Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5

[Dusty_3]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The State (Dusty_3 representing)
Prosecution

v.

Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour
Defendant

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

Following xEndeavours dismissal from the DCT, he vowed to become a private constructor that sells builds to the Government. He reached out to the President Derpy_Bird to sell his builds to, and Derpy_Bird accepted this and used the DCTs budget to buy xEndeavours racetrack, while the Secretary of the DCT was not asked how the DCT would feel about it.
It is unconstitutional and a misappropriation of DCT funds to purchase builds made by private citizens. The constitution is explicit in stating that the DCT is responsible for “creating government infrastructure,” not private citizens. Constructors build for the DCT, not private citizens. The DCT budget cannot be used to pay private citizens for creating government infrastructure, there is a reason the DCT employs constructors. In short, xEndeavour is not a member of the DCT, and therefore cannot create builds for government infrastructure let alone profit off of them. This makes Derpy_Bird’s decision to buy his racetrack, that he created privately, unconstitutional.

The definition of Embezzlement is “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.” Derpy_Bird, by being the head of the executive, is entrusted with the federal budget (assets entrusted), and has misappropriated part of the federal budget to buy xEndeavours, her friend, private builds (personal gain). As stated prior it is a violation of the constitution for DCT funds to be used to purchase private constructors builds. Unconstitutional use of DCT funds (misappropriation), when entrusted with those funds, in order to benefit a friend is textbook embezzlement.

The definition of corruption is “The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else.” Derpy_Bird’s action of misappropriating Government Funds to unconstitutionally purchase her friend's building is without a doubt inconsistent with her official duties as president. She has used the DCT’s funds to unfairly benefit her friend xEndeavour, making her guilty of corruption.
Furthermore, Derpy_Bird removed the DCT Secretary, and quickly appointed xEndeavour in a very short time frame. The previous DCT secretary fired xEndeavour. Quite clearly Derpy_Bird has once again chosen to benefit her friend xEndeavour, and disregard what's best for the people and the nation.

The definition of treason is “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.” Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour have purposefully misappropriated the federal budget in order to benefit themselves. This undermines the stability of our federal budget and our nation. Furthermore, the drastic firing of the DCT Secretary in order to appoint xEndeavour as DCT secretary is extremely destabilizing for that department, and only done to benefit xEndeavour.

In evidence we have proof of a strong friendship between Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour. Derpy_Bird on numerous occasions has overruled the DCT in favor of supporting xEndeavour, a private citizen.
By buying her friend's racetrack, Derpy is purposefully aiding End in getting around his dismissal from the DCT, and she does this through her position as President. This is a clear example of Derpy_Bird using her office for personal gain. A president cannot help her friend to make money off the government for building government infrastructure despite being fired from the DCT.

Furthermore, the President has just fired the DCT secretary and the previously fired xEndeavour has been appointed as acting secretary. No human has ever seen water more clear than this case. xEndeavour and Derpy_Bird are working together to benefit themselves, and this must end.

I. PARTIES
1. Derpy_Bird
2. xEndeavour
3. The State

II. FACTS
1. xEndeavour was fired from the DCT
2. xEndeavour created a racetrack as a private citizen
3. Derpy_Bird bought the track for 30k
4. Derpy_Bird bought the track with DCT funds (constitutional violation)
5. xEndeavour states his aim to continue creating Government Infrastructure as a private citizen, and selling it to Derpy_Bird.
6. LavenderxBlaxii was fired from DCT Secretary
7. xEndeavour was appointed to Acting DCT Secretary

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendants:

Derpy_Bird is charged with:
1. 2 counts of Corruption (1 for the abuse of DCT funds, and another for intentionally removing the DCT secretary to appoint her friend End)
2. 1 count of Embezzlement
3. 2 counts of Treason

xEndeavour is charged with:
1. 2 counts of an Accomplice to Corruption
2. 1 count of an Accomplice to Embezzlement
3. 2 counts of an Accomplice to Treason

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendants:

Derpy_Bird
1. For Corruption: Removal from public office and barred from public office for a period of 4 months and $50,000 in fines.
2. For Embezzlement: Suspension of the Defendant’s Entrepreneur’s license and ban from registering or owning any company or union, a $50,000 fine, and 10 minutes jail time.
3. For Treason: Removal from public office and barred from public office for a period of 4 months and $50,000 in fines.

xEndeavour
1. For an Accomplice to Corruption: Removal from public office and barred from public office for a period of 2 months and $20,000 in fines.
2. For an Accomplice to Embezzlement: Suspension of the Defendant’s Entrepreneur’s license and ban from registering or owning any company or union, a $37,500 fine, and 7.5 minutes jail time.
3. For an Accomplice to Treason: Removal from public office and barred from public office for a period of 2 months and $20,000 in fines.
(An Accomplice to Crimes receives a Maximum 75% of listed offense punishments of the primary perpetrator)

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Embezzlement Proof 1

Spoiler: End over the DCT 1

Spoiler: Proof End Seeks to Build Privately and Sell to the Government

Spoiler: Embezzlement Proof 2

Spoiler: End over the DCT 2

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 10 day of february 2023

 

[Dusty_3]

Emergency Injunction

Your Honour,

As you can see in this photo, Derpy_Bird is trying to get the prosecutor Dusty_3 fired from the DLA. We have also just witnessed the firing of a DCT secretary (who stood up to xEndeavour), and the only thing that is stopping Derpy_Bird from firing the main prosecutor on both this case and xEndeavours bribery case is the Attorney General. We ask that the courts issue an injunction to halt any firing of Secretaries, especially the Attorney General, to protect the DLA from being corrupted by Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour.

In the event the Attorney General is fired before the injunction is granted we ask that the Attorney General be reinstated as to prevent a corrupt Secretary being appointed by Derpy_Bird to fire Dusty_3 or derail the case in anyway.

 

[Dusty_3]

Emergency Injunction

Using the case below as precedent, we ask the courts remove xEndeavour and Derpy_Bird from their positions of power (Secretary of the DCT and President respectively) immediately for the remainder of this case. This is to avoid any potential further abuse of power.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION Due to the actions taken in Executive Orders 42/22 - 45/22 (linked below) by President Deadwax the DLA is of the opinion that Treason has been committed. “16.7 - Treason Any party in federal office who is caught attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the...

www.democracycraft.net

 

[Dusty_3]

Emergency Injunction
We ask that the courts freeze xEndeavour and Derpy_Bird's assets as they are charged with embezzlement of government funds. We must avoid any further financial exploitation of the government, and prevent them from hiding the money they embezzled.

 

[End]

I'd like to request that the Defence be afforded the opportunity to make a legal argument and to determine who is presiding over the case before the court moves on any injunctions prematurely.

The Defence is concerned with certain potential conflicts of interest on the court which it would first like to resolve.

 

[Nacho]

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

@Derpy_Bird @xEndeavour is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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.​

 

[Nacho]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

The Supreme Court will be actioning the following changes on the following grounds.​

Derpy_Bird Charges
1 count - Corruption - Struck | Constitutional Power
1 count - Treason - Struck | Dependent on a previous count corruption

xEndeavour Charges
1 count - Accomplice to Corruption - Struck | Constitutional Power
1 count - Accomplice to Treason - Struck | Dependent on a previous count of Accomplice to Corruption

The Commonwealth of Redmont can adjust the filings in response to these strikes.

​

 

[Nacho]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

​

Emergency Injunction 1 | Rejected

Emergency Injunction

Your Honour,

As you can see in this photo, Derpy_Bird is trying to get the prosecutor Dusty_3 fired from the DLA. We have also just witnessed the firing of a DCT secretary (who stood up to xEndeavour), and the only thing that is stopping Derpy_Bird from firing the main prosecutor on both this case and xEndeavours bribery case is the Attorney General. We ask that the courts issue an injunction to halt any firing of Secretaries, especially the Attorney General, to protect the DLA from being corrupted by Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour.

In the event the Attorney General is fired before the injunction is granted we ask that the Attorney General be reinstated as to prevent a corrupt Secretary being appointed by Derpy_Bird to fire Dusty_3 or derail the case in anyway.​

Emergency Injunction 2 | Rejected

Emergency Injunction

Using the case below as precedent, we ask the courts remove xEndeavour and Derpy_Bird from their positions of power (Secretary of the DCT and President respectively) immediately for the remainder of this case. This is to avoid any potential further abuse of power.

Emergency Injunction 3 | Accepted (Terms below)

Emergency Injunction
We ask that the courts freeze xEndeavour and Derpy_Bird's assets as they are charged with embezzlement of government funds. We must avoid any further financial exploitation of the government, and prevent them from hiding the money they embezzled.

In accordance with Emergency Injunction 3 - The Supreme Court hereby orders the DOJ to fine the defendant $30,000. These funds shall be held in escrow untaxed for the duration of the case. Should the defendant be found guilty the funds will not be returned however, should the defendant be found innocent the funds will be returned.

 

[Derpy_Bird]

xEndeavour will be representing me in this case.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honors,

The State appreciates the acceptance of the case.

We recognize the charges you struck, but we would like to have clarification as to which specific charges were made void per your decision for both treason and corruption, so that way we may argue more effectively to avoid accidently arguing a charge that has been struck from the case.

Thank you. your honors

 

[Nacho]

Your honors,

The State appreciates the acceptance of the case.

We recognize the charges you struck, but we would like to have clarification as to which specific charges were made void per your decision for both treason and corruption, so that way we may argue more effectively to avoid accidently arguing a charge that has been struck from the case.

Thank you. your honors

For clarification - We struck a single corruption charge pertaining to the removal of a secretary. This is cited as a constitutional power. one of the treason charges was struck as again the removal of a secretary is a constitutional power.

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth
Prosecution

v.

Derpy_Bird, xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to the following:

1. I removed the Chief Justice from a position of leadership in the DCT less than 24 hours ago. Regardless of impartiality, there is an extremely high chance of unconscious bias given I, in my capacity as Acting Secretary, removed them from a position of influence in the Department and I assumed their duties.

2. The Chief Justice terminated my employment less than 30 days ago in the DCT. This termination is currently before the court and it would be inappropriate for the Chief Justice to be engaged in a case against me as a principle witness while presiding over a case against me in a higher court. The termination that the Chief Justice issued me is is currently under legal review for potential unfair dismissal, which would also be highly inappropriate if found to be true while presiding over a case against me.

3. The Chief Justice was vocally against the decisions I have recently implemented, when I had originally suggested them as a subordinate. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that he is not approving of my tenure as Acting Secretary.

4. This is screenshot is from the DCT Leadership channel, which shows the Chief Justice's animosity toward me asking for my position of Senior Constructor back.

 

[End]

The Defence requests that the 48 hours starts after the court processes the motion to recuse, and potential review of the recusal by another Justice.

If the Chief Justice is recused, they will have had the potential to vote on motions and objections prior to being recused if the Defence replies to the case prior to the recusal.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honors,
Would the court allow me to respond in regards to this motion?
Thank you

 

[JoeGamer]

Chief Justice Nacho has accepted the motion to recuse. As such, I will be presiding over the remainder of this case.

The Defence requests that the 48 hours starts after the court processes the motion to recuse, and potential review of the recusal by another Justice.

If the Chief Justice is recused, they will have had the potential to vote on motions and objections prior to being recused if the Defence replies to the case prior to the recusal.

Request denied. Seeing as this is a criminal trial, the Court will only need both defendants' pleas. However, that being said, the Court will extend an additional 12 hours from the initial deadline due to the amount of time it took for the Court to respond to the request and potential time zone conflicts.

 

[End]

Can the court please provide the Defence with a full list of charges for both Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour. We'd like to clarify what charges are standing after the earlier message of charges being struck.

 

[JoeGamer]

Charges against President Derpy_Bird:
One (1) count of Corruption (1 for the abuse of DCT funds)
One (1) count of Embezzlement
One (1) count of Treason

Charges against xEndeavour:
One (1) count of Accomplice to Corruption
One (1) count of Accomplice to Embezzlement
One (1) count of Accomplice to Treason

 

[End]

xEndeavour pleads not guilty to all charges.
One (1) count of Accomplice to Corruption
One (1) count of Accomplice to Embezzlement
One (1) count of Accomplice to Treason

Derpy_Bird pleads not guilty to all charges.
One (1) count of Corruption (1 for the abuse of DCT funds)
One (1) count of Embezzlement
One (1) count of Treason

 

[JoeGamer]

Thank you for your quick response. The Court will now move into opening statements.

The Commonwealth has 48 hours to present its opening statements.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor, may I be granted a 48 hour extension? I have only just landed in Queensland on holiday and I will be very busy irl over the next 5 days. I will have little free time to spend on this case, so a further 48 hours to complete the opening statement to this case will be very much appreciated.

Thank you

 

[End]

As a matter of fairness, the Defence requests that 48 hours not be allotted given the Defence was only allowed a 12 hour extension previously when it requested an extension to timings.

The Defence, too, is very busy and has little free time to respond to cases.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor, may I be granted a 48 hour extension? I have only just landed in Queensland on holiday and I will be very busy irl over the next 5 days. I will have little free time to spend on this case, so a further 48 hours to complete the opening statement to this case will be very much appreciated.

Thank you

An additional 48 hours is granted.

 

[Dusty_3]

I very much apologise to the Supreme Court for this… but I’m going to have to ask for an extension until the Sunday the 19th.

I have spent the day saving up my phone data to post this message. I bought my laptop on holiday with me in the hopes I could use it to post my responses in these cases. Unfortunately my hotel wifi is awful and I cannot physically do any legal work on it.

I have tried to see if any lawyers could take over my case in the meantime but everyone I’ve asked is either busy or unwilling to take it on.

If this request isn’t accepted I do completely understand, but I will not be able to post anything further until the 19th.

Thank you for your consideration in this case, I greatly appreciate the flexibility already, and I’d be very grateful if anymore can be granted.

Thank you

 

[JoeGamer]

I very much apologise to the Supreme Court for this… but I’m going to have to ask for an extension until the Sunday the 19th.

I have spent the day saving up my phone data to post this message. I bought my laptop on holiday with me in the hopes I could use it to post my responses in these cases. Unfortunately my hotel wifi is awful and I cannot physically do any legal work on it.

I have tried to see if any lawyers could take over my case in the meantime but everyone I’ve asked is either busy or unwilling to take it on.

If this request isn’t accepted I do completely understand, but I will not be able to post anything further until the 19th.

Thank you for your consideration in this case, I greatly appreciate the flexibility already, and I’d be very grateful if anymore can be granted.

Thank you

Extension Granted.

 

[Dusty_3]

Due to leaving the server, ColonelKai from the DLA has agreed to takeover my 2 DLA cases. This includes this one

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

First of all, thank you to the DLA and the Honourable Court for allowing me the priviledge of being able to represent the government in the supreme court, it is an honour. I apologise on behalf for the latency in which this opening statement was posted.

As my colleague Dusty has already provided an in-depth statement in the filing, I will be taking a different approach to the facts of the case, and first providing the context surrounding the foundations on which the charges were brought upon, and then providing the reasoning for which the charges have been brough forward based on the foundations as mentioned before.

FOUNDATIONS​

1. Unconstitutionality of the Purchase

We would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Court to the Constitution of our Commonwealth, which states;

“(1) The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the following primary responsibilities … (a) Creation of Government infrastructure …”

The Constitution utilises a very specific word in this provision, ‘create’. No other methods of acquiring government infrastructure is listed within the constitution, and thus, this has been the standard protocol within the department. The department hires constructors, and through the labour of the said constructors that are members of the department, government infrastructure is created. It can be seen that the department still holds those values at heart as the Secretary of the Department Lavender has opposed the purchase. Despite the secretary’s opposition, Derpy_Bird has used the budget of the Department to undertake the purchase, the budget which, should have gone to the function of the Department; creation of government infrastructure. The purchasing of the racetrack from xEndeavour by Derpy_Bird, clearly violates the aforementioned concept, and therefore, the constitution.
​

2. Social Bonds Regarding Decisions

One factor in this case is one of the most important to establish regarding the intentional wrongdoings of the defendants is the social bonds at play regarding the events surrounding the case, both negative and positive. As already demonstrated by my colleague Dusty in the filing, we believe that there is a strong positive bond between Derpy and End, both defendants. I find no need to further emphasise this point beyond the argument provided by the filing within the opening statement. It should be noted that there is also a negative relationship between the defendant End and the previous administration in the Department of Construction and Transportation, as End would cause problems regarding work assignment and would partake in projects without notifying the Department, resulting in projects being done in parralel, both by End and by the Department, causing conflicts as an example can be seen in the evidence presented. [End over the DCT 1]. It should be noted that Derpy did support End in this particular conflict.

CHARGES BROUGHT FORWARD​

1. Corruption

Based on the foundation 1 and 2, given that it is correct, the usage of the DCT funds by Derpy to purchase End's project is unconstitutional. The Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act, §4.2 states the following;​

The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.​

The act of purchasing the project, which shall now be named as the "purchase", based on foundation 1 is unconstitutional, and therefore is "inconsistent with the official duty" of the President. As a citizen of the Commonwealth, all of us, including the president is bound to the constitution. Based on foundation 2, the purchase was done to "give some advantage", as End has made a good income from the purchase. As the receiver of the corruption, Accomplice to Corruption is a given.

2. Embezzlement
The White-Collar Crackdown Act, §4.2 states the following;​

Embezzlement shall be defined as; “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.” An example of this law is; spending company funds for personal gain of a company of which you do not own 100%.​

Defendant Derpy has used the assets of the Department, namely it's budget, which was entrusted on the President as the head of the executive, in order to benefit the friendship between her and the Defendant End.

3. Treason
We do not have anything furhter to add to the filing in regards to the matter of Treason.

Conclusion
We believe that the defendants have not only benefited their friendship via the powers granted to them, they have also disturbed the protocol and standards with which the DLA has been run. We wish to correct these wrongs, and prove that what they have done is illegitimate and illegal.

Thank you your honour.​

 

[JoeGamer]

Thank you for providing your opening statement. The defendants now have 48 hours to provide their opening statement.

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

Your honour, I'd like to raise a number of points as to why this case is without legal basis.

The President is the Head of the Executive.
The constitution states that Secretaries create and amend policy in conjunction with the Government's direction. As the Head of Government, the President has the authority to direct a department to meet a policy goal, which in this case was acquiring a privately built piece of infrastructure (a racetrack). The President is the head of the executive cabinet and ultimately has the authority to make executive decisions as the elected head of government.

Secretaries & Executive Officers are members of the cabinet who each lead a government department or portfolio. It is the Secretary's job to oversee the efficient operations of their department and to create and amend department policy in conjunction with the Government's direction.

The Politics of the word 'create'
It is telling of the legal basis of this case when the legal argument has descended on the definition of the word 'create.' 'Create' means to bring something into existence - even google says so.

Whether the DCT outsourced this or not, it has still created a piece of infrastructure for the city and it's people. The source of that infrastructure does not have to be from within the Department. If we were to operate on such a definition that all departments must do everything internally then the Departments would not be able to purchase anything through tender, run any competitions for best spawn designs to later use them, or outsource history articles. The notion that the Government cannot outsource is ridiculous. The notion that the definition of the word create is holding this lawsuit together is trivial at best.

Termination
Please find below the termination message for Lavendar:

Hi Guys! I want to acknowledge your time as DCT Secretary/Deputy over the past couple of months, its been a rollercoaster for sure​

​

I don't like the way you've both spoken about end, especially when you have just unofficially fired him for what you perceived as being toxic. Telling people to get I love DemocracyCraft!ed and rot is not ok at all​

​

The DCT has been a controversial department throughout my term with long-serving and talented employees leaving​

​

Its not personal or anything and I hope this doesn't effect anything going forward with us, fully professional decision​

​

Therefore I'll be letting you go as Secretary Lav...​

So as you can see, the Secretary was let go for unprofessional behaviour. Secretaries serve at the President's pleasure and the President had every right to fire someone for describing a former employee in the way that they did.

The President then required a steady and active leader to finish the term on a high note and to resolve many of the issues plaguing the DCT. Whether the President has a personal connection with the individual they appointed is irrelevant when the person they appoint is one of the most experienced Secretaries in the nation, who has, throughout their leadership of departments, delivered significant results. Moreover, that member also happened to be an almost 3 year long member of DCT leadership and former Secretary of the Department. The president appointed someone they trusted and someone competent under Section 5 of the ESA. If nominating friends or people you know is corruption then every administration is guilty of corruption, because all appointees and nominees are almost always known to the president, if not friends of the President. Politics is about network building. Corruption is malice intent to make an illicit gain. There was no illicit gain, this was politics. Any finding contrary to this would be detrimental to the political system of the nation, where any appointment of a friend or someone know to the President being a crime. While End has a negative relationship with the DCT Secretary, he was not discussing how the DCT Secretary can get f***** or can go and rot.

The Race Track
The race track was built privately and once complete the President was offered to purchase it, if they wished. Given the DCT had not done any work on the race track proposal in 2 months, which End has designed, End had built his own and the President deemed the infrastructure to be within the public interest and worthy of purchase. Had the President paid an unproportionate amount of money for the race track, perhaps the claim of corruption would be relevant, however 30k for a huge build like a race track was well within reason and fair compensation.

Inconsistency with Official Duties
Does the plaintiff believe that a new race track acquisition is not in the public interest? A race track where public events can be hosted? A race track which improves the aesthetic of a key piece of previously undeveloped and bare land. The defence vehemently disagrees that this was not in the public interest and inconsistent with the President's official duties.

 

[End]

OBJECTION
Relevance

We believe that the defendants have not only benefited their friendship via the powers granted to them, they have also disturbed the protocol and standards with which the DLA has been run. We wish to correct these wrongs, and prove that what they have done is illegitimate and illegal.

No evidence has been submitted which relates to the DLA.

 

[End]

OBJECTION
Relevance

This argument has no legal basis and only serves as narrative. It is not illegal to have a friendship in Redmont law. Nor is it illegal to have a disagreement with anyone.

No evidence has been submitted to support the specific claims about End. The claims made are specific and the evidence is extremely general in nature.

2. Social Bonds Regarding Decisions
One factor in this case is one of the most important to establish regarding the intentional wrongdoings of the defendants is the social bonds at play regarding the events surrounding the case, both negative and positive. As already demonstrated by my colleague Dusty in the filing, we believe that there is a strong positive bond between Derpy and End, both defendants. I find no need to further emphasise this point beyond the argument provided by the filing within the opening statement. It should be noted that there is also a negative relationship between the defendant End and the previous administration in the Department of Construction and Transportation, as End would cause problems regarding work assignment and would partake in projects without notifying the Department, resulting in projects being done in parralel, both by End and by the Department, causing conflicts as an example can be seen in the evidence presented. [End over the DCT 1]. It should be noted that Derpy did support End in this particular conflict.

If the Plaintiff is trying to establish grounds for corruption, no friendship or connection is required to satisfy the requirements of corruption.

 

[ColonelKai]

The prosecution would like permission to respond to the objections.

 

[JoeGamer]

The Commonwealth has 24 hours to respond to both objections.

Both parties have 24 hours to provide a list of witnesses as well as a reason for which they pertain to the case.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Response to Objections

Objection I
Unfortunately this is a mistake on our end, the sentence was supposed to be regarding the DCT, not the DLA. This typo has slipped through the cracks due to the rushed nature of this case that was given to me. With the permission of the court I would like to strike this out or amend it in the records. I apologise both to the honourable court and the defendants.

Objection II
Yes, having a friendship is not illegal in Redmont, and it is not an explicit requirement for corruption charges either. However, we are using the friendship between the defendants as a proof to the Embezzlement case, as using government funds to benefit an individual with close personal bonds would be considered embezzlement, strengthening our case. We aren't simply making this point out for the sake of creating a narrative, it is a central point to our argument that the defendants worked to benefit each other, due to their close social bond.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Witnesses for Case

The Prosecution would like to bring both defendants xEndeavour and Derpy to the stand as witnesses in regards to their motives and timeline of events regarding the subject at hand.

 

[End]

The Defence have no witnesses to call forward at this time, however we request to reserve the option to call upon witnesses after the Defendants have taken the stand.

 

[JoeGamer]

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

xEndeavour and Derpy_Bird is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour as a witness.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.

I would also remind both witnesses the rights of the accused including the right to not produce self-incriminating evidence in a court of law.​

 

[End]

Present

 

[Derpy_Bird]

Present

 

[JoeGamer]

The Commonwealth may begin to question the witnesses.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Direct Examination

To xEndeavour
- Can you please explain the series of events that led to you asking the Prime Minister to acquire your building (the race track) and the reason behind why you chose to inquire it directly to the Prime Minister?

To Derpy
- Can you please explain the reasoning behind your acquisition of the race track?
- Can you please explain the reasoning behind offering the acquisition of the track to xEndeavour before consulting the Secretary of the DCT?

The Commonwealth will ask follow-up questions with the permission of the court depending on the answers of the aforementioned witnesses. ​

 

[End]

I haven’t spoken to any Prime Ministers regarding the sale of the building.

 

[End]

I did, however, speak to the President.

I was online at the same time as the President and showed her the building which I was working on. I said that the government could buy it if they wanted to. It was out of convenience.

 

[Derpy_Bird]

1) Infrastructure like the race track are hubs for community and international events. This was a positive acquisition for the government regardless of who built it. I discussed a price with the private builder and then I said to the DCT Secretary that we should purchase the race track and it would need to come from their department funds. It was in the final weeks of my administration and I wanted to complete the project which was untouched by the DCT for 2 months. It is a good build and was well within what the DCT would pay a builder for building it while working for the department.

2) No deal was finalised prior to consulting the DCT secretary. The price was only tentatively discussed.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Direct Examination

For xEndeavour
- Apologies for using the word Prime Minister, as you have gathered, I meant President, thank you for answering with that in mind. As for the question; Why did you choose to discuss it with the President specifically? Wouldn't it be better to have discussed it with the DCT leadership? Why was the leadership not reached out to earlier, and the issue of the purchase only a point of interest once the President was "convenient"?

For Derpy
- Was there a prior precedent of the DCT purchasing land from private citizens that you were aware of?
- What was the source of the 30 thousand figure?
- You said the deal "was not finalised prior consulting the [secretary]", and "the price was tentaively discussed", however, from the screenshots provided by my colleague (titled Embezzlement Proof 1), you seemed to not have discussed any aspect of the purchase in a constructive manner but had already decided on the price and the purchase. Have there been any other discussions holding place between you and the Secretary at the time in regards to the purchase?

 

[End]

I finished it while the president was online, and then I invited her to come have a look. There was no need to discuss with the DCT because the president already was in talks with them about acquiring it. Had the President not been online I would have reached out to the DCT.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Direct Examination

For xEndeavour
For the sake of clarification, you have been fired for the DCT which was where you started this project, and continued the project as a private citizen. During or near the completion of the project, you had a conversation with President Derpy who happened to be online at the time where you discussed the government purchasing the project.

Is all of the above correct? If not, which parts have I mistaken?

Additionally, were you in any communication with the DCT regarding the government acquisition of the project after it's completion prior to the completion and subsequent conversation with the President?

 

[Derpy_Bird]

Was there a prior precedent of the DCT purchasing land from private citizens that you were aware of? The DCT did not purchase land, it purchased a build.

This is no different to the DCT buying building materials from the public through tenders like it has done in the past or through the supply depot. Both assist with the creation of server infrastructure, one is just dismantled and the other is put together.

What was the source of the 30 thousand figure? From the budget allocated to my administration for construction and transport. - You said the deal "was not finalised prior consulting the [secretary]", and "the price was tentaively discussed", however, from the screenshots provided by my colleague (titled Embezzlement Proof 1), you seemed to not have discussed any aspect of the purchase in a constructive manner but had already decided on the price and the purchase. Have there been any other discussions holding place between you and the Secretary at the time in regards to the purchase?

The Secretary serves the President's policy agenda. I said I wanted to purchase this build for the Redmont and therefore its the Secretary's duty to assist with carrying that policy goal out.

 

[End]

For the sake of clarification, you have been fired for the DCT which was where you started this project, and continued the project as a private citizen. During or near the completion of the project, you had a conversation with President Derpy who happened to be online at the time where you discussed the government purchasing the project.

Is all of the above correct? If not, which parts have I mistaken?

1. I finalise the plan for the track:

2. I am terminated two weeks after.
3. I decide to build the track on my build plot since I was bored.
4. Derpy and I play in the same timezone. As I was adding the finishing touches to the build Derpy was online and I asked if she would like to take a look at it.
5. I said that the government can buy it if they want it. Derpy and I discuss a potential fair price if the government were to buy it.

Additionally, were you in any communication with the DCT regarding the government acquisition of the project after it's completion prior to the completion and subsequent conversation with the President?

I might have toyed with the idea of the government buying it as a joke, I can't recall.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Direct Examination

For End
Have you had any intentions of becoming a "private constructor" prior to the government purchasing of your build?

For Derpy
Has the Secretary Lav's input have any notable changes in the outcome of the purchase of the building? If so, how?

 

[End]

When I was without a job I took up building privately without the intent of just selling to the government.