Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. CaseyLeFaye [2024] SCR 32

[Nacho]

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Your Honor,

Due to the political connections as well as the implication that my employment within the Department of Justice can be revoked due to the disagreements for the filing of this case. I request the court to temporarily suspend the ability of the Department of Justice in terminating and or removing me from handling of this case.

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Your Honor,

We request due to the nature in which these allegations have been alleged that the individual be suspended from their senior government position as defined within the ‘Allegiance Act’ for the duration of this case. We raise this point to the court to indicate the possible breach of governmental integrity as well as possibility of insider info being traded from one government to the next due to the level of clearance within the Redmont Government.

---

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

CaseyLeFaye
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows:

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
While serving within a senior government official position within the Commonwealth CaseyLeFaye has campaigned and been elected to that of what is recongized by the Commonwealth as a Senior Government position. During this

I. PARTIES
1. CaseyLeFaye
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. September 14, 2024 CaseyLeFaye declared to seek office in an official election within a senior government position within an alternative government that of The Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. September 15, 2024 CaseyLeFaye was declared a winner within the House of Representatives within The Commonwealth of Redmont.
3. September 16, 2024 CaseyLeFaye was declared a winner within the election in an alternative government that of The Commonwealth of Redmont.


III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 Count - Violation of the Allegiance Act.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. Charge 1 - Removal from office.
2. Barred from public office for a period of 2 months.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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

DATED: This 20 day of September 2024

 

[Unitymaster]

I as Attorney General and Secretary of the Department of Justice motion to Noelle Prosequi, this case was not approved by the Department of Justice and Nacholebraa is not representing the commonwealth.

 

[End]

Court Order

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

Upon review of the merits of the case, the Court has determined to accept the temporary injunction.

It is hereby ordered that the Department of Justice shall reinstate @nacholebraa to their former position as a Prosecutor. The Department is further directed to maintain @nacholebraa’s employment, specifically in relation to this case, until the trial’s conclusion.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Court Order

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

Upon review of the merits of the case, the Court has determined to accept the temporary injunction.

It is hereby ordered that the Department of Justice shall reinstate @nacholebraa to their former position as a Prosecutor. The Department is further directed to maintain @nacholebraa’s employment, specifically in relation to this case, until the trial’s conclusion.

The plaintiff still drops the case whether or not Nacho is employed.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider
Furthermore, you cannot force a department to rehire an employee. It is simply not within the Courts' powers per the Constitution.

Also, per the Constitution:
View attachment 48605
Specifically, the second to last sentence empowers the Attorney General the sole ability to both appoint and dismiss employees of the DOJ. The Court cannot force the DOJ to keep Nacho employed, nor can it force the department to rehire a dismissed employee, except as permitted directly by the Constitution.

 

[End]

Denied

The Plaintiff's request for an Emergency Injunction to remove the defendant is denied at this time.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Court Order

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

Upon review of the merits of the case, the Court has determined to accept the temporary injunction.

It is hereby ordered that the Department of Justice shall reinstate @nacholebraa to their former position as a Prosecutor. The Department is further directed to maintain @nacholebraa’s employment, specifically in relation to this case, until the trial’s conclusion.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The Court cannot accept an injunction which was not requested. The plaintiff did not request an injunction to rehire Nacholebraa, therefore the Court may not order it.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 2.1, standing. Specifically, "remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision" per the Court Rules and Procedure. The remedy requested by the prosecution is NOT applicable under relevant law as the Allegiance Act states that it would be an impeachable offense, not an indictable one. Ban from office, fines, jail, and any other penalty are outside the scope of the law, and therefore the Court cannot entertain a case which requests remedies the Court cannot legally grant.

 

[End]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The Court cannot accept an injunction which was not requested. The plaintiff did not request an injunction to rehire Nacholebraa, therefore the Court may not order it.

Denied

The injunction was pending the Court's decision. The Court has made it's decision and it will not be reconsidered.

 

[End]

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 2.1, standing. Specifically, "remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision" per the Court Rules and Procedure. The remedy requested by the prosecution is NOT applicable under relevant law as the Allegiance Act states that it would be an impeachable offense, not an indictable one. Ban from office, fines, jail, and any other penalty are outside the scope of the law, and therefore the Court cannot entertain a case which requests remedies the Court cannot legally grant.

Denied

The Supreme Court wishes to establish legal clarity concerning the application of the Allegiance Act in a trial and believes that the case carries significant public interest to be heard by the court.

Further, the Supreme Court wishes to establish legal clarity concerning the prosecutorial authority of the Attorney General, Department of Justice, and its employees - particularly when the Attorney General may hold a perceived or actual conflict of interest.

 

[End]

Writ of Summons

@CaseyLeFaye is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. CaseyLeFaye.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion

Motion to Recuse

Your honor, the plaintiff motions to recuse Justice xEndeavour due to his personal ties to both the person who filed this case as well as the defendant. The Commonwealth seeks to ensure justice is served, and that requires a fair and impartial presiding officer. Justice End recently ran for President with Nacholebraa and are known political allies, and both of them are known political opponents of the defendant. CaseyLeFaye is a member of the Patriotic Coalition of Redmont. Remarks were made of a very prejudicial nature about this party and its members, and the perception of a conflict of interest is enough for recusal. Specifically, the remarks include the presumption that PCR members are criminals. The prejudicial remarks made exhibit conflict of interest beyond a reasonable doubt:

 

[End]

Motion

Motion to Recuse

Your honor, the plaintiff motions to recuse Justice xEndeavour due to his personal ties to both the person who filed this case as well as the defendant. The Commonwealth seeks to ensure justice is served, and that requires a fair and impartial presiding officer. Justice End recently ran for President with Nacholebraa and are known political allies, and both of them are known political opponents of the defendant. CaseyLeFaye is a member of the Patriotic Coalition of Redmont. Remarks were made of a very prejudicial nature about this party and its members, and the perception of a conflict of interest is enough for recusal. Specifically, the remarks include the presumption that PCR members are criminals. The prejudicial remarks made exhibit conflict of interest beyond a reasonable doubt:
View attachment 48612

Denied

I will be denying the motion to recuse on the following basis:

a. The evidence presented shows me, well before my time on the court, discussing the conduct of the president (at a time which I believe I may have been in Congress?). The comments presented aren't directly related to the contents of this case and are otherwise general in nature about an electoral opponent. The comments made reflect a time where I was likely in political office and for which I was engaging in political rhetoric.

b. If we used comments which are general in nature from months earlier to recuse Justices, no one on this court would be considered impartial enough to rule on this case. In fact, I would make the argument that very few in the legal field let alone on the court could be considered impartial. Redmont is a small community and people who are qualified for this office will have had interactions with parties to court cases they rule on, negative or positive.

c. My ability to impartially deliver a verdict is not informed by my time in Congress from a quarter of a year ago. A similar situation posed itself earlier this year in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1 where a recusal was submitted against me for my previous rhetoric outside of the courts against a former political opponent. Notwithstanding, I returned a not guilty verdict.

Justice Dartanman made the following comments in the review of my recusal:

It is, frankly, impossible to find an active player in the legal field who has not had either a positive or negative interaction with former President xLayzur, seeing as Redmont is not a large country, and the entire legal field is closely tied to the Executive Branch. For this reason, the concept of an Appearance of Bias must be different when applying to, for lack of a better word, celebrities.

This is not unlike IRL legal concepts, such as altered requirements for Defamation when speaking about public figures - a concept created by Courts, not Legislatures.

With that in mind, we must take context into consideration. xEndeavour was, at the time, acting as a political officeholder and actively campaigning. The lens that the facts were looked at through were political lenses which warranted similarly political rhetoric.

Such behavior would not be allowed on the Court, and if Mr. End had been a Justice when he made those comments, he would certainly be recused. But, he did not make those comments on the bench - they were made nearly half a year prior to his nomination.

Now as a member of the Supreme Court, the very same set of facts is closely examined through the lens of the Constitution and the law - one which sees only in black and white, that applies the highest level of scrutiny to all facts and evidence in order to fairly judge the case on its merit alone, without bias.

For this reason, I must  deny the motion to recuse Justice End.

If you believe I have erred in my decision, you may re-motion for my recusal in which another Justice will rule on my recusal.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Denied

I will be denying the motion to recuse on the following basis:

a. The evidence presented shows me, well before my time on the court, discussing the conduct of the president (at a time which I believe I may have been in Congress?). The comments presented aren't directly related to the contents of this case and are otherwise general in nature about an electoral opponent. The comments made reflect a time where I was likely in political office and for which I was engaging in political rhetoric.

b. If we used comments which are general in nature from months earlier to recuse Justices, no one on this court would be considered impartial enough to rule on this case. In fact, I would make the argument that very few in the legal field let alone on the court could be considered impartial. Redmont is a small community and people who are qualified for this office will have had interactions with parties to court cases they rule on, negative or positive.

c. My ability to impartially deliver a verdict is not informed by my time in Congress from a quarter of a year ago. A similar situation posed itself earlier this year in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1 where a recusal was submitted against me for my previous rhetoric outside of the courts against a former political opponent. Notwithstanding, I returned a not guilty verdict.

Justice Dartanman made the following comments in the review of my recusal:



If you believe I have erred in my decision, you may re-motion for my recusal in which another Justice will rule on my recusal.

I request that another judicial officer review this motion.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion

Motion to Recuse

Your honor, the plaintiff motions to recuse Justice Dr_Eksplosive due to his personal ties to both the person who filed this case as well as the defendant. The Commonwealth seeks to ensure justice is served, and that requires a fair and impartial presiding officer. Chiefly, the Justice is a very recent ex-member of the PCR, of which five of its members were assailed with these cases of a similar nature. Clearly, a coordinated campaign by a known opponent to the PCR, Nacholebraa, is being orchestrated and an ex-PCR member will sympathize with the defendant in this case, or have the perception of such. Therefore, Justice Eksplosive must be recused to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Motion

Motion to Recuse

Your honor, the plaintiff motions to recuse Justice xEndeavour due to his personal ties to both the person who filed this case as well as the defendant. The Commonwealth seeks to ensure justice is served, and that requires a fair and impartial presiding officer. Justice End recently ran for President with Nacholebraa and are known political allies, and both of them are known political opponents of the defendant. CaseyLeFaye is a member of the Patriotic Coalition of Redmont. Remarks were made of a very prejudicial nature about this party and its members, and the perception of a conflict of interest is enough for recusal. Specifically, the remarks include the presumption that PCR members are criminals. The prejudicial remarks made exhibit conflict of interest beyond a reasonable doubt:
View attachment 48612

Denied

I will be denying the motion to recuse on the following basis:

a. Justice xEndeavour ceased political activities close to 4 months ago, and the comment provided by the defense is close to 4 months old as well.

b. Presumption of prejudice is not the same as presence of prejudice. I still find there significant doubt on Justice xEndeavour is currently prejudiced against the defendant (if any).

 

[End]

@CaseyLeFaye you have 24 hours to enter a plea.

 

[End]

Court Order

Quo Warranto

@Nacho the court requests that you establish your authority as an individual prosecutor to file a case without the authority of the Attorney General.

Please advise the court if the commonwealth remains non-compliant in fulfilling the writ of mandamus of maintaining your employment for the duration of the case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

@CaseyLeFaye you have 24 hours to deliver an opening statement.

Where’s the response to complaint or discovery? Lol

 

[End]

Where’s the response to complaint or discovery? Lol

Apologies, by opening statement I was referring to your response to complaint. In criminal proceedings this is where you will enter your plea.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Apologies, by opening statement I was referring to your response to complaint. In criminal proceedings this is where you will enter your plea.

I am the prosecutor, your honor. I assume the defense will seek their own counsel.

 

[End]

I am the prosecutor, your honor. I assume the defense will seek their own counsel.

The court has ordered the original prosecutor’s relation to this case be protected.

You are not to continue to respond on behalf of the prosecution while we establish the facts of the case and the prosecution’s individual authority.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The court has ordered the original prosecutor’s relation to this case be protected.

You are not to continue to respond on behalf of the prosecution while we establish the facts of the case and the prosecution’s individual authority.

The original prosecutor remains co-counsel. I am counsel and you may not order me to not represent the Commonwealth, which the Attorney General has delegated me to.

 

[End]

The original prosecutor remains co-counsel. I am counsel and you may not order me to not represent the Commonwealth, which the Attorney General has delegated me to.
View attachment 48665

Court Order

Alexanderlove is hereby disqualified from this case until such time that the court has determined the original prosecutor’s authority to file a case independently.

The court wishes to hear from the co-counsel on the matter of the writ of quo warranto exclusively. The court is not satisfied that this can occur fairly with the court hearing from a prosecutor who was appointed by the AG in a case where the AG is implicated.

 

[End]

Motion

Motion to Recuse

Your honor, the plaintiff motions to recuse Justice Dr_Eksplosive due to his personal ties to both the person who filed this case as well as the defendant. The Commonwealth seeks to ensure justice is served, and that requires a fair and impartial presiding officer. Chiefly, the Justice is a very recent ex-member of the PCR, of which five of its members were assailed with these cases of a similar nature. Clearly, a coordinated campaign by a known opponent to the PCR, Nacholebraa, is being orchestrated and an ex-PCR member will sympathize with the defendant in this case, or have the perception of such. Therefore, Justice Eksplosive must be recused to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest.

Denied

You have not established anything with this submission? Where is the evidence? I remind you that this is an adversarial system and not an inquisitorial system.

Referring to personal connection, no evidence establishes this.

Referring to PCR membership, I am satisfied that he has quit and ceased all political activities in Redmont upon moving to the courts and is no longer associated with any political movement.

 

[CaseyLeFaye]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

CaseyLeFaye
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. The defence pleads NOT GUILTY.

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

DATED: This 23rd day of September 2024.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honors,

The Department of Justice is charged with prosecuting individuals within the Commonwealth who break the law, regardless of their standing within the Commonwealth. State Prosecutors are authorized to work and maintain these filings to ensure that all individuals within the Commonwealth are held to the same equal standard under the law.

In this instance, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are defined within the constitution as the department's managerial leaders. At this time, they were both implicated in the case filings and had a clear and obvious conflict of interest regarding the subject matter of the case filings.

The accused in the case is in close relation or a member of the ‘Patriotic Coalition Of Redmont’ (PCR) - A registered and active political party within the Commonwealth of Redmont. It is apparent that the individual and parties' motives are to assist in protecting their members from potential removal from office. Both primary members of management within the department are members of the same political party (PCR). (See Attached). With that information being noted, I took it upon myself as a lead prosecutor to take on the case due to the evident and apparent conflict of interest that both leadership members have in the case's subject matter. As outlined within the Department Policy Handbook, 'Any actual, or appearances of, conflicts of interests should be avoided by you as the prosecutor.' - This means that both the Attorney General and Solicitor General are required to recuse these matters.

At the time of filing this case I was a ‘Lead Prosecutor’ and have been a lead prosecutor for some time now within the department. I have represented the commonwealth on various occasions as a prosecutor or a defender from suits filed against the government. I have extensive knowledge within the department and one of the only active prosecutors within the department according to court records.(See Attached).

I filled the injunction within the court to prevent the potential abuse of process provided within the law to department leadership in this case. Should the court wish to further validate my claims of being an a employee within the Department of Justice as well as further show that I was removed from the department in light of this case. Should the court wish to further see my former rank within the department they can easily request the audit logs of the Department of Justice discord to further show the changing of my roles within the department.

As for the last part of the granted injunction to let the court know, I was provided this response by the department and have not been given my permissions or roles back from the department.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Court Order

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

The court has carefully reviewed the arguments that both sides have presented thus far and provide the following:

I. RATIONALE

Prosecutorial power rests with the executive, and the Department of Justice, namely the Attorney General, is exclusively charged with exercising these powers in the Constitution and Executive Standards Act. This is reinforced in Commonwealth of Redmont v Bezzergeezer [2024] SCR 3.

The Prosecution argues that they hold the prosecutorial authority to initiate criminal proceedings due to a conflict of interest among their superiors. While this may be true in relation to the Attorney-General and the President, this is not applicable to other members that have been prosecuted. Further, we note that the prosecutor was an experienced Lead Prosecutor, although we do not consider this to be of significance to make independent public prosecutorial decisions on behalf of the commonwealth.

It is clear to the court that there is a lack of legislative direction in circumstances where a conflict of interest presents itself among prosecutorial authority. This is apparent in the recent use of power to shut cases down which implicate members who hold such authority. The court recommends to Congress that it moves to resolve such circumstances by way of establishing a process for appointing a neutral special prosecution or forced recusal of the Attorney General and delegation of prosecutorial power.

As dictated by department policy, the Constitution, and Executive Standards Act, the Solicitor General shares the responsibility of managing cases and prosecutions. The court may have been able to justify prosecution of the President and Attorney General had the prosecutor sought the approval of the Solicitor General in what would have been a reasonable potential solution to achieving standing.

II. NON-BINDING DICTA

While it is not common practice, the court will be accompanying this dismissal with a non-binding dicta due to the significant public interest that has arisen out of this case.

In examining the Allegiance Act, the court sees that the act expressly prohibits serving in a senior position of a foreign government while a senior member of the Commonwealth of Redmont's government. Noting that this act was intended with a view for national security, the absence of limitations on its applicability indicates that there is no requirement for the nation's sovereignty to be recognised.

Moreover, the act expressly extends congressional jurisdiction for impeachment over the matter, but it does not exclude judicial review. The act of serving in a foreign government is illegal, and should the matter be proven before the court, it would most certainly act to remedy over referring to Congress.

III. PUNISHMENTS

Ignoring a writ of mandamus is taken very seriously by the courts, as it undermines the rule of law and the authority of the judicial system. It has been noted that the Commonwealth violated the injunction in place, and the subsequent writ of mandamus. The Attorney General is hereby charged with 1 count of contempt of court.

A protective injunction was imposed to prevent harm when the prosecutorial authority removed someone from prosecuting them in a case where they were implicated. The decorum of the Department of Justice was abhorrent and the Attorney General must ensure that the Department complies with court orders in future.

The court understands the frustration that either party may have suffered and thanks them for their patience and commitment to maintain decorum within the courtroom.

In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court dismisses the case without prejudice.

These matters are referred to Congress until otherwise provided.