Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79

[HugeBob]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth
Prosecution

v.

Nexalin
Defendant

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

This case is split into 3 key areas: Self-enrichment through the Commonwealth Reserve Bank, co-conspiring to steal $1,287,000.00, and scamming citizens through exploiting information/powers they held within the CRB.

The Defendant in this case forced a loan deal onto the Government without the Administration’s consent. This is a direct example of self-enrichment through the use of a public office. The CRB does not have the power to issue loans without the consent of the Administration, which is why the loan was reversed when the President stepped in, threatening to dissolve the CRB if the loans are not reversed. What sets this loan apart from the rest is that this loan was fully issued with the funds arriving in the Government’s balance. This is Corruption, Embezzlement, and Treason.

The Defendant was co-CEO of Tello at the same time as xeu100 and received a payout of $200,000 to one of their in-game companies immediately after the theft took place. We have direct command logs of the Defendant receiving a payment of $200,000 less than 13 minutes after xeu100 stole $1,287,000 from the CRB. This clearly demonstrates that the two were cooperating on the matter, and are seeking to charge the Defendant with Conspiracy to Commit a Felony for his involvement in this scheme.

The Defendant used privileged information within the CRB and even the powers they held within the CRB to scam citizens. The Defendant offered contracts in which the Defendant would have to pay out if the Government balance dipped below a certain point, but the signee would have to pay the Defendant if the Government balance did not dip below this threshold. The Defendant had access to information through their CRB position that the general public does not have access to directly related to the status of the Government balance and ever had powers to directly increase the Government’s balance. This is a clear conflict of interest and a use of one’s public office for private benefit. This one individual was at risk of being scammed out of $96,000. How many other people has the Defendant made a deal like this with? Why does the Defendant feel as though it is appropriate to make bets in which he can directly tip the scales through the CRB?

I. PARTIES
1. xeu100
2. Company named “7834910”, henceforth referred to as “xeu100’s bank account”
3. Nexalin
4. Company named “7890321”, henceforth referred to as “Defendant’s bank account”
5. DonTrillions
6. Company named “7834912”, henceforth referred to as “DonTrillions’ bank account”
7. The Commonwealth Reserve Bank

II. FACTS
1. Defendant used their position within the Commonwealth Reserve Bank to attempt to force the Government to take out a loan from a bank that he personally owned without the consent of the Executive or Congress.
2. Defendant was a direct beneficiary and co-conspirator to the xeu100 CRB embezzlement scheme which saw $1,287,000.00 stolen from the Commonwealth, and was even CEO of Tello
3. Defendant used their position within the CRB to scam citizens by selling “Redmont Government Default Swap” contracts to citizens, in which the signee would have to pay the Defendant if the Government’s balance stayed above a certain threshold.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 2 counts of Corruption (Facts 1 and 3)
2. 1 count of Embezzlement (Fact 1)
3. 2 counts of Treason (Facts 1 and 3)
4. 6 counts of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Corruption (2 charges): Removal from public office and disbarment from public office for a period of 4 months (2 months for each charge) and $50,000 ($25,000 for each charge) in fines.
2. For Embezzlement: Suspension of the Defendant’s Entrepreneur’s license and ban from registering or owning any company or union.
3. For Treason (2 charges): Removal from public office and disbarment from public office for a period of 4 months (2 months for each charge) and $50,000 ($25,000 for each charge) in fines.
4. For Conspiracy to commit a Felony (6 charges): Fines of $150,000 ($25,000 for each charge) and jail time of 36 hours (6 hours for each charge)

In total we recommend the following sentencing: Removal from public office, disbarment from public office for a period of 8 months, suspension of Entrepreneur’s license, ban from registering and owning any company or union, fines of $250,000, jail time of 36 hours.

V. EVIDENCE

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 6th day of October 2022

 

[Banana]

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

@Nexalin is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79.

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.​

 

[Cooleagles]

Good Morning,

I will be representing the Defendant, Nexalin, in this prosecution. As I've been busy with real life, I ask for a 24-hour extension to finalize our response and gather a few key pieces of evidence.

Additionally, as was done before, I ask the court to consider putting this case on hold until the verdict of The Commonwealth v. Supersuperking as 3 of the 5 main charges (corruption, embezzlement, and treason) are related to that case.

Thank You.

 

[Banana]

The 24 hour extension is granted. I will not be delaying this case further to wait for a verdict in the Commonwealth v. Supersuperking case, however if that case is finished before this one, I may consider it as precedent.

 

[Cooleagles]

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

The Commonwealth
Prosecution

v.

Nexalin
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defendant pleads Not Guilty to all charges brought forth by the Prosecution

II. DEFENCES
1. Similar to The Commonwealth v. Supersuperking, Supersuperking was found not guilty of embezzlement, treason, and 3 counts of conspiracy due to the lack of evidence provided by the prosecution. Let it be known that this situation is identical throughout both cases, with even the same evidence being provided. The only difference this time is that the prosecution supplied the ruling of the vote, which adds nothing to support the prosecution's arguments.

2. Regarding the embezzlement scandal, the court will find that my client knew absolutely nothing about the scheme or where the money came from. Additionally, the court will find that my client never used the 200k Xeu100 gave him and returned it as soon as they became aware of how the money was obtained, which was when the court case was released.

3. In regards to the government balance contracts arranged by my client, this is neither corruption nor treason. It simply is not treason as my client in no way "maliciously sabotage[d] or undermine[d] the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont." All he did was make a deal that used the shifting numbers of the government balance as a factor, in no way did the deal actually affect said balance. The court will also find that this is not corruption as all the information my client used to strike these deals was and continues to be public knowledge; therefore my client did not use his position within the government at all.

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 11th day of October 2022

 

[Banana]

The Commonwealth may now make their opening statements.

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Nexalin
Defendant

This case is split into 3 key areas: Self-enrichment through the Commonwealth Reserve Bank, co-conspiring to steal $1,287,000.00, and scamming citizens through exploiting information/powers they held within the CRB.

CRB LOANS

Precedent established in FCR 68 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68) established that the Tello loan constituted Corruption. This is the same loan contract from another individual representing the same bank as in the case FCR 68, merely being proposed in the "lower chamber" of the CRB. We wish to further argue that this act was also Embezzlement as it sought to steal funds from the Government. We also wish to argue that this act was Treason as it sought to further destabilize the state of Redmont's finances at a time of great economic uncertainty. We are also seeking 3 charges of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, one for each: Corruption, Treason, and Embezzlement.

$1M CRB THEFT

The Defendant was a direct beneficiary of xeu100's theft of more than $1,000,000 from the CRB, receiving a payout of $200,000 within a matter of minutes after the theft took place and was also co-CEO of Tello alongside xeu100 at the time of the theft. Because xeu100 actually took these actions, we are only seeking to charge the Defendant with Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (Embezzlement).

CONTRACT SCAMS

The Defendant offered contracts to unknowing citizens gambling on whether the DCGovernment balance would drop below a certain point. If the Government balance continued to decline, the signee would receive a payout. If the Government balance were to start increasing (say for example, if someone from within the CRB issued the Government a loan), then the signee would lose money to the Defendant. The Defendant signed these contracts with many individuals and then sought to use their position within the CRB to increase the Government's balance not for the good of the Commonwealth but rather to scam citizens for profit. This is Corruption as it uses one's public office for private benefit. This is Treason as it erodes public trust in our institutions and our Government. We are also seeking two charges of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony for both Corruption and Treason in relation to these actions.

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 October 2022

 

[Banana]

The Defense may present their opening statements.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, 24 hours have elapsed.

 

[Cooleagles]

Your Honor,

I was under the impression that 48 hours was the standard amount of time for opening statements. Especially since you yourself had not stated otherwise and the Prosecution took more than 24 hours to respond.

If this is not the case, then may I request a 24-hour extension to post our opening statements?

Thank You.

 

[Banana]

48 hours is the standard response time, you still have time.

 

[Cooleagles]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Nexalin
Defendant

Your honor, the prosecution will present many stories throughout this case. Stories about my client that they have twisted and poked in all different directions to prove their point. To prove that my client is some kind of criminal who abused his position on numerous accounts. Well, one thing I know for certain is that all these stories are just that, stories. Look at the evidence and look at the proof, what little there is, and see the truth for yourself. My client had good intentions as a member of the CRB and never dreamt of using his position in any irresponsible or corrupt way.

CRB Loan -
After the proceedings of FCR 68, a case that dealt with the same charges and situation as this case, my client then was found not guilty of all charges of embezzlement, treason, and conspiracy. The prosecution argues that these charges should be applied to my client in today's case, however, like the other case, they have once again failed to provide evidence that my client committed any of these crimes. To say that my client sought to steal funds from the government, which in reality would have been my client’s money but I digress, and that they did this to destabilize the government is the definition of speculation, your honor. Matter of fact, if you look at the only evidence they did supply, it suggests the real reason my client offered that deal to the government. Not to steal money or damage the government, but to help the government.

CRB Theft Scandal -
In regards to the theft/embezzlement scandal, the court will find that my client knew nothing about the money’s origin and actually took it upon himself to investigate the loss of funds within the CRB. Conversations (Evidence 1 & 2) show that my client reached out to other members, asking what had happened to the balance of the CRB. Let me ask, would a co-conspirator of a crime draw attention to said crime? I highly doubt so.

Contracts -
The Prosecution argues that my client made these deals and then used their power within the government to change the balance and get a payout. Once again, I find myself asking the prosecution, where is the evidence? Every detail about that facade is borderline speculation. Not one bit of evidence suggests my client did any of this, they are simply throwing darts at a board hoping they hit something. Additionally, treason is not even remotely adequate to describe the situation at hand. Are we really going to compare “eroding public trust” to “maliciously sabotage[ing] or undermine[ing] the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government?” The two are not nearly the same, although for the sake of argument, say it is. In what way did my client “erode public trust”? My client made a contract with an individual in which the government balance acted as a factor. If anything, he improved trust because he openly told those individuals his estimates of the government balance and how he believed it would pay out. If you look at the Prosecution's 9th piece of evidence (Evidence 3), you can see my client directly telling the person how to go about the deal. Also, let it be known that this also is not corruption because in what way did my client use their government position? They have no proof of their speculatory claims of him attempting to fix the balance and at no point did he use private information. The government balance is public information that anyone can access by just typing one command in-game.

Evidence -
1 and 2: Conversations between my client and CRB members regarding the CRB Balance. (Names have been crossed out for the security of the individuals)


3: Conversation between my client and one individual about contracts, which clearly shows my client giving his honest opinion and advice to the contractee.

 

[HugeBob]

OBJECTION
Perjury

Defendant's counsel claims: "The Prosecution argues that my client made these deals and then used their power within the government to change the balance and get a payout. Once again, I find myself asking the prosecution, where is the evidence?"

However we have clearly submitted the following screenshots that showcase both the existence of these contracts and the use of the CRB position to increase the Government's balance in a manner which would guarantee that the Defendant profits from these deals, scamming the other party.

Looking at the time stamps you can see that the Defendant reached out to people seeking to establish these contracts, then sought to issue a loan to the Government to increase the Government's balance, and once the loan was clearly set to pass the Defendant drafted the official terms of the contracts.

Opposing counsel has either committed Perjury or chose not to read the State's Opening Statement.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, 4 days have elapsed.

 

[Banana]

The objection is overruled, as the Plaintiff is not a witness providing evidence. The Defense may now present their opening statements.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, I believe the Defense has already presented their opening statement.

 

[Banana]

Oh, terribly sorry, we will be moving on to witness statements. If either party wishes to call witnesses, please present a list of such within 48 hours, or declare that you have none to call.

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor,

The Defense would like to call Xeu100 to the stand.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, the Prosecution would like to call Cofys as a witness. Thank you.

 

[Banana]

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

@Cofys and @xeu100 are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Nexalin 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 Prosecution may begin with questions to their witness.

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, pursuant to the Perjury Act​

 

[Cofys]

Hi, I am present.

 

[xeu100]

I am present

 

[HugeBob]

QUESTIONS

For starters, I'd like to apologize for the inconvenience to both of these witnesses.

For Cofys:
1. Did Nexalin offer you a contract betting on the Government's balance on August 1st 2022?

For xeu100:
1. Did you or did you not send $200,000 to a company owned by Nexalin less than 30 minutes after disbanding the CommonwealthReserveBank company account?
2. Were you and Nexalin both the co-CEOs of Tello at the time of the $1m CRB theft?

 

[xeu100]

1. Yes I did. As part of my strategy at the time, I distributed all funds to Tello's companies. The company owned by Nexalin was a fund account for Tello operations.
2. I cannot recall if we were co-CEOs at that specific time, however, I have unofficially been on a sabbatical from Tello since my departure from the Reserve in general.

 

[Cofys]

QUESTIONS

For starters, I'd like to apologize for the inconvenience to both of these witnesses.

For Cofys:
1. Did Nexalin offer you a contract betting on the Government's balance on August 1st 2022?

This contract from 9/01 was for purchasing the debt of another citizen that belonged to Nexalin, though you can see the original contract for the borrower within it. The borrower couldn't afford the weekly payments and I wanted to step in and help out, though the deal never went through.

Originally, the offer to bet on the government balance was made on 8/16.

 

[Cooleagles]

OBJECTION
Breach Of Procedure

Your honor, counsel has questioned my witness without my direct examination. Your instructions and basic procedures state that counsel is to "begin with questions to their witness." This causes massive problems as I have not even created the door for counsel to open on the actual cross.

I request that all of the answers for Xeu be struck from the record as counsel had no right to ask them in the first place.
Thank You.

 

[Banana]

The objection is sustained, and Xeu100's previous testimony will be struck from the record. Both parties must refrain from asking questions to any witness during direct examination that they have not summoned. If the Prosecution has any further questions for their summoned witness they may ask them.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor, I apologize for the sudden post in this trial, however, I would like to inform the court that we will be taking over the legal defense in this case. As a Senior Attorney working with Prodigium | Attorneys at Law, I, along with my co-counsel, Matthew100x, will now be the respondent attorneys for the defendant throughout the remainder of this case.

In an effort to preserve time, I would like to note the failure on behalf of the prosecution to present any further questions, and would request the court to move forward.

 

[Banana]

Noted, thank you.

The Defense may now cross-examine the witness. Once they have completed their cross-examination, they may begin direct examination of their own witness.

 

[drew_hall]

Thank you, your Honor.

1. Would it be factual to state that you are the individual who is highlighted in black in the Commonwealth's 10th piece of evidence, which showcases a contract presented by my client on 9/01?
2. Based upon your previous testimony, has my client presented a contract to you which included the commonwealth's balance as a factor during the time frame of 8/17-9/01?
3. Would it be fair to say that, in your opinion, the prosecution misrepresented evidence surrounding the contractual offer made by my client to you on 9/01 as one that concerned the government's balance, when in actuality it was a contract on a different matter entirely?

 

[Cofys]

Thank you, your Honor.

1. Would it be factual to state that you are the individual who is highlighted in black in the Commonwealth's 10th piece of evidence, which showcases a contract presented by my client on 9/01?
2. Based upon your previous testimony, has my client presented a contract to you which included the commonwealth's balance as a factor during the time frame of 8/17-9/01?
3. Would it be fair to say that, in your opinion, the prosecution misrepresented evidence surrounding the contractual offer made by my client to you on 9/01 as one that concerned the government's balance, when in actuality it was a contract on a different matter entirely?

You guys were my lawyers until 4 days ago, you already know my complete involvement and answers.

1. Yes, I was in it but I am not the only one highlighted in black.

2. A formal contract was not given to me to bet on the government balance. I was given a simple offer of betting on it by Nexalin, which I declined so there was no need to draft a contract.

3. In my opinion, no. It was not a different contract entirely, it's what I would've signed myself had I accepted Nexalins offer. Instead of that specific contract being for me to bet on the government's balance, it was someone who already did buy into it and Nexalin was selling me their debt. The borrower (for lack of a better term) was unable to pay the required $12,000 a week so I was going to buy it to extend the repayment duration and half the payment amounts. The deal did not go through as I started having issues dealing with new banking laws.

 

[drew_hall]

Thank you. We have no further questions for this witness.

 

[Banana]

You may examine your witness, Xeu100, as stated earlier.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you your honor,

I am posting on the behalf of co-counsel @drew_hall. Now @xeu100, can you please answer my questions?

1. When Nexalin received the $200,000 dollars, was he knowingly holding the money for the bank?
2. You had previously plead full-admission of guilt to a wide variety of financial charges. Is it safe to say, based on the full admission of guilt, that you were acting alone?

 

[xeu100]

1. He was knowingly holding funds for Tello, but he did not know the origin of any funds I sent him.
2. Yes I was.

 

[drew_hall]

Thank you. No further questions

 

[Banana]

The Prosecution may now cross-examine the witness.

 

[HugeBob]

I have no intentions to cross examine this witness, thank you your honor.

 

[Banana]

Thank you. We will now move on to closing statements. The Prosecution may present first.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor I believe 48 hours has passed since you asked for the prosecution's closing statement. May we proceed?

 

[Banana]

Yes, the Defense may present their closing statements.

 

[drew_hall]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff
v.
Nexalin
Defendant

Your Honor, it has been shown throughout this trial that my client had no knowledge or participation with any of the crimes he is being prosecuted with. The prosecution has failed to provide solid evidence proving any involvement my client might have had in the crimes he is being charged with in this case, and in fact there has been evidence shown to prove the exact opposite. The prosecution's case depends upon whether or not my client acted in coordination with the defense's witness, Xeu100, and they have failed to prove any such connection, and in fact have been proven incorrect by the witness.

The accusations against my client are heavy to say the least, and certainly ones which should not be taken lightly. The prosecution has provided this court with little-to-no evidence to support these charges. To accept these charges would require a level of speculation the court should not entertain. These crimes, should the court accept them, should be accepted without a doubt my client committed them. Based upon this trial, is this something the court is comfortable with? To bring such charges against an individual with such little evidence to support them, except for the imagination, should not go unnoticed.

My client has made repeated efforts to thoroughly inform potential signees of his contracts about the risks and benefits involved by signing, and by doing so has dissuaded potential signees. Are these actions a criminal acting with a nefarious motive would take? It simply does not add up. Based upon the witness testimony provided by Xeu100, my client had no knowledge of what exactly was going on as the witness confirmed they were acting alone. This, along with my client's record of business dealings, shows my client conducts his business not only in a lawful and professional manner, but a moral one as well.

To conclude the defense's short closing statement, I would just like to reiterate how this prosecution would not be one where my client was found guilty 'without a doubt', but rather one that requires jumps to speculation after speculation, and one which certainly does not follow the sworn testimony of the witness Xeu100, showing my client had no knowledge, or the evidence provided and the case built by the defense. The defense implores this court to evaluate what a guilty verdict in this case could mean for the future of prosecutorial power and obligations.

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 15th day of November 2022

 

[Banana]

Thank you, this court is now in recess for deliberation.

 

[Banana]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79

I. PROSECUTION’S POSITION
1. The Defendant used their position to make the Commonwealth take a loan that would be purely beneficial for their own interests, as the Defendant owned the bank providing the loan.
2. The Defendant had also attempted to deceive another individual into betting on the government balance decreasing, which would have been affected by the aforementioned loan.
3. The Defendant was a beneficiary of the theft of $1,287,000 from the government balance, although not a direct participant in it.


II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Defendant did not stand to gain from a loan to the government, and in fact a similar case, The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68, was filed but resulted in not guilty for treason, conspiracy, and embezzlement on the grounds of lack of evidence.
2. A similar lack of evidence is present here on the Prosecution’s part.
3. The Defendant advised the individual to whom the contract was offered, thus indemnifying them against charges of corruption and treason, as the individual was not being deceived.
4. The Defendant used only publicly available numbers as factors in the contract, and thus was acting entirely above board.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. With regard to the charges of Corruption, Embezzlement, Treason, and three counts of Conspiracy arising from the loan issued from the Defendant to the government via the Commonwealth Reserve Board (hereafter CRB),

• It is the opinion of the court that, similarly to the case of FCR 68, the Defendant did use their position inside of a government institution to unfairly benefit themselves. The Defendant was in a special position to influence government policy and stood to gain $15,000 from the transaction, which the average citizen could never accomplish.
• There is not enough evidence to prove that there was malice aforethought to support a charge of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony.
• The definition of Embezzlement is “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”.
• It is the opinion of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove that any Embezzlement actually took place.
• There is again a lack of evidence to prove malice aforethought with regard to Embezzlement.
• Treason is defined as “attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.”
• It is the opinion of the court that by attempting to profit off of the government’s low balance, and squeeze money out of a cash-deficient government, the Defendant did attempt to undermine the stability of the government of Redmont for their own gain.
• There is insufficient evidence to prove malice aforethought with regard to Treason.

2. With regard to the charge of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony arising from the theft of $1,287,000 from the government balance,

• The Prosecution has not provided any evidence other than the transfer of money to the Defendant’s balance. This cannot function as proof beyond reasonable doubt, as the money could have been transferred to anyone without the recipient’s malicious intent or even knowledge.
• There is thus insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant Conspired to steal from the government balance.

3. With regard to the charges of Corruption, Treason, and Conspiracy arising from the Defendant’s contracts with individuals involving the government balance,

• It is the opinion of the court that the Defendant did use their position of influence over the government balance (as seen by the evidence establishing a $300,000 temporary boost to the government balance) to attempt to deceive others and profit.
• This does constitute Corruption, as the government balance numbers were public, but the Defendant was in a position to alter the numbers after a contract was already signed.
• There is insufficient evidence to prove malice aforethought with regard to this count of Corruption.
• It is the opinion of the court that, while misleading and corrupt, the Defendant’s business dealings with private citizens could not have affected the government’s stability in this case.
• There is insufficient evidence to prove malice aforethought with regard to this count of Treason.

IV. VERDICT
I hereby find as follows:
On one count of Corruption: Guilty
On one count of Corruption: Guilty
On one count of Embezzlement: Not Guilty
On one count of Treason: Guilty
On one count of Treason: Not Guilty
On six counts of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony: Not Guilty

I hereby order the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For two counts of Corruption, removal from public office and barred from holding from public office for a period of 2 months (1 month for each charge) and $40,000 ($20,000 for each charge) in fines.
2. For one count of Treason, removal from public office and barred from holding public office for a period of 1 month, and $25,000 in fines.

This amounts to a total fine of $65,000, removal from public office, and a bar on holding public office for a term of 3 months.

The Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is now adjourned.

 

[Aladeen]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also 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.​

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

Before we commence with the trial, I'd like to ask the prosecutorial authority, the DLA, if they wish to pursue and continue this case against my client.

Additionally, we need proof of my client's $65,000 dollars being returned or else I will need to submit an emergency injunction requesting the same per 21.1(b) as well as 20.1(a) of the Judicial Standards Act.

In the meantime, I will speak with the defendant of this action regarding whether or not he would like to pursue damages from being deprived his property for over two weeks once the guilty conviction got overturned.

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 25th day of January, 2023.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

We have yet to hear anything from the DLA regarding this above matter. I am not sure if they are waiting for court guidance or not. We are requesting a writ of mandamus here to compel the DLA into responding to this case.

Further, we are seeking guidance on an emergency injunction + counter-claim against the government for constitutional abuse of power in withholding my client's property unfairly after the conviction has been overturned. Please see the sworn statement below as proof for the aforementioned claim of constitutional abuse. Would you prefer us requesting the emergency injunction in this current case or would you prefer us to request it in the new case we will be pursuing for constitutional abuse?

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.

 

[Aladeen]

I apologize for my late reply, the DLA has 48 hours from now to reply to this case and to answer the defendants attorney message. I would recommend keeping things in one case so if you are to file an emergency injunction please do it in this current case.

 

[Claxx77]

Your honour, I request 48 hours of extension to solve the defendant's problem.

 

[Aladeen]

I will give a 24h extension, if you need the other 24h I will give them to you.