Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 10

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Milqy
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
A Candidate in the House of Representatives special elections was messaged regarding dropping out of the elections so a candidate the Defendant was wanting to get in would get in. If the Candidate dropped out then they would get a reward. Under the act of Bribery it states ”Bribery shall be defined as the act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity.” and under the Electoral Fraud law it states “Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.” With the definition of these laws we the state believe the Defendant is guilty on the charges of Bribery and Electoral Fraud.

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

II. FACTS
1. Milqy contacted lawanoeseper regarding the election
2. Milqy asked for the Candidate to drop out
3. Milqy said the Candidate would get a reward for dropping out

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Bribery
2. Electoral Fraud

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. Bribery 10k fine and barring from office for 1 week
2. Electoral Fraud 15k fine and barring from office for 1 week


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 6th day of July 2022

 

[lawanoesepr]

Your honor,
I would like to submit a amicus curiae brief

 

[JoeGamer]

Mr. lawanoesepr, in what capacity should the court grant your amicus curiae brief?

 

[lawanoesepr]

As a lawyer, and a party of this case I can give valuable input and less known facts into this case

 

[JoeGamer]

The Supreme Court has decided to reject Mr. Lawanoesepr's request to file an amicus curiae brief. Given that Lawanoesepr is a directly involved in this criminal case, allowing Lawanoespr to provide an amicus curiae brief would be improper.

 

[JoeGamer]

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

The defendant, Milqy, is required to appear before the court in the case of the The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 10. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Milqy]

MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, this case should be dismissed for the following:

1. On the basis that it is violating my constitutional right "XVI. No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law." I have already been tried in this court for this same evidence being used against me. The case can be found at Lawanoeseper v. Milqy [SCR 9]

2. Lawanoeseper was not holding a public office or serving in a legal capacity at the time. For that reason, bribery should not be on the table, as no bribe was actually conducted and no money, status, items, or property were ever sent to the player on my behalf. White-collar crackdown Act
"(1) Bribery shall be defined as the act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity."

3. I would dispute the idea that any electoral fraud occurred, as lawanoeseper never withdrew from the election, he stayed until the end and lost the election in a fair and legal manner. The fact that this case is even brought to the court with a prayer asking for my suspension is a complete and utter joke to not only me, but the judicial institution.

4. The person in the evidence who I'm allegedly speaking to, came forward first with a cash incentive to drop out, see the image linked below for this. This is important to note as I'm not the original offeror and was simply investigating what it would take for him to follow through with this. At the time I was a State Prosecutor, and I am currently still the RBA Chairperson. Finding someone that was involved in the DoJ, a runner-up representative and an RBA certified person committing electoral fraud was at the top of my mind.

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 7th day of July 2022

 

[JoeGamer]

The commonwealth may provide a rebuttal within 48 hours.

 

[RelaxedGV]

This is the Commonwealth's rebuttal
Double Jeopardy
1. The lawsuit was dismissed by lawanoeseper which means the case never went through the motions. The case was also filed by a private citizen and not the Commonwealth which means this is the first time the Defendant is being trialed for these crimes. By granting this motion to dismiss it would be granting a precedent that can easily be abused in the future. You have a private citizen sue you first then the Commonwealth cannot sue. The DLA has no records of approving an investigation and the Defendant actively tried to persuade lawanoeseper into dropping out.

Definition of Bribery
2. Despite a payment not going through it would have been due to the fact that lawanoeseper did not accept the bribe. Within the definition of bribery it states "(1) Bribery shall be defined as the act of **offering**, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity." As Milqy was offering lawanoeseper a reward for dropping out this fits within the scope/perimeter of the bribery law. The law of bribery states that influencing is a violation of the law. Milqy influenced lawanoeseper to drop out of the election as the definition of influence is as follows "the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, or the effect itself." Milqy is influencing the election by offering a reward for lawanoeseper to drop out of the election which would influence the election and would be meddling within the election. A player running for office would be serving in a legal capacity. When running for a position you are made a candidate which would mean that you are serving in a legal capacity if you decide to run for public office.

Electoral Fraud
3. The Definition of Electoral Fraud is as follows "Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats." Milqy was talking to lawanoeseper who was a candidate within the election to drop out. That is meddling within an election as you are directly trying to determine the outcome by having a candidate drop out. We have already explain definition of bribery in point 2.

Investigating
4. The DLA currently has no records of approving an investigation. The Defendant tried to persuade lawanoeseper into dropping out of the election so their party candidate would get in.

 

[JoeGamer]

The Supreme Court has vote unanimously to reject the motion to dismiss.

The defendant's second, third, and fourth points did not point out anything frivolous in the Commonwealth's initial filing. The points refute facts of the case, not the legal standing of the Commonwealth's filing.

The defendant's first point claims that because of the case lawanoesepr v. Milqy [2022] SCR 9, this case has been tried and therefore cannot be tried again because Section XVI of the Charter of Right and Freedoms. The Supreme Court rejects this notion. The Supreme Court holds that Section XVI of the Charter of Right and Freedoms only applies to criminal cases. Case [2022] SCR 9 was filed as a civil case. In civil cases, defendants are not tried for "a single criminal act" but damages caused by the defendant. Therefore, the Supreme Court hold that because Milqy (defendant) has not been tried for this crime, the double jeopardy clause does not apply in this case.

Milqy, please provide the court with your plea within 24 hours.​

 

[Milqy]

Your honor,
I am pleading Not Guilty to Electoral Fraud.
I am pleading Not Guilty to Bribery as well.

 

[JoeGamer]

Seeing that the defendant has pled not guilty to both charges, the court will move to opening statements. The Commonwealth has 48 hours to provide the court with their opening statement.

 

[Milqy]

MOTION TO RECUSE

I am motioning that Acting Chief Justice JoeGamer recuse himself on the grounds that he has an interest in the subject matter. I am currently a sitting senator on the jury of his impeachment. This is a clear conflict of interest, as he could find me guilty to get me off of the bench and get a senator off of the vote. For clarity's sake I am acting on point one of the motions to recuse "Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it".

 

[JoeGamer]

I will be recusing myself from presiding over the remainder of the case. Associate Justice Drew_Hall will preside over the remainder of the case.

 

[drew_hall]

A reminder that the Commonwealth has approximately 23 hours left to file an opening statement. Only mentioning to avoid any confusion around the recusal. The original 48 hour time limit provided by the Acting Chief Justice, who has since recused himself, still stands.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Opening Statement

Milqy is a Senator and apart of the Council of a Political Party. Given that he helps lead a political party it would make sense for Milqy to try to remove the competition so their party can do the best and get a majority in Congress. Since the only other opponent for lawanoeseper was Hong_Kong_101 (who we will refer to as HKE). HKE was in the political party that Milqy was in then Milqy would try to get lawanoesepr to drop out so HKE would get a guaranteed in.

Milqy argued that lawanoesepr did not accept the bribe and that they should not be given these charges yet in the laws of bribery it does state that offering or influencing in the election is seen as breaking the law of bribery. Milqy offered a reward most notably being money. By Milqy asking lawanoesepr regarding what they want in return it shows that Milqy was directly meddling in the elections by talking to the only other candidate in this run-off election in order to further their parties agenda.

Given these facts the Commonwealth believes that Milqy should be found guilty of all charges since they are in violation of the definition of these laws. Influencing is against the bribery law, offering is against the bribery law, breaking the bribery law is against the electoral fraud law. If we do not charge for these laws then in the future people can break them and not get sued/arrested for these very same crimes.

The Prosecution rests.

 

[drew_hall]

The Defendant now has 48 hours to file.

 

[Milqy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Milqy
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,
Some facts that I believe prevalent to this case is the fact that I did not, and not willingly, start these conversations. As proven in my motion to dismiss evidence, lawanoeseper is the person that should be on trial and not myself. The state has failed to show that I have even made an attempt to start these "negotiations" and they claim that by my alleged attempts to "bribe" the person in their evidence, I have done this.

A few reasons why this shouldn't even be in the question:
1. Lawanoeseper instigated the attempted "bribery", as seen in the evidence provided by the defendant in the Motion to Dismiss.
2. Nothing of a monetary value was ever exchanged. This including but not limited to: Status, Money, Plots, or a business.
3. As listed above, without bribery according to the state, I never committed Electoral Fraud.
4. I never actually offered money, as allegedly in the picture provided by the state the player in the DM's said "can", not "I will", or "I'll send you money now", none of that was ever officially offered.
5. The player never withdrew from the special election and stayed through to the end.

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 10th day of July 2022

 

[drew_hall]

Both parties have 24 hours to provide a witness list.

 

[Milqy]

Your honor,
The defense has no witnesses to call. Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Commonwealth would not like to call any witnesses.

 

[drew_hall]

Thank you both. The Commonwealth has 48 hours to present it’s closing statement

 

[RelaxedGV]

Closing Statement

With Milqy being within the Council of the Political Party known as the Mad Hatter Party, usually they want to increase in members and further the party's agenda. Lawanoesepr was not running under a political party and was the only other opponent for HKE. There are 2 opportunities with this. Number one being that you can get a new member into your party. Number two being that you can get them to drop out. Milqy first started with bribing lawanoesepr and asking for an offer. Lawanoesepr then asked for policies regarding the political party that HKE was running under. After looking, lawanoesepr asked for an offer regarding the bribe. Milqy then stated that they can give money. Under the Bribery law it states that by offering a reward it violates this law.

Milqy meddled in the election. Milqy did this by asking the only other candidate to drop out of the election. Doing so is direct meddling within the election. In the law of Electoral Fraud it states that meddling within the election is a violation of this law. Breaking the law of bribery is also a violation of Electoral Fraud.

All of these facts put together show that Milqy should be convicted of Electoral Fraud and Bribery. If this court case finds in favor of the Defendant then it brings a new precedent opening the way for Electoral Fraud and Bribery to take place. This would be a dangerous Precedent to set. You can insinuate a reward for dropping out of voting for someone and not go through and be set free. This is why the Commonwealth believes Milqy should be found quilty of these crimes.

Thank you, the prosecution now rests.

 

[drew_hall]

The Defendant has 48 hours to present their closing statement

 

[Milqy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Milqy
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Throughout this entire court case the state has failed to show that I initiated these "bribery attempts", or even meddled in the election. The run-off election continued as planned by the Department of State. I understand I keep mentioning back to the evidence in my motion to dismiss, but it is very important for the courts to understand that I was not the person who instigated these "bribery" claims. Nor was I the one who entertained them.

The state laid out "2 opportunities with this", while it is true that I am within the Council of the Mad Hatter Political Party, it is known that we do not increase in members very often. We have only just recently added new members to the party, but for a long time it was a select group of individuals within this core party. Extending a hand to lawanoeseper was nothing more than the party's council agreeing that he may be a good fit.

The second opportunity being the "bribe" the state mentions. Which is not true that I initiated any sort of bribe, as laid out in my first paragraph, as lawanoeseper should be the one writing this closing statement and not myself. However, that is not up to me and up to the State to decide. My final point that I'd like to mention is that it is in my opinion that I have not done anything illegal, and that I believe this case is being brought against the wrong person. That is all your honor, I hope that you see the facts in this case and rule in favor of the Defendant.

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 14th day of July 2022

 

[drew_hall]

The Supreme Court will now enter into recess while a decision is discussed and decided upon.

 

[drew_hall]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

VERDICT

Case [2022] SCR 10

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

- Milqy contacted a Congressional candidate asking for them to drop out of the race
- During this, Milqy offered a reward in exchange for dropping out
- Offering a reward to drop out is bribery, which in turn would be meddling in the election therefore Milqy has committed bribery and electoral fraud

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

- lawanoesepr was not acting in a legal capacity nor holding a public office at the time of these events
- lawanoesepr never withdrew from the election, but lost instead, eliminating electoral fraud
- The original offer to withdraw from the race was an offer made to him by lawanoesepr

III. COURT'S OPINION

- While the simple act of offering is enough to satisfy bribery to an extent, other stipulations, like holding a public office or acting within a legal capacity, must be fulfilled also. The Supreme Court does not believe either of these were present during the time of these events.
- Legal Capacity has currently has no set definition, but is rather left open to vague interpretations. The Supreme Court defines 'Legal Capacity' as follows - "Any individual, who, acting upon their legal authority, may engage in a particular situation which may undertake or maintain a certain legal status within the framework of the legal system. The legal system is defined as the system in which obligations backed by law are carried out."
- Given the definition laid out within the courts, lawanoesepr does not satisfy acting within a legal capacity, nor did he hold a public office at the time of the conversation between himself and Milqy. Without fulfilling either acting within a legal capacity nor the holding of a public office, the charge of bribery has not been fulfilled. As a result, the charge of electoral fraud has not been fulfilled either.

Remarks of Justice Drew_Hall

In this case, the Defendant, Milqy, is being charged with bribery and electoral fraud. As noted in the White-Collar Crack Down Act, Electoral Fraud will be defined as it is within the Electoral Act, which defines it as “Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.” In this case it has been established that Electoral Fraud cannot be pursued unless Bribery is present as well, meaning electoral fraud could only be charged as a result of supposed Bribery.

Under the White-Collar Crack Down Act, Bribery is defined as “(1) Bribery shall be defined as the act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity.” It is known that lawanoesepr, the individual who allegedly was bribed by Milqy, did not hold any public office at the time of the events this case surrounds itself with. Having not fulfilled that, we must look into whether or not lawanoesepr was acting within a legal capacity during the time these events took place. Given that there is currently no definition of legal capacity, even in the bill which mentions it, the court has had to do extended research into just what qualifies an individual or entity acting within a legal capacity, and if so, in what way.

Lawanoesepr running for a public office is inherently not acting within a legal capacity, as a legal capacity would require a legal aspect surrounding it. Since anyone may run for public office if playtimes are met, the court does not find that lawanoesepr was acting in a legal capacity at the time of these events taking place. To act in a legal capacity would require a legal aspect of a legal nature to be present, like contractual negotiations or other similarly legal-related situations, which, as established above, running for a public office is not. Running for a public office, should you meet the requirements of playtime, is a right afforded to everyone, not including those who have been barred from holding office in a court of law, and not focused on any legal capacity. This is the foundation of a democracy.

Under the definition set forth by the courts, lawanoesepr does not satisfy what it requires to be acting within a legal capacity. Under this definition, which is defined in the court’s opinion section of the verdict, this individual was not acting within the legal system, and certainly not in a legal capacity.

Having come to the conclusion that Milqy did not, under current law, bribe lawanoesepr, this by default eliminates the charge of Electoral Fraud simultaneously since that charge is dependent on the bribery charge. As mentioned previously, the Supreme Court has defined a short definition of legal capacity to further clarify what exactly constitutes an individual acting within it.

Remarks of Speaker of the House of Representatives Mhadsher101

Milqy is being charged with bribery and electoral fraud. Electoral fraud can only be charged in this case when bribery is proven, so bribery must first and foremost be proven. The main question discussed in the Supreme Court is whether Milqy's actions fit the definition of bribery. Bribery shall be defined as the act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity.

Lawan, by all reasonable assessments, was not holding public office, and was a candidate. But was he serving in a legal capacity? This is ultimately what the Court had to decide. If he was serving in a legal capacity, then the offer to drop out of the election in exchange for money and a future Senate seat is, inherently, a bribe.

Congress however has failed to define legal capacity. It is my opinion that legal capacity is a broad definition referring to a player in the capacity to make an agreement. Having a strict definition opens up the possibility of legal bribery. If, say, a player gave a bribe outside of a strict legal capacity, the bribe would be allowed.

With an open definition of legal capacity, Milqy would be found guilty of his charges, granted with a small charge due to simply an offer being made, not an actual transaction. However, due to disagreement on the Court with this definition, I have agreed to find Milqy not guilty in exchange for the Court providing a clear and concise definition of legal capacity. This would make the definition of bribery clear, and would help prevent future questions about the enforcement of this law.

IV. VERDICT

The Supreme Court rules in favor of the Defendant

The court wishes to thank all parties involved for their time. With that, this case is now adjourned.