Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23

[Alexander P. Love]

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

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Bardiya_King
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Pursuant to rule 5.12, the prosecution no longer has standing to pursue this case. Specifically, the plaintiff cannot pursue the second prayer for relief on two accounts. The seat is vacant and already going to be filled via legal Congressional process. Second, the prosecution never had standing to ask for that as it is not in the Commonwealth's interest to advocate to whom should get the seat; that is a civil matter for the alleged injured party, the RNP, to solve. The Commonwealth does not have standing to determine how a seat should be filled to suit a certain party. Further, since the defendant has left Congress, the injunction should be tossed as it is moot.

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 3rd day of January 2024

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

**VIOLATION OF EMERGENCY INJUNCTION**

Your honors,

The defendant is in violation of court orders once again. An emergency injunction was granted by the court explicitly prohibiting the defendant from undertaking any actions, responsibilities, or powers designated to a representative role. This measure was implemented with the specific intent of reducing harm to our democratic and electoral processes.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word resign as: the act of giving up your job or position. The defendant cannot give up a position that is in contention, and that the courts have specifically frozen. Justice Matthew stated that the courts were “extending the freeze on the Representative’s power to day-to-day operations, such as bill voting, motion voting, and otherwise, to prevent harm while judicial review occurs.” If the courts allow this resignation, then the freeze has failed, and harm will be done prior to the judicial review.

The resignation that has taken place is in violation of court orders because by resigning now the defendant is forcing a different process to replace his seat. If this case reaches its natural conclusion, then the courts would make a ruling on which process, method, or means should be taken. The defendant has tried to take the power to judicially review the seat in contention out of the courts hands. This is an attempt by the defendant to subvert the court’s authority.

The defendant is pursuing this course of action to ensure that the unlawful impeachment process can unlawfully continue - an impeachment that only exists because of the defendant's initial deception. Regardless of the defendant's motives, the outcome is obvious: the defendant is violating court orders in order to stop the courts from doing their job.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

**VIOLATION OF EMERGENCY INJUNCTION**

Your honors,

The defendant is in violation of court orders once again. An emergency injunction was granted by the court explicitly prohibiting the defendant from undertaking any actions, responsibilities, or powers designated to a representative role. This measure was implemented with the specific intent of reducing harm to our democratic and electoral processes.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word resign as: the act of giving up your job or position. The defendant cannot give up a position that is in contention, and that the courts have specifically frozen. Justice Matthew stated that the courts were “extending the freeze on the Representative’s power to day-to-day operations, such as bill voting, motion voting, and otherwise, to prevent harm while judicial review occurs.” If the courts allow this resignation, then the freeze has failed, and harm will be done prior to the judicial review.

The resignation that has taken place is in violation of court orders because by resigning now the defendant is forcing a different process to replace his seat. If this case reaches its natural conclusion, then the courts would make a ruling on which process, method, or means should be taken. The defendant has tried to take the power to judicially review the seat in contention out of the courts hands. This is an attempt by the defendant to subvert the court’s authority.

The defendant is pursuing this course of action to ensure that the unlawful impeachment process can unlawfully continue - an impeachment that only exists because of the defendant's initial deception. Regardless of the defendant's motives, the outcome is obvious: the defendant is violating court orders in order to stop the courts from doing their job.

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. This comment is not warranted nor permissible by Court policies and procedure. Furthermore, resigning from a job is simply the act of relinquishing a position. One cannot force a person to stay in a job as that is involuntary servitude.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. This comment is not warranted nor permissible by Court policies and procedure. Furthermore, resigning from a job is simply the act of relinquishing a position. One cannot force a person to stay in a job as that is involuntary servitude.

Response to objection:

Your honors,

I was merely making an observation to the court of a breach of their emergency injunction, which as a member of the DLA I feel that I have a moral and ethical responsibility to do so.

Furthermore, this court specifically ordered the defendant “from undertaking any actions, responsibilities, or powers designated to a representative role”.

So I would ask, how can a representative resign from a position, at a time that they are ordered by this court to not partake in any actions designated to a representative? Last time I checked, one must be a representative in order to resign from the role of a representative therefore by the letter of the law which this court has prescribed, the law has been broken. I was merely performing by civic duty by making the court away of this injustice so that the offence could be death with in manner that the court sees fit.

Thank you,

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Response to objection:

Your honors,

I was merely making an observation to the court of a breach of their emergency injunction, which as a member of the DLA I feel that I have a moral and ethical responsibility to do so.

Furthermore, this court specifically ordered the defendant “from undertaking any actions, responsibilities, or powers designated to a representative role”.

So I would ask, how can a representative resign from a position, at a time that they are ordered by this court to not partake in any actions designated to a representative? Last time I checked, one must be a representative in order to resign from the role of a representative therefore by the letter of the law which this court has prescribed, the law has been broken. I was merely performing by civic duty by making the court away of this injustice so that the offence could be death with in manner that the court sees fit.

Thank you,

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution has exceeded their 24 hour reply time, and thus I motion to strike this remark from the record.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Objection, Your Honor
Breach of procedure. The prosecution has exceeded their 24 hour reply time, and thus I motion to strike this remark from the record.

Response to Objection:

Your honor,

Due to IRL obligations and time zone differences, I did slightly go beyond the 24 hour window. I ask that this response still be recorded and considered due to the gravity of the case at hand. It would be a travesty to deny the Commonwealth a response that has in no way delayed this case due to a technicality. I apologize that I was unavailable to request an extension, but seeing how the defendants counsel has made use of several extensions throughout this case, it would be only fitting that I be granted a bit of leniency in this matter.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Dartanboy]

**VIOLATION OF EMERGENCY INJUNCTION**

Your honors,

The defendant is in violation of court orders once again. An emergency injunction was granted by the court explicitly prohibiting the defendant from undertaking any actions, responsibilities, or powers designated to a representative role. This measure was implemented with the specific intent of reducing harm to our democratic and electoral processes.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word resign as: the act of giving up your job or position. The defendant cannot give up a position that is in contention, and that the courts have specifically frozen. Justice Matthew stated that the courts were “extending the freeze on the Representative’s power to day-to-day operations, such as bill voting, motion voting, and otherwise, to prevent harm while judicial review occurs.” If the courts allow this resignation, then the freeze has failed, and harm will be done prior to the judicial review.

The resignation that has taken place is in violation of court orders because by resigning now the defendant is forcing a different process to replace his seat. If this case reaches its natural conclusion, then the courts would make a ruling on which process, method, or means should be taken. The defendant has tried to take the power to judicially review the seat in contention out of the courts hands. This is an attempt by the defendant to subvert the court’s authority.

The defendant is pursuing this course of action to ensure that the unlawful impeachment process can unlawfully continue - an impeachment that only exists because of the defendant's initial deception. Regardless of the defendant's motives, the outcome is obvious: the defendant is violating court orders in order to stop the courts from doing their job.

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

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Bardiya_King
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Pursuant to rule 5.12, the prosecution no longer has standing to pursue this case. Specifically, the plaintiff cannot pursue the second prayer for relief on two accounts. The seat is vacant and already going to be filled via legal Congressional process. Second, the prosecution never had standing to ask for that as it is not in the Commonwealth's interest to advocate to whom should get the seat; that is a civil matter for the alleged injured party, the RNP, to solve. The Commonwealth does not have standing to determine how a seat should be filled to suit a certain party. Further, since the defendant has left Congress, the injunction should be tossed as it is moot.

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 3rd day of January 2024

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided that Bardiya_King did not violate the injunction by resigning from the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has unanimously decided to sustain the Motion to Dismiss Sentencing 2. The case is still going, but the second sentencing is dismissed (with prejudice - meaning the Commonwealth cannot file a new case with the same sentencing [but another party could sue civilly]). All three Justices have written their own opinion below.

Note that because the report of the alleged violation of the Injunction and the Motion to Dismiss being closely related, they melded a bit together in the opinions.

Chief Justice Drew_Hall's Opinion (somewhat informal due to IRL circumstances):

Alex's motion to dismiss is honestly pretty valid to me. But this is something I would like to hear from both of you on a bit more, but I think he has very good standing with this. To me there really is not much of a violation, but I sort of see their argument? But a resignation of any seat is not a reserved power, we cannot force people to work, especially with no powers. That is almost forcing a figurehead to remain in place just so we can punish them or something, very odd to me. How can the courts force a representative, an individual, to continue holding a position which we have stripped them of their powers from for the time being? I would resign as well, we all would. The State is out of line, the case should be dismissed in my opinion frankly. I agree with Alex's motion.

Associate Justice Matthew100x's Opinion:

I agree with the defendant that the prosecution lacks standing on the second prayer for relief. I agree with the arguments made. I believe that it is a XIII. right violation, "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status". The Prosecution argues that the defendant harmed the RNP and stole that party's seat. I do not see that specific prayer for relief as treating every citizen equal before and under the law, as I am unconvinced that the DLA will make the same prosecution against someone who benefitted the party controlling the executive. Any case for recapturing the seat lost by any alleged fraud should be prosecuted civilly by the offended party. Criminal cases and punishment for crimes should remain solely within the domain of the DLA. This way, all parties will have fair before and under the law and have equal protection and equal benefit.

Associate Justice Dartanman's Opinion:

On the Violation Report:
The alleged violation of the Emergency Injunction filed by the Commonwealth is quite possibly the most ridiculous request I've ever seen in this country. The Commonwealth is prosecuting Bardiya_King, with charges that if he is found guilty of would remove him from office. He then removed himself from office by resignation, and now the Commonwealth is fighting to put him back? Such actions certainly raise eyebrows. Furthermore, resigning from a seat is not a reserved power nor one granted to any position. It is an innate ability of anyone to resign from anything. It is not special to Representatives or Congresspeople - and thus, resigning from the position is not a violation of the injunction. Also, forcing him to stay would likely violate the laws about slavery, and the court is not going to do that
|
On the Motion to Dismiss:
Bardiya is no longer a Representative, and the seat is being taken up by a separate process. Furthermore, in my opinion, the Commonwealth never had standing to request that for the RNP anyway. I vote to sustain the Motion to Dismiss Sentencing 2.

I'd also like to apologize to everyone for the slight delays. I had a family member in the hospital.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

The discovery period has long since ended, when may we move forward with this case?

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

The discovery period has long since ended, when may we move forward with this case?

Apologies. The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honors,

Since the term has elapsed and the RNP will not be provided the seat back, which I agree is the correct call at this point, the case boils down to whether or not the defendant committed committed fraud, or electoral fraud.

The facts have been provided, that the defendant declared themselves a member of the RNP in their declaration to run for office, yet 6 minutes after the election results were released, switched parties. The defense argues that this is his legal right which I affirm. The defendant has the right to switch parties. However, the timing of the incident suggests that is was a premeditated and planned out action that meets the intent of fraud. There is no reasonable way that the defendant could have ran with the intent of representing the RNP, and within 6 minutes decided that they wanted to switch parties. The defendant declared one thing to the public, yet had deceitful intentions to do another which is fraud. Had the defendant amassed enough votes to independently to gain a seat in the House of Representatives this would be a different story, but since the defendant chose to represent the RNP, then switch his alliance mere minutes after the election, they have defrauded the people who chose to vote for the party.

With our system of democracy and proportional voting, the people of Redmont chose that the RNP should have had 5 seats in the House. It is through the defendants actions that the people along with the RNP, were defrauded.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you. The Defense has 72 hours to post an Opening Statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I ask for a 48 hour extension due to the beginning of college and needing to get this posted in the weekend.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, I ask for a 48 hour extension due to the beginning of college and needing to get this posted in the weekend.

You may have an extra 48 hours.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your Honor, this is a case of corruption, but the corruption wasn’t committed by my client. In this case, a hijacked DLA controlled by the RNP filed a malicious prosecution against Bardiya_King because they were angry they lost a seat in the House. People switch parties, and it is my client’s right to do so. The constitution establishes these rights as outlined in the response to complaint. No law should put a politician in duress for wanting to better capture their beliefs by switching. However, my client didn’t intend to do this to defraud any voters. My client did it spur of the moment. There was no malice and therefore fraud does not apply to my client. The Court must find Bardiya_King not guilty. Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you. As no witnesses were named in the filings nor in Discovery, we will be moving on to Closing Statements. The Prosecution has 72 hours to present their Closing Statement.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

CLOSING STATEMENTS

Your Honor,

The prosecution does not contest that a politician has the right to switch parties to better align with one that closer aligns with their beliefs, I think that we all agree that any politician should be able to do so. However, the issue that the state has is with the timing, and the fact that in this instance it was clearly pre-meditated.

Let us look at the facts. The defendant declared that they were running as a member of the RNP days before the election. The defendant begged and asked for help from the party leadership to get elected. The defendant states their intent to represent the RNP by campaigning and posting RNP propaganda. Yet a mere 6 minutes after the results are released, the defendant has a change of heart and decided that the party no longer suits his values and switches? I don't buy it.

You see, what the court has to decide on today is not whether the defendant de-frauded the party, but whether this was fraud against the people. It is simple. The defendant represented themselves in an election to hold public office as one thing, yet had intentions to do something very different.

I implore you as an unbiased and a-political Judiciary to review the facts, and send a message to anyone who may consider committing fraud against the people of Redmont in the future, and let them know that this is NOT acceptable.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you. The Defense now has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, the prosecution has the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. The plaintiff hasn't even proven one bit that mens rea or premeditation exists in this case, a required component of all fraud charges per the White-Collar Crackdown Act (the law that governed fraud at the time of the facts of this case). Certainly, there is reasonable doubt that this was a spontaneous act. On this single fact alone, the defendant must be acquitted.

Even if this did not hold true, the defendant has fundamental rights that even the plaintiff concedes. Whether or not there is a matter of timing, those rights hold true at ALL times. These rights are unalienable and granted by the highest authority in Redmont: the Constitution. Let us not weaken rights simply because the RNP-controlled Department of Legal Affairs wishes to punish a political opponent.

Extrapolate this further: if it is fraudulent to switch parties, is it then fraudulent to simply stay in a party and vote against the party line on every issue? At that point, the Court is governing how an elected legislator may vote. The fact of the matter is, we do not have a pure pluralist democracy, but also an individual, representative one. Bardiya_King was elected representative not to serve the RNP, but to serve the people. In doing so, he made a decision after evaluating facts. He made a decision to uphold his moral values and do what is best for the people as he was elected to do not before he was elected, but once he was in office with no premeditation of switching allegiances. The Court simply cannot control how elected officials exercise their discretion to legislate, vote, and participate in law making. There is no difference from policing a Representative's votes to determine if it aligns with the party's interests and policing a Representative's ability to switch parties at any time, regardless of timing.

I ask the Court to combine judicial restraint with acknowledgement of the burden of proof the prosecution holds, and find the defendant not guilty on all charges. Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you. All Justices may now ask any questions they have, if any. Otherwise, we will be in recess pending a verdict.

 

[drew_hall]

I have no questions at this time

 

[Matthew100x]

I have no questions.

 

[Dartanboy]

Nor do I. This court is now in recess pending a verdict.

 

[Nacho]

MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honor,

The DLA has reviewed the evidence submitted and reevaluated this case and has come to an understanding that the evidence provided is not enough for the DLA to be comfortable proceeding to a verdict. We ask for the charges to be dropped. We are very sorry for any inconvenience this may cause to the court.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honor,

The DLA has reviewed the evidence submitted and reevaluated this case and has come to an understanding that the evidence provided is not enough for the DLA to be comfortable proceeding to a verdict. We ask for the charges to be dropped. We are very sorry for any inconvenience this may cause to the court.

Your honors,

Nacho is no longer in a position to make this decision. As Solicitor General, I have consulted with Secretary/ AG xLayzur and we wish for this motion by Nacho to be withdrawn.

Thank you for your hard work and dedication in this case, we look forward to receiving your verdict.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honors,

Nacho is no longer in a position to make this decision. As Solicitor General, I have consulted with Secretary/ AG xLayzur and we wish for this motion by Nacho to be withdrawn.

Thank you for your hard work and dedication in this case, we look forward to receiving your verdict.

Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. A motion isn’t withdrawalable.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. A motion isn’t withdrawalable.

Response to Objection

Your honor,

I debated not even responding to this as it is absurd, but I figured it’s always fun pointing out flaws in AlexanderLoves arguments, so I might as well.

For one, motions are withdraw-able per the Motions guide, any lawyer worth their salt knows this as the motions guide clearly states “
Withdrawal of the Motion to Dismiss
Once a Motion to Dismiss has been filed, the only way to withdraw it is for the filing party to formally request that the court remove the previously filed motion. A request for withdrawal of a motion must include the party’s reason for the withdrawal, and the decision of whether to do so is left with the judge. Withdrawals are most commonly done if the parties reach a settlement prior to a decision on the matter. Once the judge has ruled on a Motion to Dismiss, however, the order remains in place, regardless of the request for withdrawal.”

Two, this “Motion to Nolle Prosequi” was clearly mislabeled as it seeks to dismiss the entire case, not “drop legal charges” as the motions guide states is the intent.

Thank you,

 

[drew_hall]

MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honor,

The DLA has reviewed the evidence submitted and reevaluated this case and has come to an understanding that the evidence provided is not enough for the DLA to be comfortable proceeding to a verdict. We ask for the charges to be dropped. We are very sorry for any inconvenience this may cause to the court.

Motion is denied.

The Supreme Court will begin deliberations on this matter at this time. The court is in recess pending the verdict.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI
 Your Honors
Pardon my intrusion.
The commonwealth no longer thinks the charges set forth reflect the best interest of the commonwealth. Nor does the commonwealth recognize the charges against the defense as valid. As such we request that the charges be dropped and the case be dissmissed with prejudice.​

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your Honor,
I appologize for speaking yet again out of turn. I wish for my previous motion to reconsider to be struck. My behavior in this case has not been a reflection of mine, the dla's or the courts values and expectations. I will be recusing myself from this case hense further and mrfluffy will be reinstated as prosecutor. My sincerest appologies for my behavior to the courts, to the prosecution, and to the defense for any confuesion or delay this has caused. I accept any and all responisbility and consequences that come forth due to my actions.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

Your Honors,

Might I remind you that Snowy has recused herself from this case, and named me as the Prosecutor for this case. I ask that you disregard her previous comment and Motion to Nolle Prosequi and derail this case for the 3rd attempt, and please continue with a verdict, as the Court started with 8 days ago.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honors,

Might I remind you that Snowy has recused herself from this case, and named me as the Prosecutor for this case. I ask that you disregard her previous comment and Motion to Nolle Prosequi and derail this case for the 3rd attempt, and please continue with a verdict, as the Court started with 8 days ago.

I appologize your Honors. Mr.Fluffy no longer represents the Commonwealth in this matter.
I again. Deeply apologize for this intrusion.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defense has no objections to, and endorses, this motion.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. Bardiya_King [2024] SCR 23

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. Bardiya_King won a Representative election due to the RNP.
2. After winning the election Bardiya_King switched parties minutes after winning the election.
3. Bardiya_King switching parties minutes after the election misrepresented voters

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant opted to plead not guilty.
2. Although Bardiya_King did switch parties and attain the esteemed role of Representative, it was not illegal.
3. All have the right to political association thus making the actions of Bardiya_King legal.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Firstly, I'd like to state that Chief Justice Nacho is recused due to being apart of this case.
2. This case has been sitting for a while and pending a verdict for a while that was made by Dartanman back on February 12th 2024 and this is also the verdict me and Justice Neemfy have signed onto. Because of that, the Motion for a Nolle Prosequi will be denied.
3. The opinions of former Justice Dartanman are listed below however a summary of it is that there was a lack of proof that Bardiya_King did attempt to disenfranchise voters and that the actions were illegal.

Spoiler: Agreed upon opinion.

The Commonwealth has brought forth a criminal charge – One count of Electoral Fraud – against Bardiya_King. In support of this charge, the Commonwealth argued that Bardiya_King misrepresented an important fact to the RNP and its voters, thus meddling in the election, and in doing so gained a considerable advantage. Particularly, the Commonwealth alleges that Bardiya_King “misrepresented his party affiliation for personal gain,” and “Bardiya_King's actions caused harm: RNP lost a house seat, voters supporting the RNP had their votes used for an undisclosed BDP candidate,” and finally “The misrepresentation disrupted the fairness of the electoral process, which is based on party-based vote pooling.”

The evidence provided by the Commonwealth includes the fact that Bardiya_King left the RNP only six minutes after being elected as a member of the RNP, the Defendant requesting RNP-leader Krix for help getting elected, Bardiya_King supposedly voting for himself and saying that Krix “carried” him, and that Bardiya_King publicly supported the RNP.

The Defense argued that Bardiya_King did not necessarily support the RNP, did not necessarily have allegiance to Krix nor the RNP, and did not necessarily vote for himself. Furthermore, the Defense argued that Bardiya_King did not misrepresent his party affiliation for personal gain, cause any harm, nor disrupt the fairness of the electoral process. In support of these arguments, the Defense claimed “The prosecution has not established the defendant intentionally misrepresented anything, even if he did misrepresent anything. Furthermore, the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone relied on that misrepresentation. They claim the defendant voted for himself, which would mean no other RNP member actually relied on any representation of any fact.”

The Defense also argued that the law about Electoral Fraud “is meant to punish those who directly tamper with the election by cheating the system. Simply changing party allegiances is not consistent with the examples or the definition [of Electoral Fraud.]”

In their final defense, the Defense provided that “The defendant, according to the Constitution, has the right to peaceful assembly and association.”

Throughout this suit, the Commonwealth has consistently held that they agree with the Defense that Bardiya_King has a right to switch parties, but that the timing of the switch is indicative of premeditated and fraudulent actions.

Ultimately, there are a few questions that must be answered:
1 - Did Bardiya_King intentionally or negligently misrepresent his party beliefs and/or affiliation?
2 - If yes, does this fall under the definition of Electoral Fraud?
3 - If yes, was this protected by the Constitutional Rights of Association and Peaceful Assembly?

For the first, although the mere six-minute timeframe between the results of the election and Bardiya_King’s party switch is possibly indicative of premeditation, I do not believe it rises to the level of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. It is certainly possible that Bardiya_King has been thinking about his beliefs for a while and six minutes after the election results were released just happened to be the time he decided to switch. Yes, it may be suspicious, but it is insufficient to prove the necessary intention or negligence to consider this fraudulent.

For the second, the definition of Electoral Fraud is found in the Electoral Act, and is as follows: “Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.” – I would say intentionally or negligently misrepresenting your political party affiliation would meet this definition, if only looking at this Act, and not the Constitution.

For the third, is Electoral Fraud a reasonable limitation on the Right to Association and/or the Right to Peaceful Assembly? Or is it that Electoral Fraud is only supposed to apply when these Rights are not involved? In this particular lawsuit, the only argument related to this was the Defense’s claim that Electoral Fraud “is meant to punish those who directly tamper with the election by cheating the system. Simply changing party allegiances is not consistent with the examples or the definition [of Electoral Fraud.]” This simple statement is not a very strong argument in its own right, but I do think I agree, mainly because the Electoral Act states very clearly that only Sections 5, 6, and 7 are to be included in the Constitution, meaning that the rest of this Act is considered lesser than the Constitution. Thus, Bardiya_King chose to exercise his right to Association and Peaceful Assembly and switch political parties.

In summary, I believe
1 – There is insufficient proof of intention or negligence in Bardiya_King’s actions.
2 – If there was, it likely would have met the Electoral Act’s definition of Electoral Fraud.
3 – However, these particular actions are protected under the Rights to Association and Peaceful Assembly.

IV. SENTENCE
1. Given that all, the Supreme Court is acquitting Bardiya_King of all charges thus a non-guilty verdict will be passed.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.