Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Overlordofpeonys [2024] SCR 20

[Mask3D_WOLF]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Criminal Action


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution


v.


OverlordofPeonys
Defendant

COMPLAINT

On March 6th, 2024, OverlordofPeonys cast an "aye" vote on Motion S.28.23. This motion was to conclude the impeachment trial of President Goldblooded. Despite the procedural mandates outlined in the Peach Act, which stipulates the necessity of a structured trial process, President Goldblooded was not afforded the opportunity for a fair trial as per the foundational principles given to him in the Redmont Constitution. The failure to conduct a trial constitutes a violation of the Peach Act, an act designed to uphold the integrity of impeachment proceedings and ensure due process for all individuals subject to such inquiries. Moreover, the right to a trial is enshrined as a fundamental entitlement bestowed upon every citizen under the Redmont Constitution. This treasonous action by OverlordofPeonys greatly undermined the stability of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

I. PARTIES

1. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution
2. Mask3D_WOLF (Prosecuting Authority)
3. OverlordofPeonys (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On March 6, 2024, Motion S.28.23 was brought to the Senate floor
2. The Motion concluded President Goldblooded’s impeachment trial, despite no impeachment trial being held for him
3. OverlordofPeonys voted "aye" for this illegal motion, violating Goldblooded's rights outlined in the Peach Act

III. CHARGES The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1 Count of Treason for not upholding the laws while in a government office leading to the destabilization of the government and the body of laws that support it.

IV. SENTENCING The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant: In accordance with the ‘Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act' the exclusion of OverlordofPeonys from a political office for a consecutive 2 months. A $25,000 fine be paid by OverlordofPeonys

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 8th day of March 2024

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Overlordofpeonys [2024] SCR 20. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd 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.​

 

[Overlordofpeonys]

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

Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Court Rule #5.5 - Lack of Claim
1. In criminal cases, the burden falls on the prosecution to provide adequate evidence and argumentation. In this case, there is no accurately stated claim for the charge of treason. No explanation has been offered as to why voting for a potentially unconstitutional motion has any relation to a deliberate attempt to undermine the country.
2. When alleging treason, the prosecution has failed to state the means in their claim. While the prosecution asserts that treason involves the destabilization of the government, they have not provided any rationale for why the Defendant would have intentions to undermine or destabilize the nation.
3. If Congress passes a potentially unconstitutional motion or act, it's the government that bears responsibility, not the individual legislators who vote in favor. There are numerous cases throughout the court's history where an individual has filed a lawsuit against the government over the passage of a law or motion that is potentially unconstitutional. As a Senator, the Defendant was acting within an official capacity and voting on motions as expected by the law. The only party liable in the alleged violation of President GoldBlooded's rights is the government. Therefore, there is no substantive basis for a claim against the Defendant.
4. The Defendant did not initiate or endorse the motion in question, merely participating in the voting process. There exists no grounds for the prosecution to pursue this case solely based on the act of voting on a motion. To entertain such a case would set a precedent where any legislator could be prosecuted for voting on a motion that may be unknowingly unlawful. The prosecution has not sufficiently substantiated their claims.
5. The situation of the Defendant may be different from other Defendants, and yet the prosecution has lazily copy-pasted the same case against multiple Senator's.

There is a clear lack of claim that the Commonwealth has in this case, and I urge the court to dismiss it with prejudice. The Defendant also asks that the court consider a frivolous case fine to be levied against the Commonwealth for taking a copy-pasted case of no real value against 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 9 day of March 2024

 

[Nacho]

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

Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Court Rule #5.5 - Lack of Claim
1. In criminal cases, the burden falls on the prosecution to provide adequate evidence and argumentation. In this case, there is no accurately stated claim for the charge of treason. No explanation has been offered as to why voting for a potentially unconstitutional motion has any relation to a deliberate attempt to undermine the country.
2. When alleging treason, the prosecution has failed to state the means in their claim. While the prosecution asserts that treason involves the destabilization of the government, they have not provided any rationale for why the Defendant would have intentions to undermine or destabilize the nation.
3. If Congress passes a potentially unconstitutional motion or act, it's the government that bears responsibility, not the individual legislators who vote in favor. There are numerous cases throughout the court's history where an individual has filed a lawsuit against the government over the passage of a law or motion that is potentially unconstitutional. As a Senator, the Defendant was acting within an official capacity and voting on motions as expected by the law. The only party liable in the alleged violation of President GoldBlooded's rights is the government. Therefore, there is no substantive basis for a claim against the Defendant.
4. The Defendant did not initiate or endorse the motion in question, merely participating in the voting process. There exists no grounds for the prosecution to pursue this case solely based on the act of voting on a motion. To entertain such a case would set a precedent where any legislator could be prosecuted for voting on a motion that may be unknowingly unlawful. The prosecution has not sufficiently substantiated their claims.
5. The situation of the Defendant may be different from other Defendants, and yet the prosecution has lazily copy-pasted the same case against multiple Senator's.

There is a clear lack of claim that the Commonwealth has in this case, and I urge the court to dismiss it with prejudice. The Defendant also asks that the court consider a frivolous case fine to be levied against the Commonwealth for taking a copy-pasted case of no real value against 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 9 day of March 2024

Evidence for the cases is only required to be filed during the discovery period. Dismissing a case of this magnitude this early on would be premature, so the Supreme Court will deny the motion to dismiss.

You have failed to provide your please within the 72-hour window provided and had additional time given some health restrictions by members of the court. Please have your plea presented to the court within the next 24 hours.

 

[Overlordofpeonys]

Your honor, may I be granted a 24 hour extension? I am currently in talks for a Plea deal

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, may I be granted a 24 hour extension? I am currently in talks for a Plea deal

A plea deal can be submitted at any time. The court would like to keep this case's schedule free from the promises of resolution outside of court.

The request for an extension is denied. The court has given the defendant ample time, with 96 hours in total, to submit their plea to the charge presented by the prosecution.

Please have a plea presented to the court within the next 12 hours.

 

[Overlordofpeonys]

Your Honor, I plead not guilty to all charges

 

[Nacho]

The court thanks you for providing the plea.

We will now transition into a 7-day discovery period. Should either party wish to end discovery early, please note that both must consent.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your Honors, @Snowy_Heart will be taking this case for now.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honors,
The plaintiff and defendant have come to a plea deal arrangement for your deliberation.
The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Conspiracy of treason and agrees to pay $2000 in fines for their transgressions. Thank you, for your consideration.

 

[Nacho]

Before the court can make a suitable verdict on the plea deal. Members of the Supreme Court would like to have a side bar to further discuss the deal being made with the defendant.

Both parties are ordered to join the judiciary discord to join this side bar.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honors,
The plaintiff and defendant have come to a plea deal arrangement for your deliberation.
The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Conspiracy of treason and agrees to pay $2000 in fines for their transgressions. Thank you, for your consideration.

After an extensive review of the deal presented to the court, the Supreme Court has accepted it which Chief Justice Nacholebraa and Justice Neemfy have entered in agreeance.

Justice RelaxedGV submitted a dissenting opinion to the court accepting the plea deal.

Spoiler: RelaxedGV Opinion

This Plea Deal is looking at multiple arguments, those being:

- Did the Defendant vote on an illegal Motion?
- Did the Defendant know the Motion was Illegal?
- Was the Defendant colluding to destabilize the Government?

Each of these are what the Prosecution is alleging, I will be going over each of these in detail as to how this influenced my decision and ultimately my dissent on the Plea Deal.

Did the Defendant vote on an Illegal Motion?
Yes, this does not need much explanation as the evidence provided shows the Motion Thread and the Defendant's vote on the Motion. This clearly answers the first argument by the Prosecution.

Did the Defendant know the Motion was Illegal?
This is the first argument that we have to explore in depth. We need to first look at whether the Motion was Illegal or not, to put this bluntly, the act of Motioning to end the trial early was not only a violation of the Peach Act but also a violation of the Right to a Fair, Speedy, and even just having a Trial. Thus the Motion itself violated the Peach Act and the Constitution.

Now for the important part of this argument, did the Defendant know regarding the Illegal Nature of the Motion? This was not only not proven but cannot be proven without the Defendant testifying or stating within messages regarding them knowing the Motion is Illegal. Neither of which, were proven.

Was the Defendant colluding to destabilize the Government?
This Plea Deal is looking at one key part of this case. Did the Defendant collude or attempt to collude to destabilize the Government? To be blunt, no. I have seen no evidence of this. Now, while a testimony could be provided to state otherwise, given we are ruling on a plea deal we cannot look at witness testimony. Because of the lack of witness testimony and no proof being provided within this lawsuit or within the sidebar regarding colluding to destabilize the Government, I cannot in good faith agree that this Plea Deal should go through.

In summary, none of the arguments we originally looked at have been proven within the lawsuit or were proven and the Defendant should not be charged for that. For these reasons are why I dissent the granting of this Plea Deal.