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

[End]

Present

 

[Krix]

The Plantiff may present a list of questions to the Witness within 24 hours.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you your honors,

For the witness and defendant, I have several questions for you. As you are now self-representing yourself, I would like to remind you of your right to plead the fifth for any one of these questions.

Open ended questions:

1. When your motions to dismiss were denied in the first case, why did you insist that the court was wrong?
2. Why did you refuse the injunctions created by the Supreme Court to roll back the petition for constitutional review and to hold you in contempt of court?
3. Do you view your actions in refusing judgments and defying the courts as destabilizing the government, considering your position in the government at the time this occurred?
4. You stated that you originally were not getting a fair trial in the first case. When the cases got split off and made into this one, you still refused to follow procedure, why?
5. At any point in both the prior proceeding as well as this one, did you believe yourself to be above the court?
6. Do you believe you’re getting a fair trial now?

Yes or No Questions:

1. Did you or did you not refuse to pull back the petition for the Department Reform Act constitutional amendment?
2. Did you or did you not state “I will not comply with paying fines:” in SCR 20?
3. Did you breach court proceedings in the case preceding this one?
4. Did you breach court proceedings in this court case?
5. Did you or did you not eventually pay the fines related to your contempt of court charges?
6. Did you or did you not serve your time in jail related to your contempt of court charges?

I would like to request for the defendant an extension of the normal 48 hours to think about my questions and answer them accordingly.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

OBJECTION

The Plaintiff does not have the right to demand my client, or any witness, limit their answers in anyway. My client, or any witness, has the right to answer however they wish. This is just further chicanery on the part of the Plaintiff to entrap my client. As such I ask that all these questions be struck from the record.

Your honor I request that the Plaintiff be reprimanded in someway for this extreme overreach.

 

[End]

I'll be answering alll questions in full:

When your motions to dismiss were denied in the first case, why did you insist that the court was wrong?
I did not file any motions to dismiss. I filed an amicus brief where I insisted the court was incorrect on points of law. i.e.
1. A citizen cannot charge and prosecute another citizen in a criminal case
2. A citizen cannot just put a charge of treason on to their case to elevate the jurisdiction to a higher court when the lower court rules against them several times.
3. The Supreme Court is the Court of Disputed Returns. I was complying with black and white constitutional duties as Speaker and the Court cannot impede them (i.e. halting a constitutional referendum). I offered a legal alternative which was that the returns would be withheld, but not halted (which is not possible for the Speaker to do, especially in the way the court requested).
4. The Court failed to allow me to represent myself in a case against me - which it later acknowledged.
5. The presiding officer, the Chief Justice, was seen in a private voice chat with the defence while the trial was ongoing.

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.​

Why did you refuse the injunctions created by the Supreme Court to roll back the petition for constitutional review and to hold you in contempt of court?
The Court told me, the Speaker, that I needed to halt the referendum. This is simply not legal and it's also not possible. When I told them this they told me to give them a list of who voted for what and to end the referendum to restart it later. I told them that I did not have access to that information as Speaker and they continued to insist I provide it. I suggested that I provide the results of the referendum, which was actually possible and they still refused to accept what was a rational and legal alternative. The end result was me continuing the referendum and asking the DOS to provide the court with the results, as I originally suggested.

Do you view your actions in refusing judgments and defying the courts as destabilizing the government, considering your position in the government at the time this occurred?
What we were faced with was two branches of government trying to fulfil their duties with competing ideas about how it should be executed. The Constitution clearly sets out the Speaker as having to execute a referendum and the Supreme Court as the Court of Disputed Returns. Therefore, I was doing nothing more than what was provided in the Constitution. I executed the referendum and the court attempted to halt the Speaker in the course of their constitutional duties. I then offered a legal alternative which was for the DOS to provide the returns to the court of disputed returns. At no point was the government put at any risk or was the government in any way destabilised. In my capacity as Speaker, I exercised my duties and nothing but my duties.

You stated that you originally were not getting a fair trial in the first case. When the cases got split off and made into this one, you still refused to follow procedure, why?
Please provide evidence as to where I failed to follow court procedure.

At any point in both the prior proceeding as well as this one, did you believe yourself to be above the court?
The only thing above the Court is the Constitution. The three branches of Government are equal and draw their powers from the Constitution.

Do you believe you’re getting a fair trial now?
Considering the ex parte communication occurring in the past and potentially present, I would not consider this to be a fair trial. Particularly when the Chief Justice engaging in ex parte communication does not see it fit that he be recused, provide the rulings of each justice in their decisions or upon request, and when the same Chief Justice then allows a citizen to continue prosecuting in a criminal case against another citizen unconstitutionally.

Furthermore, Treason is defined as a Summary criminal offence under the crime severity act and the Court denied a motion to dismiss on the matter that "Treason has not been codified as a Criminal charge and thus the court must make a ruling to determine its validity in a civil court proceeding."

Did you or did you not refuse to pull back the petition for the Department Reform Act constitutional amendment?
Refer to Question 1's answer.

Did you or did you not state “I will not comply with paying fines:” in SCR 20?
I paid my fines in full. My initial response to the charges were that:

I will not comply with paying fines [on the basis that]:

1. This was a frivolous case filed in the Supreme Court which had no legal grounds to be filed in the Court. Therefore, the court cannot make judgement on it. The court itself agreed that it was an illegal filing and that my constitutional rights were violated in hearing this trial without representation.

2. I will not pay a fine where I did not get the opportunity to be recognised or represented,

3. The Supreme Court cannot interrupt the constitutional duties of the Speakership.

4. All Justices are required to post their verdict [by law].

The Supreme Court was acting illegally and the case was a miscarriage of justice.

Did you breach court proceedings in the case preceding this one?
Refer to SCR20

Did you breach court proceedings in this court case?
The Justice has not identified that I have.

Did you or did you not eventually pay the fines related to your contempt of court charges?
I paid them in full

Did you or did you not serve your time in jail related to your contempt of court charges?
I served it in full

 

[End]

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

Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

Spoiler: MTD - Immediate Action to Correct

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

I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that:

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 act has now passed into law.


DATED: This 7st day of December 2022

Spoiler: MTD - Criminal Case Prosecution Authority

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 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).​

- REDMONT CONSTITUTION​

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.​

- CRIME SEVERITY ACT​

​

The Court would be in direct contravention of the wording in the constitution to deny this motion to dismiss as it clearly states that the state is only able to bring on criminal charges. Treason is clearly determined to be a summary offence by law in the crime severity act, and by extension, is criminal by nature.

DATED: This 7st day of December 2022

Spoiler: MTD - Inactivity

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 has not responded to the witness in over 80 hours.

This case has been dragged out across two courts on three separate occasions. across 5.5 weeks. There is a clear lack of respect for the Defence and Court's time.


DATED: This 7st day of December 2022

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case.

As the presiding officer, the Chief Justice has again failed to answer within a reasonable timeframe - especially beyond the time expected of the complainant and the defendant to reply to the court - on several occasions now.

I have a right to a speedy trial and the Chief Justice is impeding this right, now on several occasions. It is only reasonable that he step aside if he cannot reply to this case in a reasonable time frame.

It will soon be 7 days since the CJ has spoken in this case.

 

[Krix]

OBJECTION

The Plaintiff does not have the right to demand my client, or any witness, limit their answers in anyway. My client, or any witness, has the right to answer however they wish. This is just further chicanery on the part of the Plaintiff to entrap my client. As such I ask that all these questions be struck from the record.

Your honor I request that the Plaintiff be reprimanded in someway for this extreme overreach.

Sustained, The witness may answer questioning as they see fit however I ask that the witness be transparent and answer the questions directly.

 

[Krix]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case.

As the presiding officer, the Chief Justice has again failed to answer within a reasonable timeframe - especially beyond the time expected of the complainant and the defendant to reply to the court - on several occasions now.

I have a right to a speedy trial and the Chief Justice is impeding this right, now on several occasions. It is only reasonable that he step aside if he cannot reply to this case in a reasonable time frame.

It will soon be 7 days since the CJ has spoken in this case.

Denied, I’d like to apologize to both parties for the delay on my behalf I just spent the week in hospital was discharged today, so although I acknowledge the delayed interaction from myself, I will be able to carry out my duties as normal from now on therefore I see no reason to recuse myself from this case going forward

 

[Matthew100x]

Sustained, The witness may answer questioning as they see fit however I ask that the witness be transparent and answer the questions directly.

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Why is this objection being sustained when it was made by a non-party to the case? The defendant fired his attorney and resumed pro se representation.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Why is this objection being sustained when it was made by a non-party to the case? The defendant fired his attorney and resumed pro se representation.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

I thank the Plaintiff for informing me that my client had fired me from the case, my client had not informed me that this was his intention.

This is obviously a joke. My client has every right to represent themselves, I merely serve as co-counsel.

 

[Krix]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

I thank the Plaintiff for informing me that my client had fired me from the case, my client had not informed me that this was his intention.

This is obviously a joke. My client has every right to represent themselves, I merely serve as co-counsel.

The Supreme Court is no place for jokes, if you are not the primary counsel on this case I ask you refrain from speaking unless the Defendant be unable to speak for themselves.

I’d also ask you provide proof the defendant wishes to keep you on as co-counsel

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Why is this objection being sustained when it was made by a non-party to the case? The defendant fired his attorney and resumed pro se representation.

Overruled, The Courts Opinion does not change, however The_Donuticus will refrain from speaking unless the Defendant is unavailable again.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

This is an extremely unorthodox request for the court to make as I previously stated the Defendant made no indication he wished to drop me as Co-Counsel. This just points to further chicanery and bad faith by the Plaintiff, I question why the court is even entertaining it.

Nevertheless.

 

[Krix]

This is an extremely unorthodox request for the court to make as I previously stated the Defendant made no indication he wished to drop me as Co-Counsel. This just points to further chicanery and bad faith by the Plaintiff, I question why the court is even entertaining it.

Nevertheless.

View attachment 30067

The Defendant indicated to the court that he’d be resuming self representation before deleting the message, that is what the plaintiff is referring too.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

I would question this statement from the court however "however The_Donuticus will refrain from speaking unless the Defendant is unavailable again.", surely the Court does not wish to gag a member of the Defense for no reason? May the court please clarify?

Furthermore if the decision of the court is that I cannot respond to this case unless xEndeavour is avalible I would ask if this is a whole court discussion?

 

[Krix]

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

Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

Spoiler: MTD - Immediate Action to Correct

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

I move that this case be dismissed on the basis that:

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 act has now passed into law.


DATED: This 7st day of December 2022

Spoiler: MTD - Criminal Case Prosecution Authority

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 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).​

- REDMONT CONSTITUTION​

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.​

- CRIME SEVERITY ACT​

​

The Court would be in direct contravention of the wording in the constitution to deny this motion to dismiss as it clearly states that the state is only able to bring on criminal charges. Treason is clearly determined to be a summary offence by law in the crime severity act, and by extension, is criminal by nature.

DATED: This 7st day of December 2022

Spoiler: MTD - Inactivity

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 has not responded to the witness in over 80 hours.

This case has been dragged out across two courts on three separate occasions. across 5.5 weeks. There is a clear lack of respect for the Defence and Court's time.


DATED: This 7st day of December 2022

1. This is similar to the original motions to dismiss presented earlier by the defendant. The motion to dismiss doesn't highlight how this case is moot.

2. The Supreme Court is empowered to hear any case brought before it and the court has determined that this is a case it wishes to hear.

3. Case was prolonged to facilitate witness xEndeavours testimony, no merit of the case has been lost due to an increase in the longevity of the case.

Therefore these motions to dismiss are hereby rejected.

The Court will now move to Closing Statements.

The Supreme Courts calls upon the Plantiff to deliver their closing statement within the next 48 hours.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Your honor,

The Defense has not had the opportunity to cross examine the witness.

 

[Krix]

I would question this statement from the court however "however The_Donuticus will refrain from speaking unless the Defendant is unavailable again.", surely the Court does not wish to gag a member of the Defense for no reason? May the court please clarify?

Furthermore if the decision of the court is that I cannot respond to this case unless xEndeavour is avalible I would ask if this is a whole court discussion?

The Court would never attempt to deprive a citizen of their right to representation in Court; however the defendant Has indicated they wish to defend themselves - therefore you are no longer the primary attorney representing the defence and as such the Court asks that the primary attorney speak on behalf of the defence unless otherwise unavailable.

I hope this clarification will be sufficient

 

[Krix]

Your honor,

The Defense has not had the opportunity to cross examine the witness.

Very well, The Defence may present a list of questions to witness xEndeavour within the next 24 hours.

The Plantiffs timeframe in which they must deliver their closing statement can be disregarded until called upon again.

 

[End]

My Primary attorney will remain @Lord_Donuticus

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Thank you your honor,

Questions for the witness:

1. Why did you not originally put the Department Reform Act up for referendum?

2. Do you now regret the actions surrounding the referendums for the Department Reform Act?

3. Put us in your shoes, what were you thinking when you chose to defy the court order?

4. Do you think you acted maliciously during the events for which you are accused of treason?

5. Why did you call the court corrupt?

 

[Krix]

My Primary attorney will remain @Lord_Donuticus

So are you withdrawing your wish to self represent? , or are you serving as co-counsel? This is getting rather confusing with the constant lawyer switches and primary and secondary counsels

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

I think it is actually rather clear, and I question why the court is thus confused - the defense is only following the rules it has set out.

My client wishes to self-represent, but also have myself be primary counsel as per the courts demand that only the primary counsel for the defense be the one to respond. A demand which I hope the court will now acknowledge is the root of this problem.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Perhaps the court requires a recess of 24 hours in which to contemplate and understand this. As such the Defense requests a 24 recess to do as such.

 

[End]

So you are you withdrawing your wish to self represent, or are you serving as co-counsel? This is getting rather confusing with the constant lawyer switches and primary and secondary counsels

My Primary counsel will remain @Lord_Donuticus

 

[End]

1. Why did you not originally put the Department Reform Act up for referendum?

2. Do you now regret the actions surrounding the referendums for the Department Reform Act?

3. Put us in your shoes, what were you thinking when you chose to defy the court order?

4. Do you think you acted maliciously during the events for which you are accused of treason?

5. Why did you call the court corrupt?

1. Why did you not originally put the Department Reform Act up for referendum?
I'm human and made a mistake, as seen in #politics when I was corrected and realised.

This is one of many times the Speaker has made a mistake with referendums. Speakers rotate out every 2 months, meaning there will almost always be someone inexperienced in the position responsible for posting these referendums.
2. Do you now regret the actions surrounding the referendums for the Department Reform Act?
Of course I regret not putting the referendum up immediately. It would have saved everyone a lot of time and frustration. At the time I thought I was fulfilling my duty to the people who elected me. I recognize I made mistakes, but I hope people judge me on my overall record which is one of service to Redmont.

3. Put us in your shoes, what were you thinking when you chose to defy the court order?
I chose to defy the court order because I did not believe the Court was acting legally.
1. The Court was not affording me representation in a case where I was named as a defendant. The Court itself acknowledged that this was illegal.
2. The Court was allowing, and continues to allow, a citizen to prosecute a fellow citizen illegally in a civil case.
3. The Court was curbing my constitutional duties.
4. The Court has no express right to halt a constitutional referendum, only to make judgement on disputed returns, as per its constitutional duties.
5. The Court requested that the Speaker halt the referendum, which is not possible.
6. The Court requested that the Speaker provide a list of who voted for what in the referendum which the Speaker does not have access to.

So when you are put in a position where the Court is telling you to do something while infringing your rights, to which it later acknowledged, and requesting something of you that you do not have the ability to provide, then what choice do I have but offer a legal and viable alternative? This alternative was shot down by the court and the court charged me with contempt every hour on the hour for a number of days for something I could not even provide.

4. Do you think you acted maliciously during the events for which you are accused of treason?

Referendum:
No. As soon as I was made aware of the referendum requirement, I posted it.

Remarks about the Court:
Calling the Court Corrupt after watching it infringe my rights to representation in a Court case is me exercising my right to freedom of political communication. The Supreme Court is allowing a Citizen to unconstitutionally prosecute me in a civil case, without any legal authority to do so and for a charge which the Crime Severity Act prescribes as a Summary Criminal Offence.

Contempt of Court Charges:
I did not comply as I was not able to comply. As Speaker of the House I don't have access to the information the Court requested.

I'd also like to note that the case was dismissed, so the injunction against the referendum was not in force when the second referendum was posted.

5. Why did you call the court corrupt?
I was angry. I was expressing myself through my constitutional right to political communication. I will now categorically state I do not believe this court is corrupt, but I do believe it is bias against me and I've been vocal against this. The Court has been secretive in their rulings and failing to post their individual verdicts as required by law. The Court has failed to afford constitutional rights to the defence, and the Court is allowing a Citizen to prosecute in defiance of the constitution.

Furthermore, the Chief Justice has been engaging in ex parte communication with the plaintiff and has failed to recuse themselves.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Following on from xEndeavour's witness testimony the defence would like to request calling further witnesses for testimony.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection:
Perjury.

Defendant has removed and deleted a post from this case in order to hide the fact that they had stopped self representing themselves and so that they can assert that @Lord_Donuticus is their attorney (Evidence 1).


Objection:
Relevance.

Remarks about the Court:
Calling the Court Corrupt after watching it infringe my rights to representation in a Court case is me exercising my right to freedom of political communication. The Supreme Court is allowing a Citizen to unconstitutionally prosecute me in a civil case, without any legal authority to do so and for a charge which the Crime Severity Act prescribes as a Summary Criminal Offence.

Contempt of Court Charges:
I did not comply as I was not able to comply. As Speaker of the House I don't have access to the information the Court requested.

Objection:
Improper Evidence, Hearsay, and Calls for a conclusion

5. Why did you call the court corrupt?
I was angry. I was expressing myself through my constitutional right to political communication. I will now categorically state I do not believe this court is corrupt, but I do believe it is bias against me and I've been vocal against this. The Court has been secretive in their rulings and failing to post their individual verdicts as required by law. The Court has failed to afford constitutional rights to the defence, and the Court is allowing a Citizen to prosecute in defiance of the constitution.

Furthermore, the Chief Justice has been engaging in ex parte communication with the plaintiff and has failed to recuse themselves.

My apologies for getting this in late, I have been sick and unable to timely post this objection.

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case.

I have now moved three separate motions to recuse against the Chief Justice due to their extreme disregard for mine and the plaintiff's time, as well as infringing on my constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Motion to Recuse 1
It took the Chief Justice 6 days to respond to a motion to dismiss, even after it was requested that the court facilitate a speedy trial before a period where I would be unavailable.​

​

The Chief Justice denied this recusal on the basis that they are a university student and that they are consulting the court.​

​

After an appeal to an associate Justice, the Chief Justice was encouraged to respond in a reasonable timeframe.​

Motion to Recuse 2
The Chief Justice didn't respond to the case for 7 days.​

The Chief Justice denied this recusal because they had been discharged from hospital and saw no reason as to why they couldn't carry out their duties as normal.​

​

It has now been 2 months since the original case against me was filed and just short of 2 months since this case was filed. If the Chief Justice continues to be absent from proceedings for a week at a time, this case will not be finalised until early next year noting the Defence has requested to call upon more witnesses.

Denying this third request for recusal for a pattern of behaviour that has negatively impacted the progression of this case would be in direct contravention of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

If the Chief Justice does not voluntarily recuse, I'd like to refer this recusal to the Associate Justice.

 

[End]

If I may provide some context to this objection made by the plaintiff:

Objection:​

Perjury.​

​

Defendant has removed and deleted a post from this case in order to hide the fact that they had stopped self representing themselves and so that they can assert that @Lord_Donuticus is their attorney (Evidence 1).​

​

The post was deleted with the reason 'redacted' which is visible to the Justices.

My comment was redacted as to not confuse the court when I decided not to go through with solely representing myself, instead opting to co-counsel.

Perjury is Giving knowingly incorrect testimony

 

[End]

It’s now been 54 hours since I requested that the Chief Justice recuse themselves based on activity.

Noting it has been 8 days since the Chief Justice responded to this case I’d like to request that the recusal be reviewed by an associate justice to ensure a speedy trial.

 

[Krix]

Perhaps the court requires a recess of 24 hours in which to contemplate and understand this. As such the Defense requests a 24 recess to do as such.

Denied, due to the timeframe elapsing already.

 

[Krix]

Objection:
Perjury.

Defendant has removed and deleted a post from this case in order to hide the fact that they had stopped self representing themselves and so that they can assert that @Lord_Donuticus is their attorney (Evidence 1).


Objection:
Relevance.


Objection:
Improper Evidence, Hearsay, and Calls for a conclusion






My apologies for getting this in late, I have been sick and unable to timely post this objection.

Objection (1) Perjury:
The Court hereby sustains this objection, It is clear witness/co-counsel xEndeavour deleted a statement from the court thread without asking the presiding judge permission to do so - this caused undue confusion to his own representation, the defense and the court at large.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of perjury, the setencing will be layed down in the verdict upon the conclusion of the trial.


Objection (2) Relevance:
The Court hereby overrules this objection, the witness has not strayed to far from the line of questioning in the courts opinion, he may explain from his point of view the events that he partook in as to justify whether he acted in a malicious manner or not.

Objection (3) Improper Evidence, Hearsay, and Calls for a conclusion:
The Court hereby overrules this objection, the evidence was not obtained illegally or in violation of a court order, the testimony cannot be hereby if the witness is testifying as to why he said something and it is not a call for a conclusion as the witness is simply testifying to the cause and motivation of the words he spoke

 

[Krix]

Following on from xEndeavour's witness testimony the defence would like to request calling further witnesses for testimony.

Denied, the Defense already had the oppurtunity to call witnesses before this court and failed to act upon it.

 

[Krix]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I request that the Chief Justice voluntarily recuse themselves from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case.

I have now moved three separate motions to recuse against the Chief Justice due to their extreme disregard for mine and the plaintiff's time, as well as infringing on my constitutional right to a speedy trial.

​

Motion to Recuse 1​

It took the Chief Justice 6 days to respond to a motion to dismiss, even after it was requested that the court facilitate a speedy trial before a period where I would be unavailable.​

​

The Chief Justice denied this recusal on the basis that they are a university student and that they are consulting the court.​

​

After an appeal to an associate Justice, the Chief Justice was encouraged to respond in a reasonable timeframe.​

​

Motion to Recuse 2​

The Chief Justice didn't respond to the case for 7 days.​

​

The Chief Justice denied this recusal because they had been discharged from hospital and saw no reason as to why they couldn't carry out their duties as normal.​

​

It has now been 2 months since the original case against me was filed and just short of 2 months since this case was filed. If the Chief Justice continues to be absent from proceedings for a week at a time, this case will not be finalised until early next year noting the Defence has requested to call upon more witnesses.

Denying this third request for recusal for a pattern of behaviour that has negatively impacted the progression of this case would be in direct contravention of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

If the Chief Justice does not voluntarily recuse, I'd like to refer this recusal to the Associate Justice.

I'd like to apologize for the delays; due to real life circumstances I had a severe backlog of work due to other circumstances I explained earlier - I have nothing but free time up until the 15th of Janaury now and I see no reason to further delay this case.

Rejected.

 

[Krix]

The Court hereby calls upon the plantiff to deliver their closing statement to the Court within the next 48 hours.

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

The Defence requests that a second Judge respond to the motion to recuse the Chief Justice.

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.

The Defence requests that the Chief Justice is recused from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case and failing to recognise that they need to recuse themselves on multiple occasions due to their IRL commitments impacting this case.

I have now moved three separate motions to recuse against the Chief Justice due to their extreme disregard for mine and the plaintiff's time, as well as infringing on my constitutional right to a speedy trial. Not only is this pattern of behaviour present in the current case, but also most other cases before the Supreme Court.

Motion to Recuse 1​

It took the Chief Justice 6 days to respond to a motion to dismiss, even after it was requested that the court facilitate a speedy trial before a period where I would be unavailable.​

The Chief Justice denied this recusal on the basis that they are a university student and that they are consulting the court.​

After an appeal to an associate Justice, the Chief Justice was encouraged to respond in a reasonable timeframe.​

​

Motion to Recuse 2​

The Chief Justice didn't respond to the case for 7 days.​

​

The Chief Justice denied this recusal because they had been discharged from hospital and saw no reason as to why they couldn't carry out their duties as normal.​

It has now been 2 months since the original case against me was filed and just short of 2 months since this case was filed. If the Chief Justice continues to be absent from proceedings for a week at a time, this case will not be finalised until early next year noting the Defence has requested to call upon more witnesses.​

Denying this third request for recusal for a pattern of behaviour that has negatively impacted the progression of this case would be in direct contravention of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Chief Justice has made excuse after excuse as to their absence and I anticipate this will not change going forward based on past patterns of behaviour. Noting it took the Chief Justice 62 hours to respond to this motion previously while he was active on Discord and in game, there remains a continued disregard for the time of those present before the court.

The Court denied several motions to dismiss based on the fact that it would like to discuss the matters which it denied. Noting that the witness testimony did not fully cover the areas the court wished to discuss, the Defence would like to call upon witnesses based on the issues that remain undiscussed:

"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.

Therefore, noting the Defence intends to object to moving to closing statements, there is an implicit need for the case to be presided over by an active Justice.

 

[End]

Objection
Point of Law

The Court hereby sustains this objection, It is clear witness/co-counsel xEndeavour deleted a statement from the court thread without asking the presiding judge permission to do so - this caused undue confusion to his own representation, the defense and the court at large.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of perjury, the setencing will be layed down in the verdict upon the conclusion of the trial.

1. Perjury is required to be referred to the DLA for prosecution, therefore the court has illegally declared me guilty outside of a trial for perjury.

(3) Perjury charges may be made against any individual and no individual may be convicted of Perjury without a trial.

2. The charge of perjury for removing a comment with the reasoning 'redacted' does not meet the definition of Perjury nor the spirit of the law. By charging me with perjury, you are likening me deleting a notification that my representation status had changed - with the reason that is available to the court set as 'redacted' - as equal to directly lying to the court during testimony. This seems unreasonable and is a poor precedent to have been set.

No court procedure exists for having to ask permission to remove a trivial notification of the status of my counsel, particularly when it was removed with the reasoning - which is visible to the court - saying 'redacted.'

Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government shall be considered Perjury.

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Court hereby calls upon the plantiff to deliver their closing statement to the Court within the next 48 hours.

The Defence requests that this motion be answered following the motion to recuse to prevent any unnecessary mixups and or delays following on from the recusal decision.

The Defence requests that the court reconsider its position to disallow the Defence from calling forward witnesses, during the witness stage of the trial, based on the absence of several topics from the case which the court wishes to have inform its decision, as noted previously:

"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 Defence does not see it unreasonable to request witnesses based on the initial witnesses' testimony and or the lack of testimony on a given part of the case prior to closing statements.

 

[End]

Objection
Pending Motion to Reconsider

The Defence requests that closing statements not be heard until the currently pending motion to reconsider moving to closing statements is answered.

 

[Matthew100x]

You’re honors,

I will need 48 additional hours to complete the closing statements. I would like to note that the defendant is posting in place of their attorney. I would also like to note that I find it odd that the defendant testified that they do not believe themselves above this court yet continuously rejects the court denying their motions.

 

[End]

Objection

As I have noted previously, I have a co-counsel. There is nothing that precludes me from having a defence team for representation.

I have a right to appeal and file motions, it does not give rise to your claim that I am above this court.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

The Defence requests that a second Judge respond to the motion to recuse the Chief Justice.


The Defence requests that the Chief Justice is recused from this case due to significantly delaying the case by continuing to take extended periods between replying to this case and failing to recognise that they need to recuse themselves on multiple occasions due to their IRL commitments impacting this case.

I have now moved three separate motions to recuse against the Chief Justice due to their extreme disregard for mine and the plaintiff's time, as well as infringing on my constitutional right to a speedy trial. Not only is this pattern of behaviour present in the current case, but also most other cases before the Supreme Court.

Motion to Recuse 1​

It took the Chief Justice 6 days to respond to a motion to dismiss, even after it was requested that the court facilitate a speedy trial before a period where I would be unavailable.​

The Chief Justice denied this recusal on the basis that they are a university student and that they are consulting the court.​

After an appeal to an associate Justice, the Chief Justice was encouraged to respond in a reasonable timeframe.​

​

Motion to Recuse 2​

The Chief Justice didn't respond to the case for 7 days.​

​

The Chief Justice denied this recusal because they had been discharged from hospital and saw no reason as to why they couldn't carry out their duties as normal.​

It has now been 2 months since the original case against me was filed and just short of 2 months since this case was filed. If the Chief Justice continues to be absent from proceedings for a week at a time, this case will not be finalised until early next year noting the Defence has requested to call upon more witnesses.​

Denying this third request for recusal for a pattern of behaviour that has negatively impacted the progression of this case would be in direct contravention of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Chief Justice has made excuse after excuse as to their absence and I anticipate this will not change going forward based on past patterns of behaviour. Noting it took the Chief Justice 62 hours to respond to this motion previously while he was active on Discord and in game, there remains a continued disregard for the time of those present before the court.

The Court denied several motions to dismiss based on the fact that it would like to discuss the matters which it denied. Noting that the witness testimony did not fully cover the areas the court wished to discuss, the Defence would like to call upon witnesses based on the issues that remain undiscussed:



Therefore, noting the Defence intends to object to moving to closing statements, there is an implicit need for the case to be presided over by an active Justice.

Due to Justice JoeGamer's response to the previous motion, I have delivered the decision for this motion because it requires another justice.

After considering the information presented to the court, I will reject this motion to recuse. As previously stated by Justice JoeGamer, the burden of proof falls upon the filer of the motion and not the Justice. Response times to a case are not a defined reason for recusal and cannot simply be used as such. I would ask the Chief Justice to respond in a reasonable period. For the above reason, the motion to recuse is rejected.

 

[End]

Due to Justice JoeGamer's response to the previous motion, I have delivered the decision for this motion because it requires another justice.

After considering the information presented to the court, I will reject this motion to recuse. As previously stated by Justice JoeGamer, the burden of proof falls upon the filer of the motion and not the Justice. Response times to a case are not a defined reason for recusal and cannot simply be used as such. I would ask the Chief Justice to respond in a reasonable period. For the above reason, the motion to recuse is rejected.

Motion to Reconsider
Point of Law

Firstly, I am unable to locate a law which requires a new justice to rule each time a recusal appeal is made.

Secondly, you made reference to the Defendant having the burden of proof - what do you mean by this? All of the proof of my allegations are in this thread. Justice Joegamer's comment was in relation to allegations of bias. This recusal had no such allegation and was solely based on the Chief Justice's inability to preside in a timely fashion (i.e. before 7 days) on several occasions, which in turn impacts my constitutional right to a speedy trial.

You are correct in that response times are not a reason for recusal. That's why this motion was made under the reasoning that several failures on the Chief Justice's part to respond to this case have had the second order effect of curbing my constitutional rights, which is a solid ground for recusal.

I'm sure the court would agree that impacting ones constitutional rights would surely be considered a breach of judicial conduct.

​

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.​

​

 

[Matthew100x]

Good evening your honors,

It has been a long and turbulent case. Both sides have brought forth and presented their case before this court. I hope tonight, that justice prevails. I shall begin and end my closing statements by stating that for all arguments related to the civil or criminal charges that I have brought forth to reread my complaint and initial post that began this case.

Thank you Justices for the patience and fortitude in dealing with this case and @xEndeavour and @Lord_Donuticus for a case well fought. I await the verdict.

 

[Krix]

Objection
Point of Law



1. Perjury is required to be referred to the DLA for prosecution, therefore the court has illegally declared me guilty outside of a trial for perjury.

2. The charge of perjury for removing a comment with the reasoning 'redacted' does not meet the definition of Perjury nor the spirit of the law. By charging me with perjury, you are likening me deleting a notification that my representation status had changed - with the reason that is available to the court set as 'redacted' - as equal to directly lying to the court during testimony. This seems unreasonable and is a poor precedent to have been set.

No court procedure exists for having to ask permission to remove a trivial notification of the status of my counsel, particularly when it was removed with the reasoning - which is visible to the court - saying 'redacted.

Denied - It is clear to the Court that you misrepresented yourself and caused undue confusion, you were previously warned in this very case for modifying statements/deleting them without the expressly granted permission of the presiding judge.

 

[Krix]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Defence requests that this motion be answered following the motion to recuse to prevent any unnecessary mixups and or delays following on from the recusal decision.

The Defence requests that the court reconsider its position to disallow the Defence from calling forward witnesses, during the witness stage of the trial, based on the absence of several topics from the case which the court wishes to have inform its decision, as noted previously:



The Defence does not see it unreasonable to request witnesses based on the initial witnesses' testimony and or the lack of testimony on a given part of the case prior to closing statements.

Denied - The Defence already had the oppurtunity to call witnesses forward before this court and chose not to.

 

[Krix]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Defence requests that this motion be answered following the motion to recuse to prevent any unnecessary mixups and or delays following on from the recusal decision.

The Defence requests that the court reconsider its position to disallow the Defence from calling forward witnesses, during the witness stage of the trial, based on the absence of several topics from the case which the court wishes to have inform its decision, as noted previously:



The Defence does not see it unreasonable to request witnesses based on the initial witnesses' testimony and or the lack of testimony on a given part of the case prior to closing statements.

Denied - Already resolved due to plantiffs delay in delivering their closing statement.

You’re honors,

I will need 48 additional hours to complete the closing statements. I would like to note that the defendant is posting in place of their attorney. I would also like to note that I find it odd that the defendant testified that they do not believe themselves above this court yet continuously rejects the court denying their motions.

Granted

Objection

As I have noted previously, I have a co-counsel. There is nothing that precludes me from having a defence team for representation.

I have a right to appeal and file motions, it does not give rise to your claim that I am above this court.

Sustained - The Court had already answered this previously, we ask that your primary attorney lead in engagements with this court - however you are entitled to self representation and multiple attorneys as the right is not limited to one, however this does not excuse the deletion of court statements or misrepresenting your actions.

 

[Krix]

The Court hereby calls upon the defence to deliver their closing statement to the Court within the next 48 hours.

 

[End]

This case is an egregious stain on our Justice system which would completely satisfy a mistrial.

Errors of Law
The Court has made various errors of law throughout the case which should be noted:

1. Allowed a citizen to prosecute another citizen in a criminal case in contravention to the Constitution and the Crime Severity Act. Even if you argue the Crime Severity Act's case, how can one reasonably claim that Treason is not a criminal offence? Is one who undermines the stability of the Government, who ends up in jail, with a large fine, and banned from office not a criminal?

2. Denied the Defence a Speedy trial through repeated refusals to recuse in absences of up to a week on multiple occassions. The Court has also used irrelevant reasons to deny motions of recusal.

3. The Court has, on multiple occasions, ignored parts of motions and failed to address them.

4. The Defence requested to bring forward witnesses after the initial witness, based on the answers given, and the Court denied them the ability because they originally request. The Defence did not respond to the request for witnesses. The Defence alerted the court that they would be away, yet the court took so long to respond that it called for witnesses during the period which the Defendant was away. At the Defence's first opportunity after the primary witness was questioned, they asked to call on witnesses.

5. The Defence was charged with perjury for deleting an update to their representation status when it later changed. The comment was deleted with the reasoning 'redacted' and this was visible to all Justices. No court procedure or law exists for having to ask permission to remove a trivial notification of the status of my counsel, particularly when it was removed with the reasoning - which is visible to the court - saying 'redacted.' This doesn't even fit the description of perjury.

6. The Court has declared the Defence Guilty of Perjury without Trial.

7. As shown throughout this case, a member presiding over this case has been engaging in ex parte communication and has failed to recuse themselves. The Court held that the DLA was unable to prosecute me because I was a party in a case to which they were also a party to, but ignored the fact that the Plaintiff and Chief Justice were in a voice call together and immediately left when I joined another VC.

8. The political bias in this case is outstandingly obvious when you consider that a citizen has been allowed to put a charge of treason on to their case to elevate the jurisdiction to a higher court when the lower court rules against them several times. The higher court proceeded to do the exact opposite of the lower court and has continued to be hostile toward the Defence for the entirety of both trials.

Claims for Relief
The claims for relief in this case are not sufficient to constitute treason:

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.

I fail to understand how I have maliciously undermined the government in my capacity as Speaker when:

No changes were made to the Constitution.

No changes to the system of Government were made by the Speaker.

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.

Changes made by staff were rolled back as far as reasonably practicable until the conclusion of the referendum.

The public referendum was carried out and passed with a supermajority three times.

The Supreme Court has no authority as the Court of disputed returns to halt a referendum and then demand the results from an individual which doesn't have access to the results. Then, when they fail to provide the results, continually charge them with contempt of court for failing to provide them.

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).

This is Perjury. This is simply incorrect. 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.​

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.
Precedent is persuasive, but it does not enable the court to directly override law, especially the constitution.

The court 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).​

​

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.​

This is Perjury. It is also incorrect. When this was posted the fine was paid in full. Many of the contempt of court charges were made due to me not providing information I did not have access to as Speaker (election results).

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.​

There was no active injunction at the time since the case was dismissed in the court it was issued. No evidence has been provided to suggest that it was active at the time.

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.​

The DLA was never my counsel. I openly and actively refused their counsel, there was no affiliation. This was a calculated and political claim to relief. Just because we are parties in the same case (which was illegal) does not assume mutual representation. The idea that because we were sued first together, and then separately by the same plaintiff, for the same reasons, that it would then produce a conflict of interest is ludacris. Under this logic I could sue the Plaintiff and the Chief Justice and it would imply a conflict of interest for the Chief Justice because they were parties in the same case.

7. While the Plaintiff insists these are civil charges, there exists evidence of citizens being allowed to make criminal charges.​

No evidence provided.

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.​

I have been out of all of these positions for over a month.

Key Considerations
1. You are currently making a decision to charge someone who made an honest mistake and actively worked to correct that mistake with the highest crime that one can be charged with.

2. If you find the Plaintiff guilty of Treason, you are directly contravening the Constitution and law in allowing a citizen to prosecute.

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

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.

5. 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.​

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

​

2. A supermajority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.​

​

3. 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.

I hope that the Court comes to the realisation that it has no legal ground to make a verdict on this case and that it should be dismissed.