Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Crytiee SCR 29 [2024]

[ko531]

IN THE SUPREME 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 she 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 she 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 she 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 her 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.

 

[End]

Can you please state for the court how this applies to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction?

(a) The‌ ‌Supreme Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌has original jurisdiction over‌:

(i) Removal of officials from Public Office (Judicial Officers, Members of Congress, Members of Cabinet)

(ii) Resolving‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌between‌ ‌Government‌ ‌Institutions

 

[ko531]

Can you please state for the court how this applies to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction?

(a) The‌ ‌Supreme Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌has original jurisdiction over‌:

(i) Removal of officials from Public Office (Judicial Officers, Members of Congress, Members of Cabinet)

(ii) Resolving‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌between‌ ‌Government‌ ‌Institutions

(i) Removal of officials from Public Office (Judicial Officers, Members of Congress, Members of Cabinet)

Even though crytiee is no longer in office the commonwealth is still asking them to be barred from office which we see as removing them from running/potential office in the future.

 

[SumoMC]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DECISION

In a 2-0 ruling, the Supreme Court has decided to dismiss this case without prejudice. This case can and should be brought before the Federal Court as they have initial jurisdiction here given the fact no removal from a current office is being sought. The Plaintiff may refile this case in the Federal Court should they wish.