Lawsuit: Dismissed Commonwealth of Redmont v. Dygyee [2022] SCR 22

[lawanoesepr]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION
Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution
v.
dygyee
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:
dygyee has abused his power as Judge to commit Corruption, by denying a search warrant
against Tello Bank, a company which he is a shareholder of.
I. PARTIES
1. dygyee
2. Tello Bank
3. Commonwealth of Redmont
II. FACTS
1. On September 27, 2022, ElainaThomas29 requested a search warrant to retrieve information
about accounts xeu100 (the then-CEO of Tello Bank) has access to, in relation to a large
amount of stolen money. This warrant was requested in Closed Court. [See Exhibit A]
2. dygyee approved the warrant, giving ElainaThomas29 permission to see financial records
related to xeu100. [See Exhibit B]
3. ElainaThomas29 clarified to dygyee that the plan was “to go to Tello and show them a
warrant requiring them to share what bank accounts Xeu has access to, how much money is
stored in them, and the timestamps of any transactions involving those bank accounts.” [See
Exhibit C]
4. At this point, dygyee then denied the warrant, saying it was not possible to obtain the
information according to the Warrant Clarity Act. [See Exhibit C]
5. The only time warrants are automatically declined due to the nature of the subject(s) of the
warrant is if the warrant(s) are “requesting the personal messages via 3rd party apps, such as
discord” [See Warrant Clarity Act –

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/warrant-clarity-act.13038/)

6. Bank accounts are not messages in 3rd party apps, so bank accounts are not declined under
the Warrant Clarity Act.
7. Thus, dygyee used his government position (Judge) to act to give some advantage
inconsistent with official duty (denying a warrant, claiming it is not allowed under the Warrant
Clarity Act when it is), to unfairly benefit oneself (preventing Tello Bank – which dygyee is a
shareholder of – from being searched via warrant)
8. The Corruption Act defines Corruption as “To use 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.”
III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Corruption, for denying a legal warrant into a company that dygyee is a
shareholder of.
IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. The maximum punishment for Corruption, since Judges are supposed to uphold the law, not
directly violate it – a $25,000 fine and a 2-month removal from public office.
EVIDENCE:
Exhibit A (warrant request):

Exhibit B (original approval of warrant):

Exhibit C (warrant then denied):

 

[Krix]

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

@dygyee is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Dygyee [2022] FCR 22

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

I humbly request permission to submit an amicus brief.

 

[Krix]

Your honor,

I humbly request permission to submit an amicus brief.

Granted

 

[dygyee]

Granted

Will my 48 hours to respond start after the amicus brief is filed, or does it start now?

 

[dygyee]

OBJECTION:
Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree:​

This warrant was a closed court warrant and is therefor considered classified. Unless this warrant has been declassified by the courts, which there is no proof that it was, the warrant is to stay between the person who filed it and the courts. The DLA should have no access to this warrant unless it was declassified by the courts. Because it hasn't yet been declassified, it is considered to be illegally collected, and should therefore be stricken from the record.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Your Honors,

I am so sorry for the way this case has been carried out so far. This is not up to the DLA standards. As such lawanoesepr has been fired from the DLA as of the timing message sent in private message to lawanoesepr - as such the message just sent by lawanoesepr stating we dismiss this case is just a outlash by lawanoesepr and should be charged with Contempt of Court, and does not represent the wishes of the Prosecution - and he knew this at the time of sending the message, or even of the "prosection" as he spells it, the Solicitor General Dartanman will be continuing this case.

The DLA apologies to Dygyee for this mess, needless to say measures have been taken to ensure this kind of breach never happens again.

However the trial must continue as Criminal Actions have taken place, I have allocated the SG to this case as he will give it the upmost attention and I too will follow it closely also to ensure no further mistakes.

 

[Krix]

Will my 48 hours to respond start after the amicus brief is filed, or does it start now?

Your response period started from when the summons was issued

 

[Krix]

The prosection wishes this case to be dismissed

I hereby find @lawanoesepr guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for altering/giving false statements to the court and misrepresenting the Commonwealth of Redmont.

 

[Krix]

Your Honors,

I am so sorry for the way this case has been carried out so far. This is not up to the DLA standards. As such lawanoesepr has been fired from the DLA as of the timing message sent in private message to lawanoesepr - as such the message just sent by lawanoesepr stating we dismiss this case is just a outlash by lawanoesepr and should be charged with Contempt of Court, and does not represent the wishes of the Prosecution - and he knew this at the time of sending the message, or even of the "prosection" as he spells it, the Solicitor General Dartanman will be continuing this case.

View attachment 29718

The DLA apologies to Dygyee for this mess, needless to say measures have been taken to ensure this kind of breach never happens again.

However the trial must continue as Criminal Actions have taken place, I have allocated the SG to this case as he will give it the upmost attention and I too will follow it closely also to ensure no further mistakes.

Noted

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION:
Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree:​

This warrant was a closed court warrant and is therefor considered classified. Unless this warrant has been declassified by the courts, which there is no proof that it was, the warrant is to stay between the person who filed it and the courts. The DLA should have no access to this warrant unless it was declassified by the courts. Because it hasn't yet been declassified, it is considered to be illegally collected, and should therefore be stricken from the record.

ANSWER TO OBJECTION

Your honors, dygyee wishes to claim Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, but we argue that this is not applicable in this case. In order for Fruit of the Poisonous Tree to be used, the evidence must have been obtained illegally or investigative methods used to obtain the evidence must be illegal.

We have multiple responses to this:
1. The evidence was not obtained illegally, as far as the DLA is aware, nor were any illegal investigative methods used, as far as the DLA is aware.

These screenshots were provided to the DLA by a concerned citizen. A citizen giving the DLA evidence is not illegal, and thus Fruit of the Poisonous Tree does not apply.

2. While closed court is certainly a historically used and acceptable practice, it is not officially classified in the law. According to the Classification Act, “A document or channel must be explicitly assigned a classification for the classification to be enforceable. A document or forum post should have a classification assigned at the top-centre in red and capitals, where practicable.” dygyee has failed to provide evidence that this particular closed court was explicitly assigned a classification, and until such evidence is supplied, this cannot be considered Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

3. If it is somehow found that Fruit of the Poisonous Tree does apply, we ask that this case be dismissed without prejudice and then we will simply re-file the case in closed court, as according to the Court Rules and Procedures, “The Attorney General may request that classified evidence is shared in a closed court upon filing a case.”

 

[dygyee]

Your honor, due to irl circumstances of my trimester ending and getting a concussion I would like to request a 48 hour extension to post my response to the filing. To prove that I haven’t had much time, you can do /seen on the server to see that I haven’t been online for a few days.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honors, given that dygyee has a concussion, I believe it is fair to not only grant him 48 hours, but as much time as he needs since looking at a screen is something you shouldn't really be doing with a concussion.

Even the Commonwealth does not wish to put someone through unnecessary IRL risk for this game.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
AMICUS CURAE BRIEF

It is important for us to recognize that we are all fallible human beings. We are capable of mistakes and quite frankly we often make them. For us, mistakes are a part of the learning process and help us to become better people. With that said, we must focus on how we improve from those mistakes, and what we learn from them. Do we learn the consequences of our actions? Or do we repeat our folly in an endless definition of insanity?

A long time ago, there was once a constitutional amendment named the FREACC Act (Act of Congress - FREACC Act). The act was created with the intention of having an ethical, honest, and fair judiciary by keeping conflicts of interest clear to a minimum. It did this by muzzling judges, preventing their speech and limiting their business, to keep up a veneer of judicial honesty and transparency. However, it quickly became a cudgel used against judge’s who spoke up or spoke out about current policy issues or laws. It also stopped them from being able to support their friends in elections, as formerly-impeached-Judge-now Justice Nacholebraa full well knows due having been given consequences from providing $50 dollars of ad support to now Chief Justice’s Krix’s 2021 presidential campaign.

After a long campaign by many people and several impeachment attempts made against me by various Aladeen22 members of Congress, FREACC was repealed with popular support in the Supporting our Judges Amendment act (Act of Congress - Supporting our Judges Amendment).
The reason why is because the judiciary had been hit so many times by Congress, high profile lawyers had stopped wanting to go into the judiciary for fear of being muzzled or restricted. Judges and Justices were unable to effectively voice their opinion on policy that mattered to the courts. Finally it had been decided that corruption charges were adequate enough to handle judges who were “problematic”.

The very first section of FREACC stated “(1)‌ ‌A‌ ‌Judge‌ ‌should‌ ‌avoid‌ ‌impropriety‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌appearance‌ ‌of‌ ‌impropriety‌ ‌in‌ ‌activities‌ ‌revolving‌ ‌around‌ ‌politics‌ ‌and‌ ‌law”. Even though FREACC no longer exists, it is still important for judge’s to uphold this principle ethically. Since if the judiciary cannot be trusted to regulate itself, other branches will regulate it. I pray that these words are taken into account by all involved parties and that a proper resolution will come about.

Matthew100x

 

[dygyee]

I’m sorry for the delay, I am giving an update, I will be cleared to use screens for an extended period of time at the latest by Friday but it will most likely be this Wednesday.

 

[Krix]

I’m sorry for the delay, I am giving an update, I will be cleared to use screens for an extended period of time at the latest by Friday but it will most likely be this Wednesday.

Not to worry, the Court thanks you for keeping us up to date - I will hereby be granting a 48 hour extension from now in which you must answer the complaint.

If more time is needed beyond this please inform the court of so, although we are flexible and try to be as accomodating to parties as possible court business must proceed any I advise you seek out another attorney to represent you beyond this point.

 

[Krix]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
AMICUS CURAE BRIEF

It is important for us to recognize that we are all fallible human beings. We are capable of mistakes and quite frankly we often make them. For us, mistakes are a part of the learning process and help us to become better people. With that said, we must focus on how we improve from those mistakes, and what we learn from them. Do we learn the consequences of our actions? Or do we repeat our folly in an endless definition of insanity?

A long time ago, there was once a constitutional amendment named the FREACC Act (Act of Congress - FREACC Act). The act was created with the intention of having an ethical, honest, and fair judiciary by keeping conflicts of interest clear to a minimum. It did this by muzzling judges, preventing their speech and limiting their business, to keep up a veneer of judicial honesty and transparency. However, it quickly became a cudgel used against judge’s who spoke up or spoke out about current policy issues or laws. It also stopped them from being able to support their friends in elections, as formerly-impeached-Judge-now Justice Nacholebraa full well knows due having been given consequences from providing $50 dollars of ad support to now Chief Justice’s Krix’s 2021 presidential campaign.

After a long campaign by many people and several impeachment attempts made against me by various Aladeen22 members of Congress, FREACC was repealed with popular support in the Supporting our Judges Amendment act (Act of Congress - Supporting our Judges Amendment).
The reason why is because the judiciary had been hit so many times by Congress, high profile lawyers had stopped wanting to go into the judiciary for fear of being muzzled or restricted. Judges and Justices were unable to effectively voice their opinion on policy that mattered to the courts. Finally it had been decided that corruption charges were adequate enough to handle judges who were “problematic”.

The very first section of FREACC stated “(1)‌ ‌A‌ ‌Judge‌ ‌should‌ ‌avoid‌ ‌impropriety‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌appearance‌ ‌of‌ ‌impropriety‌ ‌in‌ ‌activities‌ ‌revolving‌ ‌around‌ ‌politics‌ ‌and‌ ‌law”. Even though FREACC no longer exists, it is still important for judge’s to uphold this principle ethically. Since if the judiciary cannot be trusted to regulate itself, other branches will regulate it. I pray that these words are taken into account by all involved parties and that a proper resolution will come about.

Matthew100x

The Supreme Court would like to thank former Associate Justice Matthew100x for his Amicus Curae Brief and will take it into consideration when making a rulling on this case

 

[dygyee]

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
​

1. It is true that I accepted ElainaThomas's search warrant, however this warrant was clearly labeled as a search warrant for Xeu100, not Tello. Furthermore I had no reason to recuse myself from this warrant as accepting or denying this warrant for Xeu100 did not benefit me in any way.

2. Secondly the prosecution claims that I then denied the warrant after I heard ElainaThomas's plans to show the warrant to Tello, and obtain their records with their clients. However I never denied the warrant. I simply stated that since the bank records that ElainaThomas was searching for were held in private discord messages (Not through a DC discord server), she wouldn't be able to obtain those due to the warrant clarity act.

The Prosecution seems a little bit confused about the warrant clarity act, so to clear it up, I would like to highlight the fact that it doesn't let a person use a search warrant to obtain messages on a 3rd party app. I would also like to highlight that in the act itself, it considers discord a 3rd party app, making it illegal for me to give ElainaThomas permission to search for someone's messages on a non-DC discord server.

3. To simplify what I stated in my 2nd point, the warrant was never denied, as seen by the fact that ElainaThomas posted a return warrant, and I simply didn't allow ElainaThomas to search the bank account records because they are held in discord tickets on a non-DC server which makes it illegal for me to allow ElainaThomas to search it.

4. Lastly I did not use my government position to benefit oneself. Accepting or denying this warrant wouldn't have benefited me in any way, and while denying this warrant my have helped Xeu100, I stand to gain nothing from intentionally breaking a law, which I didn't do, to help someone that I don't have a close relationship with.


On a separate note, I would like to apologize to both the prosecution and the court for this delay, and I would also like to thank both the prosecution and court for being accommodating of my physical health.

DATED: This 23rd day of November 2022.

 

[dygyee]

I would also like to respectfully remind the court of my objection for the fruit of the poisonous tree that hasn't been ruled on yet as this court has been delayed a long time due to my concussion.

 

[Nacho]

OBJECTION:
Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree:​

This warrant was a closed court warrant and is therefor considered classified. Unless this warrant has been declassified by the courts, which there is no proof that it was, the warrant is to stay between the person who filed it and the courts. The DLA should have no access to this warrant unless it was declassified by the courts. Because it hasn't yet been declassified, it is considered to be illegally collected, and should therefore be stricken from the record.

The classification act does clearly state the needed requirements for a classification status. While yes, there is a standard of requirements that discussion of a case is considered classified until the verdict, there was no case or verdict. Secondly, there is a limit to the fact that the document was made by the DOJ secretary and can be declassified and shared with whomever they wish to. Lastly, the warrant is created and maintained by both the department of justice and the department of legal affairs - thus, they store and maintain the information obtained by the warrant. The normal statute of limitations is disregarded as a warrant is simply a court-sanctioned suspension of an entity's rights. It specifies this within section 3 subsection 17 of the constitution - which says the federal court can issue warrants to both.

For the reasons outlined above, the objection is overruled.

All Supreme Court justices have approved this response. Due to the inability of the Chief Justice to be able to respond via their computer, Associate Justice Nacholebraa has delivered the response.

 

[Dartanboy]

I will no longer be taking this case as I am resigning from the DLA.



I do not know who will be picking it up.

 

[dygyee]

I would like to request that the DLA have 48 hours to determine who will be taking over this case as to not waste the courts time or my time.

 

[Gertis]

Your honor, I will be representing Redmont under the DLA on this case.

 

[Nacho]

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
​

1. It is true that I accepted ElainaThomas's search warrant, however this warrant was clearly labeled as a search warrant for Xeu100, not Tello. Furthermore I had no reason to recuse myself from this warrant as accepting or denying this warrant for Xeu100 did not benefit me in any way.

2. Secondly the prosecution claims that I then denied the warrant after I heard ElainaThomas's plans to show the warrant to Tello, and obtain their records with their clients. However I never denied the warrant. I simply stated that since the bank records that ElainaThomas was searching for were held in private discord messages (Not through a DC discord server), she wouldn't be able to obtain those due to the warrant clarity act.

The Prosecution seems a little bit confused about the warrant clarity act, so to clear it up, I would like to highlight the fact that it doesn't let a person use a search warrant to obtain messages on a 3rd party app. I would also like to highlight that in the act itself, it considers discord a 3rd party app, making it illegal for me to give ElainaThomas permission to search for someone's messages on a non-DC discord server.

3. To simplify what I stated in my 2nd point, the warrant was never denied, as seen by the fact that ElainaThomas posted a return warrant, and I simply didn't allow ElainaThomas to search the bank account records because they are held in discord tickets on a non-DC server which makes it illegal for me to allow ElainaThomas to search it.

4. Lastly I did not use my government position to benefit oneself. Accepting or denying this warrant wouldn't have benefited me in any way, and while denying this warrant my have helped Xeu100, I stand to gain nothing from intentionally breaking a law, which I didn't do, to help someone that I don't have a close relationship with.


On a separate note, I would like to apologize to both the prosecution and the court for this delay, and I would also like to thank both the prosecution and court for being accommodating of my physical health.

DATED: This 23rd day of November 2022.

The reasons mentioned within the motion do not raise enough support to dismiss the case. Nor do they prove the case has been improperly filed within the right court.

For the reasons outlined above, the motion is denied.

The court calls upon the defendant to please provide the court with their plea. We will be giving you 24 hours to provide the plea.

​

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, I will be representing Redmont under the DLA on this case.

Noted - Thank you for informing the courts.

 

[dygyee]

Your honor, may I ask for an additional 24 hours to be added on to my initial time to provide my plea as I’m currently in negotiations with the prosecution.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, may I ask for an additional 24 hours to be added on to my initial time to provide my plea as I’m currently in negotiations with the prosecution.

If the prosecution can confirm this arrangement, then we will grant the extension. However, until the prosecution can confirm, we will continue the original 24-hour timeframe.

 

[dygyee]

Due to the fact that I will be in school when the time is up, and I can't ensure that the prosecution will reply in time, I will provide my plea now, however I am still in negotiations with the prosecution.

I am currently pleading not guilty for the one count of corruption.

 

[Nacho]

Due to the fact that I will be in school when the time is up, and I can't ensure that the prosecution will reply in time, I will provide my plea now, however I am still in negotiations with the prosecution.

I am currently pleading not guilty for the one count of corruption.

The Commonwealth of Redmont has 48 hours to provide the court with its opening statement.

 

[dygyee]

Your honor, the commonwealth and I have agreed upon a plea deal.

 

[Gertis]

The state concurs.

 

[Nacho]

​

The state concurs.View attachment 30107

Corruption is one of the most severe charges a person in office can face. What corruption entails is that an individual uses the vested power of their office for personal gain or the gain of others. This entails that a person found guilty of corruption abuses the authority of their office to betray the trust of the people of Redmont. Should an individual admit to corruption and remain within their office of this prestige establishment, it would violate the very rights this establishment is to uphold. Due to the nature of the alleged crime, this Court cannot accept a plea deal that doesn't do justice to the crime alleged. Hence, the Supreme Court of Redmont rejects this plea deal.


The prosecution and defendant may devise a new plea deal within the next 24 hours, or the Supreme Court will move the trial to opening statements.

 

[dygyee]

If the supreme court will only accept a plea deal if one of the punishments is removal from office, I will not be accepting the plea deal, and I will be pleading not guilty.

 

[Nacho]

If the supreme court will only accept a plea deal if one of the punishments is removal from office, I will not be accepting the plea deal, and I will be pleading not guilty.

Very well - The court moves on to the opening statements by the Commonwealth. They have 48 hours from this point to provide their opening statement.

 

[Gertis]

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honors, opposing counsel,


The definition of corruption is to use 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.

The key thing to notice in that definition is that self-benefit is not strictly needed for corruption to be applicable. Dygyee unfairly benefitted not himself, but xeu100 by denying this warrant.

The defendant also mentions the Warrant Clarity Act, however this is simply absurd. The warrant clarity act states that private messages on third party applications cannot be searched, not financial transactions of companies or similar.

Overall, the defendant refused to grant a warrant for an invalid reason which unfairly benefitted xeu100, the founder of the bank which dygyee is a shareholder of. This is by the definition of the Judicial Standards Act corruption.

Warrant Clarity Act

Act of Congress - Warrant Clarity Act

A BILL TO Clarify Warrants The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Short Title and Enactment...

www.democracycraft.net

Judicial Standards Act

Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act

House Vote: 10-0-0 Senate Vote: 4-0-0 A BILL To Provide for Judicial Standards and to amend the Constitution. The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby...

www.democracycraft.net

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 2022

 

[Nacho]

Would the defendant please provide the court with their opening statement within the next 48 hours.

 

[dygyee]

OPENING STATEMENT:

1. This was a warrant on Xeu100, not Tello Bank, If judges were expected to recuse themselves from warrants that involved anyone they have ever done business with, or a business connection with, there would be no judges to approve of any warrant. This is because as a citizen in the Commonwealth of Redmont, I have bought and sold items (Including shares) from many people on the server, and I'm sure most of the other members of the Judiciary have also done business with many people on the server.

2. When I obtained the stock of Tello, I was given the stock from Nexilin, and HKE. As far as I was concerned at the time, Xeu100 had nothing to do with my shares of Tello.

3. Ruling on any court case or warrant does not mean that I'm using my powers to unfairly benefit someone. Rulings are made based on a judges best judgement of the law, and there will always be warrants that get accepted, and denied. There will also be cases that are won and lost. All of these decisions can be appealed if a party believes that the judge made an incorrect decision. Whether or not the justices think I made the wrong decision on the warrant is not what this case is about. This case is if I intentionally made the wrong decision to unfairly benefit Xeu100 which the Commonwealth will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. The prosecution is correct that the Warrant clarity act doesn't state that one cannot search financial records of a bank, however what the prosecution has failed to realize is that if these records are kept in a discord channel that is not an official DC discord, it is considered a 3rd party application, and this is explicitly stated in the warrant clarity act that it is illegal to search this.

5. This warrant was never denied. It was accepted, and then when the officer carrying out the warrant told me that they wanted to search messages on a discord server that is not an official DC discord server, I said that they couldn't search that because of the warrant clarity act. I never denied the warrant. The warrant was still able to be carried out as long as they weren't searching anything illegal. It is clear that this warrant was never denied as the presiding officer posted a return warrant at the end.

6. Lastly, in the Judicial standards act, and in the motions guide under the courts forums, it mentions that if a party believes that there may be a bias, a motion to recuse should be filed. If I thought there was a conflict of interest I would have recused myself, but if I didn't think there was a conflict of interest, which I didn't, it is up to the party to present a motion to recuse. I can't be blamed for corruption for having a conflict of interest if the party didn't file a motion to recuse.

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 17th day of December 2022

 

[dygyee]

4. At this point, dygyee then denied the warrant, saying it was not possible to obtain the
information according to the Warrant Clarity Act. [See Exhibit C]

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Corruption, for denying a legal warrant into a company that dygyee is a
shareholder of.

Objection: Perjury

I never denied the warrant, and there is a return warrant showing that the warrant was never denied. In their opening statement, the prosecution stated twice that I denied the warrant when it is clear that I didn't.

 

[Nacho]

Does the defense or the prosecution wish to call any witnesses to provide testimony? If so, please provide a list of witnesses and the questions you wish to ask them. Please have this compiled within the next 48 hours.

 

[dygyee]

I would like to call xeu100 and ElainaThomas29.

 

[dygyee]

I believe the prosecution has missed their deadline to call a witness.

 

[Gertis]

Your honor, we would not like to call any witnesses.

 

[Nacho]

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

Xue100 and ElainaThomas29 are required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Dygyee [2022] FCR 22

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

The Court asks that questions be supplied 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; please note it on the initial question. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, Plaintiff may begin questioning both witnesses. The defendant will then have a chance to cross-examine both witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Witnesses must tell the truth and nothing but the truth according to the law.

The individuals mentioned above have 48 hours to please notify on the thread of having familiarized themselves with the case and are present. At that time, the court will proceed with questioning.

 

[ElainaThomas29]

I’m present.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, we would not like to call any witnesses.

Noted - I would like to warn the prosecution you have raised this case to the court. It will not be tolerated if an individual is late in response. Any further disrespect for this court's time will result in a contempt charge. Please do not allow it to happen again.

 

[dygyee]

Your honor, one of the witnesses has failed to appear before the court, however it appears he wasn't pinged in discord despite being on the discord server. How would you like to handle this, and when should I post my questions?

I would also like to remind the court that I objected on the grounds of perjury, and there has not yet been a ruling on the objection.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, one of the witnesses has failed to appear before the court, however it appears he wasn't pinged in discord despite being on the discord server. How would you like to handle this, and when should I post my questions?

I would also like to remind the court that I objected on the grounds of perjury, and there has not yet been a ruling on the objection.

The Court will grant a 24 Hour extension for the witness to appear before the court. We have corrected the announcement and sent the witness a direct notification. You may send your questions once the witness responds within 24 hours.

We are still reviewing the grounds of Perjury. Due to the Holiday season, other justices have been slow in response and unable to review thoroughly.

 

[Gertis]

Your honor, I am currently traveling to visit family will be completely out of reach from the 28th to the 31st of December. Could we please get a recess until January 8th?

 

[dygyee]

I would like to propose that we keep this case moving with the witnesses, however once it’s the commonwealth’s turn to cross-examine the witnesses we can take a break until they are ready.

 

[Nacho]

Objection: Perjury

I never denied the warrant, and there is a return warrant showing that the warrant was never denied. In their opening statement, the prosecution stated twice that I denied the warrant when it is clear that I didn't.

The objection is overruled - The warrant results were inconclusive on the grounds determined by a convoluted acceptance of the warrant given by the defendant. Even though the warrant resulted in an acceptance message, it was limited to the extent of being denied.