Appeal: Pending [2023] SCR 5 - Appeal

[End]

Username: Endeavour

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2023] SCR 5

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5

Basis for Appeal: I appeal the decision in [2023] SCR 5 on the grounds that the Supreme Court applied an incorrect principle of law and made findings of fact on an important issue that are not supported by the evidence.

The Court interpreted the constitutional requirement that the Department of Construction and Transportation ‘create’ infrastructure as preventing the government from purchasing infrastructure from a private citizen, despite there being no law or constitutional provision that prohibits the government from buying, acquiring, or outsourcing builds. In fact, this ruling would prohibit a significant amount if work the DCT has carried out prior and after this ruling.

That interpretation goes beyond the text of the Constitution and wrongly converts an otherwise lawful government purchase into corruption.

Further, the finding that I was an accomplice to corruption is not supported by the evidence. There was no finding that I misused public office, exerted pressure, concealed the transaction, or received an improper benefit. I simply sold a build to the government and was paid for it. The existence of a transaction between two parties does not, of itself, establish corruption or accomplice liability.

As the decision rests on an incorrect legal interpretation and an unsupported finding on a key issue, the conviction should be set aside.

Supporting Evidence: The Court accepted that the transaction was a straightforward purchase of a build and that payment was made openly, yet relied solely on the fact that a sale occurred and that I received payment to establish accomplice liability.

Beyond the existence of a lawful transaction, there is no evidentiary basis demonstrating corruption, improper benefit, or assistance in wrongdoing, and the finding therefore cannot be supported by the evidence.

The DCT routinely buys infrastructure to ‘create’ infrastructure, and as such, I have been held to an inequitable standard contrary to established practice and law.