Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Crytiee [2024] FCR 107

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Crytiee
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On June 19th 2024, voting was opened up to the senators by POS Xinexyax for a motion made by V__D to remove Xinexyax as President of the Senate. At the time of this motion there were only 4 senators. Vernicia and V__D both voted Aye, Xinexyax couldnt vote as the motion was about them. Crytiee realizied that even by voting Nay there would still be a supermajority meaning the vote would pass but if he didnt vote then it would fail for not meeting qurorum requirements. The act of not voting is outside of Crytiee's Offical duties as Senator and this act went to benefit Xinexyax by keeping them as President of the Senate. This acting by Crytiee would be definition Corruption.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Crytiee

II. FACTS
1. Motion S.44.24 was brought to the floor
2. The Motion was to remove xinexyax as President of the Senate
3. Crytiee never casted a vote in motion S.44.24
4. Motion S.44.24 was concluded on June 22.
4. Because Crytiee never casted a vote, the quorum was never of at least 50% meaning the motion failed.
5. If Crytiee did vote, no matter how he voted the motion would have passed and Xinexyax would have been removed as President of the Senate
6. Crytiee casted a vote on a different motion (S.43.23) while motion S.44.24 was still open showing he had the ability to vote on S.44.24.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 count of corruption for acting outside of his official duties and refusing to vote on motion S.44.24 forcing it to fail which benefitted xinexyax by keeping them as President of the Senate.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. In accordance with the ‘Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act' the exclusion of Crytiee from a political office for a consecutive 2 months.
2. $15,000 fine.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-1

Spoiler: P-2

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.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@crytiee is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Crytiee. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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.​

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

crytiee
Defendant

I. PLEA
The Defendant pleads NOT GUILTY on on the charge of Corruption.

II. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM Motion S.44.24 was brought to the floor
2. AFFIRM The Motion was to remove xinexyax as President of the Senate
3. DENY crytiee never casted a vote in motion S.44.24
4. AFFIRM Motion S.44.24 was concluded on June 22.
4. DENY Because crytiee never casted a vote, the quorum was never of at least 50% meaning the motion failed.
5. DENY If crytiee did vote, no matter how he voted the motion would have passed and Xinexyax would have been removed as President of the Senate
6. AFFIRM crytiee cast a vote on another motion, NOTING it was actually S.43.24 (not S.43.23) , while motion S.44.24 was still open BUT DENY this showed he had the ability to vote on S.44.24.

III. DEFENSES
1. Oxford Dictionary defines Abstaining as "choos[ing] not to use a vote, either in favour of or against something" (abstain verb - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com).

2. crytiee certainly could have explicitly chosen to vote "Abstain" (as opposed to actually Abstaining) and the motion still would not have met quorum, as according to the Legislative Standards Act (Information - Legislative Standards Act), and by extension, the Constitution, "The quorum when voting shall be dynamic. Where a member abstains from voting, the majority will be decided based on those who have not abstained."

3. Given the already-mentioned definition of Abstain, the Constitution/LSA allows members of Congress to "abstain from voting" which clearly means they can "choose not to use a vote."

4. Let's pretend for a moment that Abstaining from Voting (a specifically mentioned ability of Congresspeople according to the Constitution/LSA) is not enshrined within the law. The "Freedom of Political Communication" is a fundamental right under the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By refusing to vote, crytiee may have been exercising his right to politically communicate their distaste in the motion made to VONC the sitting President of the Senate.

5. Although crytiee cast a vote on S.43.24, he could have still been deliberating on his own thoughts regarding S.44.24, and simply ran out of time to vote on S.44.24.

6. The Prosecution has failed to show any law that requires Senators to vote on Motions, thus, it cannot be considered "inconsistent with their official duty" to not vote on a Motion.

IV. MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defense requests this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1 - Rule 5.12: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
The Prosecution lacks the standing to pursue this case. In order to show standing in a case, the Prosecution must show the Commonwealth:

1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

Notably, while the Commonwealth alleges Corruption, they fail to show any law suggesting that "not voting" (a.k.a. abstaining) is "inconsistent with the official duty" of a Senator. Because they failed to do so, there is no injury clearly caused by the Defendant.

2 - Rule 5.5: Lack of Claim
The Prosecution has failed to provide a valid claim, by failing to support the idea that "not voting" (a.k.a. abstaining) is "inconsistent with the official duty" of a Senator with any laws or evidence. There is simply no claim to this prosecution.

3 - Rule 5.11: Immunity Protection
Not voting, a.k.a. abstaining, is a power given to Senators by the Constitution (making it an EXPRESSED CONSTITUTIONAL POWER) and the Legislative Standards Act. The Supreme Court has already ruled that EXPRESSED CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS are inherently legal and lawsuits against such powers are worthy of being dismissed, as officials have Immunity to being sued for exercising expressed Constitutional powers (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1).

Consent to Represent:

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 18th day of July 2024.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The prosecution has 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Crytiee
Defendant

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS.
5.12(lack of personal Juridiction)/5.5 (lack of claim)

The Constitution states that "congress serves to represent for will of the people and is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending laws and rules." Congress's official duties (which includes the senate) are to represent the will of the people. Crytiee by not voting could not have represented anyone which means they did not act in accordance to their Official Duties. The act not in accordance with their official duties then became corruption when it directly benefited Xine by keeping them as President of the Senate.

The defense also talks about Abstaining being a power grated by the LSA and the Constitution and therefore apart of their offical duties. First we would argue they did not abstain because when looking at P-1 you will see no vote to abstain was record (2-0-0). But the commonwealth would argue that these powers (which includes abstaining) are granted, they are not Senator's official duties. Their official duties are to represent the will of the people and these powers granted to them are only tools to use in order to fufill their official duties.

5.11(Immunity Protection)

The courts have allowed prosecutions on many acts that may be defined as "within their offical duties." The Commonwealth has prosecuted people for voting on motions which I would argue that voting would have more protections then not voting. Some of the cases in which this has happened are:
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Overlordofpeonys [2024] SCR 20
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. MrFluffy2u94 [2024] SCR 19
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. supersuperking [2024] SCR 22
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. UnityMaster [2024] SCR 21
Because of this there should be no immunity granted to Crytiee for not voting when even the act of voting is not immune to prosecution.


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 8th day of July 2024.

 

[Dartanboy]

Crytiee by not voting could not have represented anyone which means they did not act in accordance to their Official Duties.

 OBJECTION
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence | Incompetence

Ko531 has failed to show that "not voting" fails to represent anyone.

Ko531 is also incapable of knowing whether anyone wanted crytiee to "not vote" making him incompetent to make such a claim.

 

[Dartanboy]

But the commonwealth would argue that these powers (which includes abstaining) are granted, they are not Senator's official duties.

 OBJECTION
Perjury

Ko531 simultaneously agrees the power of abstaining is officially granted through the Constitution but also claims the same power is inconsistent with Senators' official duties.

This is a direct contradiction and also Perjury, possibly in an attempt to strengthen the Prosecution.

Edit: Spelling fixes

 

[Dartanboy]

The courts have allowed prosecutions on many acts that may be defined as "within their offical duties." The Commonwealth has prosecuted people for voting on motions which I would argue that voting would have more protections then not voting. Some of the cases in which this has happened are:
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Overlordofpeonys [2024] SCR 20
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. MrFluffy2u94 [2024] SCR 19
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. supersuperking [2024] SCR 22
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. UnityMaster [2024] SCR 21
Because of this there should be no immunity granted to Crytiee for not voting when even the act of voting is not immune to prosecution.

 OBJECTION
Perjury

Two of those cases were dismissed (meaning they were not fully heard). The other two were Plea deals, lacking verdicts.

The Prosecution is attempting to frame these cases as successful Prosecutions against Public Officials doing official acts to allow the Prosecution to sue my client for fulfilling his official duties.

 

[ko531]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence | Incompetence

You can not represent someone through inaction. To represent the will of the people in a motion like this senators has 3 options, Aye to show the people are in favor of, Nay to show the people are not in favor of or Abstain to show the people do not wish to decide, are netural or the senator is question has a COI. As you see by P-1 no vote from crytiee was counted therefore the people Crytiee represents had zero input on the matter which means their interests were not represented.

Perjury

A power can be officially granted through the constitution but yet at the same time doesnt mean that anytime one uses these powers they are in accordance with their official duties. Powers granted to senators by the constitution are only tools to use when trying to uphold their official dutie which is to represent the will of the people. Just because a power is granted by the constitution does not make is an official duty.

Perjury

I simply stated they were allowed to prosecute. 2 of those cases had plea deals which the court upheld while the other 2 case where dismissed at the request of the commonwealth. None of these cases will you see have been dismissed for the reason of immunity. They were allowed to be prosecuted until the commonwealth stop whether that is because a plead deal was struck or because they motioned to nolle prosequi. The court had almost nothing to do with how these cases ended. Again if senators can bee found guilty of a crime for voting then there should be no protection for the act of not voting.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

 OBJECTION
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence | Incompetence

Ko531 has failed to show that "not voting" fails to represent anyone.

Ko531 is also incapable of knowing whether anyone wanted crytiee to "not vote" making him incompetent to make such a claim.

Sustained. Mr. Ko’s statement that Crytiee failed to represent anyone by not voting lacks sufficient evidence and assumes knowledge that Ko does not have. Struck.

 OBJECTION
Perjury

Ko531 simultaneously agrees the power of abstaining is officially granted through the Constitution but also claims the same power is inconsistent with Senators' official duties.

This is a direct contradiction and also Perjury, possibly in an attempt to strengthen the Prosecution.

Edit: Spelling fixes

Sustained in part. The objection regarding the contradiction is upheld. Ko's statements are inconsistent. However, the claim of perjury may be an overstatement without further evidence of intent to deceive. Edit: He will not be charged with perjury.

 OBJECTION
Perjury

Two of those cases were dismissed (meaning they were not fully heard). The other two were Plea deals, lacking verdicts.

The Prosecution is attempting to frame these cases as successful Prosecutions against Public Officials doing official acts to allow the Prosecution to sue my client for fulfilling his official duties.

Overruled.


Note: I am still deliberating on the motion to dismiss. Please bear with me.

 

[ko531]

Sustained in part. The objection regarding the contradiction is upheld. Ko's statements are inconsistent. However, the claim of perjury may be an overstatement without further evidence of intent to deceive.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor,

The Commonwealth's entire argument is that the powers granted to the senate by the constitution are not the same as their official duties. By making this distinction there can no longer be a contradiction. The Powers granted to the senate are only tools that can be used in order to fufill their official duties. They are not the same thing.

When you break down that one sentence with this distinction you will see how there is no contradiction. "But the commonwealth would argue that these powers (which includes abstaining) are granted,....." you can see we are talking about the senate's powers granted by the constitution which would include abstained. ".....they are not Senator's official duties." For the second half of the statement you can clearly see this is where we made the arguement that these powers are not the senators official duties. There is zero contradiction unless you are declaring right now that Senator's powers are their official duties.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor,

The Commonwealth's entire argument is that the powers granted to the senate by the constitution are not the same as their official duties. By making this distinction there can no longer be a contradiction. The Powers granted to the senate are only tools that can be used in order to fufill their official duties. They are not the same thing.

When you break down that one sentence with this distinction you will see how there is no contradiction. "But the commonwealth would argue that these powers (which includes abstaining) are granted,....." you can see we are talking about the senate's powers granted by the constitution which would include abstained. ".....they are not Senator's official duties." For the second half of the statement you can clearly see this is where we made the arguement that these powers are not the senators official duties. There is zero contradiction unless you are declaring right now that Senator's powers are their official duties.

Sustained. Thank you for clarifying that for the court. I would also like to note that the original objection was sustained in part, and you were never charged with perjury.

 

[ko531]

Sustained. Mr. Ko’s statement that Crytiee failed to represent anyone by not voting lacks sufficient evidence and assumes knowledge that Ko does not have. Struck.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, This statement was not stated as a fact, it was stated as a legal arguement therefore it can not be struck as a fact not in evidence. We are arguing that by not Voting you can not represent the people. If every statement or argument made in court needs evidence to back it up then Lawyers would be out of a job. No arguments would ever be necessary as the evidence required would show the entire picture. We are arguing a side of a contested topic just like the other side is arguing the opposite.

 

[Dartanboy]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, This statement was not stated as a fact, it was stated as a legal arguement therefore it can not be struck as a fact not in evidence. We are arguing that by not Voting you can not represent the people. If every statement or argument made in court needs evidence to back it up then Lawyers would be out of a job. No arguments would ever be necessary as the evidence required would show the entire picture. We are arguing a side of a contested topic just like the other side is arguing the opposite.

May I respond, your honor?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

May I respond, your honor?

You may

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Ruling on Motion to Dismiss​

After careful consideration, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Each point raised by the defense has been reviewed in detail, and the Court finds that the issues at hand require thorough examination during the trial.

1. Rule 5.12: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Rule 5.12 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case." The Defense's argument here appears to be asking for a Sua Sponte Dismissal based on Rule 2.1, which involves the court acting on its own motion without a request from either party. The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant's failure to vote constituted corruption, which is a legal claim that the court must evaluate. While the Prosecution has not yet provided a specific law stating, "not voting is inconsistent with official duties," the claim of corruption is sufficient to proceed with the trial. It is the Court's role to evaluate and decide on the consistency of the Defendant's actions with their official duties.

2. Rule 5.5: Lack of Claim
Regarding the claim of lack of claim, Rule 5.5 permits dismissal if the Prosecution fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In this case, the Prosecution has identified a specific law, namely the charge of corruption, and is prepared to present evidence demonstrating how this law was allegedly violated. Dismissing the case at this stage, without a full hearing of the facts and arguments from both sides, would be premature and unjust. The Court must allow the Prosecution the opportunity to prove their allegations.

3. Rule 5.11: Immunity Protection
The Defense asserts that the Defendant's actions fall within the immunity provided for exercising constitutional powers, specifically the power to abstain from voting. The Prosecution, however, contends that the Defendant's failure to vote, which led to the motion's failure to meet quorum and subsequently benefited another individual, constituted an act of corruption. The core issue here is whether abstaining from voting, in this particular context, is protected by constitutional immunity or if it represents an abuse of power outside the scope of the Defendant's official duties. This matter involves complex legal interpretations and factual determinations that cannot be resolved at the dismissal stage. It is essential for the Court to thoroughly examine these issues during the trial to ascertain the legality and propriety of the Defendant's actions.


The Court finds that the allegations of corruption and the specific circumstances surrounding the Defendant's failure to vote warrant a full examination during the trial. Both the Prosecution and the Defense will have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence, allowing the Court to make a well-informed decision based on the merits of the case.


The trial will proceed. We will now move into a 3 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.

 

[Dartanboy]

This statement was not stated as a fact, it was stated as a legal arguement therefore it can not be struck as a fact not in evidence.

Your honor, it is a statement of fact, and actually a false one. For example, I may have personally wanted crytiee not to vote on the motion. As I am a member of "the people," if I did will for this, he certainly succeeded in representing my will, making this statement false.

If every statement or argument made in court needs evidence to back it up then Lawyers would be out of a job. No arguments would ever be necessary as the evidence required would show the entire picture.

Your honor this is a ridiculous argument. Yes, every claim should require evidence. Without evidence, claims are baseless accusations.

 

[Dartanboy]

INTERROGATORY

The Defense asks the Prosecution the following:

1. Under which law is "abstaining from voting" and "not voting" prohibited for a Senator?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, This statement was not stated as a fact, it was stated as a legal arguement therefore it can not be struck as a fact not in evidence. We are arguing that by not Voting you can not represent the people. If every statement or argument made in court needs evidence to back it up then Lawyers would be out of a job. No arguments would ever be necessary as the evidence required would show the entire picture. We are arguing a side of a contested topic just like the other side is arguing the opposite.

The motion to reconsider is granted. Ko's statement will be allowed as part of the legal argument. The court acknowledges that this statement is an interpretation of Crytiee's duties and does not require immediate factual evidence. However, it remains the responsibility of the Prosecution to substantiate their claims with evidence during the trial to prove that Crytiee's inaction constituted a failure to represent the will of the people and thus amounted to corruption.

 

[Dartanboy]

Ruling on Motion to Dismiss​

After careful consideration, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Each point raised by the defense has been reviewed in detail, and the Court finds that the issues at hand require thorough examination during the trial.

1. Rule 5.12: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Rule 5.12 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case." The Defense's argument here appears to be asking for a Sua Sponte Dismissal based on Rule 2.1, which involves the court acting on its own motion without a request from either party. The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant's failure to vote constituted corruption, which is a legal claim that the court must evaluate. While the Prosecution has not yet provided a specific law stating, "not voting is inconsistent with official duties," the claim of corruption is sufficient to proceed with the trial. It is the Court's role to evaluate and decide on the consistency of the Defendant's actions with their official duties.

2. Rule 5.5: Lack of Claim
Regarding the claim of lack of claim, Rule 5.5 permits dismissal if the Prosecution fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In this case, the Prosecution has identified a specific law, namely the charge of corruption, and is prepared to present evidence demonstrating how this law was allegedly violated. Dismissing the case at this stage, without a full hearing of the facts and arguments from both sides, would be premature and unjust. The Court must allow the Prosecution the opportunity to prove their allegations.

3. Rule 5.11: Immunity Protection
The Defense asserts that the Defendant's actions fall within the immunity provided for exercising constitutional powers, specifically the power to abstain from voting. The Prosecution, however, contends that the Defendant's failure to vote, which led to the motion's failure to meet quorum and subsequently benefited another individual, constituted an act of corruption. The core issue here is whether abstaining from voting, in this particular context, is protected by constitutional immunity or if it represents an abuse of power outside the scope of the Defendant's official duties. This matter involves complex legal interpretations and factual determinations that cannot be resolved at the dismissal stage. It is essential for the Court to thoroughly examine these issues during the trial to ascertain the legality and propriety of the Defendant's actions.


The Court finds that the allegations of corruption and the specific circumstances surrounding the Defendant's failure to vote warrant a full examination during the trial. Both the Prosecution and the Defense will have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence, allowing the Court to make a well-informed decision based on the merits of the case.


The trial will proceed. We will now move into a 3 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, the Prosecution has failed to state a valid claim. They are claiming that "not voting" is inconsistent with Senators' official duties. The Defense argues that this claim is insufficient, absent a statute that requires voting or prohibits not voting.

The claim the court is allowing to be heard is akin to filing a lawsuit alleging the President committed corruption by "walking across the street, which is inconsistent with his official duties."

Merely saying "inconsistent with official duty" does not make it a valid claim. There must be some law or statute that makes it so.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, the Prosecution has failed to state a valid claim. They are claiming that "not voting" is inconsistent with Senators' official duties. The Defense argues that this claim is insufficient, absent a statute that requires voting or prohibits not voting.

The claim the court is allowing to be heard is akin to filing a lawsuit alleging the President committed corruption by "walking across the street, which is inconsistent with his official duties."

Merely saying "inconsistent with official duty" does not make it a valid claim. There must be some law or statute that makes it so.

The motion to reconsider is denied. Mr. Dart, as a former Chief Justice, you should appreciate the critical role of judicial review and the perils of dismissing a case prematurely. The essence of the corruption statute at issue—"The act of using a government position to grant an advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others, to unfairly benefit oneself or another"—requires careful interpretation. This court cannot, in good conscience, dismiss the case without a full exploration of the facts and legal arguments.

The duties of a Senator and whether the Defendant’s actions provided an unfair advantage inconsistent with those duties are central to this question. Given the seriousness of the claim and the need to assess whether the law was indeed violated, a trial is warranted to thoroughly evaluate these issues.

 

[ko531]

INTERROGATORY

The Defense asks the Prosecution the following:

1. Under which law is "abstaining from voting" and "not voting" prohibited for a Senator?

There is not law prohibiting senators to abstain but there is also no law protectiong the same action from prosecution. For "not voting" I believe it is not defined anywhere in law so I guess it would go on a case by case bases to determine whether "not voting" is prohibited. I would argue not voting isnt a power granted to senators as no where in the powers of senate does it hint at an option to vote

 

[Dartanboy]

Ruling on Motion to Dismiss​

After careful consideration, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Each point raised by the defense has been reviewed in detail, and the Court finds that the issues at hand require thorough examination during the trial.

1. Rule 5.12: Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Rule 5.12 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case." The Defense's argument here appears to be asking for a Sua Sponte Dismissal based on Rule 2.1, which involves the court acting on its own motion without a request from either party. The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant's failure to vote constituted corruption, which is a legal claim that the court must evaluate. While the Prosecution has not yet provided a specific law stating, "not voting is inconsistent with official duties," the claim of corruption is sufficient to proceed with the trial. It is the Court's role to evaluate and decide on the consistency of the Defendant's actions with their official duties.

2. Rule 5.5: Lack of Claim
Regarding the claim of lack of claim, Rule 5.5 permits dismissal if the Prosecution fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In this case, the Prosecution has identified a specific law, namely the charge of corruption, and is prepared to present evidence demonstrating how this law was allegedly violated. Dismissing the case at this stage, without a full hearing of the facts and arguments from both sides, would be premature and unjust. The Court must allow the Prosecution the opportunity to prove their allegations.

3. Rule 5.11: Immunity Protection
The Defense asserts that the Defendant's actions fall within the immunity provided for exercising constitutional powers, specifically the power to abstain from voting. The Prosecution, however, contends that the Defendant's failure to vote, which led to the motion's failure to meet quorum and subsequently benefited another individual, constituted an act of corruption. The core issue here is whether abstaining from voting, in this particular context, is protected by constitutional immunity or if it represents an abuse of power outside the scope of the Defendant's official duties. This matter involves complex legal interpretations and factual determinations that cannot be resolved at the dismissal stage. It is essential for the Court to thoroughly examine these issues during the trial to ascertain the legality and propriety of the Defendant's actions.


The Court finds that the allegations of corruption and the specific circumstances surrounding the Defendant's failure to vote warrant a full examination during the trial. Both the Prosecution and the Defense will have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence, allowing the Court to make a well-informed decision based on the merits of the case.


The trial will proceed. We will now move into a 3 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, I'll note the previous Motion to Reconsider focused on lack of claim/standing. This one focuses on Immunity Protection.

I'd like to point out, your honor, that the reason you denied the dismissal is “This matter involves complex legal interpretations and factual determinations that cannot be resolved at the dismissal stage.”

This is simply not the case. The Defendant is being prosecuted for abstaining from voting – a power that is expressly given via the Constitution. Yes, the Defendant is being prosecuted for exercising his lawful power – an Expressed Constitutional Power in the Legislative Standards Act. It states clearly “The quorum when voting shall be dynamic. Where a member abstains from voting, the majority will be decided based on those who have not abstained.” This clearly creates the power to “abstain from voting,” which is markedly different from “voting abstain.”

For years, the Supreme Court has held that Officials cannot be prosecuted for exercising their Expressed Constitutional Powers. Cases which echo this fact include Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1.

Furthermore, Rule 5.11 – Immunity Protection – clearly allows for Dismissal when “the Defendant is statutorily or constitutionally immune from being sued.” Notably, in this case, a Senator used their powers granted by the Legislative Standards Act, making crytiee both Statutorily and Constitutionally immune to being sued for this action.

Allowing this case to even be heard is dangerous on every possible level. It is simply not enough for crytiee to be found Not Guilty, as the ramifications for even hearing this case are vast and debilitating for a functioning Government. The case must be dismissed. Why would Public Officials do their job, and exercise their Expressed Constitutional Powers, if doing so puts them at risk of being prosecuted for high crimes such as Corruption?

Furthermore, as already mentioned, the Supreme Court has already ruled that Officials cannot be prosecuted for exercising Expressed Constitutional Powers. This decision is binding, and the Federal Court cannot choose to ignore this precedent.

This case must be dismissed on the basis of Immunity Protection.

 

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, I'll note the previous Motion to Reconsider focused on lack of claim/standing. This one focuses on Immunity Protection.

I'd like to point out, your honor, that the reason you denied the dismissal is “This matter involves complex legal interpretations and factual determinations that cannot be resolved at the dismissal stage.”

This is simply not the case. The Defendant is being prosecuted for abstaining from voting – a power that is expressly given via the Constitution. Yes, the Defendant is being prosecuted for exercising his lawful power – an Expressed Constitutional Power in the Legislative Standards Act. It states clearly “The quorum when voting shall be dynamic. Where a member abstains from voting, the majority will be decided based on those who have not abstained.” This clearly creates the power to “abstain from voting,” which is markedly different from “voting abstain.”

For years, the Supreme Court has held that Officials cannot be prosecuted for exercising their Expressed Constitutional Powers. Cases which echo this fact include Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1.

Furthermore, Rule 5.11 – Immunity Protection – clearly allows for Dismissal when “the Defendant is statutorily or constitutionally immune from being sued.” Notably, in this case, a Senator used their powers granted by the Legislative Standards Act, making crytiee both Statutorily and Constitutionally immune to being sued for this action.

Allowing this case to even be heard is dangerous on every possible level. It is simply not enough for crytiee to be found Not Guilty, as the ramifications for even hearing this case are vast and debilitating for a functioning Government. The case must be dismissed. Why would Public Officials do their job, and exercise their Expressed Constitutional Powers, if doing so puts them at risk of being prosecuted for high crimes such as Corruption?

Furthermore, as already mentioned, the Supreme Court has already ruled that Officials cannot be prosecuted for exercising Expressed Constitutional Powers. This decision is binding, and the Federal Court cannot choose to ignore this precedent.

This case must be dismissed on the basis of Immunity Protection.

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

Only one motion to reconsider is allowed to be filed per topic. As Dart has already did a Motion to reconsider on the motion to dismiss he can not do a second motion. For this I as that this is struck from the record

 

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

Only one motion to reconsider is allowed to be filed per topic. As Dart has already did a Motion to reconsider on the motion to dismiss he can not do a second motion. For this I as that this is struck from the record

Overruled.

 

[ko531]

For years, the Supreme Court has held that Officials cannot be prosecuted for exercising their Expressed Constitutional Powers. Cases which echo this fact include Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1.

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your Honor,

Dart clearly stats that the SC has held that Official cannot be prosecuted for exercising their Experessed Constitutional Powers, yet one of the cases he links for precedent is Commonwealth v. Layzur in which the SC allowed Layzur to be prosecuted. Even though Layzur was found innocent nothing in the verdict talks about Expressed Consitutional Power.

Dart is purposely misrepresenting a case as precedent, one in which he delivered the verdict for, and is using it to make an immunity arguement when nothing in the case talked about immunity. The SC allowed Lazyur to be prosecuted something that Dart has said the opposite to.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Perjury

Your Honor,

Dart clearly stats that the SC has held that Official cannot be prosecuted for exercising their Experessed Constitutional Powers, yet one of the cases he links for precedent is Commonwealth v. Layzur in which the SC allowed Layzur to be prosecuted. Even though Layzur was found innocent nothing in the verdict talks about Expressed Consitutional Power.

Dart is purposely misrepresenting a case as precedent, one in which he delivered the verdict for, and is using it to make an immunity arguement when nothing in the case talked about immunity. The SC allowed Lazyur to be prosecuted something that Dart has said the opposite to.

Response to Objection

See the 2022 case. It has been held for years.

 

[Dartanboy]

I accidentally hit post, the rest if the response:

The xLayzur case didn't focus solely on official acts. One alleged crime was Obstruction of Justice for refusing to speak with the DLA, for example.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Mr. Dart, and to the members of the public who are closely observing this case,

As I prepared my response to the motion, I found myself questioning the interpretation of the law. After thorough analysis, I have determined that the case will be dismissed with prejudice due to immunity protection and lack of claim.

To clarify, this ruling does not imply that public officials are immune from prosecution for corruption. Rather, it affirms that immunity extends to actions like abstaining from voting. The Commonwealth has presented a strong argument, yet it is essential to recognize that abstaining—whether explicitly stated or not—is a right afforded to senators.

The Legislative Standards Act clearly provides for the power to abstain in Section 12, Part 14. Thus, it is evident that senators have the right to abstain. The Commonwealth contends that Senator Crytiee’s lack of a formal abstention statement differs from actual abstention. However, regardless of whether Crytiee had formally stated "abstain" or simply refrained from voting, the result would be the same.
To break it down for clarity:

1. A motion was introduced by Senator V_D to remove President Xinexyax. At the time, four senators were in office: Xinexyax, V_D, Vernicia, and Crytiee.
2. With six possible seats, a quorum of three voting members was required (per Section 10 of the Redmont Constitution). Xinexyax could not vote due to a conflict of interest (LSA Section 12(13)).
3. Thus, all three remaining senators needed to cast a vote for the motion to succeed or fail. Two senators voted "aye," but the motion did not pass because the quorum was not met.

Even if Senator Crytiee had formally stated "abstain," the motion would still not have passed. According to the LSA, abstentions are treated as non-participation in the voting process. Consequently, with only two valid votes, the motion failed to achieve the necessary quorum.

To address the points raised, after reviewing this latest motion to reconsider, I have also re-evaluated my previous answer for lack of claim. Corruption is defined as "The act of using a government position to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself or someone else." Even if Senator Crytiee had formally abstained, the motion would have still failed due to the dynamic quorum and voting requirements. Therefore, the case is also dismissed on the grounds of lack of claim.

This decision has not been made lightly. It comes after an extensive review of the law. While I initially believed my original decision was correct, this thorough review has led me to conclude that the dismissal on the grounds of lack of claim and immunity is indeed appropriate.

In line with established precedent, this court upholds the principle that the right to abstain, whether explicitly declared or not, is protected. Therefore, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

The Federal Court thanks all involved for their participation.