bias against my client who may not be given a fair trial. The defendant believes that this bias or apparent bias can form prejudice against him that would otherwise harm his 13th right to have equal protection and benefit of the law. For the foregoing reason, we humbly request that he recuse from this case.
2. Under 16(4)(b) of the Judicial Standards Act (see Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act), a justice can be recused based on his Interest. The Honorable Aladeen was prosecuted by the defendant while sitting as a judge. This creates an unfair interest in the case against my client who may not be given a fair trial. The defendant believes that this interest can form prejudice against him that would otherwise harm his 13th right to have equal protection and benefit of the law. For the foregoing reason, we humbly request that he recuse from this case.

 
Matthew100x said:

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The defense moves that the honorable Chief Justice Aladeen recuse himself in this case, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Under 16(4)(a) of the Judicial Standards Act (see Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act), a justice can be recused based on bias or the appearance of bias. The Honorable Aladeen was prosecuted by the defendant while sitting as a judge. This creates a bias against my client who may not be given a fair trial. The defendant believes that this bias or apparent bias can form prejudice against him that would otherwise harm his 13th right to have equal protection and benefit of the law. For the foregoing reason, we humbly request that he recuse from this case.
2. Under 16(4)(b) of the Judicial Standards Act (see Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act), a justice can be recused based on his Interest. The Honorable Aladeen was prosecuted by the defendant while sitting as a judge. This creates an unfair interest in the case against my client who may not be given a fair trial. The defendant believes that this interest can form prejudice against him that would otherwise harm his 13th right to have equal protection and benefit of the law. For the foregoing reason, we humbly request that he recuse from this case.

Click to expand...
The court accepts the reasoning provided by the defense, the Honorable Chief Justice Aladeen22 is hereby recused from these proceedings.

Discovery shall continue, deadlines remain in effect.
 
The allotted time for discovery has now elapsed.

The Defense now has 48 hours to file a plea.
 

Plea


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Nacholebraa
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. The defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to the charge of treason.

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

DATED: This 15th day of December, 2024.

 
Thank you for the submission.

The prosecution now has 48 hours to file their opening statement. The defense will have a subsequent 48 after that.
 
Your Honor, I need to request a 48 hour extension. This last week before holidays is packed with school assignments and national tests, so I barely have any time to do anything other than study. I really don’t have any other options right now and respectfully ask for the extension.
 
Granted. You have an additional 48 hours from this message.
 
The prosecution has failed to file an opening statement within the allotted time.

Consider this the first and final warning to all parties to adhere to the deadlines set by the court. Subsequent infractions will result in a contempt of court charge.

The Defense now has 48 hours to file an opening statement. Please request an extension if you require one.
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
The prosecution has failed to file an opening statement within the allotted time.

Consider this the first and final warning to all parties to adhere to the deadlines set by the court. Subsequent infractions will result in a contempt of court charge.

The Defense now has 48 hours to file an opening statement. Please request an extension if you require one.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, my internet just started working again, and I was in this thread writing the opening statement moments ago. Would it still be possible to submit it?
 
Freeze_Line said:
Your Honor, my internet just started working again, and I was in this thread writing the opening statement moments ago. Would it still be possible to submit it?
Click to expand...
Considering the gravity of this case, I will be issuing a one-time allowance. You have 12 hours from YOUR message to post your opening statement.

Defense will then have a subsequent 48 hours.
 
Thank you, Your Honor.

Opening Statement


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

On September 23, the defendant Nacho posted five lawsuits without the authorization of the Attorney General. Prosecutorial power is granted only by the Attorney General, and only authorized prosecutors in the DOJ are allowed to use it. By filing these lawsuits without authorization, Nacho blatantly disregarded the established procedures and aimed to destabilize the government by acting outside his authority for personal interests.

What makes this even more concerning is that Nacho specifically targeted key government figures, including the President and the Speaker of the House. Suing these officials automatically calls their status into question and weakens their authority. Now imagine if anyone could prosecute those they disagree with on behalf of the Commonwealth and get away with it.

DOJ employees can’t go rogue, no matter their justification. Allowing anyone to act independently and outside their scope of authority would ruin our legal system. Without compliance with proper authorization, the entire justice system would just stop functioning. Nacho’s actions demonstrate a clear disregard for this simple yet fundamental principle.

Furthermore, Nacho acted with full awareness of the consequences of his actions. His choices reflect an attempt to put his personal goals above the stability of our government and legal system. Your Honor, we must ensure that such actions are not tolerated, as they threaten the very foundation of justice and stability of our government.

 
Last edited:
The Defense has 48 hours from the prosecution’s opening statement to post their own opening statement.

Prosecution, please take this time to correct your formatting.
 

Objection


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your honors,

The following sections of the prosecutions opening statement is made without any evidence backing it.

Freeze_Line said:
Prosecutorial power is granted only by the Attorney General, and only authorized prosecutors in the DOJ are allowed to use it
Click to expand...
Freeze_Line said:
By filing these lawsuits without authorization, Nacho blatantly disregarded the established procedures
Click to expand...
Freeze_Line said:
DOJ employees can’t go rogue, no matter their justification.
Click to expand...
Freeze_Line said:
Nacho’s actions demonstrate a clear disregard for this simple yet fundamental principle.
Click to expand...

No evidence has been put forward in discovery regarding the DOJ's policy that only the AG can approve cases. Under Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use) (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures), all material used for legal arguments must be included during discovery. The prosecution has failed to provide any evidence of the alleged policies that my client has broken. Therefore, the defendant requests that this line of argument be struck.

 
Matthew100x said:

Objection


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your honors,

The following sections of the prosecutions opening statement is made without any evidence backing it.






No evidence has been put forward in discovery regarding the DOJ's policy that only the AG can approve cases. Under Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use) (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures), all material used for legal arguments must be included during discovery. The prosecution has failed to provide any evidence of the alleged policies that my client has broken. Therefore, the defendant requests that this line of argument be struck.

Click to expand...
In regards to the first statement, the objection is Overruled. The statement is an established fact within the cases the prosecution submitted as evidence.

In regards to the second statement, the objection is Sustained. The prosecution has failed to provide evidence to prove the Defendant's 'disregarded' the established procedures, and the cases provided contain statements by the Defendant in which they stated they believed they were in the right.

In regards to the third statement, Overruled. See 1st point.

In regards to the fourth statement, Sustained. See 2nd point.

With that out of the way, the aforementioned sections will be struck where appropriate. The Defense has ~20.5h remaining to post their opening statement.
 
You'r honor,

The court's instructions allowed for 48 hours of response time. The prosecution posted their opening statement on Thursday at 10:32 PM EST (GMT-5). It is currently Saturday ar 7:18 AM EST (GMT-5). The defendant requests to have their full 48 hours and be allowed to make their submission by 10:32 PM EST tonight.
 
Matthew100x said:
You'r honor,

The court's instructions allowed for 48 hours of response time. The prosecution posted their opening statement on Thursday at 10:32 PM EST (GMT-5). It is currently Saturday ar 7:18 AM EST (GMT-5). The defendant requests to have their full 48 hours and be allowed to make their submission by 10:32 PM EST tonight.
Click to expand...
Granted.

I made a miscalculation in my previous statement. Please use the correct amount of time allotted, and request an extension if necessary.
 
Your honor,

Can the defendant please have a 24 hour extension? We need time due to preparations for the upcoming holidays.
 
Granted.

You may have an additional 24 hours to post your opening statement from this message.
 
​

Opening Statement


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


I. CHALLENGE TO FACTS​
1. Nacho has represented the Commonwealth of Redmont in multiple cases without the authorization of the Attorney General.​
Click to expand...

The defendant does not dispute this fact.
​
2. By acting without authorization, Nacho bypassed legal protocols and unlawfully misused prosecutorial authority, an authority that solely belongs to the Attorney General, for political interest.​
Click to expand...

Defendant disputes this fact. Defendant did not misuse prosecutorial authority. The prosecution fails to provide evidence that the authority solely belongs to the Attorney General. The prosecution fails to provide evidence that the actions were done for political interest.
​
3. Nacho continued the cases even after the Attorney General's disapproval.​
Click to expand...

The defendant does not dispute this fact.
​
4. Nacho acted outside the scope of the law, despite available legal pathways. He violated the Constitution, intentionally destabilized the government, undermined the legal system, eroded trust in the Department of Justice, and acted with malice.​
Click to expand...

Defendant disputes this fact in its entirety. The defendant acted within the scope of the law. The AG had a conflict of interest that prevented them from properly handling the situation. The defendant used their power to attempt to protect the government, not undermine the legal system. Defendant did not erode trust in the Department of Justice nor acted with malice. No evidence was put forward of any of these actions.

Of the cases that the prosecution cites, the defendants actions are clearly attempting to protect the government. Senior members of government had been elected to serve a government of a foreign state. The defendant was following through with their responsibility to protect Redmont by prosecuting the individuals who were serving in a dual capacity between governments.
​
5. Nacho's unauthorized lawsuits were targeting key government officials, such as the President and the Speaker of the House, aiming to destabilize the government and undermine its leadership.​
Click to expand...

Defendant does not dispute that they prosecuted the President and the Speaker of the House. Defendant disputes the aim and that the prosecutions were targeted.
​
6. Nacho's actions have compromised the integrity of the legal system by acting as an unauthorized individual on behalf of the Commonwealth.​
Click to expand...

Defendant disputes this fact. The defendant did not compromise the integrity of the legal system. Defendant was a lead prosecutor at the time of the prosecutions and was acting within his capacity to do his job.
​
7. As a result of Nacho's actions, public trust in the legal system, the Department of Justice, and the government has been undermined.​
Click to expand...

The defendant disputes this fact. The defendant’s actions did not result in the public trust being undermined.

II. OPENING STATEMENT

Your honors,

To keep this brief, we will not do an extensive analysis of the law of treason and instead focus solely on the elements in play, my client’s conduct, and the lack of evidence that the prosecution has presented.

To begin with, Treason is defined as follows, “The act of a party in federal office who is caught attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.” (see Act of Congress - Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act). This means that in order for a defendant to be charged with treasons, they must be caught attempting to:

1. maliciously sabotage or undermine;
a. The stability, b. Sovereignty, or C National security;
2. The government of Redmont.

As the current prosecution’s case stands, the government has only accused my client of “undermining our legal system's stability and damaging trust in our government.” Thus, the government is only charging my client under a theory that they have destabilized the stability of the government of Redmont.

My client has done no such thing. My client acted with the protection and stability of the government in mind. When the individuals were elected to government in a foreign land, my client moved ahead to protect our country. By dual-serving in both Redmont and a foreign land, the individuals whom my client prosecuted put Redmont in danger. Their oaths to the office as well as the allegiance act required them at the time to serve Redmont first. (see Repealed - Allegiance Act, repealed by Act of Congress - Repeal the Allegiance Act). My client prosecuted the individuals only because they held high office when they were elected elsewhere and for no other reason.

To prosecute my client out on a theory that they undermined the stability of the government is simply unfair. The Attorney General may or may not have the power to approve or block prosecutions. That said, the Attorney General was directly implicated in this situation by also being elected to government in a foreign land. The Attorney General’s position was compromised due to this conflict of interest in preventing a prosecution that could also implicate him. My client, as a Lead Prosecutor, acted with discretion only to prosecute the individuals whom he believed had committed a crime and no one else. As a Lead Prosecutor, my client is a trusted member within the DOJ. He was not acting outside the boundaries of his position when he began prosecuting due to his seniority, the conflict of interest, and because he was trying to correctly apply the law.

My client prosecuted the individuals in the five identified cases using a novel legal theory. That legal theory typically called for impeachment. This novel legal theory was entertained and accepted by the courts at the time. Even if the court would eventually sua sponte all of the cases, this acceptance meant that my client was not acting in such a manner that he was disrupting or undermining the stability of the government. Issues within the DOJ and executive branch as a result of the prosecutions only occurred because the individuals holding the positions were implicated in a potential legal issue. My client merely explored that legal issue using the novel legal theory, this theory was accepted by the court for trial, and thus my client did not attempt to undermine the stability of the government.

It is the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any indictable crimes. (See 4(2)(a) Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act). The prosecution has not provided any broken policies, evidence of wrongdoing, screenshots, videos, nor anything that would implicate my client in a crime. My client maintains his innocence. Though my client is currently suspended pending this case, he has not been fired from the DOJ and maintains his position, pay, and seniority at this time. The prosecution has had part of their argument refuted due to the lack of evidence. The defendant maintains that even though his actions, as they stand, do not implicate the crime of treason; there is also sufficient evidence to bring the charge forth in the first place. Thus my client is innocent of the charge because the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client has committed treason.

III. MOTION TO DISMISS

Under Court Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), the defendant moves to have the prosecution dismissed because the claim for relief has insufficient evidence to support the criminal charge. As seen in the above accepted objection, the prosecution failed to timely submit discovery proving their arguments in court. Their opening statement has been partially struck and they cannot prove that my client broke “established procedure.” This erodes the basis for the prosecution’s argument that my client attempted to “undermine” which is required to form the basis of a treason charge. The prosecution, in their best case, cannot prove that there was an attempt to “undermine.”

The point that the prosecution makes, regarding my client’s actions, is that his conduct ignored the DOJ’s policy and thus my client undermined the stability of the government. However, because the prosecution cannot prove that any policy was broken, they thus cannot argue the rest of their case regarding treason. Thus the prosecution lacks the evidence required to support the criminal charge of treason and therefore the case should be dismissed.
​

​
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
In regards to the first statement, the objection is Overruled. The statement is an established fact within the cases the prosecution submitted as evidence.

In regards to the second statement, the objection is Sustained. The prosecution has failed to provide evidence to prove the Defendant's 'disregarded' the established procedures, and the cases provided contain statements by the Defendant in which they stated they believed they were in the right.

In regards to the third statement, Overruled. See 1st point.

In regards to the fourth statement, Sustained. See 2nd point.

With that out of the way, the aforementioned sections will be struck where appropriate. The Defense has ~20.5h remaining to post their opening statement.
Click to expand...

Motion


MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, objections can't be made to opening statements. Openings are argumentative in nature, they aren't presentations of evidence. Objections are made to evidence, not arguments. I respectfully request that the sustained objections be overruled. If you believe there is no evidence to back the arguments, you state that in your verdict, not in the middle of the trial.

 
Alexander P. Love said:

Motion


MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, objections can't be made to opening statements. Openings are argumentative in nature, they aren't presentations of evidence. Objections are made to evidence, not arguments. I respectfully request that the sustained objections be overruled. If you believe there is no evidence to back the arguments, you state that in your verdict, not in the middle of the trial.

Click to expand...
Please provide proof of employment within the DOJ else you will be held in contempt of court.
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
Please provide proof of employment within the DOJ else you will be held in contempt of court.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, I can confirm that he is employed in the DOJ.
 
Thank you for the confirmation prosecutors.

Matthew100x said:
​

Opening Statement


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


I. CHALLENGE TO FACTS


The defendant does not dispute this fact.



Defendant disputes this fact. Defendant did not misuse prosecutorial authority. The prosecution fails to provide evidence that the authority solely belongs to the Attorney General. The prosecution fails to provide evidence that the actions were done for political interest.



The defendant does not dispute this fact.



Defendant disputes this fact in its entirety. The defendant acted within the scope of the law. The AG had a conflict of interest that prevented them from properly handling the situation. The defendant used their power to attempt to protect the government, not undermine the legal system. Defendant did not erode trust in the Department of Justice nor acted with malice. No evidence was put forward of any of these actions.

Of the cases that the prosecution cites, the defendants actions are clearly attempting to protect the government. Senior members of government had been elected to serve a government of a foreign state. The defendant was following through with their responsibility to protect Redmont by prosecuting the individuals who were serving in a dual capacity between governments.



Defendant does not dispute that they prosecuted the President and the Speaker of the House. Defendant disputes the aim and that the prosecutions were targeted.



Defendant disputes this fact. The defendant did not compromise the integrity of the legal system. Defendant was a lead prosecutor at the time of the prosecutions and was acting within his capacity to do his job.



The defendant disputes this fact. The defendant’s actions did not result in the public trust being undermined.

II. OPENING STATEMENT

Your honors,

To keep this brief, we will not do an extensive analysis of the law of treason and instead focus solely on the elements in play, my client’s conduct, and the lack of evidence that the prosecution has presented.

To begin with, Treason is defined as follows, “The act of a party in federal office who is caught attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.” (see Act of Congress - Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act). This means that in order for a defendant to be charged with treasons, they must be caught attempting to:

1. maliciously sabotage or undermine;
a. The stability, b. Sovereignty, or C National security;
2. The government of Redmont.

As the current prosecution’s case stands, the government has only accused my client of “undermining our legal system's stability and damaging trust in our government.” Thus, the government is only charging my client under a theory that they have destabilized the stability of the government of Redmont.

My client has done no such thing. My client acted with the protection and stability of the government in mind. When the individuals were elected to government in a foreign land, my client moved ahead to protect our country. By dual-serving in both Redmont and a foreign land, the individuals whom my client prosecuted put Redmont in danger. Their oaths to the office as well as the allegiance act required them at the time to serve Redmont first. (see Repealed - Allegiance Act, repealed by Act of Congress - Repeal the Allegiance Act). My client prosecuted the individuals only because they held high office when they were elected elsewhere and for no other reason.

To prosecute my client out on a theory that they undermined the stability of the government is simply unfair. The Attorney General may or may not have the power to approve or block prosecutions. That said, the Attorney General was directly implicated in this situation by also being elected to government in a foreign land. The Attorney General’s position was compromised due to this conflict of interest in preventing a prosecution that could also implicate him. My client, as a Lead Prosecutor, acted with discretion only to prosecute the individuals whom he believed had committed a crime and no one else. As a Lead Prosecutor, my client is a trusted member within the DOJ. He was not acting outside the boundaries of his position when he began prosecuting due to his seniority, the conflict of interest, and because he was trying to correctly apply the law.

My client prosecuted the individuals in the five identified cases using a novel legal theory. That legal theory typically called for impeachment. This novel legal theory was entertained and accepted by the courts at the time. Even if the court would eventually sua sponte all of the cases, this acceptance meant that my client was not acting in such a manner that he was disrupting or undermining the stability of the government. Issues within the DOJ and executive branch as a result of the prosecutions only occurred because the individuals holding the positions were implicated in a potential legal issue. My client merely explored that legal issue using the novel legal theory, this theory was accepted by the court for trial, and thus my client did not attempt to undermine the stability of the government.

It is the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any indictable crimes. (See 4(2)(a) Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act). The prosecution has not provided any broken policies, evidence of wrongdoing, screenshots, videos, nor anything that would implicate my client in a crime. My client maintains his innocence. Though my client is currently suspended pending this case, he has not been fired from the DOJ and maintains his position, pay, and seniority at this time. The prosecution has had part of their argument refuted due to the lack of evidence. The defendant maintains that even though his actions, as they stand, do not implicate the crime of treason; there is also sufficient evidence to bring the charge forth in the first place. Thus my client is innocent of the charge because the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client has committed treason.

III. MOTION TO DISMISS

Under Court Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), the defendant moves to have the prosecution dismissed because the claim for relief has insufficient evidence to support the criminal charge. As seen in the above accepted objection, the prosecution failed to timely submit discovery proving their arguments in court. Their opening statement has been partially struck and they cannot prove that my client broke “established procedure.” This erodes the basis for the prosecution’s argument that my client attempted to “undermine” which is required to form the basis of a treason charge. The prosecution, in their best case, cannot prove that there was an attempt to “undermine.”

The point that the prosecution makes, regarding my client’s actions, is that his conduct ignored the DOJ’s policy and thus my client undermined the stability of the government. However, because the prosecution cannot prove that any policy was broken, they thus cannot argue the rest of their case regarding treason. Thus the prosecution lacks the evidence required to support the criminal charge of treason and therefore the case should be dismissed.
​


​
Click to expand...

In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to grant the motion to dismiss. The court finds the prosecution failed to submit sufficient evidence during filing and discovery to warrant a continuation of this trial, especially as the charges make this a criminal trial.

Frankly, the court finds that this case was bordering frivolous territory. Filing criminal charges and failing to submit any additional evidence beyond 5 case links is disappointingly mediocre, especially since a treason case against a senator can have massive repercussions. The Prosecution has acted unprofessionally and rashly, filing a case of this magnitude without sufficient supporting evidence. This has resulted in a waste of the courts time, and left the Defendant open to damage to their standing as a Senator.

As such, this case is dismissed with prejudice, and the Defendant's attorney is to be paid $5000 in legal fees. For future cases, the defense should make the actual costs of representation known to the courts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top