Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. UnityMaster [2024] SCR 21

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

UnityMaster
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On March 6th, 2024, UnityMaster cast an affirmative vote on Motion S.28.23. This motion aimed to conclude the impeachment trial of President Goldblooded. Regrettably, despite the procedural mandates outlined in the Peach Act, which stipulates the necessity of a structured trial process, President Goldblooded was not afforded the opportunity for a fair trial as per the foundational principles given to him in the Redmont Constitution.
The failure to conduct a trial constitutes a violation of the Peach Act, an act designed to uphold the integrity of impeachment proceedings and ensure due process for all individuals subject to such inquiries. Moreover, the right to a trial is enshrined as a fundamental entitlement bestowed upon every citizen under the Redmont Constitution.
This egregious oversight not only undermines the sanctity of our legal framework but also raises profound concerns regarding the adherence to constitutional principles and the safeguarding of democratic norms. It is imperative that such breaches of protocol be addressed with utmost urgency to uphold the integrity of our democratic institutions and reaffirm the commitment to the rule of law.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. UnityMaster
3 .Goldblooded

II. FACTS
1. Motion S.28.23 was brought to the floor
2. The Motion concluded president Goldblooded’s impeachment trial
3. No Impeachment Trial was held for president Goldblooded therefor the motion was an illegal motion that violated the peach act and the constitution
4. Unitymaster voted “aye” for an illegal motion.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 count of treason for not upholding the laws while in a government office leading to the destabilization of the government and the body of laws that support it.

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 UnityMaster from a political office for a consecutive 2 months.
2. A $25,000 fine be paid by unitymaster

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 march 2024

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. UnityMaster [2024] SCR 21. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor

The defense has retained me as their attorney and I would like to request a 48 hour extension.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor

The defense has retained me as their attorney and I would like to request a 48 hour extension.​

OBJECTION
Breach of procedure

Your Honor,
The 72 hour deadline to put up a answer to complaint has passed. The defendents cousel is requesting an extension after the deadline has passed.​

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

This is an extremely important case to let go to default judgment. This is unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial power for political gain, because the Senate failed to pass the solicitor generals attorney general nomination, the weaponization of this office against senators for voting Is something we can’t let go to fault judgment. I am willing to take the contempt of court charge however, this trial would be allowed to proceed.

 

[Nacho]

The objection is overruled.

Before we get off on the wrong foot, it is not the place to air either side's dirty laundry and perform the theatrics commonly displayed within the lower courts. The alleged crimes are severe and have been presented to the court. Please keep the snark comments behind the prosecution's intentions to a minimum and allow the facts to speak for themselves. The same will go for the prosecution should the comments arise.

However, I would like to formally give notice to the defense. Being prompt and on time is very valued within this court. It's been roughly 48 hours since the request was submitted to the court. It is within the best nature that you prepare a plea for the court, please have the plea presented to the court by 3/14/24 @ 11:14 pm EST

 

[SumoMC]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Commonwealth of Redmont

vs.

UnityMaster

I. FACTS
1. The Defense AFFIRMS Motion S.28.23 was brought to the floor
2. The Defense AFFIRMS The Motion concluded president Goldblooded’s impeachment trial
3. The Defense DISPUTES No Impeachment Trial was held for president Goldblooded therefor the motion was an illegal motion that violated the peach act and the constitution
4. The Defense DISPUTES Unitymaster voted “aye” for an illegal motion.


II. DEFENSES
1. The DLA is prosecuting my client for doing his job of putting the Motion up for a vote and exercising his obligation as a Senator to vote on motions.
2. It is not the job of the DLA to sue any Senator based on how they vote in congress, should they feel that the motions are unconstitutional, they should sue the government as a whole not try to hold individual senators liable as this will ultimately lead to political prosecution rather then proactive. Soon we will be prosecuting senators for failing to pass Presidential Nominations should the DLA be allowed to do this.
3. The Defense does not believe that the motion was illegal and will prove that during this case

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 14th day of March 2024

 

[Nacho]

The court thanks you for providing the plea.

We will now transition into a 7-day discovery period. Should either party wish to end discovery early, please note that both will need to consent.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honors,
In order to protect our whistleblower, I request to submit to you evidence in a closed court.
Thank you, your Honors.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Interrogatory
​

1. Yes or no, Did the acting AG at the time alert you of the illegality of motion s.28.23?

I may have more questions for the defendents cousol at a later moment in discovery.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honors,
In order to protect our whistleblower, I request to submit to you evidence in a closed court.
Thank you, your Honors.

Your Honors,
Pardon my rush but may I get a ruling on this. The addition of these evidances may influence the interogatory questions I ask during discovery.

Thank you,
Your Honors.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Interrogatory ​

2. Yes or no, did unitymaster demand, convince, collude with any senators to file or vote on motion S.28.23

 

[Nacho]

Your Honors,
In order to protect our whistleblower, I request to submit to you evidence in a closed court.
Thank you, your Honors.

I apologize in the delay I had thought I addressed this but realize that I never actually posted the response.

The request is granted. A channel will be created within the judiciary discord for further review.

Council is further instructed to join the judiciary discord to be added to the channel with the evidence.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honors,
I would like to submit the folowing peices of evidance to the court.

Exhibit A

Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.

discord.com

Spoiler: Exibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

 

[SumoMC]

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY EXTENSION
Your Honor the defense request an additional 7 days of discovery, this is due to irl matters regarding my military services and i have a few witnesses that need some time.

 

[SumoMC]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor,
The Defense respectfully ask that the Chief Justice recuse himself from this case for fairness and impartiality. Chief Justice Nacho was the Attorney General at the same time i was Inspector General and had intimate knowledge of this case, he actively worked on this case and even told me i need to get a move on with these cases and getting them filed.

There is no way the Chief Justice can be impartial in this case and therefore we ask the he recuse himself.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
I request to call my witnesses, and have witness testimony inside of closed court in order to protect my whistleblowers.

 

[Nacho]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor,
The Defense respectfully ask that the Chief Justice recuse himself from this case for fairness and impartiality. Chief Justice Nacho was the Attorney General at the same time i was Inspector General and had intimate knowledge of this case, he actively worked on this case and even told me i need to get a move on with these cases and getting them filed.

There is no way the Chief Justice can be impartial in this case and therefore we ask the he recuse himself.

I have decided, per the request, to accept the motion to recuse. However, I will note that I did not do more on the case, as it was your responsibility to work on it.

The presiding justice will respond to the other filings shortly.

 

[RelaxedGV]

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY EXTENSION
Your Honor the defense request an additional 7 days of discovery, this is due to irl matters regarding my military services and i have a few witnesses that need some time.

Alright, I would like to thank Chief Justice Nacho for his work already done on this case and I will be the Presiding Justice on this case. With that, does the Prosecution also wish to extend discovery?

Your Honor,
I request to call my witnesses, and have witness testimony inside of closed court in order to protect my whistleblowers.

As for this, in a 2-0 decision we have decided to allow the Closed Court Witness Testimony. A channel and such will be created when we reach witness testimony.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Alright, I would like to thank Chief Justice Nacho for his work already done on this case and I will be the Presiding Justice on this case. With that, does the Prosecution also wish to extend discovery?


As for this, in a 2-0 decision we have decided to allow the Closed Court Witness Testimony. A channel and such will be created when we reach witness testimony.

Your Honors,
We would not like to extend discovery. Thank you, Your Honors.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honours,

There has been a change in legal representation - I am representing UnityMaster in this case.

Has the whistleblower already answered the questions, that Snowy posted, privately?

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Witness testimony will be happening once we reach the correct time, I also sent you an invite for you the Closed Court channel.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honors,
We would not like to extend discovery. Thank you, Your Honors.

We also will not be extending discovery given the Prosecution does not wish to.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honors, I appologize for my impatience discovery ended around 4 days ago, may we move to opening statements.
Thank you Your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

We may, apologies for the delay as irl commitments had me busy for that time period.

The Prosecution has 72 hours to post their Opening Statement.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
I apologize in advance for the inconvenience,
But due to unfortunate irl circumstances may I request an extra 48 hours.

 

[RelaxedGV]

You may have an additional 48 hours from the original deadline.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Motion To Compel
Your Honors,
Hope you having a great holiday.
It has come to my attention that unitymasters cousel has not answered the interrogatories above and as such I was not permitted to asking follow up interrogatories. I request that unitymaster's cousel be compelled
by the court to answer the above questions.​

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Opening Statements
May It please the courts.
​

On the pivotal date of March 6th, 2024, our democratic principles faced an unprecedented assault, with the sanctity of our constitution hanging precariously in the balance. UnityMaster, the esteemed presiding officer, put up motion Motion S.28.23. This motion sought to draw a decisive conclusion to president goldblooded's non-existent impeachment trial—a trial unjustly denied to the incumbent President.

Here in Redmont, our constitution is held sacred. It's what separates our democracy from barbaric autocracy. following the guidelines dictated in the constitution Affords the basic rights of life to every citizen and protects us from government unjust and chaos. This was not the case with motion s.28.23. The constitution states ". Any citizen has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense."

This basic right was stripped away from Goldblooded when the members of the senate were allowed to vote on a motion that was not just illegal but an abandonment of everything our democracy stands for.
motion S.28.23 concluded a trial for the president that was never held. violating the constituion.
Now with the full situation explained my opening statement is going to address the following questions

1. Why is the motion illegal?
2. Why should UnityMaster be held accountable for an Illegal motion making it to the floor?
3. How do the actions Unitymaster took regarding this motion fulfill the necessary parts to be considered treason?

Every citizen is afforded the right to have a trial before they are convicted. An impeachment should be no different. This motion was clearly in violation of Goldblood's rights by not allowing him to represent his side of the supposed conflict and stripped him away of his rights. Furthermore The Peach Act, An act that very clearly outlines the impeachment process dictates "There shall be an ordered process for the impeachment trial. " Having zero process is not an ordered process.

Unity Master was the presiding officer of the senate. According to the constitution "The Senate is presided over by the President of the Senate, who is responsible for maintaining the good order and efficient running of the chamber" It is the president of the Senate's responsibility to maintain good order. allowing a motion to be brought that defies the constitution, That harms the commonwealth beyond bounds, is not maintaining good order. beyond that UnityMaster not only pushed the motion up but also voted in the affirmative showing that he not only was willing to put up a motion to strip away a citizen's rights guaranteed to them in the constitution but also agreed with and furthered it by voting in the affirmative.

Treason is defined in ‘Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act' is defined as "the act of a party in federal office who is caught attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.." Ripping a president, voted in by the people, out of power is a major destabilizing factor to a nation. it causes a power vacuum that destabilizes the commonwealth and ensues chaos and fear. to counter this and ensure that the removal of a president is truly necessary an act entitled the Peach Act was voted on and enacted. The Peach Act states " The Impeachment process is used to ensure that the removal of a president is to stabilize the commonwealth and not to destabilize it. by putting the motion up and voting aye on, it the presiding officer of the senate, whose job is to ensure the good standing of the senate, acted intentionally to destabilize the commonwealth by attempting to illegally rip a standing president away from the role.

I will show through this trial that Unitymaster not only attempted to strip Goldblooded's rights away in his voting for motion S.28.23 but also committed treason to Redmont in doing so.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Motion To Compel
Your Honors,
Hope you having a great holiday.
It has come to my attention that unitymasters cousel has not answered the interrogatories above and as such I was not permitted to asking follow up interrogatories. I request that unitymaster's cousel be compelled
by the court to answer the above questions.​

This Motion to Compel is granted and the Defense has 72 hours to answer the Interrogatory questions.

The Defense also has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honour,
I have been bogged down with IRL university work, and have had to call in a co-council, ColonelKai to help with the workload on this case. He will assist me with defending UnityMaster.

I'd like to ask for a 24 hour extension for these reasons.
Thank you

 

[ColonelKai]

Good day everyone,
I would like to first apologize for the timing issues in this case and assure you that I will make my best efforts to ensure the expeditious resolution of the remaining procedures.

May it please the court,
Opening Statements
The charges brought upon against my client today are not only severe in their accusatory weight, but also founded on a long string of weak arguments where the failure of one leads to the failure of rest, rather than a wide and solid argument with multiple pillars of truth and solid logic connecting them.

Therefore, I would like to start the opening statement by pointing out the fact that a large portion of the arguments made against my client both in the opening statements and in the charging papers were largely theatrical, and without a focus on the legal realities that this court was made to decide.

While the charges brought forward has mentioned a long list of alleged wrongdoings - which again, I believe to be largely theatrical - the central legal point brought forward is a treason charge.

Examining the exact wording of the law, as the prosecution has also stated, we can find the following;

The act of a party in federal office who is caught attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.

I would like to draw the attention of the court to the world "maliciously" in this regard. This creates a burden of proof on the side of the prosecution to prove that the defendant has had an open intent - beyond a reasonable doubt - to actively seek to sabotage, undermine the stability, sovereignty and/or national security of the government of Redmont.

It falls upon the prosecution therefore, that the actions as followed that day were made with such intent and purpose.

Therefore, when looked at, nothing else brought forward by the prosecution (so far) matters to this point. The arguments made so far by the prosecution have done nothing to make an attempt to solidify a point towards this central requirement.

I will save the prosecution, and the esteemed court time by not arguing about the legality of the actual motion, because it simply does not pertain to the central legal argument at hand. Foregoing the fact that the motion was not declared illegal in a court of law, and the principles of assumption of innocence - which would have to be done in its own case, not here - even if it were to be illegal, it would do nothing to make the point of malice.

Henceforth, I end my opening statement by not only having made my points, but also making a kind request to the prosecution that we make our arguments based not on political show of feel, but legal grounds of technicalities and clauses.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Good day everyone,
I would like to first apologize for the timing issues in this case and assure you that I will make my best efforts to ensure the expeditious resolution of the remaining procedures.

May it please the court,
Opening Statements
The charges brought upon against my client today are not only severe in their accusatory weight, but also founded on a long string of weak arguments where the failure of one leads to the failure of rest, rather than a wide and solid argument with multiple pillars of truth and solid logic connecting them.

Therefore, I would like to start the opening statement by pointing out the fact that a large portion of the arguments made against my client both in the opening statements and in the charging papers were largely theatrical, and without a focus on the legal realities that this court was made to decide.

While the charges brought forward has mentioned a long list of alleged wrongdoings - which again, I believe to be largely theatrical - the central legal point brought forward is a treason charge.

Examining the exact wording of the law, as the prosecution has also stated, we can find the following;



I would like to draw the attention of the court to the world "maliciously" in this regard. This creates a burden of proof on the side of the prosecution to prove that the defendant has had an open intent - beyond a reasonable doubt - to actively seek to sabotage, undermine the stability, sovereignty and/or national security of the government of Redmont.

It falls upon the prosecution therefore, that the actions as followed that day were made with such intent and purpose.

Therefore, when looked at, nothing else brought forward by the prosecution (so far) matters to this point. The arguments made so far by the prosecution have done nothing to make an attempt to solidify a point towards this central requirement.

I will save the prosecution, and the esteemed court time by not arguing about the legality of the actual motion, because it simply does not pertain to the central legal argument at hand. Foregoing the fact that the motion was not declared illegal in a court of law, and the principles of assumption of innocence - which would have to be done in its own case, not here - even if it were to be illegal, it would do nothing to make the point of malice.

Henceforth, I end my opening statement by not only having made my points, but also making a kind request to the prosecution that we make our arguments based not on political show of feel, but legal grounds of technicalities and clauses.

Objection
Breach of procedure​

Not only is the defendent late in their opening statement, they are also late to the 24 hour extension they requested.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE
As the defedent missed both their deadline and their requested extension I request that the court strike the defendents late reply.​

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Defense has 24 hours to provide a response to the Objection and Motion to Strike.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to neither side listing Witnesses, we will be moving into Opening Statements.

The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide theirs.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honour,

In response to the prosecutions objection:

It is not necessarily a breach of procedure to be late, because as we've seen in hundreds of past cases, the time to respond is decided on a case by case basis. The reason for this is because everyone has real lives, and sometimes sticking to a deadline isn't possible on a video game - the courts would understand this as they struggle to get decisions and verdicts out as quick as they'd want to. This case has already had a few examples of that.

We did the courteous thing by asking for an extension, that unfortunately the court wasn't able to see or respond to - probably because they have a real life. We were a few hours late, but we apologized for the lateness and provided an opening statement nonetheless. As the courts hadn't responded to our extension request, we haven't actually delayed court proceedings. The courts have seen our opening statement at the same time they have seen our request for an extension as well as the prosecutions objection, therefore we haven't lost any time.

We again respectfully apologize to the courts, but we feel it would be greatly unfair for the prosecutions objection to be granted as that rarely, if ever, happens in other cases. A few hours late should not strike hours of work put into the opening statement.

Thank you

 

[RelaxedGV]

Objection
Breach of procedure​

Not only is the defendent late in their opening statement, they are also late to the 24 hour extension they requested.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE
As the defedent missed both their deadline and their requested extension I request that the court strike the defendents late reply.​

I will be rejecting the Objection for multiple reasons:

1. The posting of the Opening Statement did not hold up the Court Proceedings as I would not have even been available to move the case further due to irl circumstances.
2. Due to the nature of the case, I will not be removing the Opening Statement as the charges being alleged are high profile and given a lack of Witness Testimony, will aid in the ruling of this Prosecution.

I also want to make it known that I mean Closing, not Opening Statements.

Due to neither side listing Witnesses, we will be moving into Opening Statements.

The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide theirs.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

I will be rejecting the Objection for multiple reasons:

1. The posting of the Opening Statement did not hold up the Court Proceedings as I would not have even been available to move the case further due to irl circumstances.
2. Due to the nature of the case, I will not be removing the Opening Statement as the charges being alleged are high profile and given a lack of Witness Testimony, will aid in the ruling of this Prosecution.

I also want to make it known that I mean Closing, not Opening Statements.

Your Honor may I request a 48 hour extension. I will not have access to my computer for the next 48 hours.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor may I request a 48 hour extension. I will not have access to my computer for the next 48 hours.

The Extension is granted you have an additional 48 hours from the original timeline. Do be prompt.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
I have to humbly request another extension I just arrived home from being away from my desktop for 2 days and its 2am here. I request a small 12 hour extension so that I may sleep before my class tomorrow morning. I apologize to both the defendant and the court for the delays as they were due to uncontrollable important life circumstances. Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

This is the final extension I will award. You have an additional 12 hours. Do be prompt.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Closing Statements
Your Honor,

UnityMaster, in their capacity as a presiding officer, held a solemn duty to uphold the integrity and stability of the commonwealth. By allowing an illegal motion to be brought to the floor and subsequently voting in the affirmative, they not only violated their oath but also demonstrated a blatant disregard for the principles of good order and governance.

The destabilization caused by this illegal motion cannot be understated. It undermines the trust and confidence of the citizens in their government and sets a dangerous precedent for future proceedings. UnityMaster's actions, far from being innocuous or accidental, were a deliberate betrayal of their duty and responsibility to the commonwealth.

it is abundantly clear that UnityMaster acted with malicious intent. Their actions were not merely a mistake or lapse in judgment but a calculated effort to undermine the stability and sovereignty of our nation. The illegality of the motion was brought to their attention and they chose to not only just sit idly by and let the motion damage the commonwealth but also voted in the affirmative further showing his intent to allow an illegal, destabilizing motion take a hold of the commonwealth.

Thank you, Your Honor.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Defense now has 72 hours to file their Closing Statement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to Justice Neemfy's resignation and Chief Justice Nacholebraa's recusal, this case must be put into recess pending another available Justice.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Nolle Prosequi
The Commonwealth no longer wishes to prosecute this case. Thank you to the court and the defendant for their time.​

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to me being the only available Supreme Court Justice that can take this case, I would like to ask if the Defense has any grievances with me dismissing this case?

Should both sides agree then this case will be dismissed otherwise, this case will remain in recess.

 

[Dusty_3]

Yes we agree for the case to be dismissed

 

[RelaxedGV]

Alright, given neither side has objections, this case is hereby dismissed at request of the Plaintiff.