Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16

[HugeBob]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth (hugebob23456 and Mask3D_WOLF representing)
Prosecution

v.

Milqy
Defendant

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

Corruption is when someone uses their official position and powers to unfairly benefit themselves or others in some capacity outside their regular official duty. This is a fundamental principle that we all must agree on and abide by. If someone were to use a Government role to give themselves thousands of dollars without the consent of the Executive or Congress, that is Corruption and Embezzlement. If someone were to use a Government role to block a new law or regulation that would have been bad for their private business, that is Corruption. If someone were to use a Government role to strategically declassify documents owned by a Department that they aren’t even in to allow those documents to be leaked to themselves and their political allies, that is Corruption.

There is only one person who can truly take credit for all of these acts. One person who has stood accused of Corruption many times before and continues to evade justice on technicalities and plea bargains. When will we learn? When will we finally decide that enough is enough? How many times does someone have to face overwhelming evidence against them and skate by. Let me be clear, these are not victimless crimes. Each of these crimes measurably endangered the citizens of Redmont through irreparably harming the finances of the State, endangering the welfare systems that the people rely on, and creating a two-tier system whereby there is one set of rules for this Defendant, and another for the rest of us. Through a long-term investigation including multiple confidential informants, we have collected screenshots and testimony that we feel is more than sufficient to prove wrongdoing and will lead to more lawsuits against other people to be filed in the coming days.

On August 25th, the Defendant used their position as a Reserve Board member to propose that the Government take out a loan from a private bank amounting to $300,000 and that the Government would pay back the loan plus 5% interest over a 3 month period. The problem here is that the Defendant proposed that the Government take out a loan from the bank that the Defendant privately owned. This deal, had it gone through, would have put the Government in debt to the Defendant to the tune of $315,000. Using public office to enrich yourself is Corruption. Using public office to divert funds generated through taxes is Embezzlement. Using public office to undermine the stability and financial credibility of the nation and its treasury is Treason. Defendant will likely argue that this deal never went through, however the Defendant put in motion this process and it was only due to the action of other members of the Commonwealth Reserve Board that this was stopped early. It is clear that the Defendant sought to defraud the Commonwealth and made best efforts to enrich himself, failing to do so does not constitute innocence. Whether the loan went through or not, the actions of the Defendant would have been the same. It is only the actions of other outside parties that stopped this deal, and we are not litigating the actions of those other CRB members, we are interested only in the actions of this Defendant. If we can agree that these actions would have constituted Corruption had the deal gone through, then how can it be that the same actions committed by the same person would not have been Corruption because of the deal failing?

On September 18th, the Defendant used their position as Senator to vote against a bill which would have increased their own taxes (Defendant owns Hilton, which is designated as a Charity for tax purposes). Of course there is a great deal of nuance in the passage of bills, especially when there is a potential conflict of interest involved. The Defendant could argue that his opposition to this bill is because it would raise taxes on other charities as well which would be bad for those who rely on charities. However, this is inconsistent with the Defendant’s own statements claiming “As of right now I’m probably the only charity on the server still operating.” So by the Defendant’s own statements, the bill would have only harmed his organization and no other organizations, which removes all of the nuance from this problem. Conflicts of interest like this are why the option to abstain exists. The Defendant saw a bill which would have been bad for themselves and saw an opportunity to use their position to fight against it. Furthermore, Hilton is not some morally superior charitable organization that gives free money to the impoverished of our society, Hilton operates at a 75% profit margin every month by the admission of the Defendant himself. To claim that this organization needs tax exemption and that the Defendant needed to intervene with their position as a Senator for the benefit of society is laughable.

On September 6th, the Defendant used their position as Chief of Staff to declassify channels within the DEC to allow for a fellow member of the Commonwealth Reserve Board to leak internal information related to pruning, saying “Lol CoS does have some perks.” The Commonwealth Reserve Board was discussing the recent pruning actions by the DEC Secretary and their general dissatisfaction with it, when Reserve Board member QueenBear10 chose to leak that the DEC had made additional unannounced prunes and intended to make more prunes soon. When they realized that they may have committed a crime in leaking potentially classified information that could destabilize markets, they were reluctant to continue sharing the contents of an internal DEC discussion. The Defendant stepped in to pressure QueenBear10 to further disseminate classified information and stated “any chat u[sic] think is classified, as CoS i declassify it for u[sic] to send screenshots in here Of the Dec that is”. After seeing this, QueenBear10 elected to share sensitive screenshots of conversations with the DEC Secretary, these screenshots have not been submitted as evidence for obvious reasons however we are willing to send them via direct message to the Justices if necessary. This is a very far-reaching declassification. Effectively, all DEC chats that QueenBear10 thinks are classified are no longer classified. This includes DEC-Staff channels, this includes leadership channels, this includes private channels between the Secretary and the President, this includes any ongoing investigations within the DEC, as of right now the entire official DEC Discord Server is currently declassified. The Defendant used their position as Chief of Staff to pressure and to benefit a fellow Reserve Board member by alleviating them of potential criminal prosecution.

Each of these acts are individually extremely harmful to the wellbeing of the State and its citizens, combined they are a whole new level of crime that we have never seen before. Even if any of these crimes fall short of the Court’s bar for Corruption, Embezzlement, and Treason, they are certain to meet the Court’s bar for Conspiracy. Each of these acts are felonies, and Conspiracy to commit a Felony is itself a high crime. It is imperative that we stop this Defendant before it is too late.

I. PARTIES
1. Milqy
2. QueenBear10 (not currently being prosecuted)

II. FACTS
1. Defendant used their position within the Commonwealth Reserve Bank to attempt to force the Government to take out a loan from a bank that he personally owned without the consent of the Executive or Congress.
2. Defendant used their position within the Senate to vote against bills which would have been harmful to their private business interests (the proper procedure is to abstain in instances of a conflict of interest).
3. Defendant used their position as Chief of Staff to declassify DEC documents to allow them to be shared amongst the Commonwealth Reserve Bank.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 3 counts of Corruption
2. 1 count of Embezzlement
3. 1 count of Treason
4. 5 counts of Conspiracy to commit a Felony

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Corruption: Removal from public office and disbarment from public office for a period of 6 months (2 months for each charge) and $75,000 in fines ($25,000 for each charge).
2. For Embezzlement: Suspension of the Defendant’s Entrepreneur’s license and ban from registering or owning any company or union.
3. For Treason: Removal from public office and disbarment from public office for a period of 2 months and $25,000 in fines.
4. For Conspiracy to commit a Felony: Fines of $125,000 ($25,000 for each charge) and jail time of 30 hours (6 hours for each charge)

In total we recommend the following sentencing: Removal from public office, disbarment from public office for a period of 8 months, suspension of Entrepreneur’s license, ban from registering and owning any company or union, fines of $225,000, and jail time of 30 hours.

V. EVIDENCE

Related to the CRB Loan Charges:

Related to the Charity Tax Exemption vote:

Related to the Declassification of DEC Documents:

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 19th day of September 2022

 

[Wuutie]

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

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

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.​

 

[Milqy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

Since there is a lot of information being presented by the state, I will try my best to go paragraph by paragraph disputing their claims.

For starters, in the States first claim, they are claiming that I used my position as a Reserve board member to force the government take out a loan from my bank in order to give myself thousands of dollars, which is completely false. The loan that they are referring to was backed by a majority of the Commonwealth Reserve Board, as well as the Commonwealth Commercial Board. Furthermore, the bank I co-own, Lucky-Hilton Bank, was not the first bank to propose this loan to the federal government, that was Tello bank. To also say that I used my position on the board to do this as corruption, can't be more wrong. To be on the commercial board you must have your own bank or have an economical background and be approved by the Reserve Governor. The whole purpose of the CRB is for banks to come together to fix the economy. The Commonwealth Reserve Act explains in section 7(1) and 7(1)(a), "The Commonwealth Reserve Bank Commercial Board will comprise representatives of registered financial institutions operating in the Commonwealth of Redmont." and "Unless otherwise provided by the Commonwealth Reserve Bank’s constitution, eligibility to join the Commercial Board will be registration as a financial institution through the Department of Education and Commerce." For the state to insinuate that I have committed corruption is absurd, the only people, according to the bill, able to put forth these motions are members of registered financial institutions operating in the Commonwealth of Redmont. At the time, I was the co-owner of Lucky-Hilton Bank, a registered financial institution operating in the Commonwealth of Redmont. If I am convicted of corruption for fulfilling my duties as a member of the commercial board, the entire board would be considered corrupt for voting on proposals that affect banks including their own. It is our right given to us by the act to do these acts. In section 10 of the same bill sub section 1(b) "Minting, introducing, and distributing currency." allows us to introduce currency to the economy. It is also not my duty to get approval from the executive or congress to go through with the loan, that is up to the reserve governor to contact the Executive or Congress, after the passing of any monetary policy per section 12. The loan that Lucky-Hilton proposed to the Federal Government was also not thought up by us, and we were simply taking the idea from other commercial board members. I would provide screenshots of every commercial board member in agreement of this; however, I have since left the CRB since we closed down Lucky-Hilton Bank. Furthermore, in the same paragraph, the State argues that I used public office to divert funds generated through taxes. This is a baseless and frivolous claim, and they provide no evidence to back this up.

The second claim that the State makes, is that I used my position as a Senator to purposefully block a bill that would affect me negatively. The reason I Nay'ed that bill is because charities are needed on this type of server. I would also like to point out that I am not the only charity, in their own evidence I said "probably" because I was not aware of the other charities operating, being so focused on my own. The only thing that I believe is true in the State’s 2nd paragraph is that by passing the “Repeal Charity Tax Exemption” bill would "endanger the welfare systems that the people rely on.”' Charities are an essential part of this server, and I have personally used other charities in the past to get started. The constitution states that the Senate is "Responsible for reviewing all bills passed by the House of Representatives and voting on them as well as making amendments where they see fit." I reviewed and voted on the bill as I saw fit and did not make any amendments to the bill. I was simply going through with my constitutional defined duties of voting on bills passed by the House of Representatives. If a Representative or Senator is to "Abstain" on every bill that involves their personal business, or their personal life on the server, nothing in congress would pass. This would include Hugebob's own bill titled "December 2021 Tax Cuts and Loopholes Act'' which decreased personal balance taxes. Seeing as every Representative and Senator experiences personal balance taxes, they should have all abstained according to the State’s claim. If I am convicted of corruption for this charge, it sets a dangerous precedent for all members of congress. Furthermore, in their second claim, they state that I admitted to running Hilton at a 75% profit margin, however they failed to provide the full context. I stated, “It meant that I profit 10-25% not 75-90%.” For example, I may buy something at $15, and then sell it at $20. That is what I meant, and I explained what I meant in the chat, however the State intentionally took what I said out of context, and only posted one of my statements and not both. The full context when I said “Hilton is ran at a like 75% margin” is below:

For their final point, that I used my role as Chief of Staff to "pressure" QueenBear10 in releasing classified information, is a complete lie. Per the "Classification Act", the Chief of Staff is responsible for security clearance patronage. For them to insinuate that I am breaking the law for doing my job as Chief of Staff to assess the current economic damage that could be taking place is absurd, and an outright lie. When the DEC Secretary Trentrick_Lamar releases the pruning data that he has done, and subsequently posts the data on the forums of the pruning that was done, relinquishes any sort of classification on the matter. Pruning is not classified under law, and if it were, no one would be able to go to the "Treasury" tab under the "Department of Education and Commerce" and see the prunes that occurred during the Secretary’s time in the Executive.

All of these alleged crimes that the State claims I have committed are not harmful to the wellbeing of the state, nor to its citizens. They are all meant to benefit the government as well as the citizens of Redmont, such as voting Nay on the repeal charity tax exemption act. I was simply looking out for the new players of Redmont and allowing them to settle into the city without paying exorbitant prices for apartments, or food. I will add a little personal anecdote to that statement: When I first joined, I had $1,000 to my name, naked and no idea what to do in the city. That is when I figured I had to buy an Elytra to get around the city faster and explore. That cost me $550 from a store I can't remember the name of now. That leaves me with $450, and after purchasing a stack of fireworks to move around, let's say I had $430 (20$ for a stack). What's the next purchase I made? Going to Luckys to purchase an Enchanted Diamond Pickaxe, some food, and then an apartment at Panda Apartments. Which left me at around $100 total. In a span of I would say, around 15 minutes from joining the server I had a total of $100 to my name, which wouldn't even be enough to take the Attorney Exam, which was the one thing that interested me on the server. When voting on the bill, I took a new player's experience into account. Giving new players a free apartment, food, and in some cases an elytra, would allow a player to have their full starting balance, take any exam of their choice, purchase wild land, or go to Willow and get a farm plot to sell food to other players, or companies to earn money. When a player has no money going into the server after purchasing the necessities, we lose the player retention, as they’re not able to do the things that they want to do. Now, I understand that mine is a different experience, and sadly not everyone wants to go into the legal field, however that was my thought process when I voted on the bill.

According to the Corruption Act, 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 part being what is bolded and underlined. Everything the state claims that I did, was not inconsistent with my official duty as a CRB member, Senator, or CoS, nor was it inconsistent or infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore, even if what the state has claimed I did is true, it does not meet the definition of corruption according to the Corruption Act.

The last point that I would like to make is that the states recommended sentencing is frivolous because it is requesting that I be barred from office for a total of 8 months, a total of 30 hours in jail-time, a revocation of my entrepreneur's license, and barred from owning a business. This is far more than a reasonable recommended sentencing and infringes upon my duties that I hold to the shareholders of my company. I have a duty to run my company well and make a profit every month, so their investment is not squandered. Doing this would also require the consent of my shareholders, otherwise the state would be forcing me to break the law.

Thank you, your honor.

DATED: This 23’rd day of September 2022

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, may the state have an opportunity to rebut the above motion to dismiss?

 

[JoeGamer]

In my capacity as Acting Chief Justice, I will be presiding over the remainder of this case.

The Commonwealth may provide a rebuttal to the motion within the next 48 hours (September 27 at 12:15 PM Eastern Standard Time).

Furthermore, for the remainder of this case, if a motion is presented to the court (except a motion to recuse) the non-motioning party may provide a rebuttal by default. Please provide a rebuttal within 48 hours of the motion being posted.

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor,

We will organize our rebuttal to the motion to dismiss as bullet points associated with each of the Defendant's paragraphs to ensure that this case is as straightforward and easy to follow as possible.

FIRST PARAGRAPH
1. First, we must establish that Corruption is codified 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. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves."
2. Defendant claims that their actions in the CRB do not constitute Corruption because they had the support of other members of the CRB. There is no requirement under the definition of Corruption that an act must be done unilaterally to constitute Corruption. If one Representative were to seriously propose and push for a bill that sends $300,000 to a company that they own, it does not matter whether the rest of Congress supports it. They are using their Government position to give themselves an advantage. This is not something that is available to people that are not members of Congress. The same applies to members of the CRB taking out loans from their own banks.
3. Defendant claims that their actions do not constitute Corruption because Tello bank was the first to do it. I shouldn't even have to entertain this claim but, very simply, just because someone else commits murder does not mean murder is legal. Furthermore, we are already prosecuting the representative from Tello that sought to benefit their own bank so the point is moot.
4. Defendant claims "the State argues that I used public office to divert funds generated through taxes. This is a baseless and frivolous claim, and they provide no evidence to back this up." The loan proposal did not come with a 0% interest rate. The loan had a 5-15% interest rate (the language was unclear, could be read as 5% paid monthly or 5% compounding per month). How would the Government pay back this debt plus interest? Taxes.
5. Defendant claims that “The whole purpose of the CRB is for banks to come together to fix the economy.” This is true, we do not dispute that. Where we do disagree is how a loan with an interest rate of 5-15% helps the economy. If anything, it increases the Government’s expenses because the Government has to pay back the loan on a monthly basis.
6. Defendant claims that “If I am convicted of corruption for fulfilling my duties as a member of the commercial board, the entire board would be considered corrupt for voting on proposals that affect banks including their own. It is our right given to us by the act to do these acts.” Affecting the institution of banking is one thing. Directly pocketing money from the Government into your own bank is another. The CRB was not created to generate new revenue for banks, it was created, by Defendant’s own admission, to “fix the economy”. Banks are given seats in the CRB because they are considered to be especially knowledgeable on the state of the economy and what could improve it. Abusing this power to take taxpayer money from the people and give it to yourself is Corruption.
7. Defendant brings attention to how “section 10 of the same bill sub section 1(b) ‘Minting, introducing, and distributing currency.’ allows us to introduce currency to the economy.” We do not dispute this. Forcing the Government to take money from banks and pay it back plus interest is not introducing currency into the economy. It is removing currency from the Government and placing currency in YOUR pocket. This is a gross misinterpretation of the bill.
8. “loan that Lucky-Hilton proposed to the Federal Government was also not thought up by us, and we were simply taking the idea from other commercial board members.” If someone gives you an idea to commit Corruption and you commit Corruption, you still committed Corruption. You can’t shout “he told me so” and get away with it. Furthermore, Defendant DID NOT “propose” anything to the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not sign on to these loans. When word of these loans reached the Cabinet, the President immediately intervened to reverse the loans under threat that the CRB would be dissolved.

SECOND PARAGRAPH
1. The Defendant's claim that their organization is not the only charity is true. The purpose of sharing their own statement claiming that their organization is "the only charity on the server still operating" is to show what level of regard they hold other charities while simultaneously claiming that their opposition to Charity taxes was for some purpose other than keeping their own taxes as low as possible. Defendant even goes so far as to admit in their motion to dismiss that “I said ‘probably’ because I was not aware of the other charities operating, being so focused on my own.” Defendant voted Nay on a bill that would have eliminated the Charity tax exemption without knowing of ANY charities other than his own, which he is so deeply involved with that it kept him from noticing that other charities even exist.
2. The Defendant claims that, because all members of Congress pay balance taxes, they should all abstain from all tax law proposals under the logic that I have presented. To be absolutely clear, members of Congress are not currently compelled or otherwise encouraged to abstain from personal balance tax bills because of accountability. On the issue of personal balance taxes, that is a change that affects everyone who all receive an equal vote at general elections and recalls. On the issue of Charity tax exemptions for Senators that own charities and make public statements that their charity is "the only charity on the server still operating", the Senator is held accountable to themselves which is an obvious conflict of interest. We are not litigating whether or not Congress holds the power to alter tax policy, we are litigating whether or not the Defendant used this power to unfairly benefit themselves and their own organizations.
3. The Defendant says that context was excluded on their profit margins. Looking at the timestamps makes it immediately apparent that there is a full day between the statements that the Prosecution has presented and the statements that the Defendant is now presenting. To claim that context was left out is a stretch. Even then, the Defendant has further affirmed that his charity operates at a profit. That is not the purpose of a charity. There is nothing charitable about a Walmart and their profit margins are a lot thinner than Hilton. Beyond this, Defendant claims that their former public statement was wrong and can't be used against him because he no longer stands by it, but that another statement not even 24 hours later is correct and should shield him from scrutiny over the profits of his charity.
4. Defendant brings attention to the fact that all Senators have the power and duty to vote on bills put before them and claims that they were simply following the Constitution. We do not dispute that the Constitution gives Senators the power to vote on bills. We make the argument, with a great deal of evidence, that the Defendant used their Constitutionally entrusted powers to unlawfully benefit themselves at the expense of others to a degree that constitutes criminal Corruption.

THIRD PARAGRAPH
1. Defendant claims that using the office of Chief of Staff to declassify documents is part of the job and therefore can never constitute Corruption. The definition of Corruption is to use your office to unfairly benefit yourself or others. I shouldn't have to explain why the Defendant is wrong on this point.
2. Defendant claims that the pruning data was not classified and therefore it doesn't constitute Corruption. Defendant did not declassify just the pruning data, Defendant declassified "any chat u (QueenBear10) think is classified." This is extremely broad, essentially declassifying all classified channels that QueenBear10 knows about. This is extremely dangerous and constitutes Treason on its own.
3. Defendant claims that we “insinuate that I am breaking the law for doing my job as Chief of Staff to assess the current economic damage.” This is NOT a part of the Chief of Staff’s duties. Defendant could argue that these are part of their duties within the CRB, but this is a SEPARATE role with SEPARATE powers and responsibilities.

FOURTH PARAGRAPH
1. Defendant claims that these actions are NOT harmful to the State or its citizens. Charging the Government an unreasonably high interest rate to profit your own bank (without consulting elected officials), declassifying the ENTIRE DEC Discord server, and allowing for-profit “charities” to remain tax exempt DIRECTLY harm the State. It harms the State’s finances, it harms the trust that the public hold in the State, and it harms any and all ongoing investigations that the DEC could currently be pursuing.
2. Defendant claims that spending money gives them the right to use their Government positions to reduce their own tax liability and give themselves ownership over Government debt. No.

FIFTH PARAGRAPH
1. Defendant claims that their actions were not inconsistent with their official duty. Members of the CRB do not have the official duty to give themselves Government money. Senators do not have the official duty to create tax havens for themselves. Chiefs of Staff do not have the official duty to declassify the entire DEC server on a whim through a Discord message without consulting the President or DEC Secretary or informing them after the fact.
2. Defendant brings a great deal of attention to the “inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others” portion of the definition of Corruption. However, I would like to remind the Defendant that there are other words in that definition too. “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.” These actions were entirely dependent on the Defendant’s Government positions. These actions were inconsistent with their official duty. These actions unfairly benefitted the Defendant and others. These actions fulfill every word in the definition of Corruption.

SIXTH PARAGRAPH
1. Whether or not this recommended sentencing is “reasonable" is not up to the Defendant. Because this is not the Defendant’s first brush with these laws, we are seeking the maximum punishment that has been determined by the elected Congress and the President to be reasonable. It is ultimately for the Courts to decide the final punishment.
2. Defendant claims that the recommended sentencing is unfair because they "have a duty to run my company." CEOs are NOT above the law. You lost the duty to run your company when you broke the law. The profits of your shareholders are not more important than the wellbeing of the citizens of Redmont. This is by far the most absurd claim I have ever seen in a Courtroom.

Thank you.

DATED: 25th day of September 2022

 

[HugeBob]

In my capacity as Acting Chief Justice, I will be presiding over the remainder of this case.

The Commonwealth may provide a rebuttal to the motion within the next 48 hours (September 27 at 12:15 PM Eastern Standard Time).

Furthermore, for the remainder of this case, if a motion is presented to the court (except a motion to recuse) the non-motioning party may provide a rebuttal by default. Please provide a rebuttal within 48 hours of the motion being posted.

Your honor, more than 48 hours have elapsed.

 

[JoeGamer]

The motion to dismiss is rejected as it does not state anything frivolous and acts more as a defense.

The Commonwealth has 48 hours to provide an opening statement (September 29 at 3:45).

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Milqy
Defendant

CRB Loan Charges:

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. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.
✓ To use a government position; the Defendant used their position within the CRB, a Government entity
✓ to act to give some advantage; gave his own bank a very favorably loan contract without consent from the Government
✓ inconsistent with official duty; the CRB does NOT have the power to take out loans on behalf of the Government
✓ and the rights of others; the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Government is held by the President and, for specific cases relevant to their department, the relevant Secretary. Not the CRB.
✓ to unfairly benefit oneself; this is not something that is available to regular citizens fulfilling unfair, and charged a high interest rate fulfilling benefit oneself

The definition of Treason is: Any 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.
✓ Any party in federal office; CRB positions are placed at the Federal level
✓ who is caught attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security; by forcibly putting the Government into debt to these private banks, the Defendant risked selling out the Government to for-profit entities and burden the average tax payer with paying off the interest. Undermining stability by increasing the Government's expenses, undermining sovereignty by giving corporations ownership over the Government, and undermining national security by risking a Government debt default as it was no secret that the Government was already running at deficit prior to these new interest payments.

The definition of Embezzlement is: The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.
✓ The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets; the Defendant sought to withhold Government debt for the purpose of generating profit through interest
✓ by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain; the CRB, and by extension the Defendant, were entrusted with improving the state of the economy through monetary policy and instead sought to create new revenue streams for their own private businesses

Charity Tax Charges:
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. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.
✓ To use a government position; the Defendant used their position as a Senator
✓ to act to give some advantage; preserved tax exemption status from his own entity/wealth
✓ inconsistent with official duty; members of Congress are to abstain from bills where there is a clear conflict of interest
✓ and the rights of others; by voting against this bill, the Defendant sought to decrease the tax revenue the Government could generate from his own assets, which would have required either increasing taxes on other people or decreased spending on social safety nets that people rely on.
✓ to unfairly benefit oneself; the average citizen does not have the power to eliminate their own taxes, this is certainly an unfair benefit.

Declassification Charges:
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. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.
✓ To use a government position; the Defendant used their position as Chief of Staff
✓ to act to give some advantage; declassified the entire DEC Discord server
✓ inconsistent with official duty; the Chief of Staff does not generally declassify entire Discord servers, certainly not on a whim and without notifying the relevant Secretary or the President.
✓ and the rights of others; any and all ongoing investigations within the DEC are now declassified, potentially risking the safety of whistleblowers whose identity is protected by law.
✓ to unfairly benefit oneself; this act was done to enable a member of the CRB and DEC to leak DEC messages by freeing them of any potential legal repercussions. The Defendant essentially pardoned another individual to obtain private information from the DEC.

Thank you.

DATED: 25th day of September 2022

 

[JoeGamer]

The defendant may now provide their opening statement within the next 48 hours (October 4th at 4:55 PM EST).

 

[Milqy]

Your honors,

I'm requesting that a 24–48-hour extension is allowed for the Plaintiff, I have some IRL matters to attend to. Mainly college homework, and a test on Tuesday to prepare for. Thank you.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, a simple ctrl+F in the DC Discord server searching "from:Milqy" reveals that the Defendant has sent a total of 88 messages since they were called to present a closing statement and are currently engaged in discussion in #politics as I write this. They have also spent 129 of the last 720 hours (a whole 17.9%) online on the server.

 

[Milqy]

Your honor, you said we could object without your permission before. But here's my schedule, as you can see I have more than I originally put. Here is my class schedule for the week to prove it.

 

[Milqy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

V.

Milqy
Defendant

Your honors,

The State continues to claim that it falls on the duty of the CRB members to ask for permission from congress, or the executive to execute any proposal we put forth. Which is simply untrue, it was my duty, and the rest of the Commonwealth Reserve Board, to assist the federal government, so it did not have 0$ in their government balance. At the time, the government balance was at a critical point, if I remember correctly not even having enough capital to give the departments their budget. The whole of the CRB agreed that a loan to the government would help in these times of crisis, as it's not uncommon for the CRB to loan the government capital to continue functioning. To get back on topic though, the role of the Reserve Governor is to explain to the president what has passed the CRB board, and then for the president to sign off on the said proposal, or to deny it. It works almost like congress, which is why we do not see representatives being sued for not getting the approval of the executive before posting and/or passing a bill. He is right that we do not have the power to take out loans on behalf of the Government, which is why when it passed the board vote, I was waiting on information from the Reserve Governor, on the status of the proposal and whether or not the President had wished for this loan as well. We found out pretty quickly he did not agree, as a separate board member automatically sent the loan when it passed voting. While, at the time, it was not technically illegal, it could have been seen sent in an unfaithful manner. Which is why LH-Bank was choosing to postpone it, until the President had a say on whether or not he agreed. As, the CRB has loaned the federal government capital before, and the President, from what I have been told, was not in agreement with it. A good piece of timeline to understand is that the board voted on this on 8/25/2022 as per the state’s evidence, and the “Respect the President Act” passed into law on 9/2/2022. Prior to this amendment, I was aware that the president had a veto on monetary policy, which includes 12(1)(a) “(a) Minting, introducing, and distributing currency amounts exceeding $750,000 in any given month.” Which I would classify this loan, or bond, as distributing currency. Again, for their reasoning for my alleged treason or embezzlement, it follows along the same lines. An average CRB member does not speak to Congress or Executive, it is the duty of the Reserve Governor to convey our proposals to the appropriate people and ascertain whether or not something passes. We put forth motions that we believe will help the government, and the Reserve Governor will pass those along, presumably to the President, and then the President will decide to Veto or to pass said proposal. There are checks and balances in place for this exact reason.

For the Charity Tax Charges, I believe it to be completely absurd that they are dictating how I shall vote on a bill or not. There is absolutely no law outlining that I must “Abstain” from bills that I have a conflict of interest in, and if there were, most bills would have one to two votes on them. First off, the Repeal Charity Tax Exemption passed, second off the State's fourth point is a worst-case scenario that they have brought forth to be considered fact. For months millions of dollars have been sitting in banks, and even now in Credit Unions, and not a single percentage has gone up in taxes, or a single penny less in social safety nets. In fact, personal taxes have decreased. If anything, by getting rid of Charities the state has decreased the social safety nets that my consumers used. The state's final point that “the average citizen does not have the power to eliminate their own taxes”, is false. The average citizen could have opened a Charity and benefited the people around them. The average citizen can open a Credit Union and eliminate taxes for themselves and their consumers. For the state to claim that I am corrupt for voting on a bill, is absurd and laughable.

For the Declassification charges, it was within my legal right to do so as Chief of Staff. In the law, I have the power to declassify, and to assign classification charges. I would also like to point out that I did not “declassify the entire DEC Discord Server”, and that is completely false. This whole lawsuit, the state is suing me on rights given to me by the law, the law that the state should know. One final thing that I would like to point out, is that this final point was mainly sent in the discord as a joke, in the State's own evidence I say “lol, the cos does have some perks” or something along those lines. In the State’s own evidence, I declassified the channels only for QueenBear10, I said “@QueenBear10 any chat u think is classified, as CoS i declassify it for u”, which should also be seen as a joke, because QueenBear10 can already see these channels, so they are obviously declassified for her to see. So, if anything, any screenshots that QueenBear10 may or may not have sent from any DEC Discord Channel, would be protected by the whistleblower amendment act, as she was exposing potentially a waste of taxpayer funds.

Thank you.


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 4’th day of October 2022

 

[JoeGamer]

Thank you both for your timely response. The court now ask each party to provide witnesses or expert testimony within the next 24 hours.

 

[Milqy]

Your honor,

Before I submit my witness list, am I able to submit a few pieces of evidence? I apologize for how late I am requesting to submit this, but it severely helps my case in multiple points. And I was also looking for this evidence.

 

[Milqy]

I retract my above statement your honor, here is my witness list:
LilDigiVert, for his previous time as Chief of Staff under President 218218consumer.
huney69, for his time as Senator and longest serving President of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
Intercepticon, for being the current sitting Commercial Reserve Board Governor.
Deadwax, for his current time as a sitting CRB Reserve Board Member, and an expert witness in the CRB.
xEndeavour, for his previous time as President, and one of the authors of the Commonwealth Reserve Board Act.

 

[JoeGamer]

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

LilDigiVert, huney69, Intercepticon, Deadwax, and xEndeavour is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy. as witnesses. All witnesses have 48 hours to mark there that they are present.

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

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

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

 

[Deadwax]

I am present your honor

 

[LilDigiVert]

Present.

 

[huney69]

Present.

 

[Milqy]

Your honors,
I will be letting my legal counsel, Drew_Hall, take over the case from here on out. I have agreed to let him represent me.

 

[Intercepticon]

I'm present.

 

[End]

Present

 

[JoeGamer]

The defendant may begin direct examination. Please provide questions within the next 24 hours (October 11th 12:06 AM Eastern Standard Time).

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, 24 hours has elapsed.

 

[JoeGamer]

Seeing has time limit has expired, I will be dismissing all the witnesses and the court will move on to closing arguments. The Commonwealth has 48 hours to provide its closing statement (October 13 at 8:11 PM EST).

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v

Milqy
Defendant

Your honor, the State will split our Closing Statement into two distinct parts. The first will serve to rebut claims made by the Defendant in their Opening Statement, and the second will serve to wrap up and summarize our claims against the Defendant and why they amount to criminal action.

REBUTTAL

1. "The State continues to claim that it falls on the duty of the CRB members to ask for permission from congress, or the executive to execute any proposal we put forth. Which is simply untrue, it was my duty, and the rest of the Commonwealth Reserve Board, to assist the federal government, so it did not have 0$ in their government balance. At the time, the government balance was at a critical point, if I remember correctly not even having enough capital to give the departments their budget."

This is entirely irrelevant. The Defendant in this case used their power as a member of the CRB to enrich themselves. The Defendant did not seek to "assist the federal government" by adding thousands of dollars in monthly interest payments to the Government's expenses.

2. "The whole of the CRB agreed that a loan to the government would help in these times of crisis, as it's not uncommon for the CRB to loan the government capital to continue functioning."

The CRB has historically loaned the Government funds in a time of need. But this was the first time that a loan was issued from a private bank that the proposer directly owned themselves with a positive interest rate. Loans in the past were given to the Government with a NEGATIVE interest rate to create new funds for the Government to use. This is an inflationary action but it does actually alleviate the immediate financial burden of the Government by requiring that the Government pay back less than the amount it was initially loaned. FCR68 has established that this is Corruption. We maintain that this is also Embezzlement because it steals money from the Government. We maintain that this is also Treason because, like the Defendant pointed out, the Government balance was at a critical point and the Defendant sought to exploit this for profit by increasing the Government's expenditures even further.

3. "To get back on topic though, the role of the Reserve Governor is to explain to the president what has passed the CRB board, and then for the president to sign off on the said proposal, or to deny it. It works almost like congress, which is why we do not see representatives being sued for not getting the approval of the executive before posting and/or passing a bill. He is right that we do not have the power to take out loans on behalf of the Government, which is why when it passed the board vote, I was waiting on information from the Reserve Governor, on the status of the proposal and whether or not the President had wished for this loan as well."

Corruption is the act of using one's office to unfairly benefit oneself. The average citizen does not have the ability to propose loans from their private business to the Government and have it voted on. The Defendant claims that a Representative would not be sued for the same thing, but I assure you the DLA would readily prosecute any Representative that proposed a bill that simply gave $15,000 to their own company. This is obviously a Corrupt act regardless of how the other Representatives and Senators vote. No where has the Defendant shown how charging the Government an interest rate of 15% serves to "assist the federal government".

4. "For the Charity Tax Charges, I believe it to be completely absurd that they are dictating how I shall vote on a bill or not."

The Defendant is free to believe whatever they like, the law does not care what they choose to believe in their own head.

5. "There is absolutely no law outlining that I must “Abstain” from bills that I have a conflict of interest in, and if there were, most bills would have one to two votes on them."

There literally is a law that states this. Corruption is defined 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. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves." and, in case we somehow forgot, the position of Senator is a Government position.

6. "First off, the Repeal Charity Tax Exemption passed"

Just because the Defendant was incapable of successfully usurping the democratic process for their own benefit does not mean that they did not commit an act of Corruption. The loan issued under FCR68 was returned without interest payments however it was still ruled to be an act of Corruption.

7. "second off the State's fourth point is a worst-case scenario that they have brought forth to be considered fact. For months millions of dollars have been sitting in banks, and even now in Credit Unions, and not a single percentage has gone up in taxes, or a single penny less in social safety nets. In fact, personal taxes have decreased."

Ensuring that your for-profit "charity" remains tax exempt definitionally decreases the Government's tax revenue. Furthermore, the Defendant has just perjured themselves. The Defendant was in the Senate when they passed to INCREASE PERSONAL TAXES. A move that could have been avoided by closing tax loopholes on their own private business. Act of Congress - Taxation Act

8. "If anything, by getting rid of Charities the state has decreased the social safety nets that my consumers used."

This is completely absurd. The very existence of charity is a failure of the state to adequately provide for its citizens. The Government's ability to collect taxes from "charities" ensures that the Government does not need to continue to endlessly take out loans from private banks and continuously increase the amount of interest they are paying month over month forever. I wonder who would attempt something like that? Hm.

9. "The state's final point that “the average citizen does not have the power to eliminate their own taxes”, is false. The average citizen could have opened a Charity and benefited the people around them."

I am literally at a loss for words. The Defendant is advocating that everyday citizens commit tax fraud to eliminate their own taxes. Storing personal funds in a "charity" account is Tax Evasion. Furthermore, the angle the State was taking by claiming that no ordinary citizen could take these actions is in relation to their acts to oppose a bill that specifically eliminates a carve out for groups that he has admitted to believe consists only of himself.

10. "For the state to claim that I am corrupt for voting on a bill, is absurd and laughable."

The State does not find Corruption to be a laughable offense and we hope that the Defendant feels the same way after this case has concluded.

11. "For the Declassification charges, it was within my legal right to do so as Chief of Staff. In the law, I have the power to declassify, and to assign classification charges."

The State agrees that the Chief of Staff has the power to modify the classification status of Government documents. The State claims that the Defendant abused this power. The application even explicitly states "The Chief of Staff acts purely at the direction of the President". Is that what the Defendant did when they declassified the entire DEC Discord server without the authorization of the President? The Classification Act states "By default, security clearances are applied as follows below. However, the Chief of Staff may manage clearances at the direction of the President." The President DID NOT give direction to issue this declassification. The Defendant clearly broke the law.

12. "I would also like to point out that I did not “declassify the entire DEC Discord Server”, and that is completely false."

Your honor, I would like to direct your attention again to the following screenshot which was submitted during our initial complaint:

13. "This whole lawsuit, the state is suing me on rights given to me by the law, the law that the state should know."

The State agrees that we know the law. The State knows that Corruption is when an individual uses their Government office to benefit themselves. This case has been the most egregious disregard for Corruption law that has ever been deliberated in Court.

14. "One final thing that I would like to point out, is that this final point was mainly sent in the discord as a joke, in the State's own evidence I say “lol, the cos does have some perks” or something along those lines."

Bragging about abusing your power is not "a joke". You cannot actually issue a declassification then claim that the act of doing so "was a joke". Directly after this screenshot (as we noted earlier) QueenBear10 shared screenshots of privileged text channels, demonstrating that they clearly did not take the declassification in jest.

15. "In the State’s own evidence, I declassified the channels only for QueenBear10, I said “@QueenBear10 any chat u think is classified, as CoS i declassify it for u”, which should also be seen as a joke, because QueenBear10 can already see these channels, so they are obviously declassified for her to see."

QueenBear10 does not have access to every channel in the DEC. Furthermore, having permission to ACCESS classified channels does not give you permission to SHARE the contents of classified channels. The Defendant claims that their declassification action was simultaneously "a joke" and "within my legal right". As if.

16. "So, if anything, any screenshots that QueenBear10 may or may not have sent from any DEC Discord Channel, would be protected by the whistleblower amendment act, as she was exposing potentially a waste of taxpayer funds."

Leaking that the Government would be raise funds dramatically is "exposing potentially a waste of taxpayer funds"? I would love to see how the Defendant can explain how a program that generated funds and spent $0 was a waste of money.

SUMMATION

CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 3 counts of Corruption
2. 1 count of Embezzlement
3. 1 count of Treason
4. 5 counts of Conspiracy to commit a Felony
5. 1 count of Perjury (added in relation to claims the Defendant made in their opening statement)

SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Corruption: Removal from public office and disbarment from public office for a period of 6 months (2 months for each charge) and $75,000 in fines ($25,000 for each charge).
2. For Embezzlement: Suspension of the Defendant’s Entrepreneur’s license and ban from registering or owning any company or union.
3. For Treason: Removal from public office and disbarment from public office for a period of 2 months and $25,000 in fines.
4. For Conspiracy to commit a Felony: Fines of $125,000 ($25,000 for each charge) and jail time of 30 hours (6 hours for each charge)
5. For Perjury: Fines of $50,000 and jail time of 2 hours.

In total we recommend the following sentencing: Removal from public office, disbarment from public office for a period of 8 months, suspension of Entrepreneur’s license, ban from registering and owning any company or union, fines of $275,000, and jail time of 32 hours.

EXPLANATION OF CHARGES

Corruption is defined 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. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves."

Embezzlement is defined as: "The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain."

Treason is defined as: "Any 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."

Conspiracy to Commit a Felony is defined as: "If An Individual/entity(business/organisation) intends to commit a crime they can be charged with “Conspiracy”."

Perjury is defined as: "Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government shall be considered Perjury."

1. The Defendant has used their Government position as a CRB member to enrich themselves through loans with positive interest rates knowing full well that past loans were issued from the CRB as a whole with a negative interest rate. This is one charge of Corruption, one charge of Treason, one charge of Embezzlement, and three charges of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony for the three.

2. The Defendant has used their Government position as a Senator to enrich themselves by attempting to block legislation that would have closed a tax exemption from their own organization while stating that their charity was the only active charity they knew of. This is one charge of Corruption and one charge of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony.

3. The Defendant has used their Government position as Chief of Staff to gain access to privileged information within the DEC and spread classified information to people that lack the clearance to view such information. This is one charge of Corruption and one charge of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony.
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.

4. As outlined in point 7 of our rebuttal portion, the Defendant claimed that personal taxes were decreased despite being a Senator when a bill was passed to increase personal taxes. The idea that personal taxes would have to be increased to offset their own tax exemption status is not theory. This is one charge of Perjury.

DATED: This 13th day of October 2022

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, 72 hours have elapsed.

 

[JoeGamer]

Apologies, I was on fall break and forgot to ask for a closing statement from the defendant. The defendant has 48 hours to provide their closing statement (October 18 at 11:08 PM EST).

 

[Milqy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Milqy
Defendant

Your Honors, first I would like to thank you for hearing out my stance and judging this fairly throughout the course of the case. Secondly, I can’t seem to reach my attorney so I will be posting this on my own, and thirdly I would like to apologize for wasting the witnesses and the courts time previously, now onto my closing statement.

Claims:

The CRB Loan that did not go through is legal as shown by the law. Which I have shown repeatedly, and the state’s only claim is that they don’t like it. I will keep most of these short, as we have been repeating the same arguments back and forth this whole court case. As such, in Section 9 subsection 1, subsection (b) of the Commonwealth Reserve Act, it states that the governor will be responsible for communication between the Commonwealth Reserve Bank and Government. The State, by saying that I did not get approval from Congress or the Executive, is asking me why I did not break the law, so take that as you will.

The state has failed to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for all of these charges. Not once have they proven it was illegal for a bank representative within the Commonwealth Reserve Bank to propose a loan to the government, a loan that did not go through unlike FCR 68. Not once have they proven it was illegal for me to vote Nay on a bill. Not once have they proven it was illegal for me to declassify something for a DEC member.

The two differences between this Case, SCR 16, and the case that the State mentions, FCR 68, is that in my case the loan never went through. Lucky-Hilton Bank never sent any money to the government, and never expected the proposal to go through without the President’s say-so in the matter. For their seventh point, I would like to apologize but I simply forgot about passing that bill.

For the state’s ninth point, I am not, and have never, advocated for everyday citizens to commit tax fraud. And again, a “Charity”, at the time I owned one, did not mean “non-profit”. There were two separate meanings for them, as I have stated before. A “Charity” can be a non-profit, but a “Charity” is not a “non-profit”, it is a Charity. I have even argued this in #bill-debate, #politics, and more channels. They are, and continue to still be different.

I would like to thank the State for bringing the evidence back in their closing statement, as it shows clearly, I said “as CoS i declassify it for u [queenbear10]”. So, I would like to request that the State is hit with a perjury charge for stating “the entire official DEC Discord Server is currently declassified.” in their opening statement.

I would also like to point out that I am still saying the declassification was a joke. And me saying “lol” should have been a given that it was a joke. I’m also still claiming that pruning was a waste of taxpayer funds. It’s a non-refundable way of generating funds for the government, unlike bonds, loans, etc. One day the “well” of prunes will be empty, and the government will look towards banks, and private citizens for loans and bonds. And if I am found guilty for this, it will be yet another way the government can’t garner funds.

Thank you, so in conclusion my stance on the charges is:

1. Not Guilty to 3 counts of Corruption
2. Not Guilty to 1 count of Embezzlement
3. Not Guilty to 1 count of Treason
4. Not Guilty to 5 counts of Conspiracy to commit a Felony
5. Guilty to 1 count of Perjury.

Sorry about this, but I almost missed their final 4 points.
1. I did not enrich myself, as the loan never went through, and I never got a “loan” payment or anything. So, please I would like to request yet another perjury charge to the State for this statement: “the entire official DEC Discord Server is currently declassified.”
2. Yet again, I did not enrich myself by attempting to block legislation. I have also stated in public channels that I knew of other charities, in fact two others in #bill-debate. So I would like to request one more count of perjury to the State.
3. I did not gain access to any privileged information within the DEC, and I did not spread any information to people, and the state has failed to provide evidence of that, so I would like to request yet another perjury charge to the state for that statement.
4. I would also like to point out that personal taxes were decreased, and then increased during the final 2 days of me being a Senator.

In total, yet again, the State has failed to provide evidence for most of their claims, and have gone on with absolutely no backing, no witnesses, no evidence. I am an advocate for innocence until proven guilty, and it is my position that the state has failed to prove that I am guilty of a single crime.

Thank you, your honors.

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 17’th day of October 2022

 

[HugeBob]

OBJECTION
PERJURY

"I would like to thank the State for bringing the evidence back in their closing statement, as it shows clearly, I said “as CoS i declassify it for u [queenbear10]”. So, I would like to request that the State is hit with a perjury charge for stating “the entire official DEC Discord Server is currently declassified.” in their opening statement."

The State acknowledges the Defendant's thanks and would like to respond with a "No problem!"

Unfortunately, the State would also like to refer the Defendant to the opening statement, where the context very clearly shows that the entire DEC Discord was declassified for QueenBear10. Nonetheless, the argument the State is making is about the broader abuse of power by the former Chief of Staff, who was willing and DID declassify an entire discord for personal gain and NOT at the direction of the President.

May I please direct your attention, again, to this screenshot where the defendant says "@QueenBear10 any chat u think is classified, as CoS i declassify it for u to send screenshots in here Of the Dec that is" ANY CHAT YOU THINK IS CLASSIFIED

 

[HugeBob]

OBJECTION
PERJURY

"I would also like to point out that I am still saying the declassification was a joke. And me saying “lol” should have been a given that it was a joke."

Earlier in their closing Statement, the Defendant concedes that they declassified the discord for Queenbear10.
"Not once have they proven it was illegal for me to declassify something for a DEC member."

In this part of their closing statement they're saying the declassification is a joke. Throughout the case, the Defendant has maintained that their actions were legal but at the same time they never did said action. What kind of legal strategy is this? "lol" Both of these cannot be true at the same time.

 

[HugeBob]

OBJECTION
Rebuttal to Perjury

"So, please I would like to request yet another perjury charge to the State for this statement:"

The State is not arguing whether or not the loan went through. The argument is that the Defendant used their position in the CRB to attempt to enrich themselves. To borrow from the State's rebuttal to the motion to dismiss, which the Defendant is conveniently ignoring,

"There is no requirement under the definition of Corruption that an act must be done unilaterally to constitute Corruption. If one Representative were to seriously propose and push for a bill that sends $300,000 to a company that they own, it does not matter whether the rest of Congress supports it. They are using their Government position to give themselves an advantage. This is not something that is available to people that are not members of Congress. The same applies to members of the CRB taking out loans from their own banks."

They use the ruling of FCR 68 to further defend themselves, but to apply some of Justice Krix's wording from that ruling to this case:

It is the State's opinion that the defendant did in fact "use a government position to act to give some advantage" and "unfairly benefit oneself" by putting forward a motion for the Government to take a loan from their own bank within the CRB.
The Loan to the Government with a 5% interest rate would have "unfairly benefit oneself" Milqy in this instance as he would have gained $15,000 from the transaction.
This opportunity was not available to other citizens of Redmont and was only available to Milqy due to his CRB membership, therefore Milqy "used a government position to act to give some advantage" by using it to serve himself over others and the Nation as a whole.

This is a near-identical case presented before the Supreme Court, and the Defendant should know by now that it has the State's argument has always been about the practice of proposing the exploitative loan.

 

[HugeBob]

OBJECTION
PERJURY

"I have also stated in public channels that I knew of other charities, in fact two others in #bill-debate. So I would like to request one more count of perjury to the State."

The Defendant never made this argument during this case nor presented evidence from #bill-debate to back up this claim. It is not the State's job to do that for them. The second screenshot in the evidence "Related to the Charity Tax Exemption vote:" is also from #politics, a public channel.

In response to the #politics evidence, the Defendant answered this in their motion to dismiss with "I would also like to point out that I am not the only charity, in their own evidence I said "probably" because I was not aware of the other charities operating, being so focused on my own."


Three overarching responses/implications:
First, the defendant concedes in their motion to dismiss that they were primarily focused on their own charity, so the fact that other charities exist doesn't really matter insofar as their OWN charity is what influenced their vote in the Senate.

Second, the State did not perjure itself. In point 9 of my closing statement, I write that "the angle the State was taking by claiming that no ordinary citizen could take these actions is in relation to their acts to oppose a bill that specifically eliminates a carve out for groups that he has admitted to believe consists only of himself." The evidence above reflects this.

Third, this is perjury on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant spent the entire case up until now arguing that they believed that they were "not aware of the other charities operating," being so focused on their own. Now, in a last-ditch attempt to save face, they're arguing that they had other charities in mind all along. These statements cannot both be true.

 

[HugeBob]

OBJECTION
REBUTTAL TO PERJURY

"I did not gain access to any privileged information within the DEC, and I did not spread any information to people, and the state has failed to provide evidence of that, so I would like to request yet another perjury charge to the state for that statement."

See Opening Statement: After seeing this, QueenBear10 elected to share sensitive screenshots of conversations with the DEC Secretary, these screenshots have not been submitted as evidence for obvious reasons however we are willing to send them via direct message to the Justices if necessary.

 

[HugeBob]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We are requesting that the Courts immediately place a freeze on the assets of Hilton as we believe there is an active attempt being made to move the assets to dodge fines.

 

[Milqy]

Your honors,

LavenderxBlaxii is my wife in-game, and have signed the latest update on the amended law. What is mine, is hers.

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/lavenderxblaxii-and-milqy-marriage-registration.12111/

 

[Krix]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
The Supreme Court hereby approves the Plaintiff's request for an emergency injunction to freeze all Hilton assets, additionally, all assets owned by Milky and LavenderxBlaxii are hereby frozen due to their marriage.
This freeze will remain in place until the conclusion of court proceedings, no assets including liquid capital may be transferred or moved due to this freeze until the conclusion of court proceedings.

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We are requesting that the Courts immediately place a freeze on the assets of Hilton as we believe there is an active attempt being made to move the assets to dodge fines.

View attachment 29084

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, 48 hours have elapsed.

 

[Krix]

Your honor, 48 hours have elapsed.

The Court is now in recess, The Supreme Court is meeting to discuss the facts of the case and will be responding with its verdict shortly, The Plaintiffs motions will be considered and reviewed in recess and the rulings will be included in the final verdict.
The Court Thanks both parties for their time and commitment to the case thus far,

 

[JoeGamer]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT/FEDERAL/SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. One count of corruption by the defendants proposed loan of $300,000 within the Commonwealth Reserve Bank.
2. One count of corruption for Milqy voting down a proposed bill in the Senate that would increase taxes for charities while owning a charity.
3. One count of corruption for using Chief of Staff to declassify chats within the Department of Education and Commerce.
4. One count of embezzlement for withholding assets for the purpose of generating profit for his business.
5. One count of treason for attempting to sellout the government to for-profit entities.
6. Five counts of Conspiracy to commit a Felony.
7. One count of perjury

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant pled NOT GUILTY to three counts of corruption, one count of embezzlement, and one count of treason
2. The Defendant pled GUILTY to one count of perjury

III. OPINION OF THE COURT

Justice JoeGamer delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Krix and Justice Nacholebraa joined.

When the Supreme Court takes up a case regarding corruption, the corruption test is used when deciding whether corruption has taken place or not. The corruption test is simple and derived from the definition of corruption as written in the Corruption Act; “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. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected to a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.” The two-part test is simple: 1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? 2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office? As the Court analysis’s each charge of corruption, the same test will be used to determine whether the defendant violated the Corruption Act. After which, the Court will examine the other charges.

When examining Milqy’s actions within the Commonwealth Reserve Bank, it is clear that his actions violate the corruption act. His motion, a $300,000 loan with 5% interest, would give LHBank, a bank which he owned, a notable advantage within the banking sector and the private sector. Second, this motion is inconsistent with the official duty of office. The Commonwealth Reserve Act provides no power to the Commonwealth Reserve Bank to accept loans from private banks. This action is not a power which the Commonwealth has the wield in the first place making Milqy’s actions inconsistent with the official duty of office. This action passes both parts of the corruption test and thus Milqy is guilty of one count of corruption.

Next, the Court will examine the Milqy’s actions as a Senator. Under Section I of the Redmont Constitution the Senate “Responsible for reviewing all bills passed by the House of Representatives and voting on them as well as making amendments where they see fit,” and the duty of Congress is “The Congress is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending country laws and specified rules.” In Congress, bills may be originated that effect different congresspersons in different ways. From tax code changes to new criminal statutes, Congressional legislation will eventually strike every Congressperson. However, the purpose of Congress is to represent the people and act in the wellbeing of the electorate and therefore people elected Milqy has a senator. A charity tax exception would absolutely benefit Milqy, but this action is consistent with official duty of a senator. While the Commonwealth may disagree with Hilton’s status as a charity, Milqy’s is a Senator and therefore able to vote on bills passed by the House. This is not an inconsistent action given that other members of Congress have voted on bills that positively affect them. So, while the actions of Milqy may have benefited him, his actions were consistent with his official duty and thus, Milqy is not guilty on one count of corruption.

On the last count of corruption, the Court will examine the actions of Milqy has Chief of Staff. With the declassification of certain chats within the Department of Education and Commerce, Milqy may not have personally benefited, however, it benefited QueenBear10 by allowing QueenBear10 to not face consequences of leaking classified chats and benefited the Commonwealth Reserve Bank who was upset with the Secretary’s recent actions regarding pruning. However, the actions committed by the Chief of Staff are inconsistent with the official duty of office. The Chief of Staff does not have the ability to declassify chats at will. As written in the Classification Act “the Chief of Staff may manage clearances at the direction of the President.” Milqy has used an ability which he does not have the ability to use, and therefore inconsistent with the official duty of office. Thus, Milqy is guilty of one count of corruption.

When it comes to embezzlement, assets entrusted to one person or group of persons must be withheld for personal gain. No assets were owed to the government by Milqy, so embezzlement is not applicable in this case. Milqy is found not guilty of embezzlement. Regarding corruption, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that Milqy was intentionally attempting to sabotage the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont. Therefore, Milqy is not guilty of treason.

IV. SENTENCE

1. On the first count of corruption, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant GUILTY.
2. On the second count of corruption, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant NOT GUILTY.
3. On the third count of corruption, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant GUILTY.
4. On the first count of embezzlement, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant NOT GUILTY.
5. On the five counts of conspiracy to commit a felony, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant NOT GUILTY.
6. On the first count of perjury, the Supreme Court of Redmont finds the defendant GUILTY


The Supreme Court sentences the defendant as follows:
1. $25,000 for each count of corruption for a total of $50,000 in fines
2. $50,000 for one count of perjury
3. Removal from public office for two (2) months for each count of corruption for a total removal of four (4).
4. For one count of perjury, the defendant will serve two (2) hours in jail.


The emergency injunction will be lifted after all fines have been executed; all assets owned by the defendant and LavenderxBlaxii are unfrozen after all fines have been issued. All further perjury objections are overruled. The Court thanks all parties for their time.

It is so ordered​

 

[Milqy]

hello, fines have been paid.