Lawsuit: Adjourned Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21

Matthew100x · Oct 29, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Matthew100x.
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your honors, it is clear to me that we have hit a crisis point in our nation’s history. Given the unprecedented circumstances given before us, the people shall be pressing the charge of Treason against the defendant xEndeavour (“End”). The defendant has been meticulous in disobeying court orders, flagrantly calling the Supreme Court corrupt, and is now acting against an injunction of the Supreme Court. He has had every opportunity presented to him to fix his mistakes, yet he has abused these chances given to him to make the choice to double-down. This leaves the plaintiff with no option but to proceed with this court filing.

The plaintiff would like to note that this has nothing to do with the Department Reform Act itself and everything to do with the process and procedure of government itself. By unilaterally acting on his own, the defendant is undermining the authority of this government. At any point in time, if the defendant had stopped, backed down, and attempted to follow the correct process and procedure given out by both the Constitution and the Supreme Court, none of these events would have happened. Unfortunately, the defendant has doubled-down and continues to do so to prove a point, therefore, we too must also double-down, to prove the point that the process and procedure must be adhered and followed.

I. PARTIES
1. We, Members of the Citizens of Redmont, Plaintiff.
2. xEndeavour, Defendant.

II. FACTS
1. 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.”
2. Treason is not a criminal charge per the Crime Severity Act (Act of Congress - Crime Severity Act), and though it’s alluded to, is not labeled a crime under its authorizing statute (Act of Congress - LDV Treason Act).
3. The charge of Treason was previously accepted by the Supreme Court in Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and was not dismissed. The validity for the charge still exists as it was asked to be split into its own case.
4. End has called the Supreme Court corrupt within court and in public, has disobeyed court orders and injunctions, and has refused to respect court decorum in his initial treason case. This resulted in 50 contempt of court charges resulting in a fine of $122,000 dollars and a total of 1 hour of jail time. End is currently refusing to pay the fines.
5. End, in open defiance of an active injunction to shelve the referendum until all constitutional issues can be resolved, has decided to repost the referendum and actively campaign on the issue to see it passed.
6. The DLA has defended the defendant in the prior court case and has a conflict of interest in prosecuting a case against them for this matter.
7. While the Plaintiff insists these are civil charges, there exists evidence of citizens being allowed to make criminal charges.
8. This case will have Supreme Court Jurisdiction because only‌ ‌the‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌shall‌ ‌hear‌ ‌cases‌ ‌that‌ ‌would‌ ‌remove‌ ‌a‌ ‌person/persons‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌following‌ ‌
positions:‌ ‌Representatives,‌ ‌Secretary,‌ ‌Senator,‌ ‌Judge,‌ ‌Vice-President,‌ ‌Principal‌ ‌Officers,‌ ‌General‌ ‌Advisors,‌ ‌President, Executive Officers.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant, by failing to post a referendum for a complex change of a constitutional amendment, maliciously undermined the government through incompetence. By shuffling the government positions around and creating two new departments and creating headaches for all members involved through improper procedure; the defendant damaged the stability of the government.
2. The defendant, by failing to adhere to Supreme Court decorum and calling the court corrupt, maliciously sabotaged the stability of the government of Redmont by disrespecting and undermining the authority of one of its highest institutions.
3. The defendant, by refusing to obey court injunctions, as seen by refusing to pay the 50 Contempt the Court charges and reposting the Department Reform Act referendum against the injunction court, has maliciously sabotaged the stability, by challenging the authority of Supreme Court of the constitution, the sovereignty, by attempting to forcibly change the constitution against the Supreme Court’s injunction, and national security, by undermining the authority and power of the Supreme Court.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Three Charges of Treason for a total $75,000 dollars and a 6 month ban from office.

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 29th day of October, 2022.

Act of Congress - Department Reform Act - Posted on October 14th, passed on October 21st.
https://www.democracycraft.net/forums/petitions-referendums.85/ - Notice the lack of referendum for the complex change
(Barring the referendum declared illegal by the Supreme Court and the currently illegally posted referendum).

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Matthew100x & xLayzur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Matthew100x & xLayzur Plaintiff v. The Commonwealth of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT Hello, your honor, my name is Matthew100x from Prodigium | Attorneys at Law and I’m joined by xLayzur from Prodigium | Attorneys at Law. I am...

www.democracycraft.net

https://imgur.com/a/lq7LyEp

- Evidence file of screenshots from Discord.

Lord_Donuticus · Oct 29, 2022

As the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Redmont, thus as outlined in the Constitution the only individual empowered to file Criminal Charges, I'd like to request to file an amicus brief with regards to the legality of the statement argued in 'II. FACTS'.

The Commonwealth would request 48 hours to make this argument and furthermore ask the court not to file summons until it has been done as it is imperative to the legality of the case.

Nacho · Oct 30, 2022

I will be invoking a personal recusal from this case. Due to a busy week, I don't wish to hinder the case's progression by being unavailable.

Krix · Oct 31, 2022

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

@xEndeavour is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of We, Member of the Citizens of Redmont v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21

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.

End · Oct 31, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

We, Member of the Citizens of Redmont. (Represented by Matthew100x of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law and xLayzur of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law).
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

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

I move that claim for relief 1 be dismissed on the basis of:

1. The Speaker did not action any changes to the constitution, any law, make any announcement, or enact any other significant changes in relation to the Department Reform Act. Therefore, there was no damage to the stability of government nor headache caused for anyone on the part of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

2. When advised that the Department Reform Act was a complex change, I immediately announced a public referendum. I don't deny that I made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes and I immediately worked to correct my mistake to carry out my duties as prescribed by the constitution.

3. The public referendum was carried out and passed with a supermajority. This was later overturned by the courts.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that claim for relief 2 be dismissed on the basis of:

1. The Supreme Court does not have unlimited authority and cannot halt a referendum. In SCR 20, the Commonwealth made the sound argument that:

2. The Court does not have the authority to halt a public referendum, even the loosest interpretation of the section of the Constitution ‘The‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌is‌ ‌responsible‌ ‌for‌ ‌resolving‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌between‌ ‌Government‌ ‌Institutions.‌’ does not give the Court unlimited powers and unrestricted actions in order to achieve this goal, in particular ordering others to violate their constitutional duty.

There is no law that establishes that the Courts can order that the Speaker or another branch of government to stop undertaking their constitutional duties, even for a brief period.

2. A democratic system of government with a system of checks and balances is underpinned by the constitution. The constitution is the highest legal document in the country. The constitution sets out three branches of government which all play a unique role in the operation of our government, particularly in elections. This is why the Supreme Court acts as the court of disputed returns, a body which reviews the results of disputed elections and referendums.

(1) The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court also interprets the laws as per its constitutional duties.

The‌ ‌Judicial‌ ‌arm‌ ‌of‌ ‌Government,‌ ‌consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌District‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌Federal Court,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌

interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌ ‌

This establishes a very thorough body of review. The Supreme Court's recent actions have not been that of review, rather, the Supreme Court has been actively making illegal and unconstitutional court orders against the constitutional duties of other branches of Government. The Constitution provides that, in order for a complex change bill to pass into law, it must satisfy the requirements set out in the Constitution. This constitutionally charges the Speaker of the House of Representatives with being the returning officer to carry out referendums.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.

A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.

A supermajority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.

Presidential Assent or Veto Override.

The Supreme Court draws its powers from the Constitution as a body of review and as an interpreter of the law. While I acknowledge convention surrounding court orders in enabling the Supreme Court to fulfil its role, the Supreme Court has overstepped in ordering a constitutional process be 'paused' in Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and then proceeding to charge the Speaker for Contempt of Court for failing to comply.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that claim for relief 3 be dismissed on the basis of:

1. The same argument applies from the perspective of the Defence. The Supreme Court was exercising authority which it did not possess. Has this sabotaged the stability of government? No. It is an ongoing legal argument which has been referred to the court. Was this malicious? No. It was done in the best intentions of protecting the constitutional rights of the Legislative from Judicial overstep.

2. Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 was originally filed in the Federal Court as Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 87. When the Federal Court ruled against the plaintiff on a number of motions, the plaintiff dropped their case in the Federal Court and refiled it in the Supreme Court. In order to justify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff tacked on a charge of Treason against the Speaker of the House for failing to comply with the Court's unconstitutional orders. The Supreme Court then went on to do the complete opposite of the the Federal Court in denying parties who had been implicated in the case the ability to respond.

The Supreme Court is in breach of the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act in hearing the case, which outlines that Criminal cases are brought on by charges laid by the State or in appeal to the State.

(1) The Court of Redmont hears all non-constitutional legal matters in the first instance and is the appellate court for criminal charges and civil actions. It is presided over by a single Judge. Lawsuits are made in the Courthouse forum. Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).

Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act.

(1) Any new crimes may be cited as to whether they are to be considered a Indictable Offence or a Summary Offence. If the crime is not cited as either respective classification, it is to be automatically assumed as a Summary Offence.

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has effectively allowed the Speaker of the House to be charged with Treason in a civil case by someone other than the state.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence.

Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf.

The department is charged with legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government. The department is charged with the employment of Commonwealth Prosecutors and Legal Officers. The Department of Legal Affairs is to act in the best interests of the Government. The Department will act ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction. The Department oversees Freedom of Information requests. The Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs is the Attorney General and will be referred to in an official capacity as the Attorney General.

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections for counsel in defending themselves. The Supreme Court assumed that the person implicated sought automatically representation from the State. The reality is, the State is also a defendant in this case, and the State and the Speaker may have different views, therefore it is not in the interest of both parties to share representation.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence.

3. The Supreme Court acknowledged that I was not afforded a fair trial and that I was entitled to representation. Failure to provide this to me during the trial was a violation of my constitutional rights.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that this case be dismissed given that no further claims for relief on which this case was founded exist.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff's representation is of a non-legally recognised entity.

The collective 'People of Redmont' hold no legal recognition in court and no evidence has been provided that the 'People of Redmont'

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that precedent is persuasive, but it does not enable the court to directly override law, especially the constitution.

The plaintiff has not even provided any examples of precedent for the citizens' cases that they have mentioned. The constitution states plainly that: "Lawsuits‌ ‌can‌ ‌be‌ ‌either‌ ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌(a‌ ‌dispute‌ ‌between‌ ‌two‌ ‌parties,‌ ‌usually‌ ‌seeking‌ ‌compensation)‌ ‌or‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌cases‌ ‌(an‌ ‌appeal‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌against‌ ‌a‌ ‌charge,‌ ‌or‌ ‌a‌ ‌case‌ ‌filed‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌regarding‌ ‌a‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌act).‌"

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that the Supreme Court ruled that in SCR 1 [2021] In an almost identical situation:

The courts do not feel the amendment is an issue it does in fact meet all requirements needed for a constitutional amendment.

Noting it has already passed a referendum, which was later stuck for not being unconstitutionally halted. Also noting it currently leads in the current referendum by a healthy supermajority. It is clear that the people are for this amendment and that it has met or is soon to meet the constitutional requirements to become law.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

End · Nov 1, 2022

I'd like to note to the court that I will be going away for a period of three weeks around the 7th-11th of November. During this time I will be totally uncontactable.

I extend a request that the court enables a speedy trial so that this case does not extend into this period.

Thank you.

Krix · Nov 2, 2022

Lord_Donuticus said:
As the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Redmont, thus as outlined in the Constitution the only individual empowered to file Criminal Charges, I'd like to request to file an amicus brief with regards to the legality of the statement argued in 'II. FACTS'.

The Commonwealth would request 48 hours to make this argument and furthermore ask the court not to file summons until it has been done as it is imperative to the legality of the case.

Granted. The Attorney General @Lord_Donuticus will be granted 48 hours to provide an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court regarding II. FACTS.

Krix · Nov 2, 2022

xEndeavour said:
I'd like to note to the court that I will be going away for a period of three weeks around the 7th-11th of November. During this time I will be totally uncontactable.

I extend a request that the court enables a speedy trial so that this case does not extend into this period.

Thank you.

Noted, The Court will attempt to facilitate your circumstance however should court proceedings extend beyond the timeframe you have outlined it is out of the Supreme Courts' control, in wish case the Supreme Court recommends you contact an Attorney to represent you as to ensure you have representation

Lord_Donuticus · Nov 4, 2022

AMICUS BRIEF

For the sake of the courts time I will keep it brief your honors.

1) The constitution defines a Civil Case as "a‌ ‌dispute‌ ‌between‌ ‌two‌ ‌parties,‌ ‌usually‌ ‌seeking‌ ‌compensation", while the Plaintiff may try and use colourful language to paint themselves as 'Members of the Citizens of Redmont', Treason is defined as undermining the Government. So even if Treason were applicable as a Civil Charge, which it is not, the Plaintiff is not party to the events and thus has no right making this lawsuit.

2) The constitution defines a Criminal Case as "an‌ ‌appeal‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌against‌ ‌a‌ ‌charge,‌ ‌or‌ ‌a‌ ‌case‌ ‌filed‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌regarding‌ ‌a‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌act", this is very clear - a Criminal Case has to be filed by the state.

3) The Office of Legal Affairs and by extension the Attorney General is charged by the constitution with "legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government.", this is not granted to 'Members of the Citizens of Redmont' if such a group existed, which it does not outside of an attempt to claim an air of legitimacy.

4) To the best of my knowledge the Plaintiff has made no attempt to formally bring these accusations for the DLA to investigate, they have decided to take the law into their own hands. Were they party to these actions it would be different, in the real world someone may be civilly charged for crimes with the only relief being money, but as with our system to bring criminal charges is solely within the power of the government. I would ask the court to formally enshrine the sole power of the Government to bring forward criminal charges against an individual as a precedent, despite previous precedent as any other interpretation of the constitution is just wrong, as well as upholding the words as written in the constitution, I myself will be seeking to work with Congress to provide clarity on this matter as well.

DATED: This 4th day of November 2022

Krix · Nov 5, 2022

xEndeavour said:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

We, Member of the Citizens of Redmont. (Represented by Matthew100x of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law and xLayzur of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law).
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

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

I move that claim for relief 1 be dismissed on the basis of:

1. The Speaker did not action any changes to the constitution, any law, make any announcement, or enact any other significant changes in relation to the Department Reform Act. Therefore, there was no damage to the stability of government nor headache caused for anyone on the part of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

2. When advised that the Department Reform Act was a complex change, I immediately announced a public referendum. I don't deny that I made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes and I immediately worked to correct my mistake to carry out my duties as prescribed by the constitution.

3. The public referendum was carried out and passed with a supermajority. This was later overturned by the courts.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that claim for relief 2 be dismissed on the basis of:

1. The Supreme Court does not have unlimited authority and cannot halt a referendum. In SCR 20, the Commonwealth made the sound argument that:

2. The Court does not have the authority to halt a public referendum, even the loosest interpretation of the section of the Constitution ‘The‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌is‌ ‌responsible‌ ‌for‌ ‌resolving‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌between‌ ‌Government‌ ‌Institutions.‌’ does not give the Court unlimited powers and unrestricted actions in order to achieve this goal, in particular ordering others to violate their constitutional duty.

There is no law that establishes that the Courts can order that the Speaker or another branch of government to stop undertaking their constitutional duties, even for a brief period.

2. A democratic system of government with a system of checks and balances is underpinned by the constitution. The constitution is the highest legal document in the country. The constitution sets out three branches of government which all play a unique role in the operation of our government, particularly in elections. This is why the Supreme Court acts as the court of disputed returns, a body which reviews the results of disputed elections and referendums.

(1) The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court also interprets the laws as per its constitutional duties.

The‌ ‌Judicial‌ ‌arm‌ ‌of‌ ‌Government,‌ ‌consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌District‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌Federal Court,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌
interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌ ‌

This establishes a very thorough body of review. The Supreme Court's recent actions have not been that of review, rather, the Supreme Court has been actively making illegal and unconstitutional court orders against the constitutional duties of other branches of Government. The Constitution provides that, in order for a complex change bill to pass into law, it must satisfy the requirements set out in the Constitution. This constitutionally charges the Speaker of the House of Representatives with being the returning officer to carry out referendums.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.

A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.

A supermajority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.

Presidential Assent or Veto Override.

The Supreme Court draws its powers from the Constitution as a body of review and as an interpreter of the law. While I acknowledge convention surrounding court orders in enabling the Supreme Court to fulfil its role, the Supreme Court has overstepped in ordering a constitutional process be 'paused' in Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and then proceeding to charge the Speaker for Contempt of Court for failing to comply.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that claim for relief 3 be dismissed on the basis of:

1. The same argument applies from the perspective of the Defence. The Supreme Court was exercising authority which it did not possess. Has this sabotaged the stability of government? No. It is an ongoing legal argument which has been referred to the court. Was this malicious? No. It was done in the best intentions of protecting the constitutional rights of the Legislative from Judicial overstep.

2. Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 was originally filed in the Federal Court as Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 87. When the Federal Court ruled against the plaintiff on a number of motions, the plaintiff dropped their case in the Federal Court and refiled it in the Supreme Court. In order to justify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff tacked on a charge of Treason against the Speaker of the House for failing to comply with the Court's unconstitutional orders. The Supreme Court then went on to do the complete opposite of the the Federal Court in denying parties who had been implicated in the case the ability to respond.

The Supreme Court is in breach of the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act in hearing the case, which outlines that Criminal cases are brought on by charges laid by the State or in appeal to the State.

(1) The Court of Redmont hears all non-constitutional legal matters in the first instance and is the appellate court for criminal charges and civil actions. It is presided over by a single Judge. Lawsuits are made in the Courthouse forum. Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).

Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act.

(1) Any new crimes may be cited as to whether they are to be considered a Indictable Offence or a Summary Offence. If the crime is not cited as either respective classification, it is to be automatically assumed as a Summary Offence.

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has effectively allowed the Speaker of the House to be charged with Treason in a civil case by someone other than the state.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence.

Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf.

The department is charged with legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government. The department is charged with the employment of Commonwealth Prosecutors and Legal Officers. The Department of Legal Affairs is to act in the best interests of the Government. The Department will act ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction. The Department oversees Freedom of Information requests. The Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs is the Attorney General and will be referred to in an official capacity as the Attorney General.

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections for counsel in defending themselves. The Supreme Court assumed that the person implicated sought automatically representation from the State. The reality is, the State is also a defendant in this case, and the State and the Speaker may have different views, therefore it is not in the interest of both parties to share representation.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence.
3. The Supreme Court acknowledged that I was not afforded a fair trial and that I was entitled to representation. Failure to provide this to me during the trial was a violation of my constitutional rights.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that this case be dismissed given that no further claims for relief on which this case was founded exist.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff's representation is of a non-legally recognised entity.

The collective 'People of Redmont' hold no legal recognition in court and no evidence has been provided that the 'People of Redmont'

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that precedent is persuasive, but it does not enable the court to directly override law, especially the constitution.

The plaintiff has not even provided any examples of precedent for the citizens' cases that they have mentioned. The constitution states plainly that: "Lawsuits‌ ‌can‌ ‌be‌ ‌either‌ ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌(a‌ ‌dispute‌ ‌between‌ ‌two‌ ‌parties,‌ ‌usually‌ ‌seeking‌ ‌compensation)‌ ‌or‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌cases‌ ‌(an‌ ‌appeal‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌against‌ ‌a‌ ‌charge,‌ ‌or‌ ‌a‌ ‌case‌ ‌filed‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌regarding‌ ‌a‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌act).‌"

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

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

I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that the Supreme Court ruled that in SCR 1 [2021] In an almost identical situation:

The courts do not feel the amendment is an issue it does in fact meet all requirements needed for a constitutional amendment.

Noting it has already passed a referendum, which was later stuck for not being unconstitutionally halted. Also noting it currently leads in the current referendum by a healthy supermajority. It is clear that the people are for this amendment and that it has met or is soon to meet the constitutional requirements to become law.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022

1. Regardless of whether you made a mistake or not an Injunction was issued and it was failed to be acted upon - Therefore any votes cast after the injunction was issued was invalid, therefore this dismmissal point does not satisfy the court.

2. "The Supreme Court does not have unlimited authority and cannot halt a referendum. In SCR 20, the Commonwealth made the sound argument that" The Supreme Court is the highest court in the commonwealth of Redmont and as the highest court in the land is charge with interpreting the constitution and solving disputes, based on this the Supreme Court has already determined that it is within this authority that the Court can halt referendums, as it does not violate any rights or contradict another section of the constitution.

3. "The same argument applies from the perspective of the Defence. The Supreme Court was exercising authority which it did not possess." already addressed in the response to point 2.

"Has this sabotaged the stability of government? . Was this malicious?" The Supreme Court wishes to decide on both these points of contention in open court.

"Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act." Treason has not been codifed as a Criminal charge and thus the court must make a rulling to determine its validity in a civil court proceeding.

"Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf."
I wish to hear this argument made further in court proceedings.

"The Supreme Court acknowledged that I was not afforded a fair trial and that I was entitled to representation. Failure to provide this to me during the trial was a violation of my constitutional rights."

The Supreme Court has already determined that this was not a violation of your rights as you were afforded a fair trial, which you are partaking in now. The previous case SCR 20 did not see any punishments imposed against you from the charges presented, the defendant was only punished for clear disregard of court proceedings and failure to follow court orders.

4. "I move that this case be dismissed given that no further claims for relief on which this case was founded exist."

This is not a motion to dismiss as it failed to refer to if your previous motions were accepted, therefore the court will be disregarding this motion.

5. "The collective 'People of Redmont' hold no legal recognition in court and no evidence has been provided that the 'People of Redmont"

The court acknowledges this point, The Supreme Court hereby orders that the plantiff Matthew100x who is claiming to represent the "People of Redmont" provide the court with a list of atleast 10 names to satisfy the court that this case is in fact a class action suit against the defendant, this must be done within the 48 hour timeframe given for delivering your opening statement. The Motion to dismiss however is rejected, should the plantiff fail to provide a list the case will be renamed under "Matthew100x" as the sole plantiff.

6. "The plaintiff has not even provided any examples of precedent for the citizens' cases that they have mentioned. The constitution states plainly that: "Lawsuits‌ ‌can‌ ‌be‌ ‌either‌ ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌(a‌ ‌dispute‌ ‌between‌ ‌two‌ ‌parties,‌ ‌usually‌ ‌seeking‌ ‌compensation)‌ ‌or‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌cases‌ ‌(an‌ ‌appeal‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌against‌ ‌a‌ ‌charge,‌ ‌or‌ ‌a‌ ‌case‌ ‌filed‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌regarding‌ ‌a‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌act).‌"

The court recognises this as an argument but again does not believe it as a valid reason to dismiss the case as the case is in fact a "dispute between two parties" whether treason is a criminal or a civil charge still has to be defined under court proceedings.

7. "Noting it has already passed a referendum, which was later stuck for not being unconstitutionally halted. Also noting it currently leads in the current referendum by a healthy supermajority. It is clear that the people are for this amendment and that it has met or is soon to meet the constitutional requirements to become law."

The Court has already established that no referendum is to be held until the conclusion of court proceedings, therefore all referendums regarding the "Department Reform Act" were done in violation of a court injunction.

Therefore the Court will be denying all 7 motions to dismiss.

The Plantiff now has 48 hours to deliver their opening statement to the Supreme Court.

The court wishes to remind the plantiff to their obligation under 5. of the courts response to the defendants motion to dismiss.

Krix · Nov 5, 2022

Lord_Donuticus said:
AMICUS BRIEF

For the sake of the courts time I will keep it brief your honors.

1) The constitution defines a Civil Case as "a‌ ‌dispute‌ ‌between‌ ‌two‌ ‌parties,‌ ‌usually‌ ‌seeking‌ ‌compensation", while the Plaintiff may try and use colourful language to paint themselves as 'Members of the Citizens of Redmont', Treason is defined as undermining the Government. So even if Treason were applicable as a Civil Charge, which it is not, the Plaintiff is not party to the events and thus has no right making this lawsuit.

2) The constitution defines a Criminal Case as "an‌ ‌appeal‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌against‌ ‌a‌ ‌charge,‌ ‌or‌ ‌a‌ ‌case‌ ‌filed‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌regarding‌ ‌a‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌act", this is very clear - a Criminal Case has to be filed by the state.

3) The Office of Legal Affairs and by extension the Attorney General is charged by the constitution with "legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government.", this is not granted to 'Members of the Citizens of Redmont' if such a group existed, which it does not outside of an attempt to claim an air of legitimacy.

4) To the best of my knowledge the Plaintiff has made no attempt to formally bring these accusations for the DLA to investigate, they have decided to take the law into their own hands. Were they party to these actions it would be different, in the real world someone may be civilly charged for crimes with the only relief being money, but as with our system to bring criminal charges is solely within the power of the government. I would ask the court to formally enshrine the sole power of the Government to bring forward criminal charges against an individual as a precedent, despite previous precedent as any other interpretation of the constitution is just wrong, as well as upholding the words as written in the constitution, I myself will be seeking to work with Congress to provide clarity on this matter as well.

DATED: This 4th day of November 2022

Noted, The Court will take these points into consideration when delivering its verdict.

End · Nov 6, 2022

Can you please provide who is presiding over this case and the breakdown of their judgement (for and against) on the motions to dismiss.

Krix said:
1. Regardless of whether you made a mistake or not an Injunction was issued and it was failed to be acted upon - Therefore any votes cast after the injunction was issued was invalid, therefore this dismmissal point does not satisfy the court.

2. "The Supreme Court does not have unlimited authority and cannot halt a referendum. In SCR 20, the Commonwealth made the sound argument that" The Supreme Court is the highest court in the commonwealth of Redmont and as the highest court in the land is charge with interpreting the constitution and solving disputes, based on this the Supreme Court has already determined that it is within this authority that the Court can halt referendums, as it does not violate any rights or contradict another section of the constitution.

3. "The same argument applies from the perspective of the Defence. The Supreme Court was exercising authority which it did not possess." already addressed in the response to point 2.

"Has this sabotaged the stability of government? . Was this malicious?" The Supreme Court wishes to decide on both these points of contention in open court.

"Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act." Treason has not been codifed as a Criminal charge and thus the court must make a rulling to determine its validity in a civil court proceeding.

"Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf."
I wish to hear this argument made further in court proceedings.

"The Supreme Court acknowledged that I was not afforded a fair trial and that I was entitled to representation. Failure to provide this to me during the trial was a violation of my constitutional rights."

The Supreme Court has already determined that this was not a violation of your rights as you were afforded a fair trial, which you are partaking in now. The previous case SCR 20 did not see any punishments imposed against you from the charges presented, the defendant was only punished for clear disregard of court proceedings and failure to follow court orders.

4. "I move that this case be dismissed given that no further claims for relief on which this case was founded exist."

This is not a motion to dismiss as it failed to refer to if your previous motions were accepted, therefore the court will be disregarding this motion.

5. "The collective 'People of Redmont' hold no legal recognition in court and no evidence has been provided that the 'People of Redmont"

The court acknowledges this point, The Supreme Court hereby orders that the plantiff Matthew100x who is claiming to represent the "People of Redmont" provide the court with a list of atleast 10 names to satisfy the court that this case is in fact a class action suit against the defendant, this must be done within the 48 hour timeframe given for delivering your opening statement. The Motion to dismiss however is rejected, should the plantiff fail to provide a list the case will be renamed under "Matthew100x" as the sole plantiff.

6. "The plaintiff has not even provided any examples of precedent for the citizens' cases that they have mentioned. The constitution states plainly that: "Lawsuits‌ ‌can‌ ‌be‌ ‌either‌ ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌(a‌ ‌dispute‌ ‌between‌ ‌two‌ ‌parties,‌ ‌usually‌ ‌seeking‌ ‌compensation)‌ ‌or‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌cases‌ ‌(an‌ ‌appeal‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌against‌ ‌a‌ ‌charge,‌ ‌or‌ ‌a‌ ‌case‌ ‌filed‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌state‌ ‌regarding‌ ‌a‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌act).‌"

The court recognises this as an argument but again does not believe it as a valid reason to dismiss the case as the case is in fact a "dispute between two parties" whether treason is a criminal or a civil charge still has to be defined under court proceedings.

7. "Noting it has already passed a referendum, which was later stuck for not being unconstitutionally halted. Also noting it currently leads in the current referendum by a healthy supermajority. It is clear that the people are for this amendment and that it has met or is soon to meet the constitutional requirements to become law."

The Court has already established that no referendum is to be held until the conclusion of court proceedings, therefore all referendums regarding the "Department Reform Act" were done in violation of a court injunction.

Therefore the Court will be denying all 7 motions to dismiss.

The Plantiff now has 48 hours to deliver their opening statement to the Supreme Court.

The court wishes to remind the plantiff to their obligation under 5. of the courts response to the defendants motion to dismiss.

Krix · Nov 6, 2022

xEndeavour said:
Can you please provide who is presiding over this case and the breakdown of their judgement (for and against) on the motions to dismiss.

The Chief Justice is the chair of the Supreme Court, I speak on behalf of the Supreme Court as does any other justice when they deliver a decision in this court forum.

Further comments in this case from defendant xEndeavour without being called upon by the Court to do so will result in contempt of court charges.

End · Nov 6, 2022

Respectfully, I believe that I have a right to know how the court has ruled and who has ruled in that decision.

Again, I request:

1. Was it a unanimous decision to deny all of the motions to dismiss?
2. Who is ruling over my case?

In denying this request, the Supreme Court is setting a precedent that the court does not need to provide who has ruled which way in court decisions and that the defendant does not have the right to know who is ruling on their case.

If the Court decides to hold me in contempt for asking such a question then I fear the fairness and transparency in our court system is in a grave state - particularly when Congress is investigating such an issue.

End · Nov 7, 2022

Noting the Court's extended response time, I'd like to request that my 48 hours start from when I receive an answer on the above request for information.

Matthew100x · Nov 7, 2022

Good day your honors,

I will need a 24 hour extension due to IRL circumstances.

Matthew100x · Nov 7, 2022

I am also okay with renaming the filing under my name.

End · Nov 7, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

We, Member of the Citizens of Redmont. (Represented by Matthew100x of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law and xLayzur of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law).
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to the following:

1. The Chief Justice is currently under investigation for allegations of misconduct concerning not following court procedures in relation to this case.

2. The Chief Justice is taking extended periods between replying to this case and failed to answer motions within 48 hours - the time expected of the complainant and the defendant to reply to the court. - on multiple occasions now. I have requested that the Court note that I will soon be absent and no effort has been made to keep the case moving.

3. There is an implicit bias in the Chief Justices' realtionship with me as long-standing political opponents.

Krix · Nov 8, 2022

xEndeavour said:
Respectfully, I believe that I have a right to know how the court has ruled and who has ruled in that decision.

Again, I request:

1. Was it a unanimous decision to deny all of the motions to dismiss?
2. Who is ruling over my case?

In denying this request, the Supreme Court is setting a precedent that the court does not need to provide who has ruled which way in court decisions and that the defendant does not have the right to know who is ruling on their case.

If the Court decides to hold me in contempt for asking such a question then I fear the fairness and transparency in our court system is in a grave state - particularly when Congress is investigating such an issue.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for responding in this court forum without being summoned.

In total the Department of Justice is hereby ordered to charge xEndeavour with 1 counts of contempt of court.

xEndeavour said:
Noting the Court's extended response time, I'd like to request that my 48 hours start from when I receive an answer on the above request for information.

You haven't been called on to deliver your opening statement so your timeframe hasn't started

Krix · Nov 8, 2022

Matthew100x said:
Good day your honors,

I will need a 24 hour extension due to IRL circumstances.

Granted, the court awards the plantiff an additional 24 hours to deliver their opening statement from now.

Matthew100x said:
I am also okay with renaming the filing under my name.

Please do so at your earliest convenience, and amend the parties in your filling additionally.

xEndeavour said:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

We, Member of the Citizens of Redmont. (Represented by Matthew100x of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law and xLayzur of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law).
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to the following:

1. The Chief Justice is currently under investigation for allegations of misconduct concerning not following court procedures in relation to this case.

2. The Chief Justice is taking extended periods between replying to this case and failed to answer motions within 48 hours - the time expected of the complainant and the defendant to reply to the court. - on multiple occasions now. I have requested that the Court note that I will soon be absent and no effort has been made to keep the case moving.

3. There is an implicit bias in the Chief Justices' realtionship with me as long-standing political opponents.

I will be rejecting this motion to recuse,I have extensive relationships with nearly every single player in the political sphere and have worked alongside and against many of them, this does not hinder my ability to interpret the law as it is written and apply it, no bias comes into this decision making process either.

Regarding the delays, I am attempting to respond in a timely manner however I am a University student and my time is not endless, additionally I do want to ensure the entire court is consulted before any decision is made. I apologies for the timing inconvenience as I understand you are under limitations on when you are available but my ultimate obligation is to ensuring this case proceeds in a manner of which we are able to assess all relevant facts and make the correct decision.

End · Nov 8, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

We, Member of the Citizens of Redmont. (Represented by Matthew100x of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law and xLayzur of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law).
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to the following:

1. The Chief Justice is currently under investigation for allegations of misconduct concerning not following court procedures in relation to this case.

2. The Chief Justice is taking extended periods between replying to this case and failed to answer motions within 48 hours - the time expected of the complainant and the defendant to reply to the court. - on multiple occasions now. I have requested that the Court note that I will soon be absent and no effort has been made to keep the case moving.

3. There is an implicit bias in the Chief Justices' relationship with me as long-standing political opponents.

4. I too am a university student and the Supreme Court charged me every hour on the hour of not replying to the court in SCR 20. If the Supreme Court places this expectation on its litigants, there should be an expectation that it meets these timings itself.

Krix · Nov 8, 2022

xEndeavour said:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

We, Member of the Citizens of Redmont. (Represented by Matthew100x of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law and xLayzur of Prodigium | Attorneys at Law).
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to the following:

1. The Chief Justice is currently under investigation for allegations of misconduct concerning not following court procedures in relation to this case.

2. The Chief Justice is taking extended periods between replying to this case and failed to answer motions within 48 hours - the time expected of the complainant and the defendant to reply to the court. - on multiple occasions now. I have requested that the Court note that I will soon be absent and no effort has been made to keep the case moving.

3. There is an implicit bias in the Chief Justices' relationship with me as long-standing political opponents.

4. I too am a university student and the Supreme Court charged me every hour on the hour of not replying to the court in SCR 20. If the Supreme Court places this expectation on its litigants, there should be an expectation that it meets these timings itself.

I will be rejecting this motion to recuse, all other points have been addressed but I will address this last addition;

"4. I too am a university student and the Supreme Court charged me every hour on the hour of not replying to the court in SCR 20. If the Supreme Court places this expectation on its litigants, there should be an expectation that it meets these timings itself."

In the case SCR 20 you were given extended notice, and you were openly violating a court order and that is why you were held in contempt of court. During your time in which you were asked to follow the court order, you reposted a new referendum and were openly declarying the Supreme Courts order unconstitution, that is additionally why you were held in contempt - the decision was made by the entire Supreme Court not just myself.

End · Nov 8, 2022

Krix said:
I will be rejecting this motion to recuse, all other points have been addressed but I will address this last addition;

"4. I too am a university student and the Supreme Court charged me every hour on the hour of not replying to the court in SCR 20. If the Supreme Court places this expectation on its litigants, there should be an expectation that it meets these timings itself."

In the case SCR 20 you were given extended notice, and you were openly violating a court order and that is why you were held in contempt of court. During your time in which you were asked to follow the court order, you reposted a new referendum and were openly declarying the Supreme Courts order unconstitution, that is additionally why you were held in contempt - the decision was made by the entire Supreme Court not just myself.

Your honour, a second motion to recuse is required to be answered by the a second justice by law:

13 - Recusal
(1) Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in a case due to a conflict of interest.
(2) A motion to recuse can be filed at any point in a case prior to the verdict. A Judge must consider whether or not to voluntarily recuse themselves.
(3) Where a judge does not voluntarily recuse, a second Judge will respond to the motion and either accept or deny it. In the instance the judge accepts the motion, that judge will then preside over the case.
(4) Conflict of interest may involve:
a. Bias/appearance of bias.
b. Interest.
c. Ex Parte Communications.
d. Breach of Judicial Conduct.
e. Prior Work as a Lawyer for either party.

Krix · Nov 8, 2022

xEndeavour said:
Your honour, a second motion to recuse is required to be answered by the a second justice by law:

Apologies, Justice JoeGamer will review your motion as Justice Nacholebraa has recused himself from the case already.

Matthew100x · Nov 9, 2022

Your honors,

In light of the recent dismissal of the court case, I want to focus only on the most important aspect of the case.

As mentioned in my complaint, treason is not listed as a crime in the crime severity act. It is, however, mentioned within the reasoning that "Treason isn’t defined as a crime in the constitution and trust me, it runs rampant in our government". There's a couple of ways this can be interpreted. 1. Is that the authorizing statute for treason defines it as a crime because of the reasoning. 2. The authorizing statute for treason does not define it as a crime because the reasoning makes a general statement rather than a definitive factual statement. We believe in the second interpretation because of the hyperbole within the statement "and trust me, it runs rampant in our government".

Now one may point to the second part of the reasoning of the LDV Treason Act as a definitive factor for being a crime, again we are not so sure. The reasoning goes "Treason is uniquely different from corruption as the offender does not always personally benefit from committing the crime". Now it may seem that this would in fact make Treason a crime, however, it is not labeled on the Crime Severity Act. Now, it is stated that within the Crime Severity Act that "Any new crimes may be cited as to whether they are to be considered a Indictable Offence or a Summary Offence. If the crime is not cited as either respective classification, it is to be automatically assumed as a Summary Offence" however, this presents problems. First, according to the "Absurd Act", all summary offenses are actually misdemeanors meaning they are the lowest level of "crime". Second, as a summary offense, Treason would be considered an offense on par with Harassment, Assault, Faking a disease, Giving/Asking for Exam Answers, and other offenses that typically a police officer would deal with ingame and would not go to court. Treason categorically does not fit the definition of a "Summary Offense" based on the types of crimes listed. Treason instead is "uniquely different from Corruption" and one could therefore argue that it would be in the interest of the public at large to treat treason differently. If it was not properly labeled as a crime, even if it is "assumed as as Summary Offense".

In the event that Treason is considered a crime, I still think it is imperative for this case to go forward. In Corporate Security Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 15, the plaintiff who is represented by xLayzur managed to lay a criminal charge of corruption. The reasoning was because the DLA had failed to pick up an investigation against the defendant, the Department of Education & Commerce Secretary Trentrick_Lamar. Similarly in this case, the DLA has failed to pick up an investigation regarding the defendant. I am also worried about the conflict of interest that exists due to the Attorney General defending the defendant previously and because the Attorney General has been seen in the news attempting to negotiate a pardon for the defendant. Likewise, since the Attorney General is favorable to the defendant, the prosecutors underneath him may not take the case for fear of repercussions. Therefore, the best path forward in an event that Treason is considered a criminal charge is to continue this case as is.

Now, since the underlying case got dismissed, does that mean that the situation that gave rise to this case is over? The answer is no. What is being tried now is not whether or not the Department Reform Act meets constitutional requirements, but whether or not the conduct of the defendant was justified during the initial case. The answer to that is no, the conduct was not acceptable and led to the level of treason.

Though the defendant ultimately was forced to pay the fines according to the Department of Justice Secretary in public forums on the discord, they’re initial refusal and attempts to attack the credibility of the court cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. Thus the situation that gave rise to this case continues in spite of the dismissal of the constitutional case.

For all arguments related to the charges at hand, I refer to the arguments made in the complaint.

I will be making edits to the filing headings. Additionally the plaintiff would like to make arguments regarding the motion to recuse.

End · Nov 9, 2022

@JoeGamer

Krix said:
Apologies, Justice JoeGamer will review your motion as Justice Nacholebraa has recused himself from the case already.

JoeGamer · Nov 9, 2022

After careful consideration, I have decided to reject the motion. When considering a motion to recuse, the burden of proof on the party filing the motion, not the Justice. When looking at the arguments laid before the Court within the motion, I cannot accept this motion. The alleged bias remains unproven and obscure.
I, too, am also a college student and understand the pain of balancing studies and remembering to reply to all Redmont related activities, however, this is not an implicit form of bias.
While I would ask the Chief Justice to respond in a reasonable time period, I cannot see any implicit bias in the Chief Justice's actions and hereby reject this motion.

End · Nov 9, 2022

Respectfully, I believe that I have a right to know how the court has ruled and who has ruled in that decision.

Again, I request:

1. Was it a unanimous decision to deny all of the motions to dismiss?
2. Who is ruling over my case?

In denying this request, the Supreme Court is setting a precedent that the court does not need to provide who has ruled which way in court decisions and that the defendant does not have the right to know who is ruling on their case.

If the Court decides to hold me in contempt for asking such a question then I fear the fairness and transparency in our court system is in a grave state - particularly when Congress is investigating such an issue.

Can the Court please recognise this request for information?

Krix · Nov 10, 2022

xEndeavour said:
Respectfully, I believe that I have a right to know how the court has ruled and who has ruled in that decision.

Again, I request:

1. Was it a unanimous decision to deny all of the motions to dismiss?
2. Who is ruling over my case?

In denying this request, the Supreme Court is setting a precedent that the court does not need to provide who has ruled which way in court decisions and that the defendant does not have the right to know who is ruling on their case.

If the Court decides to hold me in contempt for asking such a question then I fear the fairness and transparency in our court system is in a grave state - particularly when Congress is investigating such an issue.

1. The Court does not reveal internal working on how a cases motions are being ruled on while the case is ongoing, all Justices have the ability to lodge a dissenting opinion alongside the opinion of the court in the verdict should they disagree with the majority ruling of the court.
2. The Supreme Court, The Supreme Court collectivelly rules over all cases in the Supreme Court.

I hope this answers any queries you may have to how the Supreme Court operates, should you have further questions I am happy to answer them elsewhere, as to not distrupt the case.

Matthew100x · Nov 10, 2022

Your Honor,

Krix said:
You haven't been called on to deliver your opening statement so your timeframe hasn't started

Pertaining to the above, has the defendant's timeframe to deliver opening statements begun?

Krix · Nov 10, 2022

Matthew100x said:
Your Honor,

Pertaining to the above, has the defendant's timeframe to deliver opening statements begun?

Apologies for the delay, we have been processing recusals and motions to dismiss.

The defence has 48 hours from now to deliver their opening statement.

End · Nov 11, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I request summary judgement based on the facts I have presented in my motion to dismiss.

The Supreme Court would be totally contradicting the constitution to rule in favour of this case based on the points made in my motion to dismiss.

The notion that we need to have a discussion about whether Treason is a criminal law is beyond ridiculous when law clearly states it to be a summary offence.

The notion that I cannot know which way each justice has ruled or who is ruling on my trial is also beyond ridiculous and beyond the definition of a fair trial.

The Court has dragged this case out until 2 days before I go on extended leave and I'd like to know the verdict prior to leaving.

YeetBoy1872325 · Nov 11, 2022

I am included in the Plaintiff list despite not being involved in this case. Please remove me. Thank you.

Lord_Donuticus · Nov 13, 2022

Your honors,

I will be representing 'xEndeavour' in this case, as a private lawyer pro bono, as he has not been granted the speed to have this case concluded before he is due to go away for two weeks.

Matthew100x · Nov 13, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Your honor, the defendant has requested a motion for summary judgment on this matter.

A summary judgment "asks the judge to make a decision on the case without going to trial. Such a motion can only occur if none of the facts of the case are in dispute, thus all that needs to be decided is a final ruling on the case" Guide - Motions Guide

The Defendant has made no defenses, since all points and defenses made in the defendant's motion to dismiss has been denied. Since he has requested summary judgment, the defendant has agreed to all facts as stated and arguments as stated.

xEndeavour said:
I request summary judgement.

All points made in the defendant's motion to dismiss has been denied. Therefore I would also like to request summary judgment as well given the aforementioned information.

I would also like to request permission to fix the heading and the party information under filing.

DATED: This 13th day of November, 2022.

Lord_Donuticus · Nov 13, 2022

The Defence would like to withdraw the request for summary judgment, as it was based on the inability of the Defence to continue however now they have representation.

Krix · Nov 16, 2022

Lord_Donuticus said:
Your honors,

I will be representing 'xEndeavour' in this case, as a private lawyer pro bono, as he has not been granted the speed to have this case concluded before he is due to go away for two weeks.

View attachment 29690

Noted.

Matthew100x said:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Your honor, the defendant has requested a motion for summary judgment on this matter.

A summary judgment "asks the judge to make a decision on the case without going to trial. Such a motion can only occur if none of the facts of the case are in dispute, thus all that needs to be decided is a final ruling on the case" Guide - Motions Guide

The Defendant has made no defenses, since all points and defenses made in the defendant's motion to dismiss has been denied. Since he has requested summary judgment, the defendant has agreed to all facts as stated and arguments as stated.

All points made in the defendant's motion to dismiss has been denied. Therefore I would also like to request summary judgment as well given the aforementioned information.

I would also like to request permission to fix the heading and the party information under filing.

DATED: This 13th day of November, 2022.

"The Defendant has made no defenses, since all points and defenses made in the defendant's motion to dismiss has been denied. Since he has requested summary judgment, the defendant has agreed to all facts as stated and arguments as stated."

Does the Defence concur and agree with the statement above, that all facts and arguments as stated by the plantiff have been agreed to.

I would also like to remind the Defence that they are yet to deliver their opening statement and it has passed the 48 hour period, If they are unable to do so within the next 24 hours I'd ask they request an extension from the court or the defence will be found in contempt of court.

Krix · Nov 16, 2022

YeetBoy1872325 said:
I am included in the Plaintiff list despite not being involved in this case. Please remove me. Thank you.

If you have a query regarding the case fillingshould it relate to you, please communicate with the presiding judge any further court room disruptions will lead to contempt of court charges.

Matthew100x · Nov 16, 2022

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure.

Defendant @xEndeavour has silently edited his motion for summary judgment. While I consider this perjury, I am filing a Breach of Procedure objection as he has not requested an edit to his submission. Further he makes a silent edit 3 minutes after his attorney posted in coordination to change a previous statement.

I have more to say on this matter, but I will withhold for now as an objection may not be the correct forum for bringing any additional complaints or arguments to fold.

Lord_Donuticus · Nov 16, 2022

The Defence does not accept the statement from the Plaintiff that states 'that all facts and arguments as stated by the plantiff have been agreed to.'. Furthermore the Defence has already asked to rescind the Motion to Dismiss stating 'as it was based on the inability of the Defence to continue however now they have representation.'

I have discussed with @xEndeavour regarding the issue just raised by the Plaintiff and asked him from refraining from such in the future, while adding the line 'based on the facts I have presented in my motion to dismiss.' is not strictly kosher within the rules of the court, I believe this only stems from the fact that the Plaintiff has seemingly attempted to twist the Motion for Summary Judgement from my client, made because they wanted to know the result before they left, to state that my client was essentially submitting a guilty plea once they believed my client had gone away and thus be unable to respond - I do not know for a fact that this was their intention but it seems highly likely. I would ask that we put this sort of chicanery to bed and get on with a fair and civil trial.

I thank the court in its leniency on posting the Opening Statement due to the chaotic nature of this case, truly a gracious consideration, I will try and get the Opening Statement posted within the deadline given by the court however if not I would ask for a 12 hour extension on this as I am working a lot right now.

Krix · Nov 17, 2022

Lord_Donuticus said:
The Defence does not accept the statement from the Plaintiff that states 'that all facts and arguments as stated by the plantiff have been agreed to.'. Furthermore the Defence has already asked to rescind the Motion to Dismiss stating 'as it was based on the inability of the Defence to continue however now they have representation.'

I have discussed with @xEndeavour regarding the issue just raised by the Plaintiff and asked him from refraining from such in the future, while adding the line 'based on the facts I have presented in my motion to dismiss.' is not strictly kosher within the rules of the court, I believe this only stems from the fact that the Plaintiff has seemingly attempted to twist the Motion for Summary Judgement from my client, made because they wanted to know the result before they left, to state that my client was essentially submitting a guilty plea once they believed my client had gone away and thus be unable to respond - I do not know for a fact that this was their intention but it seems highly likely. I would ask that we put this sort of chicanery to bed and get on with a fair and civil trial.

I thank the court in its leniency on posting the Opening Statement due to the chaotic nature of this case, truly a gracious consideration, I will try and get the Opening Statement posted within the deadline given by the court however if not I would ask for a 12 hour extension on this as I am working a lot right now.

The Defence is hereby warned that any further alteration of statements in this case after the fact may result in Contempt of Court / Perjury charges.
Should you wish to clarify your stance you may ask for permission then do so as is court procedure.

Extension request granted.

Krix · Nov 17, 2022

Matthew100x said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure.

Defendant @xEndeavour has silently edited his motion for summary judgment. While I consider this perjury, I am filing a Breach of Procedure objection as he has not requested an edit to his submission. Further he makes a silent edit 3 minutes after his attorney posted in coordination to change a previous statement.

I have more to say on this matter, but I will withhold for now as an objection may not be the correct forum for bringing any additional complaints or arguments to fold.

Overruled, The Court would like to thank the plaintiff for bringing this to its attention however will not be pursuing it further due to the circumstantial reasons as to why it was done, of which the court does not believe was in bad faith.

Lord_Donuticus · Nov 17, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Matthew100x.
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

Your honors,

This case is very simple. Did xEndeavour act maliciously? Well it is clear from the statements of the Plaintiff that they believed they ‘maliciously undermined the government through incompetence’. Their whole point is that incompetence is malicious, your honors if incompetence is malicious lock half the country up. But xEndeavour wasn’t even acting with incompetence, they were just acting in a manor which they believed was their constitutional duty.

Yes xEndeavour made mistakes, they admit that now and regret it - but it was not malicious, if anything it was the opposite of malicious. xEndeavour had no reason to want to hurt the government, they just wanted to do their duty, and Treason is a crime which must be done maliciously so it can’t be Treason without a reason. If there was no reason, it can’t be Treason. The Plaintiff has argued that the reason for treason was incompetence, but this is not a good reason, they provide no instances to prove that xEndeavour had a reason to want to harm the state, they just throw words in the air. There is no reason - and if there was no reason, it can’t be Treason.

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence AFFIRMS 'II FACTS 1.'
2. The Defence DISPUTES 'II FACTS 2.' - The Plaintiff argues that as it is not listed in the ‘Crime Severity Act’ it is not a crime, well then your honors what is it? Is it a civil charge? Well a civil charge is between two individuals affected, Treason is between an individual and the Government of Redmont - Matthew100x is not a part of the Government of Redmont - they are, I understand, a part of the Government of Stratham, but I doubt we prosecute based on the whims of lesser nations. The point, your honors, is anyone can see that Treason is a crime, if this is not a crime then it is legal because the state cannot make a civil case and an individual cannot make a criminal case. This is just ridiculous manipulation by the Plaintiff.
3. The Defence DISPUTES 'II FACTS 3.' - Precedent does not equal validity. The Court can overturn any previous precedent, to suggest otherwise would be ridiculous. Furthermore the only precedent I see here is that the Court court doesn’t often deny incorrectly filed cases and instead lets arguments play out in court, which is a very wise decision by themselves - to do otherwise would entertain the preposterous notion that they are corrupt!
4. The Defence AFFIRMS 'II FACTS 4.' - but clarifies that the Defendant only did this because they believed the court order to be unconstitutional.
5. The Defence AFFIRMS 'II FACTS 5.' - but clarifies that the Defendant only did this because they believed they were fulfilling their constitutional duty.
6. The Defence DISPUTES 'II FACTS 6.' - The DLA has represented the Government and the rule of law. The DLA takes issue as they see them without bias, to suggest that the DLA would be biased towards the Defendant is ridiculous and an insult to the hard work the DLA does.
7. The Defence DISPUTES 'II FACTS 7.' - While there may exist precedence the court was wrong for allowing this. As per my Amicus Brief earlier the constitution is clear on this.
8. The Defence AFFIRMS 'II FACTS 8.'

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence DISPUTES 'III CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 1.' - How can one do something maliciously through incompetence? If the Plaintiff wants to lock up everyone who is incompetent then half the server would be in jail - himself included for thinking they can bring a criminal case as a private citizen! The Defendant merely acted in a way in which they thought was their constitutional duty. If they were right or wrong, that is inconsequential to this matter. The fact remains it was not malicious and there was no reason for the Plaintiff to do this maliciously, and if there was no reason, it can’t be Treason.
2. The Defence DISPUTES 'III CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 2.' - Once again the Defendant was only acting in a manner they believed to be their constitutional duty. Their label that the court was corrupt was due to the fact that they were not being allowed to speak in their own trial due to the incompetence of the Plaintiff in their filling it to the Supreme Court. Emotions can run high your honors, but this is not treason. My client now regrets calling the Court corrupt but only did so because they were so upset at the circumstances, it was not malicious - it was only due to the fact that they believed they were not being afforded their rights to represent themselves in court, that was why they acted in the way they did. They wanted to ensure they were being afforded their rights. There is no proof of any reason why they would do this otherwise, and if there was no reason, it can’t be Treason.
3. The Defence DISPUTES 'III CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 3.' - Once again the actions of the Defendant were not malicious, they believed they were doing their constitutional duty - nothing more. They took their former role very seriously, they took their duty very seriously. And they ultimately completed with the courts wishes. But what they did was not malicious, it was simply their belief - if right or wrong - that they were doing the right thing. A malicious action is done with the intent to cause harm, the Defendant here acted in a way as to follow their understanding of the constitution. It’s that simple, once again there is no other reason why they would act in this way, and if there was no reason, it can’t be Treason.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 17th day of November 2022

Krix · Nov 18, 2022

Does either party have any witnesses they wish to call?

Matthew100x · Nov 19, 2022

Matthew100x said:
I would also like to request permission to fix the heading and the party information under filing.

I would like to amend the complaint to fix the parties involved and clear up any misconceptions. As well as the heading since the case is for some reason marked as FCR instead of SCR.

I would like to call up @xEndeavour as a witness.

Lord_Donuticus · Nov 19, 2022

OBJECTION

The attempt to call xEndevour as a witness has been done due to him being away for two weeks as the Plaintiff well knows, they have no other reason for calling him but this fact - however I am able to disclose information regarding this in closed court.

Matthew100x · Nov 19, 2022

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

There is legitimate reason to call the defendant as a witness pertinent enough to wait for the defendants return.

Krix · Nov 22, 2022

Matthew100x said:
I would like to amend the complaint to fix the parties involved and clear up any misconceptions. As well as the heading since the case is for some reason marked as FCR instead of SCR.

I would like to call up @xEndeavour as a witness.

State specifically what you would like to amend, The filing has been changed from FCR 21 > SCR 21, this was a mishandiling on my part apologies for the typo

Krix · Dec 1, 2022

Lord_Donuticus said:
OBJECTION

The attempt to call xEndevour as a witness has been done due to him being away for two weeks as the Plaintiff well knows, they have no other reason for calling him but this fact - however I am able to disclose information regarding this in closed court.

The Witness should be available shortly therefore I see no reason as to why they should not be called.

Krix · Dec 1, 2022

Matthew100x said:
I would like to amend the complaint to fix the parties involved and clear up any misconceptions. As well as the heading since the case is for some reason marked as FCR instead of SCR.

I would like to call up @xEndeavour as a witness.

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

@xEndeavour is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21
as witnesses. The 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.

Lawsuit: Adjourned Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21

Citizen

Citizen

Manager

Citizen

Owner

Owner

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Owner

Citizen

Owner

Owner

Citizen

Citizen

Owner

Citizen

Citizen

Owner

Citizen

Owner

Citizen

Citizen

Owner

Unemployed

Owner

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Owner

It's simple: GER.

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen