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

Status
Not open for further replies.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Direct Examination

For End
I apologise, I should've worded my question more clearly. Was selling to the government within your thoughts or plans prior to the acquisition?
 
Secretary Lav said that she did not agree but would do it if directed and would make it work.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Direct Examination

For Derpy
Respectfully, that is not what the prosecution was inquiring. We asked whether the input of the Secretary Lav had any affect on the final decision or final situation, and if so, how. Not the work of Secretary Lav, but rather the opinion.
 
ColonelKai said:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Direct Examination

For End
I apologise, I should've worded my question more clearly. Was selling to the government within your thoughts or plans prior to the acquisition?
Click to expand...
I expected to be reinstated, so when I was reinstated I would have just pasted it for free. Since I was not reinstated and since it was built in my own time, I offered for the Govt to buy it.
 
This was Secretary Lav's input.
1677316544945.png
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Direct Examination

For End
You've previously said you were working on the building because you were bored. For the sake of a clear timeline and a clear statement of facts, can you please tell us why you continued to build the plot after your termination, and your plans prior to the purchase, and how the purchase affected those two facts.

For Derpy
Again, respectfully, that is not what the prosecution is inquiring. We're asking whether the input from Secretary Lav had any affect on the outcome. We already know what the Secretary Lav's input was to a certain degree, as that conversation has been posted already in our filing I believe. You're free to decline to answer the question, but please do not give unrelevant answers.
 

Lawsuit: In Session - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5

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...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net

Refer to this timeline where I have answered your question.

I was bored after I was terminated. I built the racetrack after I was terminated. I planned the racetrack before i was terminated.
 
I don't think I understand what you are asking if this is not answering your question. Secretary Lav's input was that she didn't agree and that she would make it happen regardless if directed to. I considered her input as I do with all my secretaries. I decided that it was in the nation's interest and decided against Lav's recommendation.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Direct Examination

For End

"I expected to be reinstated, so when I was reinstated I would have just pasted it for free. Since I was not reinstated and since it was built in my own time, I offered for the Govt to buy it."

"I was bored after I was terminated. I built the racetrack after I was terminated. I planned the racetrack before i was terminated."

"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."


So, there was no intention of selling the plot to the government as a private constructor while you were constructing the racetrack following your termination?

Were you the one who came up with a government purchase of the build, or Derpy? Who approached first?

If derpy had not approached you, and you were not reinstanted, would you approach the government in regards to a possibility of a purchase? If so, would it be to the DCT or Derpy?

For Derpy
While you have answered the question indirectly through showing evidence that heavily insinuates one way, law is a field of certianty and evidence. I don't need an explanation, I simply need a yes or no answer to the question which I'm asking, which was "... whether the input from Secretary Lav had any affect on the outcome." And if the answer was yes, how.

This applies to both defendants: Please answer the questions clearly, not insinuate at an answer by providing evidence or reaffirming a point. As an Attorney I can already construct arguments that point towards an answer depending on what you have submitted to the court so far, that is a key part of my job. The reason why Direct Examination exists is to get clear and open answers. I'd like to reaffirm the point that you're free to refuse questions. That is within your right. If you're uncomfortable with a question, please refuse it rather than giving a vague answer.
 
Were you the one who came up with a government purchase of the build, or Derpy? Who approached first? Me

So, there was no intention of selling the plot to the government as a private constructor while you were constructing the racetrack following your termination? No the racetrack was built out of boredom. That was my motive. I did think about just being a private constructor and selling to the government, but my main objective was to be reinstated and to have the plot pasted.

If derpy had not approached you, and you were not reinstanted, would you approach the government in regards to a possibility of a purchase? If so, would it be to the DCT or Derpy?
I have already answered this above, read back. I would have approached the DCT.
 
I will be answering my questions with as much detail as I require to clarify what you are asking. As much as a yes and no is great for you to push an agenda in a line of questioning, it can be easily misconstrued if not provided with context.
 
My answers show that Lav's input did have an affect on the outcome. Lav's input impacted my decision making but it did not impact the final decision.
 
The Commonwealth has 24 hours to ask additional questions. If no questions are asked or the Commonwealth informs that they have no further questions, the Court will move on.
 
The prosecution has no more questions.
 
Seeing as direct questioning is over, the defense will be provided time for cross-examination. If no questions are asked within 24 hours the Court will move on.
 
The Court now calls for closing statements. The Commonwealth has 48 hours to make its closing statement.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

Politics of the Word "Create"
In their opening defense, the defense has defined the meaning of the word "create" as "to bring something into existence". We embrace this definition and consider it a fact. However, the defense makes a number of wrong assumptions in their argument which in the opinion of the Prosecution Team will show the fact that the actions undertaken by the Prime Minister are indeed, not within the realms allowed by the constitution.

I would like to first respond to the Defense's arguments, and break them down.

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.
Click to expand...

Taking the definition brought forward by the defense, the term used by the defense, "[The DCT] has still created a piece of infrastructure" would translate directly to; "[The DCT] has still [brought into existance] a piece of infrastructure." Now, common sense requires that bringing into existance is an action done by a party. This party, in the case of the race track, was end. At the moment the track was finished, aka brought into existance, End was not indeed, a part of the DCT. Therefore, it would be factually incorrect to state that The DCT has brought into existance the said piece of infrastructure.

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.
Click to expand...

This is a completely false statement and argument. Our argumnent of the outsourcing of labour being illegal for the DCT comes from the wording specific to the DCT as outlined in the constitution. The part of the constitution in which we have used to argue the fact that the actions were unconstitutional, “(1) The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the following primary responsibilities … (a) Creation of Government infrastructure …” is specifically for the Department of Construction. To argue that declaring an action unconstitutional according to a claused dedicated to the DCT would be an indicator for all other departments is a mistaken argument at best, a bad faith argument at worst, trying to load consequences to a decision against your favour where they don't exist, and calling it ridiculous and paint it as an unecceptable fact when the basis of the so-called "ridiculousness" stems from a false interpretation.

The notion that the definition of the word create is holding this lawsuit together is trivial at best.
Click to expand...
Again, a careless at best, bad faith at worst argument directed at the very center of the argument presented by the prosecution, attempting to paint the argument as unreasonable, ridiculous and completely unacceptable. Law, the profession which we are currently engaged in, is entirely a matter of definitions. If not a series of definitions and rules, what is law? In the opinion of the prosecution team, the defense has undertaken actions which breach the provisions of the constitution. The provision in which they have breached gives upon the DCT a task; and in that task, we argue based on the verb used. Arguably, the word which according to the defense the definition of it constituting a foundation in the prosecution's argument is "trivial" , is the most important and impactful word in the entirety of the aforementioned provision. To claim that arguing the definition the prosecution believes in - where the difference in definitions would mean the difference between unconstitutionality and legality - is "trivial at best", is an argument that is meant to do nothing but continue to make an attempt at painting this lawsuit as a frivilous, ridiculous and all of the above adjectives which I have repeated many times over that belittle this case.

Now that we have responded to the defense's arguments, I will be moving onto my own arguments.

I would first like to reinforce our belief that "outsourcing the construction of a building / infrastructure" does indeed, not fit the constitutionally mandated duties of the Department.
This, as many other arguments when there are issues of responsibilities, duties, actions and consequences falling on entities or organisations rather than individual citizens, is an issue of defining the doer of an action, and the action itself.

Let's try to put the word "create" into a context. Imagine a situation A, where there is an empty plot. And then, a situation B, where there is a building in the previously empty plot. It could be very easily inferred that: the sum of all actions that were undertaken to directly turn the situation A to situation B, is the act of "creating" the building.

The constitution requires that the DCT create the building; logically, the DCT must have ben the one taking the actions. However, that was simply not the case. End, as he has admitted himself in his witness testimonies, was not part of the DCT, not representing it, not acting on behalf, not acting as a part, at the time of the actions being taken towards the creation of the building.
2. I am terminated two weeks after.
3. I decide to build the track on my build plot since I was bored.
Click to expand...
End and DCT were separate entities at the moment of the building, so, how could we say that DCT was the one who "created" the building? We can't.

The building was created by End, and perhaps, at the most, considering the very beginning planning and possibly the paste having DCT involvement, done together. Giving the defense the most amount of ground here; The DCT planned the build, end designed it, and DCT pasted it. The sum of the actions towards the creation of the racetrack was not done by the DCT. The DCT did indeed, not create the building. And the purchase of the build from end, certianly was not "creating" the build itself. The only way to satisfy that definition would be to have taken all the steps themselves.
It may seem I have gone overboard in defining the action "create". While we had agreed on the definition of "create" provided by the defense, in the context of this argument, the "to bring something into existence" definition acts as nothing more than a 5-word synonym for the actual word. The problem lies in what actions - or rather sum of actions - qualify into the category of the qualities required to be considered "creating". And the definition of those qualities is what the prosecution has provided in this closing statement. Just simply stating the word definition once more without considering the categorisation problem at play is completely ignoring the root of the disagreement and dispute.

At last, I would also like to draw the attention of the fact that the Modus operandi of the DCT has been in-line with the arguments which were presented by the Prosecution. We have already made this point prior, however, and I feel no need to repeat the prosecution's arguments.

Collusion
The grounds on which the prosecution team brings forward the charges of Embezzlement and following Treason (and the two charges on the second defendant for being an accomplice) is the argument that the friendship between the two defendants have played a role in the decision made by Derpy, the President at the time of the events. While the defense has not argued the existance of the friendship, the defense has argued the relevance of the friendship in an objection. The fact that the non-existance of the friendship would completely nullify our two charges does make the facts relevant to the case.

Now, we'd like to invite the honourable court to take an overview of the events as reinforced by the witness testimonies.

The President, Derpy, makes a possibly unconstitutional decision, without the secretary specialised in the field in which the decision pertains to affecting the decision, that is also against the modus operandi of the Department, in order to put the government into a purchase where the provider is a friend of the President.

We're not saying contracting your friend is neccesarily an illegal act of crime and embezzlement, but that letting the friendship have an effect on the decision where the taxpayer money and government power is involved is.

We would like to draw the attention of the court to the witness testimonies.

When we first asked the defendant derpy whether they were aware of any precedent for the DCT to purchase a build, we were met with not an answer but an argument. This would be a trend that would continue throughout the direct examination, which would end in a back-and-forth argument towards the end of the direct examination. We simply asked for clear answers - not neccesarily short ones - but kept getting arguments.

The internal strifes and the behaviour of the defense in previous instances of events in the department has sufficiently been covered by my colleague, but we believe, as much as the defense claims their irrelevance or their ineffectiveness in affecting the events on which the lawsuit is based on, the prosecution begs to differ. The events happened within a short time-frame, enough that the results of the events previous to those t his lawsuit is based on can be an indicator of intent, manner and method for this lawsuit. We ask the courts to consider these facts before moving forward.

We would like to ask the courts: Is this how taxpayer money should be handled? How government affairs should be run? Disregarding the input of the secretary, committing a presumably not well-precedented act without any legal advice or a light understanding of the purposes of the allocated budget which the money has been taken out of, which resulted in being taken legal action against for unconstituonality, betraying the modus operandi of an entire department and creating distrust and a drift in the said department, for the sake of getting a simple building made by a friend who was not part of the department, and had sour relations with it, where the president once again sided with the said friend. The amount of chaos and unplanned and reckless at best, malicious at worst decisions being made for the sake of a race track seems a stretched proposition.

The prosecution cannot lay out a single sentence in here, that would just be the end all be all in regards to what was affecting the former president's decisions at the time, that could only come through a self-incriminating testimony. The way granted to the prosecution to prove the point is through the culmination of soft-factors that indicate to the conclusion: that the relationship between the two defendants indeed had an effect on the ultimate decision, which we believe we have accomplished.

We would like the honourable courts to consider all events, factors and matters at play, and make a decision by looking at the whole of the situation, where the conclusion shall be clear.
 
Taking the definition brought forward by the defense, the term used by the defense, "[The DCT] has still created a piece of infrastructure" would translate directly to; "[The DCT] has still [brought into existance] a piece of infrastructure." Now, common sense requires that bringing into existance is an action done by a party. This party, in the case of the race track, was end. At the moment the track was finished, aka brought into existance, End was not indeed, a part of the DCT. Therefore, it would be factually incorrect to state that The DCT has brought into existance the said piece of infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I don't think it takes a legal professional to see that the prosecution is grabbing at straws here... When I finished the racetrack, It was in a creative world. The DCT pasted it in to the city, thereby using outsourced labour through purchasing a pre-built piece of infrastructure to create a public space. The argument by the plaintiff is perhaps the most outlandish and weakest argument I've seen in court in my history of practice.

Again, the notion that the DCT must build everything it implements is like saying that the DPA must plan every event it hosts, or that the DOH must go and collect all of its resources for treatments. No department is explicitly allowed by the constitution to outsource resource collection or labour tasks with perhaps the exception of the DOI through providing a supply depot. We live in a capitalist society where outsourcing is normal and healthy for the efficient operation of Government.

Again, a careless at best, bad faith at worst argument directed at the very center of the argument presented by the prosecution, attempting to paint the argument as unreasonable, ridiculous and completely unacceptable. Law, the profession which we are currently engaged in, is entirely a matter of definitions. If not a series of definitions and rules, what is law? In the opinion of the prosecution team, the defense has undertaken actions which breach the provisions of the constitution. The provision in which they have breached gives upon the DCT a task; and in that task, we argue based on the verb used. Arguably, the word which according to the defense the definition of it constituting a foundation in the prosecution's argument is "trivial" , is the most important and impactful word in the entirety of the aforementioned provision. To claim that arguing the definition the prosecution believes in - where the difference in definitions would mean the difference between unconstitutionality and legality - is "trivial at best", is an argument that is meant to do nothing but continue to make an attempt at painting this lawsuit as a frivilous, ridiculous and all of the above adjectives which I have repeated many times over that belittle this case.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, this case is frivolous and ridiculous. Unfortunately for you, you inherited what was a vanity case filed by someone who wanted to serve their own political interests. This is evidenced by them rejoining the server to submit three cases and then leaving the day that I exited office.

The case before the court can be summarised into four questions of law:

1. Does the DCT have the ability to outsource without the conferral of any specific rights or duties to outsource in the constitution, as practiced by other departments?

2. Does the Department acquiring a build and pasting it into the city as public infrastructure constitute the task verb of 'create' in their duty statement?

3. Does the President have the power to make executive decisions as the chair of cabinet and as the elected, mandate-holding head of the Executive branch of government? and is the Secretary of a portfolio therefore required to comply with the policy direction of the President?

4. Does the President disagreeing with a Secretary's input constitute ignoring their advice and are they required to follow their advice?

This case is strung together based on weak arguments:

1. That because the President was friends with the builder of the infrastructure, it must be assumed to be corruption.

2. That the word 'create' means the Department must do everything itself.

This is an incredibly damaging decision for the court to sign on to. A capitalist society where the government is unable to outsource.

The reality of this situation is that:

All departments outsource, or have outsourced, in one way or another at some point in their existence. The DCT, in order to maintain its high workload, should be permitted to outsource just like every other department which does not have specific authority to outsource. The DCT's job in the most simple terms to to create, provide, and maintain infrastructure - thats the spirit of the law. The DCT acquired a privately built build, at the direction of the president who is the head of the executive, to create public infrastructure in the city. If that is not meeting the terms of their duties by creating infrastructure then it must also be illegal for every other department to outsource too. It should not be up to the constitution to specify exactly how they must go about meeting the duty of creating infrastructure, that is a policy decision.

The plaintiff has made a large assumption that the President buying a racetrack off a person known to them is corruption. That would mean that because I am known and have a close relationship with some of the judges on this court that they are being corrupt in delivering a verdict favourable to me. The reality of Redmont is that everyone knows everyone and most get along well as friends.

The plaintiff has assumed that the value of the build was less than 30k and that it was not a fair evaluation for the build and therefore the money has been funnelled into my pockets.

The DCT didnt do anything on the racetrack build for 2 months after I was fired so I built it in my own time and sold it to the government.

I hope the court will see through what is a case that was designed to politically damage me and remove me and derpy from office.

I'd like to make a counter claim of $20,000 per defendant in legal fees and damages to mine and Derpy's reputation throughout this case.
 
Last edited:
OBJECTION
Relevance

The Defendant requests that the Plaintiff's second opening statement be struck. The plaintiff had an opportunity to provide an opening statement at the start of the trial. The second opening statement also references a prime minister, which is not part of Redmont's system of Government and therefore is irrelevant.

1677751838799.png
 
There are no pending motions for the court to consider. All objects will be taken into account during conference.
 
xEndeavour, you are found in direct contempt. I hereby order the DOJ to fine xEndeavour $2500 and be jailed for 10 minutes pursuant to the Judicial Standards Act.
 

Verdict


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5

I. PROSECUTION'S CHARGES
1. One (1) count of corruption against Derpy_Bird
2. One (1) count of embezzlement against Derpy_Bird
3. One (1) count of treason against Derpy_Bird
4. One (1) count of accomplice to corruption against xEndeavour
5. One (1) count of accomplice to embezzlement against xEndeavour
6. One (1) count of accomplice to treason against xEndeavour


II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Derpy_Bird pleads NOT GUILTY to all charges
2. xEndeavour pleads NOT GUILTY to all charges

III. THE COURT OPINION
Justice JoeGamer delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Justice BananaNova joined.

Justice JoeGamer delivered the Opinion of the Court.

On February 4th, 2023, then President Derpy_Bird asked former Secretary of Construction and Transportation LavenderxBlaxii to look into purchasing a race track from xEndeavour. Secretary LavenderxBlaxii never made any move on purchasing the race track from xEndeavour so President Derpy_Bird took it upon herself to see the transaction through. Secretary LavenderxBlaxii was later fired.

The Commonwealth has argued before that Court that President Derpy_Bird has violated the Constitution with her purchase of the race track. The Commonwealth claims that the act of purchasing a build does not constitute creation as mandated in Part III Section 29 (f) (1). Furthermore, this action is inconsistent with the official duty of the president given the purchase is unconstitutional. The Commonwealth has claimed President Derpy_Bird’s purchase also embezzled funds from the DCT for personal gain with her friend xEndeavour. The Commonwealth has charged President Derpy_Bird with treason. xEndeavour has been named an accomplice to these crimes and is being charged as such. Both defendants have both pleaded not guilty and have laid out arguments against the Commonwealth’s interpretation.

In [2022] SCR 16, the Supreme Court laid out the the corruption test which holds the following: 1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit and 2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office? Under the guidance of the corruption test, the arguments laid before the Court will be analyzed under these frames.
The first part of the corruption test requires that some benefit, whether for personal gain or for the gain of someone else, must have occurred. When the president went through with this transaction, xEndeavour reaped the benefits for his work on the race track. The compensation gave xEndeavour an advantage over others by making $30,000 for the race track where others were not provided such an option. By xEndeavour making this money, it put him at an advantage against others, grossing him $30,000 over other players. This being said, the defense point should be brought into consideration. The defense claimed that the amount paid was not inappropriate for the race track and cannot constitute corruption. To this point, it is not the purpose of the Court in this case to determine whether $30,000 was a good deal. The facts of the deal are in the end, xEndeavour grossed $30,000, an advantage over other players. This action by itself does not constitute corruption, it is only a portion of the constitutes corruption.
The second part of the corruption test requires that the action made be inconsistent with the official duty of office. Two points of law have been brought up throughout this case: 1) Was the action of buying a build “Creation of Government infrastructure” and 2) Did the President have the authority to carry out such a purchase? The Court will break down the second part of the corruption test as such.

The prosecution has claimed that by purchasing this build, the defendants have violated Part III Section 29 (f) (1) which states “ The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the following primary responsibilities: (1) Creation of Government infrastructure.” When starting deliberations for this case, all the Justices looked at the definition of “create.” According to Merriam Webster, create is defined as “to bring into existence.” The Constitution does not provide how this process is supposed to happen. This means that the duty of the DCT is to turn nothing into something (in terms of infrastructure). That process of turning nothing into something is creation; it does not matter how that nothing is transformed into something so long as the DCT is turning nothing into something. Taking a look back at this case, it is clear to the Court that the intent of purchasing the race track was to create new social infrastructure for the Commonwealth [Embezzlement Proof 1]. The Commonwealth started with less social infrastructure then how it ended. Purchasing plots is a valid way to create new government infrastructure.

Second, the Court will take a look at whether the president had the authority to make this transaction. This question revolves around the question of how much power does the president have over departments. In Part III Section 23 of the Constitution it’s made clear the president does not have ultimate authority over all of the executive: “The President may NOT remove any department employee…The President may advise their Secretaries to fire an employee”. Section 28 continues these limitations in how it vest the power of the departments in their secretaries. “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.” When it comes to the operations of a Department, it is ultimately the Secretary’s job to oversee them, not the president. Therefore when it comes to the decisions of a department, it is the secretary that makes those decisions, not the president. The president can merely influence those decisions and if the president disagrees with a decision made by the secretary, the president has the ability to fire secretaries. Therefore, it can be said that the president has influence over their secretaries but not control of their departments and the decisions that secretaries make. In this case, the act of purchasing infrastructure is a department decision, not a presidential one. The president has no power to authorize this purchase, merely recommend a secretary make or not make these department purchases. It is clear that President Derpy_Bird made the transaction, which violates the constitution. President Derpy_Bird gave herself power where she held none. This makes the President's actions inconsistent with the official duty of office.

Putting together the entirety of the corruption test, President Derpy_Bird has both given xEndeavour a notable advantage and the act of purchasing the race track was inconsistent with the official duty of office. Satisfying both portions of the corruption test, President Derpy_Bird has violated the corruption test.

The prosecution has alleged that President Derpy_Bird has embezzled funds from the Department of Construction and Transportation. Embezzlement is defined in the White-Collar Crackdown Act 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.” As established earlier, President Derpy_Bird did not have the authority to purchase the race track; Derpy_Bird misused the funds. However, part of embezzlement requires that the person who embezzled money or assets had some sort of personal gain. From the evidence shown, Derpy_Bird did not gain anything personal. The transaction was done in an effort to create additional social infrastructure. In her message to the Secretary of Construction and Transportation, she stated that the Department of Public Affairs could use the race track to host events. There exists no evidence that President Derpy_Bird benefited from this transaction and as a requirement for embezzlement, the Court cannot support these charges.

Finally, Treason is defined to be “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.” Treason is an intent crime meaning that the action had to be done with a purpose. In treason cases, in order for treason to stick, the Commonwealth must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had malicious intent to sabotage the government. This is the bare minimum. In this case, the Commonwealth has not proven intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The most of the Commonwealth’s treason revolve around the fact that Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour are friends and Derpy_Bird prioritized her friend over the Commonwealth. People having friends is not reason enough to push treason. Intent has not been proven by a simple friendship. DemocracyCraft is a tight knit community; of course people are going to have friends. But having friends in it of itself does not constitute intent, nor treason.

Having provided a decision for each of Derpy_Bird’s charges, the Court can now review the charges against xEndevaour. Where Derpy_Bird has been charged with the crimes, xEndeavour has been charged as an accomplice to these crimes. As defined in the Accomplice and Conspiracy Offenses Act, an accomplice is defined as “The act of giving assistance to the perpetrator of a crime.” Given that Derpy_Bird has been found not guilty of treason and embezzlement, the Court cannot find xEndeavour guilty of these crimes.

When it comes xEndeavour’s involvement with Derpy_Bird’s corruption, he was a direct beneficiary to corruption, but does that make him liable as an accomplice? The Court poses the question for accomplice: Did xEndeavour give assistance to Derpy_Bird’s corruption? The nature of a purchase is two parties coming together and making a mutual agreement. A purchase can not happen without both parties coming to an agreement. Derpy_Bird’s corruption charge lies in the act of this purchase with xEndeavour. This purchase would have never occurred had xEndeavour and Derpy_Bird not made a deal. xEndeavour gave direct assistance to Derpy_Bird in her act of corruption, which makes him an assistant in the act of corruption.

This case is very complex and multifaceted. Both the Commonwealth and the defendants have brought important points before the Court, and this by no means is an easy case. This case comes down to the powers of the president and the separation of power between the president and the departments. The decisions of the executive are not for the Courts to decide, but the executive is obliged to uphold the boundaries set in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

IV. SENTENCE
1. On one (1) count of corruption, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant Derpy_Bird GUILTY.
2. On one (1) count of corruption, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant Derpy_Bird NOT GUILTY.
3. On one (1) count of treason, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant Derpy_Bird NOT GUILTY.
4. On one (1) count of accomplice to corruption, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant xEndeavour GUILTY.
5. On one (1) count of accomplice to embezzlement, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant xEndeavour NOT GUILTY.
6. On one (1) count of accomplice to treason, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant xEndeavour NOT GUILTY.

The Supreme Court sentences Derpy_Bird as follows:
1. $25,000 in fines for one count of corruption
2. Removal from public office for a period of two (2) months
The Supreme Court sentences xEndeavour as follows:
1. $18,750 in fines for one count of accomplice to corruption
2. Removal from public office for a period of six (6) weeks
This case is hereby adjourned. The Supreme Court thanks all parties for their time.

It is so ordered
​


​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top