Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Requesting the appropriate Justice answer this motion and to address all contents. This was in response to the appeal reasoning, which was delivered by Justice Nacholebra.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.
Can the court please address all points listed in the objection.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.
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.
View attachment 30433
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.
View attachment 30432
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:
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.
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.
Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act.
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.
Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf.
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:
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).
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.
View attachment 30429
View attachment 30431
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.
No evidence provided.
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:
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.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court also interprets the laws as per its constitutional duties.
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 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.
Objection
Point of Law
The Defence requests that it is afforded the opportunity to call a witness forward before the court goes into verdict, noting that witnesses were called the day that the defendant said that they’d be away.
The defendant called upon a witness as soon as they returned, during the witness stage of the trial.
It is clear that my counsel has not represented my views on wishing to call forward witnesses.
Objection
Point of Law
The Defence requests that the court answers all motions in full, which have been left unanswered or partially answered before verdict.
Denied.Objection
Point of Law
All justices are required by the constitution to make their verdict independently in the court forum. I’d argue that this extends to rulings on motions, therefore the Defence requests that, in order to maintain transparency in which Justices are ruling on this case and which Justices are dissenting to rulings made in this case, that all decisions are made public to the court.
For example, my question extends to whether the Chief Justice has been overruling the other Justice in this case by casting a second vote in the incidence of a dissenting ruling on a motion.
Exhibit 1 - Failed to address all components of the objection. The comment is absent of any legal reasoning.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.
Exhibit 2 - The Defence did not provide any comment on whether it would be calling forward a witness or not as the Defendant was away, which the court was notified of.Denied - The Defence already had the oppurtunity to call witnesses forward before this court and chose not to.
Exhibit 3 - This motion was not answered at all.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.'
Noting that the Chief Justice has refused to answer this recusal, I'd like to request that it be referred to appeal.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 neglecting their constitutional duties and for violating my constitutional rights:
Violation of Defendant's Constitutional Rights
1. Violation of Right to Speedy Trial: Throughout this case, the Chief Justice has left the case unanswered for 9 days, 6 days, and then 7 days. These intervals are not consistent with the duties of the Chief Justice in presiding over this case and have infringed upon my constitutional rights as a party to the case.
2. Right to a Fair Trial: The Chief Justice has failed to allow me to call forward a witness. The Court was made aware that I would be away between the dates that the court called for witnesses. As soon as I returned, I made a request to call forward a witness and it was denied. This is incredibly unreasonable considering the case waited until I returned (the plaintiff's witness, but it would not wait for me to call forward my witness). My team has not said at any point that it does not want to call forward witnesses.
3. Right to a Fair Trial: The Chief Justice was seen engaging in ex parte communication 1 on 1 with the Plaintiff of a major controversial case before the court and refused to recuse themselves, despite ex parte communication being listed as a key reason for recusal. If talking 1 n 1 with a party in a case is not ex parte communication, then what is? See Exhibit 2.
4. Right to a Fair Trial: I was found guilty of perjury without trial for an act which was not consistent with the definition of Perjury.
5. Right to a Fair Trial: The Chief Justice has been answering all of the Plaintiff's motions and in full. I have raised motions which have been ignored for over a week and motions which have been partially answered.
Illegal Actions
1. Illegal Case: Citizens cannot prosecute crimes. If this case is passed, it will totally override the constitution in the two parts where it explicitly explains that criminal cases are put forward by the state or in appeal to the state. Treason is a summary offence, as provided by the Crime Severity Act, where it plainly states that all new laws are summary offences unless otherwise prescribed. The Supreme Court is justifying the case as a civil case because it does not believe Treason is a criminal charge. Even without the Crime Severity Act, the idea that breaking a law - which imposes financial, jail, and removal from office as penalties - is not a crime, is interesting legal interpretation. See exhibit 1 for the origins of this case when it was filed as SCR20.
2. Independent Judicial Rulings: The Chief Justice denied requests by a defendant to know who was ruling on the case and for whether the Chief Justice was overruling a dissenting Justice, using the Chief Justice's 'tiebreaking vote.' The Chief Justice refused to provide the views of the other Justice(s) ruling on the case. It is required by law that all Justices make a ruling independently and post it to the Court. If I was sitting in a court room, I would see the Judges present, this request is not unreasonable.
Bias
1. Whether intended or natural, there is no question as to whether this case has been compromised. I penly advocate against the Chief Justice and have sparred with him throughout his political career and legal career. I openly advocated against his appointment to Chief Justice and he is aware of this. Under no possible circumstances is this case going to be fair if ruled upon by the Chief Justice. See Exhibit 3.
2. Ex Parte Communication with one party of the case in a 1-on-1 vc chat during the height of the case. See Exhibit 2.
3. The Chief Justice ignored a motion I made that raised perjury concerns over the plaintiff and it was ignored. The Chief Justice answered perjury objects of the plaintiff.
Under Investigation
1. Congress is currently investigating the Chief Justice. To prevent a retrial for potential illegal activity, It is reasonable that he steps down from active cases to prevent them from being overturned.
By law there are no limitations on how many recusal requests I can make and I believe that I have legal standing in my requests.
If the Chief Justice does not voluntarily recuse, I'd like to automatically refer it to the other Justice ruling on this case for appeal.
Exhibit 1
View attachment 30524
Exhibit 2
View attachment 30525
Exhibit 3
View attachment 30526
denied, reference other recusals.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 neglecting their constitutional duties and for violating my constitutional rights:
Violation of Defendant's Constitutional Rights
1. Violation of Right to Speedy Trial: Throughout this case, the Chief Justice has left the case unanswered for 9 days, 6 days, and then 7 days. These intervals are not consistent with the duties of the Chief Justice in presiding over this case and have infringed upon my constitutional rights as a party to the case.
2. Right to a Fair Trial: The Chief Justice has failed to allow me to call forward a witness. The Court was made aware that I would be away between the dates that the court called for witnesses. As soon as I returned, I made a request to call forward a witness and it was denied. This is incredibly unreasonable considering the case waited until I returned (the plaintiff's witness, but it would not wait for me to call forward my witness). My team has not said at any point that it does not want to call forward witnesses.
3. Right to a Fair Trial: The Chief Justice was seen engaging in ex parte communication 1 on 1 with the Plaintiff of a major controversial case before the court and refused to recuse themselves, despite ex parte communication being listed as a key reason for recusal. If talking 1 n 1 with a party in a case is not ex parte communication, then what is? See Exhibit 2.
4. Right to a Fair Trial: I was found guilty of perjury without trial for an act which was not consistent with the definition of Perjury.
5. Right to a Fair Trial: The Chief Justice has been answering all of the Plaintiff's motions and in full. I have raised motions which have been ignored for over a week and motions which have been partially answered.
Illegal Actions
1. Illegal Case: Citizens cannot prosecute crimes. If this case is passed, it will totally override the constitution in the two parts where it explicitly explains that criminal cases are put forward by the state or in appeal to the state. Treason is a summary offence, as provided by the Crime Severity Act, where it plainly states that all new laws are summary offences unless otherwise prescribed. The Supreme Court is justifying the case as a civil case because it does not believe Treason is a criminal charge. Even without the Crime Severity Act, the idea that breaking a law - which imposes financial, jail, and removal from office as penalties - is not a crime, is interesting legal interpretation. See exhibit 1 for the origins of this case when it was filed as SCR20.
2. Independent Judicial Rulings: The Chief Justice denied requests by a defendant to know who was ruling on the case and for whether the Chief Justice was overruling a dissenting Justice, using the Chief Justice's 'tiebreaking vote.' The Chief Justice refused to provide the views of the other Justice(s) ruling on the case. It is required by law that all Justices make a ruling independently and post it to the Court. If I was sitting in a court room, I would see the Judges present, this request is not unreasonable.
Bias
1. Whether intended or natural, there is no question as to whether this case has been compromised. I penly advocate against the Chief Justice and have sparred with him throughout his political career and legal career. I openly advocated against his appointment to Chief Justice and he is aware of this. Under no possible circumstances is this case going to be fair if ruled upon by the Chief Justice. See Exhibit 3/4.
2. Ex Parte Communication with one party of the case in a 1-on-1 vc chat during the height of the case. See Exhibit 2.
3. The Chief Justice ignored a motion I made that raised perjury concerns over the plaintiff and it was ignored. The Chief Justice answered perjury objects of the plaintiff.
Under Investigation
1. Congress is currently investigating the Chief Justice. To prevent a retrial for potential illegal activity, It is reasonable that he steps down from active cases to prevent them from being overturned.
By law there are no limitations on how many recusal requests I can make and I believe that I have legal standing in my requests.
If the Chief Justice does not voluntarily recuse, I'd like to automatically refer it to the other Justice ruling on this case for appeal.
Exhibit 1
View attachment 30524
Exhibit 2
View attachment 30525
Exhibit 3
View attachment 30526
Edit: Exhibit 4
View attachment 30600
I'd like to appeal this to the other Justice on this case.denied, reference other recusals.
After careful consideration, I have decided to accept parts of the motion to recuse. The only part of the motion to recuse I am accepting is bias/appearance of bias, specifically, point 2.I'd like to appeal this to the other Justice on this case.
Additionally, I'd like the fact that the Chief Justice just denied all of my motions with no reasoning, is failing to answer motions made over a week ago concerning alleged perjury by the plaintiff, refused to consider the recusal, and refused to answer my previous motions in full, to be taken into consideration.
I'd also like to note that there are a number of new arguments provided which the Chief Justice has not bothered to respond to.
No objections, your honour.Before we get back into this thing, I request a sidebar conversation with both parties' legal counsels. This sidebar will be over Discord.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONTExhibit 3 - This motion was not answered at all.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONTObjection
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.'
Motion to compel denied. Improper use of the motion. Please refer to the motions guide for proper use of a motion to compel.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x
Plaintiff
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO COMPEL
Requesting that the Supreme Court review this objection which was not answered previously.
To lower the threshold of what it means to perjure yourself in court to retracting a comment which remains visible to the court, which only outlines a status update of the defendant's representation status, is trivial at best.
This act was made in good faith to correct the record and was not intended to mischief the court. The ruling of the court places this act in comparison with directly lying to the court to misrepresent an idea or mislead the court.
For example, up until now the court has ignored an objection made by the defendant which claims the plaintiff has perjured the court. While this looks as though it is an honest mistake, the court has lowered the threshold of perjury to redacting a comment. The court has ignored the plaintiff outwardly providing incorrect information about the Crime Severity Act and its categorisation of Treason.
Motion to reconsider rejected. The Court has already made its decision as has held that decision. Just because the Chief Justice has been recused does not mean the Court will change its prior decisions.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x
Plaintiff
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
I am requesting that the court review this objection.
The response provided previously by the court did not address the content of the objection or provide any legal reasoning.
Motion to Dismiss rejected. The Court has already addressed similar motions to dismiss made on similar points of law. This Court will not change its decision-making just because the Chief Justice has been recused.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x
Plaintiff
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defence requests that the Supreme Court dismiss this case with prejudice.
1. This case, as I have presented in my arguments, is a citizen prosecuting another citizen. The plaintiff is justifying the legality of this case as a civil trial - yet, the Plaintiff is not asking for any civil remedies such as damages or seeking to recuperate any losses as a result of alleged criminal actions. The Plaintiff is seeking to mask what is a criminal trial as a civil case in only requesting criminal charges against the defendant. The court would be setting a landmark change in our legal system to allow the normalisation of criminal prosecution in civil cases. Additionally, as the chief interpreter of the constitution, the Supreme Court would be acting against the express wording of the constitution and JSA which establishes the government as the sole prosecutor and administrator of Justice. In denying this case progressing, the Court is reinforcing the intent of the Constitution and correcting, through binding judgement, any civil lawsuit which has been used as a vehicle for illegal prosecution.
2. The conduct of this case is nothing short of a mistrial. Grounds for a mistrial would reasonably include an error or misconduct that has resulted in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial. Noting the arguments made throughout this case, my rights have been violated at almost every stage. Whether it be refusing to allow me to call forward a witness, failing to respond on several occasions, failing to reply to a motion made over a week ago, or by showing clear perception of bias in the conduct of the case, I believe the only remedy to this trial is a mistrial.
Edit: 3. Treason is now an indictable offence. Noting that there is now a new law governing Treason, it nullifies much of the arguments put forward about the Crime Severity Act. The Plaintiff's argument that Treason was not a criminal offence is now redundant.
(6) Treason (Original: Rurge - Feb 2, 2022)(i) Classification: Indictable Criminal OffenseThe act of a 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..Minimum Sentencing: $5,000 FineMaximum Sentencing: $25,000 Fine + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months
Edit: 4. The argument the Plaintiff makes in justifying this case is based on a precedent. Precedent is not law. Precedent is persuasive. The precedent, if applied, would wrongly reinforce that if the government doesn't do what it is prescribed to do in the Constitution, the Citizen should do in its place. As it applies to this case, the plaintiff argues that because the DLA did not prosecute, the citizen is now in a place where they can prosecute. Should this be reinforced, it would imply that if the legislature does not do its constitutional duties of writing bills, a citizen can do it in the legislature's absence of action. Or that if the Judiciary refuses to hear a case, they suddenly have the power to hear cases in the absence of the Judiciary's action. It is the Government's job to prosecute and there are checks and balances to ensure that there is no wrongdoing. If there is wrongdoing (i.e. the government refuse to prosecute someone who deserves to be prosecuted) then congress can remedy the situation through investigations, political pressure, censures, and impeachments. Alternatively, if the citizen has been wronged by a crime they can build a foundational civil case for a criminal trial, they just need to seek damages. The Government can then use those proceedings to influence their own case.
The idea that a criminal offence can be applied in a civil case under a different burden of proof is a dangerous reinforcement of a poor precedent which needs to be overturned.
A retrial of the prayer for relief would be illegal, thereby prejudice is appropriate.
Thank you for your time.
Objection overruled. Improper objection. Please follow the listed objections in the objection guide.Objection
The member of the public seeking to file an amicus brief is my former counsel. As my former counsel, there is a considerable risk that in providing advice to the court that it will compromise attorney-client privilege in addressing topics which I have discussed with my counsel.
It would be inappropriate to have former counsel advising the Court, particularly against that of their former client.
This statement will be struck from the record as it was an improper response to an improper objection.The condition for responding to an objection allow opposing counsel to respond without asking for 24 hours, I believe in this situation as the objection is directed at me it would apply.
I can assure the court that this amicus brief is simply additional material to the previously made amicus brief by myself, that the Defendant did not oppose me making, this additional brief is grounded completely in constitutional law and represent a rights & freedoms point of law. It does not contain any content which has been discussed with the Plaintiff while I represented him, pro bono, while he was away.
Request denied. Motions have already been ruled upon.I request to file an amicus brief to the court regarding this latest Motion, in relation to my previous amicus brief.
Apologies for the late response. You may ask the Court to review unanswered motions/objections.If I can't motion for you to go back and respond to an unanswered motion can I please ask that the court go back and answer it?
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.'
In addressing your comment, which was out of turn, I have the right to have all of my objections noted by the court and addressed by the court in full. No reasoning has been provided to address the points of law raised in the motion.End, you are delaying your own case. They already denied the motions.
@JoeGamerI am requesting that the court provide legal reasoning for their decision to deny this objection.
The response provided previously by the court did not address the content of the objection or provide any legal reasoning.
Chief Justice Krix has already provided a decision and reasoning for the perjury charge. A presiding Judge/Justice is not required to write a full opinion for an objection.I am requesting that the court provide legal reasoning for their decision to deny this objection.
The response provided previously by the court did not address the content of the objection or provide any legal reasoning.
End, you are delaying your own case. They already denied the motions.
Both of you are out of order. If you wish to speak, please make it in the form of an objection, motion, or request to the Court.In addressing your comment, which was out of turn, I have the right to have all of my objections noted by the court and addressed by the court in full. No reasoning has been provided to address the points of law raised in the motion.
Again, I'd also like to warn the court against having a former counsel providing comment on a case.
Denied - The defendant has not made any new remarks questioning the legality of this case that have not already been answered by the Court.Subject to this renewed attempt by xEndeavour to question the legality of this case I will once again request to file an Amicus Brief on the subject.
You are out of order. I find xEndeavour in direct contempt of this court. You were warned in the above that if you wish to speak make it in the form of a motion, objection, or request to the Court.Prior to the verdict, I'd like to note to the Court that the definition of Treason has been amended during this case.
The criminality of the charge of Treason is no longer governed by the Crime Severity Act as a Summary Criminal Offence.
The criminality of Treason is now governed by the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act, which defines Treason as an Indictable Criminal Offence.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. One count of treason for failing to post a referendum on the Department Reform Act.
2. One count of treason for failing to follow Supreme Court decorum and calling the Court corrupt.
3. One count of treason for refusing to abide by a direct Court order.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The case itself cannot be heard as it has a citizen suing for criminal charges which cannot be done in a civil case
2. Denies all charges of corruption
III. THE COURT OPINION
Acting Chief Justice JoeGamer delivered the Opinion of the Court.
On October 21, 2022, President Deadwax signed the Department Reform Act. This massive piece of legislation was intended to restructure the departments of the executive. Shortly after being granted presidential assent, [2022] SCR 20 was filed due to changes being implemented from the Department Reform Act but the act never went to public referendum as required by the Constitution. It was in this case that former Speaker of the House xEndeavour continued to defy the Supreme Court’s order. [2022] SCR 20 ended with the Supreme Court requiring that the charges against Speaker xEndeavour and the constitutional case of the Department Reform Act be separated and filed in their appropriate courts. This leads to the filing of [2022] SCR 21, the case before the Court today.
In [2022] SCR 21, the plaintiff filed a civil case against Speaker xEndeavour claiming three separate counts of Treason and asking the Court to charge him as such. The first treason claim states that for failing to post a referendum, the defendant maliciously undermined the Commonwealth. The second treason claims the defendant undermined the Commonwealth for failure to adhere to Court decorum and for accusations of a corrupt Supreme Court. The third treason claim states that the defendant undermined the Commonwealth by refusing Court orders and actively violating Court orders. The defendant has denied all accusations.
This case revolves mainly about the limits of the civil court. Can a citizen sue in civil court for criminal charges? In [2022] SCR 18, the Court outlined the purpose of civil court. “The civil court is used to obtain compensation and punitive damages as a result of actions done by the defendant. The civil court is not a citizen laying out criminal charges and pursuing these charges. Instead, civil court should be seen as a party seeking compensation as a result of actions done, whether that be from criminal statute or extraneous circumstances.” This definition is supported by the Constitution of Redmont. The Constitution defines a civil case to be “a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation” and a criminal case to be “an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act” (Part II §14 and §16). Using these definitions, to see whether a civil case holds merit the Court can use the following test. 1) Is the case a dispute between two parties? 2) Is the prayer of relief able to be granted in civil court?
Looking at this case specifically, there is a dispute between two parties. However, when looking at the second, this case fails. Citizens cannot file criminal charges against another person which is what this case does. It is possible to claim damages based off of criminal charges, but this case doesn’t claim damages. In the prayer for relief, it clearly reads that the suit is charging the defendant with three counts of treason, which is regarded as a summary offense unless noted otherwise. This cannot be done in civil court. In order for charges to be filed against someone, it has to be done through the Department of Legal Affairs since they are the only Government authorized department with the ability to file charges on behalf of the State. The Constitution requires that in order for a criminal case to be filed, the case must be filed by the State regarding a specified criminal act. This ability does not apply to citizens.
Because the prayer for relief is not grantable in civil court, the Court cannot in good faith consider whether the evidence before the court allows for the granting of such prayer. It is not possible for this court to charge someone of a crime in a civil case.
