This case is an egregious stain on our Justice system which would completely satisfy a mistrial.
Errors of Law
The Court has made various errors of law throughout the case which should be noted:
1. Allowed a citizen to prosecute another citizen in a criminal case in contravention to the Constitution and the Crime Severity Act. Even if you argue the Crime Severity Act's case, how can one reasonably claim that Treason is not a criminal offence? Is one who undermines the stability of the Government, who ends up in jail, with a large fine, and banned from office not a criminal?
2. Denied the Defence a Speedy trial through repeated refusals to recuse in absences of up to a week on multiple occassions. The Court has also used irrelevant reasons to deny motions of recusal.
3. The Court has, on multiple occasions, ignored parts of motions and failed to address them.
4. The Defence requested to bring forward witnesses after the initial witness, based on the answers given, and the Court denied them the ability because they originally request. The Defence did not respond to the request for witnesses. The Defence alerted the court that they would be away, yet the court took so long to respond that it called for witnesses during the period which the Defendant was away. At the Defence's first opportunity after the primary witness was questioned, they asked to call on witnesses.
5. The Defence was charged with perjury for deleting an update to their representation status when it later changed. The comment was deleted with the reasoning 'redacted' and this was visible to all Justices. No court procedure or law exists for having to ask permission to remove a trivial notification of the status of my counsel, particularly when it was removed with the reasoning - which is visible to the court - saying 'redacted.' This doesn't even fit the description of perjury.
6. The Court has declared the Defence Guilty of Perjury without Trial.
7. As shown throughout this case, a member presiding over this case has been engaging in ex parte communication and has failed to recuse themselves. The Court held that the DLA was unable to prosecute me because I was a party in a case to which they were also a party to, but ignored the fact that the Plaintiff and Chief Justice were in a voice call together and immediately left when I joined another VC.
8. The political bias in this case is outstandingly obvious when you consider that a citizen has been allowed to put a charge of treason on to their case to elevate the jurisdiction to a higher court when the lower court rules against them several times. The higher court proceeded to do the exact opposite of the lower court and has continued to be hostile toward the Defence for the entirety of both trials.
Claims for Relief
The claims for relief in this case are not sufficient to constitute treason:
1. The defendant, by failing to post a referendum for a complex change of a constitutional amendment, maliciously undermined the government through incompetence. By shuffling the government positions around and creating two new departments and creating headaches for all members involved through improper procedure; the defendant damaged the stability of the government.
I fail to understand how I have maliciously undermined the government in my capacity as Speaker when:
No changes were made to the Constitution.
No changes to the system of Government were made by the Speaker.
When advised that the Department Reform Act was a complex change, I immediately announced a public referendum. I don't deny that I made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes and I immediately worked to correct my mistake to carry out my duties as prescribed by the constitution.
Changes made by staff were rolled back as far as reasonably practicable until the conclusion of the referendum.
The public referendum was carried out and passed with a supermajority three times.
The Supreme Court has no authority as the Court of disputed returns to halt a referendum and then demand the results from an individual which doesn't have access to the results. Then, when they fail to provide the results, continually charge them with contempt of court for failing to provide them.
2. Treason is not a criminal charge per the Crime Severity Act (Act of Congress - Crime Severity Act), and though it’s alluded to, is not labeled a crime under its authorizing statute (Act of Congress - LDV Treason Act).
This is Perjury. This is simply incorrect. The Supreme Court is in breach of the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act in hearing the case, which outlines that Criminal cases are brought on by charges laid by the State or in appeal to the State.
(1) The Court of Redmont hears all non-constitutional legal matters in the first instance and is the appellate court for criminal charges and civil actions. It is presided over by a single Judge. Lawsuits are made in the Courthouse forum. Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).
Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act.
(1) Any new crimes may be cited as to whether they are to be considered a Indictable Offence or a Summary Offence. If the crime is not cited as either respective classification, it is to be automatically assumed as a Summary Offence.
An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has effectively allowed the Speaker of the House to be charged with Treason in a civil case by someone other than the state.
IX. 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, and 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 defence.
Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf.
The department is charged with legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government. The department is charged with the employment of Commonwealth Prosecutors and Legal Officers. The Department of Legal Affairs is to act in the best interests of the Government. The Department will act ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction. The Department oversees Freedom of Information requests. The Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs is the Attorney General and will be referred to in an official capacity as the Attorney General.
3.
The charge of Treason was previously accepted by the Supreme Court in Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and was not dismissed. The validity for the charge still exists as it was asked to be split into its own case.
Precedent is persuasive, but it does not enable the court to directly override law, especially the constitution.
The court has not even provided any examples of precedent for the citizens' cases that they have mentioned. The constitution states plainly that:
"Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).
4. End has called the Supreme Court corrupt within court and in public, has disobeyed court orders and injunctions, and has refused to respect court decorum in his initial treason case. This resulted in 50 contempt of court charges resulting in a fine of $122,000 dollars and a total of 1 hour of jail time. End is currently refusing to pay the fines.
This is Perjury. It is also incorrect. When this was posted the fine was paid in full. Many of the contempt of court charges were made due to me not providing information I did not have access to as Speaker (election results).
5. End, in open defiance of an active injunction to shelve the referendum until all constitutional issues can be resolved, has decided to repost the referendum and actively campaign on the issue to see it passed.
There was no active injunction at the time since the case was dismissed in the court it was issued. No evidence has been provided to suggest that it was active at the time.
6. The DLA has defended the defendant in the prior court case and has a conflict of interest in prosecuting a case against them for this matter.
The DLA was never my counsel. I openly and actively refused their counsel, there was no affiliation. This was a calculated and political claim to relief. Just because we are parties in the same case (which was illegal) does not assume mutual representation. The idea that because we were sued first together, and then separately by the same plaintiff, for the same reasons, that it would then produce a conflict of interest is ludacris. Under this logic I could sue the Plaintiff and the Chief Justice and it would imply a conflict of interest for the Chief Justice because they were parties in the same case.
7. While the Plaintiff insists these are civil charges, there exists evidence of citizens being allowed to make criminal charges.
No evidence provided.
8. This case will have Supreme Court Jurisdiction because only the Supreme Court shall hear cases that would remove a person/persons from the following positions: Representatives, Secretary, Senator, Judge, Vice-President, Principal Officers, General Advisors, President, Executive Officers.
I have been out of all of these positions for over a month.
Key Considerations
1. You are currently making a decision to charge someone who made an honest mistake and actively worked to correct that mistake with the highest crime that one can be charged with.
2. If you find the Plaintiff guilty of Treason, you are directly contravening the Constitution and law in allowing a citizen to prosecute.
3. The Supreme Court does not have unlimited authority and cannot halt a referendum. In SCR 20, the Commonwealth made the sound argument that:
The Court does not have the authority to halt a public referendum, even the loosest interpretation of the section of the Constitution ‘The Supreme Court of Redmont is responsible for resolving disputes between Government Institutions.’ does not give the Court unlimited powers and unrestricted actions in order to achieve this goal, in particular ordering others to violate their constitutional duty.
There is no law that establishes that the Courts can order that the Speaker or another branch of government to stop undertaking their constitutional duties, even for a brief period.
5. A democratic system of government with a system of checks and balances is underpinned by the constitution. The constitution is the highest legal document in the country. The constitution sets out three branches of government which all play a unique role in the operation of our government, particularly in elections. This is why the Supreme Court acts as the court of disputed returns, a body which reviews the results of disputed elections and referendums.
(1) The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court also interprets the laws as per its constitutional duties.
The Judicial arm of Government, consisting of the District Court, Federal Court, and Supreme Court, interpret the law as written by the legislature and administered by the Executive.
This establishes a very thorough body of
review. The Supreme Court's recent actions have not been that of review, rather, the Supreme Court has been actively making illegal and unconstitutional court orders against the constitutional duties of other branches of Government.
The Constitution provides that, in order for a complex change bill to pass into law, it must satisfy the requirements set out in the Constitution. This constitutionally charges the Speaker of the House of Representatives with being the returning officer to carry out referendums.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.
1. A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
2. A supermajority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
3. Presidential Assent or Veto Override.
The Supreme Court draws its powers from the Constitution as a body of review and as an interpreter of the law. While I acknowledge convention surrounding court orders in enabling the Supreme Court to fulfil its role, the Supreme Court has overstepped in ordering a constitutional process be 'paused' in
Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and then proceeding to charge the Speaker for Contempt of Court for failing to comply.
I hope that the Court comes to the realisation that it has no legal ground to make a verdict on this case and that it should be dismissed.