Lawsuit: Dismissed Prodigium & Partners at Law v. _Austin27_ [2021] FCR 11

[Dusty_3]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

_Austin27_
Defendant

COMPLAINT

Spoiler: Krix's Campaign Perspective

_Austin27_ asked to join Krix’s presidential campaign, and Krix accepted. While in the early stages, Austin began to get Krix’s trust. They held a photoshoot early on and had myself (Dusty_3) create a campaign logo for them. On the face of it, it seemed like a strong campaign. Austin provided information that Hugebob, the rival candidate in the DRP primary, would run independently if he lost the DRP primary. It was not discovered until much later where Austin got this information, which was from private, campaign-related conversations with Bob. On the last day of the Krix-Austin ticket, Austin contacted 218218Consumer. Using information that 218 was on Krix’s campaign, he added 218 to a VC call to discuss that he was on a new presidential ticket with xEndeavour as his VP. He also offered 218 the position of DoS Secretary. Finally, only 1 hour before his announcement, Austin contacted Krix to tell him he was running with xEndeavour for the Presidential ticket.

Spoiler: Hugebob23456's Campaign Perspective

_Austin27_ asked to join Bob’s presidential campaign, and Bob accepted. Bob and Austin discussed campaign information. _Austin27_ managed to get information from Bob’s campaign about the fact that Bob was planning to go independent if he lost the DRP primary.

Austin infiltrated Krix’s and Hugebob’s and did not intend on staying with either: he chose to gather information, use it against each of these candidates to gain their trust, and then later betray them for his own campaign.

Spoiler: Precedent

Corporate Espionage is the infiltrating, gathering or distribution of sensitive company information. You may wonder how this case would apply to Corporate Espionage as it's a political organisation: however, there is precedent. On the first-ever court case in DC history, a court case was issued where the SPP sued a NAP member for Corporate Espionage. The SPP was not a registered company at the time, yet still won. Another fact of the matter is that why would a corporate-specific law hinder someone from participating in public office for two months as a punishment? And the answer? Because it should, has and does apply to Political Organisations who do have sensitive information that is at risk of exposure from Espionage. I ask the court to see that political organisations do risk harm from espionage and the only way to keep them protected and to keep our elected officials honest is to keep this precedent strong.

To sum up:
_Austin27_ benefited from misleading both Hugebob and Krix by promising to be their VP candidate so he can gain insider information not disclosed to the public. Austin then left those campaigns and launched his own knowing the policies and campaign strategies of his opponents inside and out. This is a violation of the corporate espionage law, and I ask for him to be barred from running for president, as one who spies on campaigns should not be trusted to hold the highest office in our government.


I. PARTIES
1. Prodigium & Partners at Law
2. _Austin27_

II. FACTS
1. _Austin27_ joined both HugeBob and Krix's presidential campaigns and agreed to be the running mate of both Krix and HugeBob, prior to announcing his bid for the President with xEndeavour as his vice president.
2. _Austin27_ was HugeBob's Vice Presidential Candidate in his campaign discord from the 23rd of December until the 12th of January.
3. _Austin27_ was Krix's Vice Presidential Candidate in his campaign discord from the 18th of December until the 12th of January.
4. Austin gave campaign information from Hugebob’s campaign discord to Krix.
5. Austin gave campaign information from Krix’s campaign discord to Hugebob.
6. Austin did not make either Krix or Hugebob aware that he was sharing their campaign's private information.
7. Austin used campaign information to poach Krix’s staff prior to his announcement.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. _Austin27_ infiltrated multiple presidential campaigns, gathered their information and used such information to enhance his own presidential campaign.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Barred from running for public office for 2 months as well as a $5,000 fine.


DATED:
This 1st day of February 2021

Spoiler: Evidence (Telling Krix to trust him and to destroy bob)

Spoiler: Evidence (Austin Getting Bobs Campaign Info)

Spoiler: Evidence (Date of joining Bobs campaign)

Spoiler: Evidence (Date of joining Krix's campaign)

Spoiler: Evidence (Krix-Austin logo)

 

[Dusty_3]

The Precedent Case:
Original Lawsuit File

Precedent Case

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACY CRAFT __________________________________________ 1950minecrafter and JoanM999 (Wuutie and ) Superpacman04, Representing) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1- ) LewisYoYo, ) COMPLAINT FOR Respondent. ) IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION __________________________________________) J...

docs.google.com

Case

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Superpacman04 v. the Government of Democracy Craft (Case No. 05-2020-2)

Your Honor, attached is my case against the Government of Democracy Craft.

forums.democracycraft.net

 

[Nacho]

IN THE COURT OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Case No. 02-2021-01

The court hereby summons Defendant, _Austin27_, to the court of The Commonwealth of Redmont. If they do not respond within 24 hours, a default judgment will be made in favor of the plaintiff.​

 

[End]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
MOTION TO RECUSE


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

_Austin27_ (xEndeavour Representing)
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I hereby request that the honourable Judge, Nacholebraa, do recuse himself from this case on the basis of a conflict of interest and personal relations with Presidential Candidate, Krix.

Conflict of Interest: It is of concern that Judge Nacholebraa has a potential personal investment in the Krix Campaign. It would therefore would be improper, in order to maintain non-biased verdicts on all lawsuits, for Judge Nacholebraa to preside over this case.​

​

Personal Relations: Krix and Nacholebraa maintain close personal relations outside of this court which to would impede a just and impartial verdict which is absent of bias.​

​

​

DATED:
This 1st day of February 2021

Spoiler: Evidence (Personal Relations)

Spoiler: Retainer

 

[Matt]

After reviewing the evidence provided by xEndeavour, and speaking to Nacho regarding the context in which the statement was made, I have no concerns if Nacho wishes to continue presiding over this case. There has been no substantive evidence provided regarding the claim of a conflict of interest, only hearsay. Further, the evidence regarding personal relations has been shown to me to be within the context of a conversation regarding face reveals, nothing to do with DC-related topics or anything that would imply a compromise of impartiality. I thank xEndeavour for bringing this motion, however, the motion is dismissed

 

[End]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
MOTION TO RECUSE


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

_Austin27_ (xEndeavour Representing)
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

I hereby request that the honourable Judge, Nacholebraa, do recuse himself from this case on the basis of the following:

1. Conflict of Interest - The Plaintiff has given legal counsel to the honourable Judge Nacholebraa's Corporate Entity, Chip Corp, for which Nacholebraa was CEO of at the time Dusty_3 was contracting to the corporation's legal team. Dusty was listed on the Company discord as a legal representative, however has since been removed.

2. Personal Relations - It is common knowledge that Krix and Judge Nacholebraa share a friendship outside of this courtroom which both Krix and Judge Nacholebraa can attest to. I have enclosed further evidence of their close personal relations below.

3. Conflict of Interest - Judge Nacholebraa has sent 138 messages to the Austin-End discord channel for which many messages are harsh questions surrounding the campaign platform. The same cannot be said for other campaign discords for Judge Nacholebraa is not in the 1950-Pug campaign and has not questioned the Krix Campaign in their discord. This is a clear indication of Judge Nacholebraa's inability to preside over this case in a manner that is impartial and objective to my client's Presidential campaign. Additional evidence includes Judge Nacholebraa assisting the Krix campaign with advertising.

4. Conflict of Interest - My client, while a member of the Krix campaign, was present in a Voice Call where Judge Nacholebraa and Krix where also both present. In this voice call, Krix made it apparent that Nacholebraa would be a contender for a Secretary Portfolio under his administration. Please find attached a statutory declaration from my client. I have also enclosed evidence of my client in conversation with Krix about Judge Nacholebraa as a candidate for DCT secretary.

I warn the court on the multiple instances of conflict of interest that the honourable Judge, Nacholebraa has in relation to this case. If this court case is presided over by Judge Nacholebraa, there will be natural bias for the plantiff.

DATED:
This 2nd day of February 2021

Spoiler: Evidence (2 - Further Evidence of Close Personal Relations)

Spoiler: Evidence (3 - Conflict of Interest)

Spoiler: Evidence (4 - Conflict of Interest)

 

[Matt]

My response to the aforementioned motion is as follows:

The claim of personal relations is, in my opinion, immaterial when the context of what we are doing here is taken into account. At the present stage, the DC community is still somewhat close-knit. I believe Nacholebraa is not only friends with Krix, but also with Austin. Indeed I would like to think I too am friends with many on the server, including the individuals named and representing in this case. I truly appreciate the nature of this point and its legitimacy outside of DC, but were I to accept friendships as a sign of bias, the Judiciary would ground to a halt. There must be a level of appreciation that individuals appointed to the Judiciary have the maturity and capability to act impartially in their official capacity.

I thank both the defendant and their representation for making a statutory declaration - it is something I hope to see others utilise, perhaps after reading this case and witnessing their invention before us now. In taking such a declaration into account, I must also pay homage to the fact that this statement has been made by an individual intrinsically invested in the outcome of this case, and more so the lack of corroborating external evidence that such an offer has been made by Krix. I would like to make explicit to both the parties and the public who I know will be keenly following this case that I would also approach any statement made by Krix with equal caution were he to make a statement either for or against the respective Judge’s impartiality. Given a lack of corroborating evidence, I am dissuaded from considering the statement as axiomatic.

I have personally read all of Nacholebraa’s 138 messages in the Austin-End campaign discord. Prima facie I agree, Nacholebraa has indeed messaged substantially more in the Austin-End campaign. Of these 138 messages, I have generously identified 12 which may show varying degrees of leading questions and answers (8.7% of total messages), albeit some of these were clarified with later messages; I would not find this percentage to be many messages or of considerable potential to demonstrate a compromise of objectivity. It is true that Nacholebraa has not asked as many questions in the Krix-Bob discord. From my research, the vast majority of messages in the Austin-End discord are conversations with others distinct from campaign policies or agendas. The questions highlighted specifically in evidence 3 relating to the delineation between staff and executive responsibilities does not, in my opinion, show any bias - such a dynamic makes this ticket unique. I would also opine that providing suggestions to a ticket could be perceived as evidence of partiality, but I do not believe were the Austin-End ticket to also ask for suggestions that Nacholebraa would omit response. I appreciate that on the face of it, the message claiming a video would be filmed implies more involvement than one would expect from you or me, but given the severe nature of this motion, I would not find this standard of evidence to be sufficient. There is no evidence presented that shows this intention was followed through, nor that the aim would be to further the Krix campaign solely.

The prior employment of Dusty at Nacholebraa’s firm, Chip Corp, also rightly raises questions of impartiality. There has been no evidence provided substantiating that Dusty_3 was employed as a legal representative at the time of Nacholebraa’s tenure as CEO and therefore I cannot confirm the validity of this claim. Even if this is so, a similar situation has previously materialised with regards to case 01-2021-16. It was apparent that at one time, Matthew100x was previously employed by Nacholebraa’s company in a legal capacity. Indeed, I was opposing Matthew100x in the aforementioned case, but I have no qualms about the quality of objectivity within the final verdict given, with Judge Nacholebraa reaching a very satisfactory verdict. It was in my interests to pay attention to any partiality demonstrated by the respective Judge, but I could not find any. I, therefore, find this past experience sufficient to settle the concerns of a justifiably anxious defence regarding this connection.

It is important for the interested reader to be aware that the Judiciary has an obligation to be impartial, and individuals are nominated on the basis that they can perform their duties with impartiality and integrity. As such, the burden of proof falls to the accuser that a recuse is necessary, and any proof has to be overwhelming, given the severity of such an allegation. A successful motion to recuse is not to be discounted as something of negligible importance - a successful motion would demonstrate not only a Judge’s partiality within the matter but also incompetence in accepting the case when not necessary and damage trust in the Judiciary. I simply do not find the evidence before the Court to be of the required compelling nature to reach the standard required for such a motion. I hope from my lengthy response it is apparent I have truly considered the worries of the defence in an objective manner. Both I and my respective Judge take concerns regarding the partiality of verdicts extremely seriously; we recognise the importance of maintaining public trust and legitimacy.

As such, this motion is dismissed. I would make the defence aware that any further motions to recuse will likely be disregarded; you have provided a commendably comprehensive motion. All parties and interested readers are aware of the inherent urgency of this case and as such the proceedings need to continue inexorably now this motion has been dealt with. It is I and my respective Judge’s duty to ensure both the plaintiff and the defence have sufficient time to provide substantive argumentation.

Were you to request it, I am happy to urge Judge Nacholebraa to accept a short extension of 12 hours for you to provide a response to the initial claim presented; although it is understandably at his discretion whether he does accept such a request.

 

[End]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

_Austin27_ (xEndeavour Representing)
Defendant

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

We would like to request for an extension of an additional 24 hours in order to prepare our legal case. We will also be examining the Plaintiff's evidence during this time.


DATED:
This 2nd day of February 2021

 

[Nacho]

The court shall grant an extension of 12 hours, on the grounds that the defendant needs more time to prepare their legal case and examine the evidence. This will move the deadline for response from 4:33AM EST on 2/2/2021 to 4:33PM EST on 2/2/2021. Please be mindful of the time, failure to respond within the new time frame will result in a default judgement.

 

[End]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

_Austin27_ (xEndeavour Representing)
Defendant


ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Admit that _Austin27_ accepted to be the potential Vice Presidential Candidate of HugeBob's bid for the DRP's Presidential Ticket during the period 23rd of December 2020 through 12th of January 2021.
3. Admit that _Austin27_ accepted to be the potential Vice Presidential Candidate of Krix's bid for the DRP's Presidential Ticket during the period 18th of December 2020 through 12th of January 2021.
4. Admit that _Austin27_ gave campaign information from Hugebob’s and Austin's campaign discord, as the Vice Presidential nominee, at Krix's request.
5. Deny that _Austin27_ gave campaign information from Krix’s campaign discord to Hugebob.
6. Deny that Austin did not make either Krix or Hugebob aware that he was sharing their campaign's private information.
7. Deny Austin used campaign information to poach Krix’s staff prior to his announcement.
8. Deny the allegation made by the plaintiff regarding law 11.1 - Corporate Espionage.
9. Deny that the precedent of 1950minecrafter and JoanM999 (Wuutie and Superpacman04, Representing) v. LewisYoYo (Case No. 05-2020-1) is adequately relevant to this case.
10. Deny the allegation that _Austin27_ "benefitted from misleading both Hugebob and Krix by promising to be their VP candidate."
11. Deny the allegation that the Austin-End political campaign is a company or any form of business entity.
12. Deny the allegation that _Austin27_ gathered opponent campaign information and used such information to enhance his own presidential campaign.

DEFENCES
1. The case bought before the court by the Plaintiff is simply relying on the interpretation that Political Campaigns are legally business entities. This is only supported by one precedent which was established in 1950minecrafter and JoanM999 (Wuutie and Superpacman04, Representing) v. LewisYoYo (Case No. 05-2020-1). The precedent set was that Political Organisations are in fact business entities as the Judge of the day ruled in favour of the SPP being victim to Corporate Espionage. However, there are serious inconsistencies with this case in relation to Prodigium & Partners at Law vs. _Austin27_ (Case No. 02-2021-01).

Since the defendant, LewisYoYoYo13, did not make a statement in a timely fashion and tried to trick the court, the case will be adjourned in favor of the plaintiff. In addition to this, the court is charging LewisYoYoYo13 with Obstruction of Justice. This is your first and only verbal warning.

Firstly, the Judge of the day only ruled in favour of the Plaintiff for Corporate Espionage due to the Plaintiff's counsel being ineffective. The defendant failed to properly respond to the case and represent themselves in court. This is not a strong precedent, and as a default judgement, should not be upheld as precedent that should apply to this case. The doctrine of precedent was adopted to ensure consistency in decision-making by judges, on the premise that like cases should be determined in a like manner - this is not a like case. Additionally, the court records are incomplete and the details of this case are unknown. Therefore, the application of this precedent as evidence in this case must be inadmissible.

2. The evidenced used within this case is politically charged and orchestrated at a time where public opinion is paramount in a Presidential campaign. I warn the court on the political motives of the Plaintiff and the wide interpretation that the Plaintiff has chosen in relating this law to the Austin-End Presidential campaign. To bar a Presidential Candidate, a long time serving member of the executive and well respected member of the Government from running for office over exercising their right to the freedom of political communication would be unconstitutional. The freedom of political communication was adopted to ensure that political matters could be discussed freely, free from prosecution in order to maintain the transparency of the Government. Anything other than dismissing this case as unconstitutional would be a dangerous precedent to set in relation to the sharing of political material for the scrutiny of the general public and the opposition. My client recognises that, perhaps it was morally wrong to share the information with Hugebob's opponent at the request of Krix, it was not illegal to do so. As a Vice Presidential candidate, I would argue that _Austin27_ also shared the rights to share the policies of the ticket that he had committed to. This notion is comparable to myself, as a Vice Presidential Candidate, sharing Austin-End campaign policies with Krix, at his request.

3. Prima facie, evidence exhibit two shows _Austin27_ sharing his and Hugebob's policies with Krix. However, it was only after Krix had requested that _Austin27_ provide the policies that _Austin27_, somewhat randomly, without explanation dropped them in the chat. This would suggest that there was in fact conversation taking place elsewhere. Anything other than admitting that Krix asked _Austin27_ to provide him the policies would be prejudicial of Krix should he testify. This is exactly what happened, Krix and Austin were in a call prior to Austin dropping the policies in the chat. The Plaintiff has conveniently omitted the negative culture Krix set in his campaign toward the Hugebob Campaign, for which I will attach evidence showing the negative culture embraced by Krix. The inclusion of this evidence in Dusty_3's case is also questionable as it has no legal relevance to this case and is emotionally charged. In the interests of moving this case along, I will entertain this allegation with evidence of Krix's demeanour toward the Hugebob Campaign and the allegation that Krix himself incited _Austin27_ to provide him with Hugebob and his policies.

3. My client strongly refutes the claims that he himself "benefitted from misleading both Hugebob and Krix by promising to be their VP candidate." Austin agrees that it was improper of him to accept to support both tickets, on the presumption that only one ticket would run following the DRP primaries. My client did not advise Krix or Hugebob that he had agreed to serve as Vice President on both tickets, however it was his belief that both Krix and Hugebob were aware that they had both asked him to support their tickets as Vice President. It was his assumption that given their close professional relationship in the party prior to the Presidential race that they would have notified each other.

My client did not announce his candidacy until after HugeBob declared their candidacy, and only moments before Krix. Austin27 had limited information to have benefitted from, that was not already made public when both campaigns went public. Austin27's knowledge of policies were no more than what was discussed between each campaign and later released to the public (With the exception of potential cabinet nominations). Austin27 later formulated his campaign's policies with xEndeavour starting from the 12th January (after the opposing campaign's policies were published - these were posted on the 15th of January and share very little similarities between the policies of Hugebob and the Krix campaign. The Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence stating what information Austin27 had access to and how and why that information has been of benefit to his personal campaign for President. This allegation is based on assumption, not fact.

I have provided what I have saved of Hugebob's policies. Hugebob did not reply to our request for a more comprehensive list of his policies. There is very little correlation between Austin-End campaign and Hugebob campaign polices.

Spoiler: Hugebob's Policies

Pruning Tax The Pruning Tax will collect the balances of players that have been offline for more than 4 consecutive months, which will alleviate the tax burden for active players. Hiring Subsidy Allow companies that hire people to submit tax returns on the forums to receive a partial reimbursement of wages, which will increase hiring across the board. Corporate Tax Establish a tax on companies similar to the player balance tax, but allow certain companies like non-profit organizations to be tax-exempt to encourage their development. Worker's Board Establish a board of all workers who wish to join to allow them to advise the Government in a formal manner on economic policy. Universal Basic Income All citizens, $5 per 15 minutes, no strings attached. Even with our current tax policy we can afford 3x this policy.

[6:13 AM]
Optimize Police Hiring Ensure that Police Officers are spread across time zones to ensure that there is always at least one Police Officer online to help with violent crimes. Sheriffs Establish the 'Sheriff' job, a special type of Police Officer that enforces local and federal law in towns. At the current town sizes, there will only be one Sheriff per town. Playtime Requirement for Guns Establish a 12 hour playtime requirement to obtain a firearms license, which will dramatically reduce new player gun violence. Arrest Justification For all arrests, Police Officers should state the reason for arrest in global chat. I do not believe there is significant abuse of arrest powers, but this would act to prevent that abuse from ever developing.

[6:14 AM]
Town Stimulus Provide grant money to towns for reaching economic/population milestones to spur their development. Player-Made Towns Allow for players who've made their own towns to apply to have their town officially recognized and integrated. The standards for acceptance will be VERY HIGH. Reduce Wild Restrictions Any player that wants to buy land in the wild should be able to buy as much land as they want, so long as they can pay for it. I will dramatically reduce wild region restrictions in the first month of my term. Private Pharmacy Supplying Auction the Hospital Pharmacy chests, with the company or individual offering the lowest sell rate obtaining the chest to reduce costs of medical goods and boost private healthcare. Optimize Doctor Hiring You ever have Pox and there aren't any Doctors online? We need to spread Doctor hiring across time zones to optimize coverage. Tour Guide Education New players are commonly preyed on by political parties as easy votes. Tour Guides can easily inform new players of the existing political parties and the composition of Government to help educate new players on the political landscape through an unbiased lens.

When I compared Krix's policies to that of the Austin campaign, I identified approximately 5 overlapping policies. Most of which were not suggested by _Austin27_, rather xEndeavour and campaign staff.

Spoiler: Krix's Policies

GENERAL PRIORITIES:
Active communication:
Work with congress jointly on policy goals to ensure we can pass laws and communicate openly on projects and government objectives.

Sub Department Creation:
I aim to create sub-departments and middle management positions to allow for department career paths and expand the pool of qualified workers, improving efficiency and allowing for delegation of tasks.

Weekly cabinet meetings to plan and discuss the goals of the government.

Expanding events:
Developing culture so players can be interested and involved in the server’s democracy: this includes spoken State of the Government addresses and an expansion of DPA engagement.

Ensuring VP involvement in government:
I know that my pick, whoever it is, will be honest, ethical, dedicated, and incredibly capable deputy and should thus have a greater say in government affairs.

Chief of Staff:
The role of Chief of Staff with the responsibility of facilitating communication between all levels of government and the President.

Steward:
The Department Steward role is elected by non-management department employees, would represent government workers and act as an in-house union representative for those who work in the executive.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE:
Town Expansion Program:

Town expansion will be heavily orientated around the incorporation of large areas of countryside into counties, centralized around towns and administered by the Town Council. Rural land must be expanded at cheap rates to guarantee players, businesses, and towns the economic opportunity they deserve.

Future Goals for Towns:

The goal of towns for the future is to decentralize the population of the server away from Hamilton City and encourage more people to move to towns. Hamilton is already overcrowded with the limited availability of plots in desirable areas.

Hamilton District

City Districts in Hamilton to bring variety to city architecture and diversify the atmosphere of different areas: districts would each have different purposes and benefits depending on location:
Height Limit
Public Spaces - Central District Point
Plot Limit
District Theme

Each district would serve its own purpose with a unique style and feeling which would vary based on the criteria above.

**Creation of the Office of Executive Welfare**

This subsidiary of the Department of State would engage with government employees across all departments, ensuring they are being treated fairly by department management, speaking to them about any concerns, and monitoring department conditions and policies. Human Resource Assistants will be recruited to fulfill the duties of the Welfare Office.

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSPORT:
Urban Renewal Program:
Working with land and business owners to make Hamilton as vibrant as it should be (an idea I’ve had since early January, before we announced any candidacies were announced).

Constructive Assistance Program:
Players with less than 5k in their personal and company balance combined will be entitled to partial financial support from the government in hiring a builder, either public or private, to repair eyesores.

Neighborhoods & Boroughs:
Scaling back grid-centric residential areas, instead creating city boroughs and vibrant neighborhoods where people can live comfortably.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND RECREATION:
Wild Renewal:
Creating employment options to new players and those who have trouble finding a job through public works in the wild, working under Ranger supervision.

Parks and Monuments:
Expanding parks and monuments that symbolize DC history.

Green Hamilton Policy:
reward land owners for making green areas on their plots.

National Walkways:
Mountain and trail paths around the city to encourage and facilitate the exploration of nature.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:
Active Medical Specialists:
Increase the role of Medical Specialists to actively supervise and train new doctors on procedures.

Lower Vaccination Costs:
Disadvantaged players have a right to protect themselves from disease: the price of vaccines must be dropped to increase availability to newer players.

Paramedic Hiring:
Hiring more paramedics and spreading awareness of the /emt facility.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND COMMERCE:Career Stepping Stones:
Create more stepping stone exam jobs and integrate current ones such as Pharmacist to allow qualified candidates to transition into government positions more easily.

Property Valuation Index:
Establish a property value index to know the value of property in areas of the city, giving realtors a reference and informing players of fair pricing.

Startup Hubs:
Start-up business owner areas in the city for rent, limited to 1 building for each business owner.

Employment & Town Initiative Grants:
Grants to cover rent and other expenses for small business in towns: we must encourage employment, economic growth, and the development of towns into centers of commerce and opportunity.

Private Sector:
Encourage hiring in the private sector. 45% of players use the government as their main source of income, and this over-reliance on public institutions for the finances of private players must be adjusted.

Hiring Initiatives:
Work with the DPA on expanding the role of the Hiring Centre as a place where businesses can directly hire new players while also facilitating communication between business owners and potential employees.

Legal Exams:
Revamping legal exams to be relevant not to real life issues, but to the issues of the server: lawyers knowing real life legal issues is preferable, but what matters is their ability to represent players in DC.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS:
New Player Guide:

New Players need more assistance and guidance when they join the server. This means giving them the simple but important information that they need; I aim to create a New Player Guide Book, available both in-game and on the forums, which will consist of:
- How to get a job at the university and the coords to get there, along with a link to the Job Listings Discord server.
- How to get to the hospital and how to sign up for medicare in order to get free treatment.
- How to get to the Central Business District market place to buy and sell goods.
- How government jobs work, the requirements, and how to apply.

Map of Hamilton:

A map of Hamilton City at spawn, made with staff coordination, with labels and transit information not possible on the dynmap. The purpose would be to assist new players in finding their way around the city and to provide an in-game visual reference of Hamilton with a link to dynmap at the bottom.

Guide Compensation:

Revising Tour Guide payments and guaranteeing proper compensation through raising the commission. We need a wide field of active guides, and that can be done through rewarding those who contribute.

Public Engagement:

Press Conferences will be held Bi-weekly to inform the citizens on our current progress with our campaign policies and any major announcements the administration may have.

Events:

Creation of the Hamilton City Auditorium for DPA and political events, such as press
conferences, rallies, certain speeches, and other opportunities.

4. My client strongly refuses the claims that their political campaign is a business, therefore it cannot be subject to the punishment of Corporate Espionage. As discussed previously, this case put before the court relies upon this campaign being a corporate entity. The Plaintiff references 1950minecrafter and JoanM999 (Wuutie and Superpacman04, Representing) v. LewisYoYo (Case No. 05-2020-1) citing that neither political parties involved were registered businesses.

The SPP was not a registered company at the time, yet still won.

Firstly, to this day, no political party or organisation has registered as a business. There is a clear delineation between a political organisation and a business as all business matters are overseen by the Department of Commerce and Education. All matters of political conduct are overseen by the Department of Public Affairs or Department of State. In order to be a business, one would need to consider a business an entity that; provides goods and or services; exchanges payment of monies; has economical goals and outcomes; and or holds funds. The Austin-End Political Organisation does none of the aforementioned functions. It is privately funded, does not accept donations, sell goods and or services, or hold funds. The campaign is not registered as a company and does not make use of any of the perks listed by the DEC for 'Unregistered Businesses,' with the exception of 'Buy things with your own money.'

Unregistered Company Perks:

- Sell items to players
- Make money
- Buy things with your own money
- Ability to set wages for employees
- Go public on the stock market

I reached out to the DEC in order to seek a formal definition from the Department on what they consider a business entity.

I reached out to the DPA in order to seek a formal definition from the Department on what they consider a political organisation.

5. _Austin27_, to the best of his recollection, did not give campaign information from Krix’s campaign discord to Hugebob. There is no evidence to support this claim.

6. The notion that Austin used campaign information to poach Krix’s staff prior to his announcement is false. None of Krix’s preliminary staff were involved with the Austin-End campaign on the first day of the campaign or before. There is no evidence to support this claim.

7. Failing the consideration of all of the above points put before the courts, the Statute of Limitations Act S3-1-(a) outright renders this case against my client as invalid noting the alleged 'crime' the Plaintiff is claiming relief for, took place on January 12 2021 when _Austin27_ announced his candidacy for President.

Corporate entities and players must be charged for crimes within a period of 2 weeks of when the crime happened.

I ask that the honourable Judge will remain impartial during this case and request that they abstain from communicating with the Plaintiff and Krix outside of this case until the case is adjourned which is contrary to what my client witnessed earlier this morning.

I will end on the following note. This case was brought before this court to harm the reputation of the Austin-End campaign and to deny the people the democratic process in attempting to remove Austin from the Presidential race. My client is committed to transparency - Austin will admit where he went wrong, now it's Krix, Bob, and Dusty_3's turn.

COUNTER CLAIM
The Plaintiff has sought to publicly slander my client. My client does not wish to seek monetary compensation, rather a public apology issued by Dusty_3 and Prodigium & Partners at Law. This should be published in a newspaper at the Plaintiff's expense.

15.16 - Slander​

A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation.​

Per Offence: Minimum of $50.​

DATED
This 3rd day of February 2021

 

[Nacho]

The Court would like to thank the Defendants counsel for the speedy response given within the time frame provided.

Both parties may now call upon any witnesses and provide any additional evidence in this case. If either party wishes to call upon a witness, they must respond to this case with a list of witnesses they choose to question, and the set of questions that they would like to ask each witness. If either party does not have any witnesses or additional evidence to share, they may reply noting that they do not have anything else to share.

Each party is asked to please respond within 24 hours or the courts will continue without reviewing any additional evidence or witnesses.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honour,

I would like to request an extension. The reason for this is because my IRL obligations are prohibiting myself from being able to respond in the next 24 hours. The requested time for an extension is 24 hours.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honour,

I'd also like to ask the courts to remind the defendant of Perjury, and the charges that go with it.

Repealed - Perjury Act

Congress Vote: 5-2-0 A BILL To Incriminate Perjury The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 – Short Title...

democracycraft.net

Thank you.

 

[End]

Objection your honour,

The Plaintiff has made a request for more time and replied within the timeframe they said they could not reply.

The Plaintiff has also made a suggestion that the defence is making false claims in it's case. No explanation or evidence has been provided to support this suggestion. I request that the this be stricken from the court record as it was directed specifically at the defendant, not the court as legally required.

 

[Nacho]

Overruled, the courts validate the request by the plaintiff to be factual as a uncommonly practiced exercise by the courts but is codified within the law. However, since it has been requested by the plaintiff the courts moves to issue a warning to both parties.

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

I urge both parties to carefully consider this warning, as you will not get another.

The request for an extension is still under consideration, will the counsel of the plaintiff please provide a more in-depth reason as to why you will not be able to respond within the given 24-hr time frame?

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honour,
I am currently writing this at work on my phone so please excuse any typos.
I woke up at 7am to see ends response. I noticed that my schedule would not allow me to respond in 24 hours. My schedule was 7:30-8:30 pre school (homework, getting ready, shower). Then school 8:55am-3:10pm. When I got home I had my extra studies which included an online class from 3:30-4:30. At 4:30 I had dinner, then I left for work at 4:50. I will be closing at work at around 10 (I work hospitality so we don’t have a set close time).
I have bed at 11-12 am, I will then wake up at 7am the next day to repeat except I wouldn’t have an online class. The earliest time I could get online to evaluate the case is 4pm tomorrow. Accounting for this and dinner + time writing this, I came to a new evaluation and compromise for the defendant and as the not make an inaccurate request. I wish to reduce the time requested to an extension of 18 hours. This would allow me to respond getting a healthy schedule. Irl can be a pain sometimes. Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Nacho]

I acknowledge the IRL obligations and respect the detailed response provided. I shall grant you an 18-Hr extension moving the deadline for a required response to 8:23 AM of 2/4/2021

I expect promptness in response either before or at this time deadline. I encourage the counsel of Defendant to please draft a response and not waste this time. I will not continue to issue extensions, the court must proceed in a timely manner.

​

 

[End]

Your honour,

The defence awaits a response from the Plaintiff. The defence will respond immediately after the Plaintiff has furthered their argument as we believe we have addressed all points raised in the opening statements adequately.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honour,
Firstly I'd like to thank you, Honourable Nacho, for the extended time you awarded me.

The points bought forth by the defendant will be addressed primarily.
1. In the case of 1950minecrafter and JoanM999 (Wuutie and Superpacman04, Representing) v. LewisYoYo (Case No. 05-2020-1), it established a precedent that political organisations are protected under corporate espionage. Although a default judgement, it doesn't mean the case in question was an outrageous claim and the fact that the courts granted the full prayer indicates that there is some legal basis for using that precedent. If it was accepted before, it should be acceptable now. Flexibility in the court is paramount in a developing democracy.

Furthermore, political organisations require protection from espionage, throwing the past precedent out of this court would open up espionage to every political party or political campaign no matter how severe the spying is. I’d also like to point out that I submitted the original case files to that case in my opening argument. The precedent is not inadmissible based on missing records, as I reached out to Superpacman and got the original records.

Spoiler: Pacman sending the Case file

2. Stating that this case is politically orchestrated is an opinion with no legal basis, and I must remind the court that the role of our legal system is to deliberate facts, not opinions. Freedom of political communication is important; however, this case does not infringe upon such a right. Even if the prayer of relief is granted, Austin will maintain his right to communicate politically. His use of billboards will not be outlawed. His use of /ad will not be outlawed. His ability to maintain a discord server to express his policy ideas will not be outlawed, and neither will his ability to speak directly to others about his beliefs. There is no basis for the argument that the prayer of relief will limit Austin’s right to political communication.

3. The evidence submitted by the defendant to back up the claim that Krix has a “negative culture” toward the Hugbob campaign is irrelevant as these are just statements about how Krix felt about Hugebob at the time; never in those screenshots was Krix negative to Bob’s campaign. Also, any claim based on a 1 on 1 VC between Krix and Austin should be disregarded as hearsay, as private VCs lack impartial third parties to provide witness testimony and will put the word of the plaintiff against the defence’s.

4. The Austin - Endeavour Presidential campaign has conducted business activities to further their campaign. The use of billboards, a business tool, to advertise their campaign indicates an intrinsic connection of the Austin-End campaign to corporations. In their response, the defence omits a perk of registered companies, “better advertisements,” a perk that the campaign of the defendant has taken full advantage of. Several billboard advertisements for the Austin-End campaign have been applied for by Austin and End’s campaign staff or Austin and End themselves, shown in the evidence below. When a campaign consistently reaps the benefits provided to companies, they must be subject to the laws imposed on companies. Further, there is a significant, indisputable connection between the Austin-End campaign and the interest of several corporations: the overwhelming majority of the campaign’s staff and its candidates head companies that have supported said campaign through consistent use of the perk of advertisement. The law defines corporate espionage as the “gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive company information that has not already been released to the public.” Information illegitimately gathered in relation to a campaign that several companies have demonstrated a vested interest in can easily be classified as company information. Therefore, corporate espionage law applies to this case.

Spoiler: Austin-End campaign bill boards registrations

https://democracycraft.net/threads/imperium-billboard-registration-application.2972/

Spoiler: Austin-End campaign bill boards registrations

https://democracycraft.net/threads/vanquish_ap-billboard-app.2982/
https://democracycraft.net/threads/_austin27_-private-billboard-application.2978/
https://democracycraft.net/threads/exchange-billboard-registration-application.3009/
https://democracycraft.net/threads/...oard-registration-application.3045/#post-8548
https://democracycraft.net/threads/royal-corporation-billboard-registration-application.3046/
https://democracycraft.net/threads/vanquish_ap-private-billboard-app.3047/
https://democracycraft.net/threads/toxikkun-private-billboard-application.3061/
https://democracycraft.net/threads/chorus-co-billboard-application.3062/
https://democracycraft.net/threads/exchange-billboard-registration-application.3044/
https://democracycraft.net/threads/_zab_-private-billboard-application.3098/

5. Austin did indeed take information from Krix’s campaign and gave it to bob(As seen below) This is clear evidence that Austin was discussing Krix’s campaign’s day to day activities. It is also evidence of Austin attempting to mislead Krix from at least the 20th of December (2 days into the Krix-Austin campaign) onwards. This is an absolute disgrace to mislead someone like this, pretending to be Krix’s VP all the way up until the day you announced your intent to run on a ticket with xEndeavour. This piece of evidence alone should be enough to adjourn in the Plaintiffs favour, there is damage (misleading the Krix campaign), there is campaign information distributed (telling Bob what the Krix campaign did that day) and there is infiltration (Austin pretending to be Krix’s VP). The defendant participated in bad faith on Krix’s Presidential ticket from the 20th of December to the 12th of January.

Spoiler: Austin leaking campaign information to Bob + Krix Campaign Photos

6. There is strong evidence indicating that Austin attempted to poach a member of Krix’s campaign staff prior to the announcements of either campaign's: below is a screenshot of Austin bringing the Operative Leader of the Krix campaign at the time, 218218Consumer, onto a voice call in a clearly campaign-related context. The fact that Austin considered 218 as a possible supporter indicated a desire to bring him onto his campaign. The timing of his discussion with 218 indicates that Austin used information not yet available to the public, information that 218 was working on Krix’s campaign, as an attempt to instigate an early defection. While Austin did not benefit from this attempted poaching, he attempted to benefit, and courts must rule against even attempted misdeeds. In addition, this was done on the 11th of January, a day before the Austin-End campaign was announced.

7. The Statute of Limitations Act indicates that an individual cannot be charged for a crime more than 2 weeks after it was committed. However, this is a civil action (indicated at the very top of the case), not a criminal lawsuit, and as a result, the Statute of Limitations does not apply (Regardless of the possible Prayer for Relief).

8. Austin very clearly benefited from misleading Krix and Hugebob by agreeing to be their Vice Presidents and leaving the position vacant to run his own campaign: Vice Presidents are a fundamental part of any campaign strategy, and such a disruption in that strategy served as a significant disadvantage for both Bob and Krix, a disadvantage that Austin benefits from as Krix and Bob’s campaign opponent.


Here is the list of witnesses I wish to call to the stand:
_Austin27_
xEndeavour
laurenpoo
Vanquish_ap
218218Consumer


Questions:

(For laurenpoo)
1. What date were you asked to join Austin and Ends campaign?
2. What date were you added to the group chat between you, Vanquish_ap, 218218Consumer and _Austin27_?
3. In the group chat between you, vanquish, 218218Consumer and _Austin27_, were you present at the VC?
4. If you were present at the VC, was 218218Consumer offered a Cabinet position, or any other position related to Austin's possible Administration, by _Austin27_?
5. If yes to the above statement, could you provide the court with the specific position _Austin27_ offered 218218Consumer?
6. Finally, did _Austin27_ ask that 218218Consumer leave Krix’s campaign to join Austin and Ends?

(For Vanquish_ap)
1. What date were you asked to join Austin and Ends campaign?
2. What date were you added to the group chat between you, laurenpoo, 218218Consumer and _Austin27_?
3. In the group chat between you, laurenpoo, 218218Consumer and _Austin27_, were you present at the VC?
4. If you were present at the VC, was 218218Consumer offered a Cabinet position, or any other position related to Austin's possible Administration, by _Austin27_?
5. If yes to the above statement, could you provide the court with the specific position _Austin27_ offered 218218Consumer?
6. Finally, did Austin ask that 218218Consumer leave Krix’s campaign to join Austin and Ends?

(For 218218Consumer)
1. In the group chat between you, Vanquish_ap, laurenpoo and _Austin27_, were you present at the VC?
2. If yes to the above statement, could you provide the court with the specific position _Austin27_ offered yourself?
3. Finally did _Austin27_ ask you to leave Krix’s campaign to join Austin and Ends?


(For xEndeavour)
1. What date did you first contact _Austin27_ in regards to running together on a presidential ticket?
2. What date did _Austin27_ accept your request to run on a presidential ticket with you?

I request to the court that I be granted the ability to do a line of questioning for Austin, as sending the questions as a block would note successfully. The reason for this is that there are many questions, and they each depend on what answer the witness gives. I'll be hasty with the questioning if granted.

For extra efficiency and speed for any future updates to this case, I would like to submit to the court a change in counsel, by part of the plaintiff, submitting UtahCowboy20 as co-counsel.

 

[End]

N THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

_Austin27_ (xEndeavour Representing)
Defendant


I ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

1. I put it to the court, again, that a default judgement is not worthy of creating strong precedent. Precedent is enacted to ensure cases of the same nature are judged fairly with consistency. The Plaintiff is comparing a case where an individual joined a discord twice via invite and was charged with Espionage. No evidence was provided to show that Lewisyoyo did in fact share that information. The facts of 1950minecrafter and JoanM999 (Wuutie and Superpacman04, Representing) v. LewisYoYo (Case No. 05-2020-1) put before the court were not discussed at all and default judgement became in the Plantiff's favour. The adversarial system was not employed whatsoever and the defendant was found guilty by lack of sufficient representation.

This case is compared with the current, whereby my client shared the policy that was on a ticket he was part of. As the Vice Presidential Candidate, one would think they bear the freedom of sharing information in relation to ticket that they are essentially co-sponsoring. Austin did not steal information as suggested in 1950minecrafter and JoanM999 (Wuutie and Superpacman04, Representing) v. LewisYoYo (Case No. 05-2020-1), rather he gave information that he was co-sponsoring at the request of a mutual partisan affiliate.

Flexibility in the court is paramount in a developing democracy.

Flexibility in the court is absolutely necessary in cases such as these, where previous precedent is not relevant.

2. The argument the Plaintiff makes for freedom of political communication is also not relevant. In my previous response to the Plaintiff, I raised concern in regard to what a dangerous precedent this could set in relation to retrospective actions this case is judged on. Should the Judge rule in favour of the Plaintiff, a precedent will be created that disallows individuals to discuss or communicate unreleased political information, including information they partly own. This will be in contradiction to various aspects of our democracy that maintain accountability; such as whistle-blowers - Individuals or entities who can, from time to time, share policy or political information that is not yet released.

The freedom of political communication was adopted to ensure that political matters could be discussed freely, free from prosecution in order to maintain the transparency of the Government. Anything other than dismissing this case as unconstitutional would be a dangerous precedent to set in relation to the sharing of political material for the scrutiny of the general public and the opposition. My client recognises that, perhaps it was morally wrong to share the information with Hugebob's opponent at the request of Krix, it was not illegal to do so. As a Vice Presidential candidate, I would argue that _Austin27_ also shared the rights to share the policies of the ticket that he had committed to. This notion is comparable to myself, as a Vice Presidential Candidate, sharing Austin-End campaign policies with Krix, at his request.

3. The Plaintiff has further strengthened the Defence's argument that Political Organisations are not businesses.

Several billboard advertisements for the Austin-End campaign have been applied for by Austin and End’s campaign staff or Austin and End themselves, shown in the evidence below. When a campaign consistently reaps the benefits provided to companies, they must be subject to the laws imposed on companies.

This is exactly correct, Austin, myself, and the Austin-End campaign staff have all individually applied for billboards under the name of their own individual private companies. The Austin-End campaign did not exchange funds with any of these individuals or businesses that endorsed our campaign by purchasing Billboard advertising. The Campaign itself did not, and could not, apply for a billboard itself as it is not recognised or registered as a company. If the campaign was seen in the eyes of the law as a business, it would have applied for a billboard in it's own right. The campaign did not reap the benefits provided to companies, the individual's who put an advert for the campaign in their businesses name reaped the benefits of company perks. I reiterate the following:

In order to be a business, one would need to consider a business an entity that; provides goods and or services; exchanges payment of monies; has economical goals and outcomes; and or holds funds. The Austin-End Political Organisation does none of the aforementioned functions. It is privately funded, does not accept donations, sell goods and or services, or hold funds. The campaign is not registered as a company and does not make use of any of the perks listed by the DEC for 'Unregistered Businesses,' with the exception of 'Buy things with your own money.'

Two incumbent secretaries of the Departments concerned do not consider Political Organisations as Businesses. Therefore, had the Campaign attempted to apply for a billboard in it's own name, it would have most likely been rejected.

4. The Plaintiff makes the argument that the case should be adjourned in the Plaintiff's favour on the premise that Austin mislead Krix. Misleading is not illegal, although my client does regret that it was not the correct action to take.

I would hardly consider a photoshoot sensitive information. Albeit, as aforementioned, Austin was Krix's VP candidate and was therefore co-sponsoring the ticket. Thus, Austin was again, a controlling interest of that information.

This morning Austin and I had a conversation about this court case as Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. By the Plaintiff's logic, I am not a controlling interest in the information about the whereabouts and daily activities of Austin and therefore I am sharing sensitive information that is not yet public.

5. The only information Austin shared in relation to the Krix campaign in the VC by Austin, as co-sponsor of the presidential ticket and controlling interest, was that Krix was momentarily going to announce. Other than that, Austin sought 218Conusumer's opinion on the matter of the Austin-End Campaign. 218consumer was not offered a portfolio within the Austin-End campaign. There is nothing illegal about finding a supporter base. Austin had no information to share with 218consumer that 218consumer was not already aware of as the Operative Leader of the Krix campaign. The defence objects to this evidence based on relevance to the claim for relief:

1. _Austin27_ infiltrated multiple presidential campaigns, gathered their information and used such information to enhance his own presidential campaign.

The evidence and claims have no relevance to an allegation of corporate espionage, the fact that the political organisation isn't a business aside.

6. The Statute of Limitations Act indicates that an individual cannot be charged for a crime more than 2 weeks after it was committed. Regardless of the matter or form that this is presented to the court in, the Plaintiff is alleging that Austin is guilty of a crime against the state; corporate espionage. Espionage is stealing. Stealing is a crime. Corporate espionage is stealing information in a corporate context. This is a law and any actions contrary to that law would be considered a crime. Therefore, this case has no legal basis. You are posing a civil suit with a criminal conviction as the outcome. A civil suit would, as defined in the constitution; a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation. Should this suit be adjourned in the favour of the Plaintiff, the court cannot legally impose a charge against the Defendant which makes this entire case redundant.

7. In summary, the Plaintiff's case rests on all of the following rulings by the court:
a. That the Political Organisation Austin-End campaign is a business, despite not being recognised as a business by the Government and not engaging in any business activities under it's own name.
b. That Austin was not a controlling interest in the information he provided from Krix to bob and Bob to Krix, despite mentioning that "Vice Presidents are a fundamental part of any campaign strategy."
c. That the Court interprets the statute of limitations in that charges in a civil case are not crimes, with complete disregard for the lack of discrimination between a civil and criminal case in the statute of limitations act.
d. That Austin benefitted from the information he had access to in implementing it in his own campaign, for which there are little to no similarities.
e. That the court interprets discussing matters of law and misleading individuals as espionage.

 

[End]

N THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
WITNESS TESTIMONY


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

_Austin27_ (xEndeavour Representing)
Defendant


WITNESS TESTIMONY

1. What date did you first contact _Austin27_ in regards to running together on a presidential ticket?

2. What date did _Austin27_ accept your request to run on a presidential ticket with you?

DATED
This 5th day of February, 2021

 

[End]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
MOTION TO RECUSE


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

_Austin27_ (xEndeavour Representing)
Defendant


MOTION TO RECUSE

I hereby request that the honourable Judge, Nacholebraa, do recuse himself from this case on the basis of serving as a witness in this court case and on the grounds of Exparte.

Witness: The Defendant requires the Judge Nacholebraa to serve a witness testimony in relation to this case.

Exparte: Judge Nacholebraa, in the past 24 hours, contrary to the request of the Defendant, has engaged in a Voice Chat of 4 members; which included the Plaintiff Dusty_3; the Plaintiff's Associate, Matthew100x; Judge Nacholebraa; and one other member who I cannot recall. This is a complete disregard for the impartiality of the courts. If required, I call on the aforementioned three members to testify.

I ask that the honourable Judge will remain impartial during this case and request that they abstain from communicating with the Plaintiff and Krix outside of this case until the case is adjourned which is contrary to what my client witnessed earlier this morning.

DATED:
This 5th day of February, 2021.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE COURT OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Case No. 02-2021-01

The court hereby summons Witness, _Austin27_, to the court of The Commonwealth of Redmont as a witness. Witnesses are reminded they are legally required to answer swiftly and speak the truth and nothing but the truth.

Witnesses are herby protected and bound under the following laws, 15.8 - Obstruction of Justice | 15.3 - Perjury | Right of Self-Incrimination

​

 

[Nacho]

N THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
WITNESS TESTIMONY


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

_Austin27_ (xEndeavour Representing)
Defendant


WITNESS TESTIMONY

1. What date did you first contact _Austin27_ in regards to running together on a presidential ticket?
View attachment 4874
2. What date did _Austin27_ accept your request to run on a presidential ticket with you?
View attachment 4875

DATED
This 5th day of February, 2021

Formal warning from the courts, continuing to speak out of line when not called upon to speak will result in counsel being charged with contempt of court.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff and the Defendant have reached a settlement agreement.
I will, from here forth, retract my case against _Austin27_

And I, Dusty_3, accept the terms in this agreement submitted by Dusty_3 on the 5th of February

Thank you for your time, your honour

 

[Nacho]

It pleases the courts to see the two parties come together and form a settlement. Acknowledging the agreement both parties have made, I hereby dismiss the case on the grounds that both parties have agreed to the above-listed terms.