Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Galavance
Defendant

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

The Defendant proposed and passed an illegal law, against the Constitution of Oakridge. This action of a government official, which was inconsistent with their official duty, ultimately unfairly benefited the Defendant and their friend, CrackedAmoeba1.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. Galavance (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On June 24, 2023, Galavance proposed the law in Exhibit A, which would give Galavance $85,000 and give CrackedAmoeba1 $15,000.
2. On June 26, 2023, the law was passed and actioned, giving Galavance $85,000 and CrackedAmoeba1 $15,000 (Exhibit B).
3. This money was taken from Oakridge’s balance (Exhibit B).
4. The Constitution of Oakridge (Constitution - Town Constitution) states:
“The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and pass laws on any topic through a majority of its members with the only stipulations that such legislation may not conflict with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont and any bill which intends to modify this Constitution must abide by the process outlined in Article IV.”
5. The Constitution of Oakridge also states that the Mayor is part of the Town Council.
6. Thus, it is illegal, and thus inconsistent with the Mayor’s official duty, to pass a law that conflicts “with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont.”
7. The Wages Act (Act of Congress - Wages Act) states

• “The Executive will maintain a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels and their associated occupations.” and
• “The Executive has exclusive jurisdiction as to what salary level occupations fall into.”

8. “Mayor”, “Deputy Mayor”, and “Town Council” are not in the ‘Government Pay’ guide (Guide - Government Pay), and thus, are not to be paid.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Corruption, for using their government position to benefit themself and CrackedAmoeba1, acting inconsistently with their official duty, and ignoring the rights of the people of Oakridge.
2. One count of Embezzlement, for withholding $85,000 for personal gain, when as the Mayor of Oakridge, they were entrusted with the balance of Oakridge.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Corruption, the maximum penalty of a $25,000 fine and 2 months barred from public office.
2. For embezzlement, the maximum penalty of a $50,000 fine, repaying $85,000 to the Oakridge town balance, and a suspension of the Defendant’s entrepreneur license until embezzlement is stricken from their criminal record.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: ”Exhibit A - The Proposal”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit B - The Execution”

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 5th day of July 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, my apologies.

This is obviously a Supreme Court case. I'm not sure why we totally let this slip by in our minds and we filed in the Federal Court.

 

[Milkcrack]

This case is dismissed without prejudice, please re-file the case in the appropriate court using the correct format.

 

[Milkcrack]

This case has been re-opened in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling on [2023] SCR 15.

 

[Milkcrack]

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

@Galavance is hereby required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance. Failure to appear within 48 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.

​

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, my firm will be representing Galavance in this case. This case is massive in scope and scale due to an enormous counterclaim that we are currently working on. Given that the prosecution had ample time to bring this case forward, we are requesting a 72 hour extension to post an answer as well as the counterclaim.

 

[Milkcrack]

In a criminal court, the introduction of a counterclaim is prohibited because claims are inherently civil. Furthermore, the defendant lacks the authority to represent the government and consequently cannot initiate charges within this courtroom.

If there are any separate or related claims against the government, they must be filed as a separate civil case. If these claims will impede the progress of this court, the proceedings will be temporarily halted until the matter is resolved.

However, the court is extending the deadline for filing an answer to the complaint by an additional 24 hours. Therefore, the new deadline is: Sunday, July 09 2023 15:28:00 GMT+0000

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

The counterclaim involves this criminal proceeding, we're focusing on the ideas of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and Nulla Poena Sine Lege (no penalty without law). The prosecution is now charging my client of crimes after he has already been removed from office and a special election for the township of Mayor has happened. These claims are intrinsically linked because a criminal prosecution should have been the impetus to remove my client from office, not the Executive Office unilaterally moving to end the democratic mandate that the Town of Oakridge has. Would you like us to file a new case or just keep the countersuit contained to this thread?

 

[Milkcrack]

Filing a counter-claim means you are seeking civil relief therefore it's a civil affair and can not be handled by this court. You may assert defences without relief but this criminal court does not have the authority to handle civil cases. So if you are asking for relief from the government you must file in a separate thread.

 

[Matthew100x]

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

Commonwealth of Redmont (DLA representing, Lead Counsel Bibsfi4a)
Prosecution

v.

Galvance (Prodigium | Attorneys at Law representing, Lead Counsel Matthew100x)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. On June 24, 2023, Galavance proposed the law in Exhibit A, which would give Galavance $85,000 and give CrackedAmoeba1 $15,000.

The Defendant affirms this fact.

2. On June 26, 2023, the law was passed and actioned, giving Galavance $85,000 and CrackedAmoeba1 $15,000 (Exhibit B).

The Defendant affirms this fact.

3. This money was taken from Oakridge’s balance (Exhibit B).

The Defendant affirms this fact.

4. The Constitution of Oakridge (Constitution - Town Constitution) states: “The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and pass laws on any topic through a majority of its members with the only stipulations that such legislation may not conflict with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont and any bill which intends to modify this Constitution must abide by the process outlined in Article IV.”

The Defendant affirms this fact.

5. The Constitution of Oakridge also states that the Mayor is part of the Town Council.

The Defendant affirms this fact.

6. Thus, it is illegal, and thus inconsistent with the Mayor’s official duty, to pass a law that conflicts “with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont.”

The Defendant affirms this fact.

7. The Wages Act (Act of Congress - Wages Act) states “The Executive will maintain a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels and their associated occupations.” and “The Executive has exclusive jurisdiction as to what salary level occupations fall into.”

The Defendant affirms this fact.

8. “Mayor”, “Deputy Mayor”, and “Town Council” are not in the ‘Government Pay’ guide (Guide - Government Pay), and thus, are not to be paid.

The Defendant disputes this fact.

II. DEFENCES

On the Matter of Towns and Payment for Work Done:

1. Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of a Town Council are entirely unlisted within the “Government Pay” guide and thus are unaffected by the law. (see Guide - Government Pay)
2. In furtherance of the first section of this defense, the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of a Town Council do not receive any pay under the Wages Act and instead receive the pay of the highest tier that they are in instead.
3. Section 3 of the Wages Act states “The Executive will maintain a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels and their associated occupations.” yet the guide fails to list and provide for pay levels for Mayors, Deputy Mayors, and members of a Town Council. (see Act of Congress - Wages Act)

On Corruption:

1. As a builder, the defendant was in full right to have payment for the work he did. As Mayor, the defendant did not individually pay himself for the work, the town council instead as a whole paid him. Though the defendant submitted the bill, the Town Council unanimously voted for payment of the defendant’s legitimate labor in his significant efforts to revamp and rebuild the town. (see Prosecution's Exhibit A)
2. The prosecution fails to meet the Corruption Test as laid out in The Commonwealth v. Milky [2022] SCR 16. (see
   

   Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth (hugebob23456 and Mask3D_WOLF representing) Prosecution v. Milqy Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: Corruption is when someone uses their...

   www.democracycraft.net
3. The statutory language of the crime of corruption is “to give some advantage with official duty and the rights of others unfairly benefit oneself”. The payment was not an “advantage” given by official duty nor affected the rights of others as it was simply payment for the labor of building. (see Act of Congress - Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act)

On Embezzlement:

1. The statutory language for embezzlement is defined as “The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.” (see Act of Congress - White-Collar Crack Down Act)
2. No assets were withheld and there was no purpose of conversion.
3. Per The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16, “When it comes to embezzlement, assets entrusted to one person or group of persons must be withheld for personal gain.” (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16).
4. Per The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68 and The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79, when there is a lack of evidence to support embezzlement, the Federal Court has refrained from declaring the defendant guilty. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79 respectively)

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, 2023.

 

[Milkcrack]

The prosecution has 24 hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

This is an enormous case, and we do not believe we can properly create an entire legal argument in just 24 hours, given that we must sleep, eat, and prioritize people in our lives IRL.

We ask that we be given the standard 48 hours.

Thank you.

 

[Milkcrack]

Very well, all deadlines from now on are 48 hours, unless otherwise stated. Your deadline has been extended by 24 hours, meaning you must submit your opening statement by Tuesday 09:44 AM GMT.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Good day your honor, the Prosecution will be primarily dividing the Opening statement into two parts – Rebuttal to Defendant’s answer to complaint and the Opening Statement.

Additionally, bibsfi4a was unable to post due to time zone differences and school, so I have posted the Opening Statement.

II. REBUTTAL

This rebuttal has been made by the Prosecution to deny all the claims of the defendant and provide clear insight.

1. The Defense says:

While it is true that Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of a Town Council are not listed within the “Government Pay” guide, the law is still quite relevant.

The main purpose of the Wages Act is to provide (or not provide) income to all the members of the government. For the entire Government (including towns), the Government Pay guide, under the Wages Act, dictates how much people can be paid for their government jobs.

The fact that the above listed positions are not mentioned in the Government Pay guide does not mean they are unaffected by the law, but requires that, without a change to the Government Pay guide, they are not to be paid for their government duties.

Of course, they can be paid for other Government jobs they had – and in fact, they are paid for that, but taking money from the town’s balance is simply illegal and not in line with the Wages Act.


2. The Defense says:

Here, the Defense argues that Galavance and/or CrackedAmoeba1, needed to be paid for their duty as a builder. However, the Prosecution holds that such a payment made without going through the proper procedures is Corruption. Ultimately, the Defendant used their government position to gain money from the Oakridge town balance and receive an advantage of $85,000.


3. The Defense says:

Your honor, the Defense is correct on the definition of embezzlement, as defined by the White-Collar Crack Down Act, however the Prosecution contests the second point there – “No assets were withheld and there was no purpose of conversion.” If the court allows for Exhibit C below to be entered into this case, it is clear that Galavance did convert the assets in some way or another, as they do not have $85,000+ in their balance, and in fact have less than $600.
Furthermore, the money (assets) of Oakridge was entrusted to Galavance, yet Galavance withheld it for personal gain, seeing as it was spent or stored somewhere.

Finally, the Prosecution agrees that when there is a lack of evidence to support embezzlement, the defendant of such a case should not be declared guilty, however we do assert that there is sufficient evidence in this case.

III. OPENING STATEMENT
In addition to the above rebuttals, we would like to introduce the following arguments as well:
1. The Oakridge Town Council, including the Mayor, does not have the authority to make payments on behalf of Oakridge. Oakridge’s Constitution does not provide a legal basis for the Town to distribute funds.

This is something present in the other Towns’ constitutions.
Willow’s Constitution says: “The Mayor may oversee and manage the town of Willow and its assets.”
Aventura’s Constitution says: “The Commerce Councilor shall be in charge of the Office of Commerce. They shall be responsible for overseeing the treasury and setting the town’s budget.”

Again, this is absent from Oakridge’s Constitution, thus there is no legal basis for the Town (and its council) to distribute funds. So, while the Town council has the ability to create bills, they don't have the ability to authorize payments. This is not an implied power (or it would need not be specifically mentioned in the other towns), the surrounding local government all mention within their Constitution a means of funding management either in the form of a budget or in the means of assets.

2. Redmont’s Constitution clearly states that the Department of State holds the responsibility of “Administration, facilitation of, and communication with towns, including notification of any laws that may impact towns.”

Your honor, it is clear that, absent a clause regarding assets/budgets/etc. within the town Constitution, any such payments must be authorized by the Department of State – not the Mayor who wishes to pay themself.

IV. MOTION TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE
Your honor, below we have included “Exhibit C – Galavance’s Balance” and request that it be allowed in this case.

Spoiler: ”Exhibit C – Galavance’s Balance”

IV. CONCLUSION

The State thanks the court for their time.

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 10th day of July, 2023.

 

[Milkcrack]

The defence has 48 hours to submit its opening statement.

 

[Matthew100x]

Good Afternoon Your Honor,

Today we present the opening arguments for the defense. We’re going to focus on expanding each of our defenses. Additionally, we will also be providing a slight rebuttal of the prosecution's case.

Our Defenses:

On the Matter of Towns and Payment for Work Done:

Wages for the government are controlled by the Wages Act (see Act of Congress - Wages Act). The law states "The Executive will maintain a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels and their associated occupations." Yet, when you take a look at the Government Pay guide and see how the pay levels are organized: Mayors, Deputy Mayors, and Town Councils are entirely unincluded on the guide. Since the law states "The Executive will maintain (emphasis added by me) a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels'' and Mayors, Deputy Mayors, and Town Councils are not listed, it is safe to assume that they do not fall under any pay level set by the Wages Act (see Guide - Government Pay). In further support to this argument, when someone who holds the position of either Mayor, Deputy Mayor, or sits on a Town Council, they receive pay based on the highest pay level that their normal position has. Such as a Mayor is a rep getting $35 an hour or a police officer who is a town council member getting $25 an hour. It is fair to conclude that the pay for town positions are entirely uncontrolled by both the Federal Government currently and could be set by the town if they so wanted.

In Oakridge, the constitution controls powers of the town government, here’s what it has to say on the topic of legislative power:

The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and [B]pass laws on any topic[/B] (emphasis added by me) through a majority of its members with the only stipulations that such legislation may not conflict with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/town-constitution.8763/).

Does the bill proposed by the Town Council to pay the Defendant conflict with the laws of the Federal Government of Redmont? No, since the Town Council is unaffected by the wages act, they could decide compensation as they wish. The basis for the argument that “there is no legal basis for the Town (and its council) to distribute funds” per the prosecution's opening statement is simply unfounded. They are arguing that the town has no ability to control its own purse, this is a farcical argument at best and an extremely detrimental argument to town autonomy at worst. Your honor, we hope that you see it our way and acknowledge that the Town of Oakridge has the right to use its wallet as it wishes as long as it does not conflict with Federal Law.

On Corruption:

Corruption is a complicated charge because the statutory language requires an act that “give some advantage inconsistent (Emphasis added by me, as this portion was inexplicable missing in our initial answer to complaint) with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else”, which is hard for the prosecution to prove in this instance. How is paying for the labor of building in reconstructing the town inconsistent with official duty? We do not believe it is.

The issue at hand per the prosecution is that the by being paid by the town for their duty as a builder, “without going through the proper procedures” is corruption. The rules for such a case revolves around the definition of corruption, the common law test of Corruption established by the Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16, and whether or not the town of Oakridge had “proper procedures” for payment of services. The rule for corruption is as follows:

The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves (see [URL]https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/corruption-and-espionage-offenses-act.15526/[/URL]).

This crime has has been charged to various people in the past and such rulings culminated in a corruption test, the rule for which is as follows:

The two-part test is simple: 1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? 2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office? As the Court analysis’s each charge of corruption, the same test will be used to determine whether the defendant violated the Corruption Act (see [URL]https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/the-commonwealth-v-milqy-2022-scr-16.14452/post-55434[/URL]).

Now we need to move on to whether or not there are any rules for whether or not the Town of Oakridge can spend money. The prosecution claims that there is not any procedure that would allow the town to spend their money in their opening statements:

1. The Oakridge Town Council, including the Mayor, does not have the authority to make payments on behalf of Oakridge. Oakridge’s Constitution does not provide a legal basis for the Town to distribute funds.

This is something present in the other Towns’ constitutions.
Willow’s Constitution says: “The Mayor may oversee and manage the town of Willow and its assets.”
Aventura’s Constitution says: “The Commerce Councilor shall be in charge of the Office of Commerce. They shall be responsible for overseeing the treasury and setting the town’s budget.”

This is simply untrue. As we listed in the defense, On the Matter of Towns and Payment for Work Done, the town of Oakridge does have the power of the purse through its legislative branch. The rule for spending comes from its sweeping all-encompassing legislative power and is as follows:

The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and pass laws on any topic (emphasis added by me) through a majority of its members with the only stipulations that such legislation may not conflict with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont (see [URL]https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/town-constitution.8763/[/URL]).

Thus, with the rules listed, we can move on to the analysis of the rules.

To begin with, we must try the standards of the corruption test, which applies the statutory language to the alleged crime. First, would the act give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? On the face of the issue, the answer may seem to be yes since the Defendant was the mayor of the town at the time of payment. However, Your Honor, he was acting as a builder and was being paid as a builder, his payment had nothing to do with being Mayor. The defendant’s action, or I should say the payment itself, was not done with no valid reason and it did not confer an advantage or benefit, it was payment for labor done. Second, was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office? The answer is no as proven by the fact that CrackedAmoeba1 also assisted in constructing the town of Oakridge and was also paid for his services (and not prosecuted for being paid). The fact is that anyone who worked on and built for Oakridge would have been paid for their labor. There is no inconsistency in the action done by the town council.

Then comes the issue of whether or not the town was able to pay the defendant. The answer is yes. Per the constitution, the Town Council is able to pass a law “on any topic” as long as it does not conflict with Federal Law. While the prosecution argues that the charge of corruption causes a conflict with Federal Law, we would argue that this is being applied to Ex Post Facto as a prosecution. In fact, the defendant had done work on the town previously and had been paid for his services, please see the exhibits we will be submitting in our Motion to Submit New Evidence as Exhibit D.

So with the analysis, I hope your honor has seen how we have come to the conclusion that the defendant is not guilty of the alleged crime of corruption. The Prosecution fails to meet the standards of the corruption test and falsely claims that the town is unable to pay for labor.

On Embezzlement:

Embezzlement is another difficult charge as the statutory language requires that “withholding assets for the purpose of conversion for personal gain”. The prosecution argues that there was conversion of the assets in a farcical way. They argue that the $85,000 dollars legitimate payment for labor is being withheld and converted. They’ve submitted a photo of the defendant’s balance as proof of the conversion and that he is guilty of this crime. Instead of applying extensive legal analysis, we would like to ask the Prosecution a series of questions to help us, both the defense and the honorable Justice Milkcrack, understand how this “conversion” is “withheld” and how it applies to embezzlement. Additionally, we argue that the current level of evidence is insufficient to prove anything, much less that the defendant is potentially guilty of embezzlement.

1. How does the prosecution know for certain that the defendant converted the assets?
2. Is moving money from a personal account into another account considered a conversion or a transfer?
3. Is not having the money in a personal balance, where it is wealth taxed, considered withholding?
4. Is the wealth tax considered a conversion of assets by the government, and if so, is said taxed money being withheld from the prosecution and defendant?
5. If moving money to a bank account is a conversion, is it still being withheld if it can be freely pulled and brought forward if necessary?
6. Would you be able to bring forth evidence to prove that the money was converted and not simply transferred?

The prosecution also argues that the defendant's withholding of the assets of Oakridge constitutes embezzlement. While the defendant does have the town’s money at this moment, it is not being converted or spent. We are awaiting resolution of a civil claim that has yet to be filed regarding the legality of the removal of the defendant from the position of the Town’s Mayor. I as the defendant’s counsel has instructed the defendant to hold that money and not spend any of it at all until we can resolve all legal issues. We will attach evidence for it in Motion to Submit New Evidence as Exhibit E.

Opening Statement

As you can see your honor, we’ve gone through, organized, and compiled the reasons for why the defendant is not guilty of the alleged crimes.

As far as the withholding of the town’s assets, we are still seeking a legal resolution to the legality of the removal of the mayor from the town. We do not believe removing an entire Town Council is one of the president’s implied powers. Since this case is focused on a prosecution of the defendant, we will leave such analysis to a future case, however if need be we are capable of transferring the town balance of Oakridge at any point. We just need a legitimate order as well as a legitimate place to send it too. That money is being kept safe and is not being converted whatsoever, we are willing to work with the DLA in whatever manner necessary to prove this fact. Once we come to a resolution on that issue though, have a legitimate transfer order, as well as a legitimate place to transfer the money too, that money will be released to the town of Oakridge. This is why we argued and requested for a counterclaim prior to our answer.


Motion to Submit New Evidence

We formally request to submit the attached files: Exhibit D and Exhibit E.


Conclusion

The Defense thanks the Court for their time.

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 13th day of July, 2023.

 

[Milkcrack]

The commonwealth has 48 hours to submit its witnesses list and any objections to the motion to submit new evidence.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor,
The Commonwealth has no objections to the new evidence, and wishes to call the following individuals as witnesses:

Former Mayor Galavance
Former Head of Urban Development Shadownba

 

[cheeseeater77]

Free Galavance and I love DemocracyCraft! milk

 

[Milkcrack]

I hereby charge @cheeseeater77 with 1 count of contempt of court for talking when not a party to a case, and I order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.

 

[Milkcrack]

The evidence is allowed to enter the record, and the defence has 48 hours to submit its witnesses list as well as the relevant questions. The prosecution is hereby also requested to post their list of questions within 48 hours.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

We have no witnesses for this trial. Respectfully, we wish to see the Prosecution's questions prior to drafting our own for cross-examination.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor,
here are the questions-

Questions for Galavance:

-What is the definition of a bill within the town of Oakridge?
-What is the difference between the Legislative and Executive branches of Oakridge's government?
-Who were all the builders you offered the job for the construction you paid yourself for?
-Was your payment issued as a bill or motion?
-When was this construction completed?

Questions for Shadownba:

-As the head of Urban Development, were you aware of the decision that Galavance would be doing this construction?
-Was the construction job done by Galavance offered to anyone else?

There will be follow-up questions.

 

[Milkcrack]

Cross-examination questions will be asked after the prosecution, has finished its line of inquiry. Seeing as Galavance has already been summoned, I will only summon Shadownba on discord however both will be required to testify.

I would also like to remind the accused of their right against self-incrimination.

 

[Milkcrack]

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

Shadownba and Galavance are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance FCR 59 as witnesses.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff will have 48 hours to post all of their questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies.

​

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, we would like to waive our right to cross-examine the witnesses in exchange to include evidence of work done for Oakridge by Galavance prior to concluding statements.

 

[shadownba]

Your honor,

I am present, here are the answers to the prosecutions questions.

In response to "As the head of Urban Development, were you aware of the decision that Galavance would be doing this construction?"

I had knowledge that Galavance was involved in the building process, however, I had believed that he would be assisted by the likes of Reaperay.

In response to "Was the construction job done by Galavance offered to anyone else?"

No, as Head of Urban Development, I did not have power to intervene in the development of the towns, and the development process was managed by local leadership

 

[Milkcrack]

Your honor, we would like to waive our right to cross-examine the witnesses in exchange to include evidence of work done for Oakridge by Galavance prior to concluding statements.

Rights are not bargaining chips. As we don't have a formal discovery process. as long as the evidence is submitted before the closing statements, you can enter it into the record provided the prosecution doesn't have objections to the contents of the evidence.

 

[Milkcrack]

Thank you shadownba, there may be follow-up questions so please stick around. Before moving on we are still waiting on @Galavance to answer the questions.

 

[Galavance]

Good Evening Your Honor,

I am present to answer the questions that the prosecution has posited.

-What is the definition of a bill within the town of Oakridge?

My lawyer has advised me that there isn't a strict definition for a bill, just that a bill is the prior step to something becoming law as long as it meets the necessary requirements.

-What is the difference between the Legislative and Executive branches of Oakridge's government?

The Executive Branch consists of the Mayor and departments enabled by the bylaws. The Legislative branch consists of Advisors, Deputy Mayor, and Mayor.

-Who were all the builders you offered the job for the construction you paid yourself for?

CrackedAmoeba, ReaperRay, FlyingBlocks were offered the job for the entire project. However, Nacho, LouderLeo, Rurge, and Dakman were offered to do smaller parts of the project.

-Was your payment issued as a bill or motion?

My lawyer has advised me that legally payment would have been issued as a law after being passed as a bill.

-When was this construction completed?

At various points throughout the last two months. I have provided my attorney with screenshots regarding the work that was done for the town.

 

[Matthew100x]

Rights are not bargaining chips. As we don't have a formal discovery process. as long as the evidence is submitted before the closing statements, you can enter it into the record provided the prosecution doesn't have objections to the contents of the evidence.

Thank you your honor.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO ENTER NEW EVIDENCE

The Defense would like to submit evidence to back-up and prove claims that the defendant, as well as CrackedAmoeba, was paid for the labor of building Oakridge. Please accept the following exhibits.

DATED: This 18th day of July, 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

Follow-up Questions for Galavance:
1. While the job may have been offered to others, ultimately who's decision was it to hire you for the construction job?

2. Since you claimed that "legally payment would have been issued as a law after being passed as a bill," why didn't the payment show up in the "Passed Bills" section of the Oakridge Discord?

There will likely be one more set of follow-up questions for both witnesses.

 

[Galavance]

-While the job may have been offered to others, ultimately who's decision was it to hire you for the construction job?

I was the Mayor at the time and leading the project, thus I made the hiring decisions.

-Since you claimed that "legally payment would have been issued as a law after being passed as a bill," why didn't the payment show up in the "Passed Bills" section of the Oakridge Discord?

We posted proof of passage within the "Town Funds" channel as there is no requirement that states that any passed bills must show in the "Passed Bills" section. The council felt it was appropriate given that we did this action previously.

 

[Dartanboy]

Follow-up Questions for Galavance:
1. If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?

2. Why did this payment not appear within the By-Laws on the Forums?



Follow-up Questions for shadownba:
1. As a member of the town council, were you aware of the decision to only post this information in the "Town Funds" channel?

 

[shadownba]

As a member of the town council, were you aware of the decision to only post this information in the "Town Funds" channel?

Yes, I agreed to the decision for payment and saw that it got posted in "Town Funds".

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection
Ambiguous Question

The prosecution's first question in their second set of question towards Galavance is neither clear nor precise and is asking for an open-ended answer.

 

[Dartanboy]

ANSWER TO OBJECTION

Presumably, the Defendant's Counsel is referring to this question: "While the job may have been offered to others, ultimately who's decision was it to hire you for the construction job?"

This is not an open-ended question. The only correct answer is the name of the person (or similarly identifiable pronoun or title) who ultimately decided to hire Galavance for the job.

 

[Matthew100x]

Counselor,

I had stated the following:

The prosecution's first question in their second set of question

Which means the objection is focused on this question:

1. If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?

 

[Matthew100x]

I have been informed that I am incorrect in my assessment. Though I would like to point that the objection was for the third set of questions,

"If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?"

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, may I respond to the newly-confirmed objection?

 

[Milkcrack]

Yes, you may respond.

 

[Dartanboy]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
With the new knowledge that the Defendant's Counsel refers to this question: "If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?" the Prosecution would like to say:

This is not an open-ended question. The Passed Bills channel has a purpose, and the Prosecution wishes for the court to understand its purpose.

The only correct answer is the purpose of the channel. There is no open-endedness, because there is only one correct answer.

 

[Milkcrack]

Objection Denied. The question is asking Galavance for the purpose of the channel. If Galavance was personally involved in the creation of the channel he should be able to answer.

 

[Milkcrack]

@Galavance is required to answer or reply to the follow-up questions within 48 hours, otherwise, they will be held in contempt (@Matthew100x )

 

[Galavance]

If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?

It is for passed bills of legislation. Historically, we have not placed the spending bills in "Passed Bills" and instead placed them in "Town Funds".

Why did this payment not appear within the By-Laws on the Forums?

There is no requirement to do so.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you Galavance and shadownba for your time. The Prosecution yields the floor.

 

[Milkcrack]

Does the defence wish to cross-examine the witnesses?

 

[Matthew100x]

We do not, your Honor.

 

[Milkcrack]

Alright, we will now be moving on to closing statements. The prosecution has 48 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor, this case is clear.

1. Not even the Head of Urban Development was involved in the final decision of who would do this construction work for Urban Development. Galavance made the decision to hire their self, and abuse their authority to use public funds for their own self interest.

Yes, Galavance did work, but ultimately Galavance made the decision to hire their self to get paid for the work. This is not a legal work-around the Corruption law. This is not a successful way to get around Embezzlement. This is Corruption. This is Embezzlement.

2. We also point to the legal understanding that Towns are extensions of the Executive (see Financial Standards Act:
“(1) No non-government agency, department or, entity will be fully or partially exempt from paying tax.
(a) Towns are an extension of the Executive and are protected by this clause.” (emphasis added))

Thus, town positions are part of the Federal Government, and thus, if they were to be paid, it would be clear in the Government Pay Guide according to the Wages Act.

3. Finally, the former Mayor claimed that "There is no requirement to do so" when asked why the payment did not appear within the By-Laws on the Forums.

This is not true, as seen in the Town Revisions Executive Order (most recently EO 19/23 - previously EO 2/23 with similar stipulations):
"Towns can create by-laws. By-laws are an extension of Executive jurisdiction - or the absence of Federal Legislation - that is delegated to local jurisdictions for the purposes of implementing and enforcing regulations within their specified jurisdiction.
- Build height limits. (No more than 40 blocks high, no exceptions) (Enforced by the DCT).
- Plot zoning (Enforced by the DCT)
- Local elections + Council formation (if any) (All local elections are actioned by the DOS)
- Plot Pricing (actioned by staff)
- Town Constitution (enforced by the town government in coordination with Federal Departments)
- Town building regulations (facilitated by town government)
- Transportation within towns (facilitated by town government)
- Plot evictions within town jurisdiction (facilitated by town government, actioned by the DCT)
- In the event that any Town legislation contradicts any Federal legislation, the Federal legislation shall apply within the jurisdiction of the Town, unless such legislation expressly the jurisdiction. Any Federal code which is not an Act of Congress, an Executive Order, or within the Constitution, such as department policy, does not take precedence over Town legislation."

Your honor, the Commonwealth believes that this order is clear: Towns can create by-laws. This is the only legislating power that is delegated to local jurisdictions. Any other form of legislation is illegal and intentionally creating such legislation (the bill in which Galavance paid their self $85,000) and enforcing it (actually paying their self $85,000) is Corruption.

We believe that, seeing as Galavance did not believe it was important for it to be put up with the by-laws, as well as its lack of appearing within the passed bills channel, it is clear that this was an illegal act of Corruption.