Lawsuit: Dismissed Commonwealth of Redmont v. Destiny2Guru [2025] DCR 76

[Talion77]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Destiny2Guru
Defendant

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

Spoiler

On the 28th of September, Destiny2Guru sent in-game messages to Police Officer Rookieblue14. These messages clearly show that Destiny2Guru was offering the Officer a bribe, which the Officer promptly declined and reported to the Department of Justice.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Destiny2Guru

II. FACTS
1. On the 28th day of September, Destiny2Guru was arrested by Police Officer Rookieblue14.
2. Shortly after Destiny2Guru was arrested and jailed, he contacted Officer Rookieblue14 via /msg. (P-001 – P-014)
3. The communication between Officer Rookieblue14 and Destiny2Guru involved the following messages from Destiny2Guru, which constitute an offer of money in exchange for violating DHS policy and assisting Destiny2Guru: “you be an inside cop for me… and youre bank account will never be empty”; “id like out of prison, and you as an informant in the PD. Nobody will have any knowledge, you keep your job, and I do the heavy lifting. No suspicion whatsoever. all you do is tell me what the cops talk about, and locations of PD officers” (P-003, P-008)
4. The Criminal Code Act states that offering an item or service of value to influence an individual holding Public Office or serving in a legal capacity constitutes bribery.
5. Rookieblue14 was serving in his legal capacity at the time of arrest and the time of the message.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One Count of Bribery, as per the Criminal Code Act, Part I, Section 5. The Criminal Code Act defines bribery as “offering [...] an item or service of value to influence an individual [...] serving in a legal capacity”. The statements made by Destiny2Guru constitute an offer to influence Officer Rookieblue14, which he rightly declined.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. A fine of 50 Penalty Units, equivalent to $5,000;
2. 10 minutes of imprisonment.

Witnesses
1. Rookieblue14

Evidence

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

Spoiler: P-013

Spoiler: P-014

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 9th day of October 2025

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Destiny2Guru, is required to appear before the district Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Destiny2Guru [2025] DCR 76

Failure to appear within 72 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.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth has reached a plea agreement with the defence, which states the defence agrees to plead guilty and the prosecution agrees to recommend the following sentence:

A $2500 fine, and;
10 minutes of imprisonment.

Sincerely,
Talion77

 

[dearev]

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth has reached a plea agreement with the defence, which states the defence agrees to plead guilty and the prosecution agrees to recommend the following sentence:

A $2500 fine, and;
10 minutes of imprisonment.

Sincerely,
Talion77

The defendant has not yet responded to the summons

 

[ToadKing]

Response

Your Honour,
I will be representing the Defendant in this matter.
The Defendant no longer wishes to enter into a plea agreement with the Prosecution.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[dearev]

Response

Your Honour,
I will be representing the Defendant in this matter.
The Defendant no longer wishes to enter into a plea agreement with the Prosecution.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 63906

You shall have 48 hours to present a plea.

 

[ToadKing]

Plea

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Destiny2Guru
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA​

1. The Defendant pleads Not Guilty, to 1x count of Bribery.

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 2025

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. RULE 5.5 - LACK OF CLAIM​

The Prosecution charges Destiny2Guru with Bribery under Criminal Code Act, Part II, Section 5, alleging:

The statements made by Destiny2Guru constitute an offer to influence Officer Rookieblue14, which he rightly declined.

The Prosecution's Fact 5 asserts that:

"Rookieblue14 was serving in his legal capacity at the time of arrest and the time of the message."

This complaint fails as a matter of law because police officers do not serve in a legal capacity under precedent established by the Supreme Court.

A. Supreme Court Definition​

In Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 10, the Supreme Court definitively defined "Legal Capacity":

The Supreme Court defines 'Legal Capacity' as follows - 'Any individual, who, acting upon their legal authority, may engage in a particular situation which may undertake or maintain a certain legal status within the framework of the legal system. The legal system is defined as the system in which obligations backed by law are carried out.

This definition establishes three elements, all of which must be satisfied:
(1) acting upon legal authority,
(2) ability to undertake or maintain a certain legal status, and
(3) operating within the framework of the legal system.

B. Police Officers Fail All Three Elements​

Police Do Not Act Upon "Legal Authority"​

1. Justice Drew_Hall's reasoning in [2022] SCR 10 provides critical guidance for interpreting "acting upon their legal authority".
The Justice stated that:

To act in a legal capacity would require a legal aspect of a legal nature to be present, like contractual negotiations or other similarly legal-related situations

This analysis establishes that "legal authority" refers to authority exercised in contexts involving legal interpretation, creation of binding obligations, or adjudication between parties. Police officers, by contrast, perform administrative and enforcement functions that are executive, not legal, in nature. The phrase "a legal aspect of a legal nature" establishes a critical interpretive boundary within [2022] SCR 10. "Acting in a legal capacity" requires the presence of a legally operative act - one that creates, interprets, or adjudicates legal rights and obligations between parties. The example of "contractual negotiations" illustrates this: contractual negotiations create enforceable legal obligations, establish legal relations, and directly engage the legal system as defined by the Court. Thus, the "legal aspect" refers to an act that carries legal consequences or effect, while "of a legal nature" confines those acts to situations arising within formal legal relationships or proceedings. This definition excludes acts that are merely administrative or executive in character, even if performed lawfully or by a government official.

2. The Contracts Act defines what constitutes "legal aspects of a legal nature" through its framework for creating binding legal relationships. Section 4 establishes that contracts "create an obligation to do or not do a particular thing" and require parties to "demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations." Section 16(m) defines "Legal Relations" as "rights and obligations recognised by law" that arise between parties. Justice Drew_Hall's reference to "contractual negotiations" as exemplifying legal authority aligns with this statutory framework - contractual negotiations involve parties creating binding legal obligations and establishing legal relations between themselves.

3. The Modern Legal Reform Act confirms that only licensed legal practitioners possess the authority to engage in such "legal-related situations" by "providing legal representation, advocacy, and advisory services" and "filing cases on behalf of clients." Police officers are not licensed legal practitioners and cannot engage in contractual negotiations, legal representation, or the creation of binding legal obligations between parties. The licensing requirements demonstrate that "legal aspects of a legal nature" require specialised legal training and certification that police officers do not possess.

4. The Constitution establishes three distinct governmental functions: the Legislature writes law, the Judiciary interprets law, and the Executive "administers and enforces the law".
The Constitution, Section 23 states:

Executive power is vested in the President and Cabinet. The Executive branch, consisting of the President, Cabinet, and government departments, administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary.

The Constitution, Section 14, confirms this division:

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.‌

5. Police officers cannot engage in the "legal aspects of a legal nature" that Justice Drew_Hall identified as essential to legal authority. The Executive Standards Act, Section 7(1)(a), specifically charges the Department of Homeland Security with:

(a) Maintaining the peace and good order of the nation, through lawfully exercising its power equally to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

This statutory mandate is enforcement, not interpretation. Police officers, while operating under lawful executive authority, do not perform acts that carry intrinsic legal effect within the legal system - they neither adjudicate disputes nor alter legal relationships between parties. Accordingly, they act under executive, not legal, authority. [2022] SCR 10, therefore, confirms that law enforcement officers cannot be considered as "acting in a legal capacity" when performing enforcement duties, as their actions fall outside the "legal aspects of a legal nature" envisioned by the Court. Police apply the consequences the legislature has prescribed; they do not determine what those consequences should be or interpret ambiguous legal language.

6. Further evidence of this distinction appears in the judicial power to issue warrants. The Constitution, Section 18(1)(e), grants the Federal Court exclusive authority for "Issuing warrants." When a judge issues a warrant, the judge interprets the probable cause standard and determines whether the legal requirements are satisfied - this creates a new legal status making an otherwise unlawful search lawful. Police, by contrast, must "request them from the court" (DHS Training Guide) because they lack interpretive authority to make this legal determination. This structural limitation confirms that police exercise enforcement authority, not the interpretive authority that constitutes "legal authority" under [2022] SCR 10.

Police Cannot "Undertake or Maintain A Certain Legal Status"​

7. Police cannot "undertake or maintain" legal status because they lack the authority to create or modify legal determinations. [2022] SCR 10 requires the ability to "undertake or maintain a certain legal status" - language that describes active creation or modification of legal relationships, not passive execution of predetermined consequences. The Modern Legal Reform Act demonstrates what "undertaking legal status" requires by granting Solicitors the power to "officiate marriage and divorce proceedings." When a Solicitor officiates a marriage, they undertake to create a new legal status, transforming individuals into legally recognized spouses with specific legal rights. The Marriage Act confirms this creates "Legal Protections", including representation rights. Police officers cannot officiate marriages, divorces, or any legal ceremonies that create legal relationships between parties.

8. Similarly, the Wills Act demonstrates what "maintain legal status" means by granting courts power to "make an order authorising the making or alteration of a will" or "revocation of the whole or any part of a will." Courts maintain legal status by modifying, enforcing, or revoking testamentary arrangements. The Act requires wills to be witnessed by "players holding a current legal qualification," demonstrating that maintaining legal status requires legal expertise that police do not possess.

9. The judicial power to issue injunctions and writs further demonstrates what "undertake or maintain legal status" actually means. In GoldBlooded v. Commonwealth [2024] SCR 14, the Supreme Court "issued a writ of mandamus requiring Congress to impeach people for constitutional violations" and issued a "permanent injunction ending the impeachment trial." The court undertook a new legal status by creating binding obligations for Congress and maintained a legal status by permanently protecting GoldBlooded from further impeachment proceedings. Similarly, in RBA v. Zanokuhle [2024] FCR 104 and Plura72 v. Reverse Class action Group, the court undertook to modify legal status by issuing an injunction barring parties from filing lawsuits, while maintaining other legal rights of those parties. The Judicial Standards Act, Section 18(1) confirms this power, granting courts authority to issue "orders that compel a party in a case to do something or to refrain from doing something."

10. Police execute predetermined statutory consequences but cannot "undertake or maintain" the legal determinations that create those consequences. While police arrests do change a person's status from free to detained, police do not undertake this legal status; they execute a status change that the legislature has predetermined and courts have authorised through warrants. The Constitution, Section 18(1)(e), vests warrant-issuing authority exclusively in judges because only judges can undertake the legal determination. Police cannot issue injunctions, writs, or any binding legal determinations that would undertake or maintain legal status within the legal system.

Police Operate Outside "The Framework of the Legal System"​

11. [2022] SCR 10 defined "the legal system" as:

"the system in which obligations backed by law are carried out."

This phrase has a specific legal meaning.

The Contracts Act, Section 4(1), defines obligations as duties created through "a legally binding agreement between two or more parties."
The Contracts Act, Section 16(m) defines "Legal Relations" as "rights and obligations recognised by law" that arise between parties.
"Obligations backed by law", therefore, means legally binding duties between parties that are adjudicated and enforced through judicial proceedings.

12. The Constitution establishes that all executive authority flows from the President through a hierarchical chain of delegation. The Constitution, Section 27 states:

(1) Authority. The Vice Presidency does not have independent executive authority and only inherits delegated executive authority from the President or where expressly provided in law.

The Constitution, Section 28(1) states:

(1) Authority. Cabinet derives its authority through delegated Presidential executive authority.

The Executive Standards Act operationalises this delegation by establishing that the Secretary of Homeland Security leads the DHS under presidential appointment, and Section 5(3) provides that:

(3) Should both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary be vacant, the Secretary’s duties shall temporarily fall to a person appointed by the President.

This statutory framework demonstrates that all DHS authority - including police authority - flows downward from the President through executive delegation, not upward from legal obligations within the legal system. The DHS Code of Conduct's Chain of Command ("Officers → Management → Leadership → Vice President → President") reflects this constitutional structure of delegated executive authority. Police officers receive their authority through employment relationships with executive superiors, not through legal obligations.

13. The Prosecution may argue that police have "obligations backed by law" because they are legally required to enforce laws. This argument fundamentally misunderstands what constitutes "obligations backed by law" within the legal system as defined by [2022] SCR 10. The Contracts Act establishes that legal obligations arise from "legally binding agreements between two or more parties" that create "Legal Relations" involving "rights and obligations recognised by law" between those parties. Police officers have administrative employment duties flowing through the executive chain of delegation, but these duties do not create the inter-party legal relationships that define "obligations backed by law" within the legal system. Police employment duties operate entirely within the executive branch's administrative structure and do not create "legal relations" between officers and arrestees as contemplated by the Contracts Act. When an officer arrests someone, no contractual obligation is formed under the Contracts Act's requirements for "clear intention to create legal obligations" between parties. No legal relationship is negotiated, and no inter-party obligation is adjudicated through judicial proceedings. The officer executes a predetermined statutory consequence using delegated executive authority - the same administrative enforcement function that flows from the President through the chain of command. The Executive Standards Act, Section 8(1)(c), confirms this relationship by requiring the Department of Justice to act "ethically and lawfully at the President's direction," demonstrating that even prosecutorial functions operate under executive delegation rather than creating the independent legal obligations between parties that define the legal system under [2022] SCR 10.

14. By contrast, when a judge issues a court order, the judge creates an "obligation backed by law" between parties - a legally binding duty that establishes legal relations. When attorneys negotiate a settlement, they create contractual obligations between parties. These are activities occurring "within the framework of the legal system" because they involve the creation, interpretation, or adjudication of legal obligations between parties. Police enforcement involves none of this.

15. The structural evidence confirms that police operate outside the legal system. When police testify in court, they appear as witnesses - subjects brought into the legal system as evidence sources, not legal actors operating within it. When police request warrants, they petition the legal system for permission from Federal Court judges, proving they operate outside the judicial system and must seek entry to it. If police operated within the legal system, they would possess the authority to issue their own warrants rather than requesting judicial approval.

Summary​

16. Police officers fail all three elements of the Supreme Court's definition in [2022] SCR 10.
First, police do not "act upon legal authority" because they exercise executive enforcement authority rather than the interpretive legal authority required by Justice Drew_Hall's analysis. The Justice specified that legal authority requires "a legal aspect of a legal nature[...]like contractual negotiations or other similarly legal-related situations" - activities involving legal interpretation, creation of binding obligations, or adjudication between parties. The Contracts Act and Modern Legal Reform Act confirm that such activities require specialised legal licensing that police do not possess. Police cannot engage in contractual negotiations, legal representation, or the creation of binding legal obligations; they execute predetermined statutory consequences under executive delegation. The Constitution's separation of powers confirms this distinction: the Executive "administers and enforces" law while the Judiciary "interprets" law, and police belong to the executive enforcement system.

17. Second, police cannot "undertake or maintain a certain legal status" because they lack the authority to create, modify, or adjudicate legal determinations. The Modern Legal Reform Act demonstrates that "undertaking legal status" requires powers like officiating "marriage and divorce proceedings" - creating new legal relationships with specific legal rights. The Wills Act shows "maintaining legal status" involves court orders "authorising the making or alteration of a will" - modifying existing legal arrangements. Police cannot officiate legal ceremonies, modify testamentary documents, or issue the injunctions and writs that courts use to undertake and maintain legal status.

18. Third, police operate outside "the framework of the legal system" because they function within the executive enforcement system rather than the judicial system, where "obligations backed by law are carried out." The Contracts Act defines such obligations as legally binding duties between parties that are adjudicated through judicial proceedings. Police have administrative employment duties to their superiors, not legal obligations within the legal system, and must petition courts for warrant approval precisely because they operate outside the judicial framework.

​

C. Officer Rookieblue14 Was Not "Acting" When the Alleged Bribery Occurred​

19. The Prosecution's Fact 2 states:

"Shortly after Destiny2Guru was arrested and jailed, he contacted Officer Rookieblue14 via /msg."

The messages occurred after the arrest was complete and the Defendant was already in jail. This timing is fatal to the Prosecution's case.

20. [2022] SCR 10 requires "acting upon their legal authority" and the ability to "engage in a particular situation." Both phrases require active exercise of authority in an ongoing matter. "Acting upon" is a present active construction - it describes contemporaneous exercise of authority, not past completed actions or potential future actions.

21. When the Defendant sent the messages, Officer Rookieblue14 had already completed the arrest. He was no longer "acting upon" any authority - executive, legal, or otherwise. The enforcement action was finished. The officer was passively receiving messages, not actively exercising authority. He was not "engaged in a particular situation"; he was simply the recipient of unwanted solicitations.

22. The messages themselves confirm this. Defendant requested: "get me out of here" (P-003), and "id like out of prison, and you as an informant in the PD" (P-008). These requests sought future actions - release from jail and future assistance. None targeted any contemporaneous exercise of authority because there was no contemporaneous authority being exercised. The arrest was complete. The Bribery statute requires influencing someone "serving in a legal capacity" - meaning actively engaged in the exercise of that capacity. A police officer who has completed an arrest and is passively receiving messages is not "serving in" any capacity at that moment.

D. Conclusion​

The charge of bribery requires the Prosecution to prove that the target was "holding public office OR serving in a legal capacity." The entire case depends on establishing that the officer was "serving in a legal capacity" (Fact 5). The Supreme Court's binding verdict in [2022] SCR 10 establishes a clear definition of "legal capacity", which can be broken down into three elements: (1) acting upon legal authority, (2) ability to undertake or maintain legal status, and (3) operating within the framework of the legal system. Police officers fail all three elements.

Police officers do not serve in "legal capacity" under the Supreme Court's definition in [2022] SCR 10. Officer Rookieblue14 exercised executive enforcement authority under delegated administrative powers, not legal authority within the framework of the legal system. Additionally, Officer Rookieblue14 was not "acting upon" any authority when the alleged bribery occurred. The arrest was complete, and he was passively receiving unwanted messages. The [2022] SCR 10 standard requires active exercise of authority, not mere employment status.

This court is bound by the Supreme Court and must act accordingly. This case must be dismissed with prejudice because the Prosecution cannot prove the essential elements of the offence as a matter of law.

 

[ToadKing]

You shall have 48 hours to present a plea.

Your Honour,

The Defence kindly requests an update on this case, as 48 hours have elapsed.

 

[Talion77]

Plea

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Destiny2Guru
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA​

1. The Defendant pleads Not Guilty, to 1x count of Bribery.

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 2025

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. RULE 5.5 - LACK OF CLAIM​

The Prosecution charges Destiny2Guru with Bribery under Criminal Code Act, Part II, Section 5, alleging:

The Prosecution's Fact 5 asserts that:


This complaint fails as a matter of law because police officers do not serve in a legal capacity under precedent established by the Supreme Court.

A. Supreme Court Definition​

In Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 10, the Supreme Court definitively defined "Legal Capacity":

This definition establishes three elements, all of which must be satisfied:
(1) acting upon legal authority,
(2) ability to undertake or maintain a certain legal status, and
(3) operating within the framework of the legal system.

B. Police Officers Fail All Three Elements​

Police Do Not Act Upon "Legal Authority"​

1. Justice Drew_Hall's reasoning in [2022] SCR 10 provides critical guidance for interpreting "acting upon their legal authority".
The Justice stated that:

This analysis establishes that "legal authority" refers to authority exercised in contexts involving legal interpretation, creation of binding obligations, or adjudication between parties. Police officers, by contrast, perform administrative and enforcement functions that are executive, not legal, in nature. The phrase "a legal aspect of a legal nature" establishes a critical interpretive boundary within [2022] SCR 10. "Acting in a legal capacity" requires the presence of a legally operative act - one that creates, interprets, or adjudicates legal rights and obligations between parties. The example of "contractual negotiations" illustrates this: contractual negotiations create enforceable legal obligations, establish legal relations, and directly engage the legal system as defined by the Court. Thus, the "legal aspect" refers to an act that carries legal consequences or effect, while "of a legal nature" confines those acts to situations arising within formal legal relationships or proceedings. This definition excludes acts that are merely administrative or executive in character, even if performed lawfully or by a government official.

2. The Contracts Act defines what constitutes "legal aspects of a legal nature" through its framework for creating binding legal relationships. Section 4 establishes that contracts "create an obligation to do or not do a particular thing" and require parties to "demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations." Section 16(m) defines "Legal Relations" as "rights and obligations recognised by law" that arise between parties. Justice Drew_Hall's reference to "contractual negotiations" as exemplifying legal authority aligns with this statutory framework - contractual negotiations involve parties creating binding legal obligations and establishing legal relations between themselves.

3. The Modern Legal Reform Act confirms that only licensed legal practitioners possess the authority to engage in such "legal-related situations" by "providing legal representation, advocacy, and advisory services" and "filing cases on behalf of clients." Police officers are not licensed legal practitioners and cannot engage in contractual negotiations, legal representation, or the creation of binding legal obligations between parties. The licensing requirements demonstrate that "legal aspects of a legal nature" require specialised legal training and certification that police officers do not possess.

4. The Constitution establishes three distinct governmental functions: the Legislature writes law, the Judiciary interprets law, and the Executive "administers and enforces the law".
The Constitution, Section 23 states:

The Constitution, Section 14, confirms this division:


5. Police officers cannot engage in the "legal aspects of a legal nature" that Justice Drew_Hall identified as essential to legal authority. The Executive Standards Act, Section 7(1)(a), specifically charges the Department of Homeland Security with:

This statutory mandate is enforcement, not interpretation. Police officers, while operating under lawful executive authority, do not perform acts that carry intrinsic legal effect within the legal system - they neither adjudicate disputes nor alter legal relationships between parties. Accordingly, they act under executive, not legal, authority. [2022] SCR 10, therefore, confirms that law enforcement officers cannot be considered as "acting in a legal capacity" when performing enforcement duties, as their actions fall outside the "legal aspects of a legal nature" envisioned by the Court. Police apply the consequences the legislature has prescribed; they do not determine what those consequences should be or interpret ambiguous legal language.

6. Further evidence of this distinction appears in the judicial power to issue warrants. The Constitution, Section 18(1)(e), grants the Federal Court exclusive authority for "Issuing warrants." When a judge issues a warrant, the judge interprets the probable cause standard and determines whether the legal requirements are satisfied - this creates a new legal status making an otherwise unlawful search lawful. Police, by contrast, must "request them from the court" (DHS Training Guide) because they lack interpretive authority to make this legal determination. This structural limitation confirms that police exercise enforcement authority, not the interpretive authority that constitutes "legal authority" under [2022] SCR 10.

Police Cannot "Undertake or Maintain A Certain Legal Status"​

7. Police cannot "undertake or maintain" legal status because they lack the authority to create or modify legal determinations. [2022] SCR 10 requires the ability to "undertake or maintain a certain legal status" - language that describes active creation or modification of legal relationships, not passive execution of predetermined consequences. The Modern Legal Reform Act demonstrates what "undertaking legal status" requires by granting Solicitors the power to "officiate marriage and divorce proceedings." When a Solicitor officiates a marriage, they undertake to create a new legal status, transforming individuals into legally recognized spouses with specific legal rights. The Marriage Act confirms this creates "Legal Protections", including representation rights. Police officers cannot officiate marriages, divorces, or any legal ceremonies that create legal relationships between parties.

8. Similarly, the Wills Act demonstrates what "maintain legal status" means by granting courts power to "make an order authorising the making or alteration of a will" or "revocation of the whole or any part of a will." Courts maintain legal status by modifying, enforcing, or revoking testamentary arrangements. The Act requires wills to be witnessed by "players holding a current legal qualification," demonstrating that maintaining legal status requires legal expertise that police do not possess.

9. The judicial power to issue injunctions and writs further demonstrates what "undertake or maintain legal status" actually means. In GoldBlooded v. Commonwealth [2024] SCR 14, the Supreme Court "issued a writ of mandamus requiring Congress to impeach people for constitutional violations" and issued a "permanent injunction ending the impeachment trial." The court undertook a new legal status by creating binding obligations for Congress and maintained a legal status by permanently protecting GoldBlooded from further impeachment proceedings. Similarly, in RBA v. Zanokuhle [2024] FCR 104 and Plura72 v. Reverse Class action Group, the court undertook to modify legal status by issuing an injunction barring parties from filing lawsuits, while maintaining other legal rights of those parties. The Judicial Standards Act, Section 18(1) confirms this power, granting courts authority to issue "orders that compel a party in a case to do something or to refrain from doing something."

10. Police execute predetermined statutory consequences but cannot "undertake or maintain" the legal determinations that create those consequences. While police arrests do change a person's status from free to detained, police do not undertake this legal status; they execute a status change that the legislature has predetermined and courts have authorised through warrants. The Constitution, Section 18(1)(e), vests warrant-issuing authority exclusively in judges because only judges can undertake the legal determination. Police cannot issue injunctions, writs, or any binding legal determinations that would undertake or maintain legal status within the legal system.

Police Operate Outside "The Framework of the Legal System"​

11. [2022] SCR 10 defined "the legal system" as:

This phrase has a specific legal meaning.

The Contracts Act, Section 4(1), defines obligations as duties created through "a legally binding agreement between two or more parties."
The Contracts Act, Section 16(m) defines "Legal Relations" as "rights and obligations recognised by law" that arise between parties.
"Obligations backed by law", therefore, means legally binding duties between parties that are adjudicated and enforced through judicial proceedings.

12. The Constitution establishes that all executive authority flows from the President through a hierarchical chain of delegation. The Constitution, Section 27 states:

The Constitution, Section 28(1) states:

The Executive Standards Act operationalises this delegation by establishing that the Secretary of Homeland Security leads the DHS under presidential appointment, and Section 5(3) provides that:

This statutory framework demonstrates that all DHS authority - including police authority - flows downward from the President through executive delegation, not upward from legal obligations within the legal system. The DHS Code of Conduct's Chain of Command ("Officers → Management → Leadership → Vice President → President") reflects this constitutional structure of delegated executive authority. Police officers receive their authority through employment relationships with executive superiors, not through legal obligations.

13. The Prosecution may argue that police have "obligations backed by law" because they are legally required to enforce laws. This argument fundamentally misunderstands what constitutes "obligations backed by law" within the legal system as defined by [2022] SCR 10. The Contracts Act establishes that legal obligations arise from "legally binding agreements between two or more parties" that create "Legal Relations" involving "rights and obligations recognised by law" between those parties. Police officers have administrative employment duties flowing through the executive chain of delegation, but these duties do not create the inter-party legal relationships that define "obligations backed by law" within the legal system. Police employment duties operate entirely within the executive branch's administrative structure and do not create "legal relations" between officers and arrestees as contemplated by the Contracts Act. When an officer arrests someone, no contractual obligation is formed under the Contracts Act's requirements for "clear intention to create legal obligations" between parties. No legal relationship is negotiated, and no inter-party obligation is adjudicated through judicial proceedings. The officer executes a predetermined statutory consequence using delegated executive authority - the same administrative enforcement function that flows from the President through the chain of command. The Executive Standards Act, Section 8(1)(c), confirms this relationship by requiring the Department of Justice to act "ethically and lawfully at the President's direction," demonstrating that even prosecutorial functions operate under executive delegation rather than creating the independent legal obligations between parties that define the legal system under [2022] SCR 10.

14. By contrast, when a judge issues a court order, the judge creates an "obligation backed by law" between parties - a legally binding duty that establishes legal relations. When attorneys negotiate a settlement, they create contractual obligations between parties. These are activities occurring "within the framework of the legal system" because they involve the creation, interpretation, or adjudication of legal obligations between parties. Police enforcement involves none of this.

15. The structural evidence confirms that police operate outside the legal system. When police testify in court, they appear as witnesses - subjects brought into the legal system as evidence sources, not legal actors operating within it. When police request warrants, they petition the legal system for permission from Federal Court judges, proving they operate outside the judicial system and must seek entry to it. If police operated within the legal system, they would possess the authority to issue their own warrants rather than requesting judicial approval.

Summary​

16. Police officers fail all three elements of the Supreme Court's definition in [2022] SCR 10.
First, police do not "act upon legal authority" because they exercise executive enforcement authority rather than the interpretive legal authority required by Justice Drew_Hall's analysis. The Justice specified that legal authority requires "a legal aspect of a legal nature[...]like contractual negotiations or other similarly legal-related situations" - activities involving legal interpretation, creation of binding obligations, or adjudication between parties. The Contracts Act and Modern Legal Reform Act confirm that such activities require specialised legal licensing that police do not possess. Police cannot engage in contractual negotiations, legal representation, or the creation of binding legal obligations; they execute predetermined statutory consequences under executive delegation. The Constitution's separation of powers confirms this distinction: the Executive "administers and enforces" law while the Judiciary "interprets" law, and police belong to the executive enforcement system.

17. Second, police cannot "undertake or maintain a certain legal status" because they lack the authority to create, modify, or adjudicate legal determinations. The Modern Legal Reform Act demonstrates that "undertaking legal status" requires powers like officiating "marriage and divorce proceedings" - creating new legal relationships with specific legal rights. The Wills Act shows "maintaining legal status" involves court orders "authorising the making or alteration of a will" - modifying existing legal arrangements. Police cannot officiate legal ceremonies, modify testamentary documents, or issue the injunctions and writs that courts use to undertake and maintain legal status.

18. Third, police operate outside "the framework of the legal system" because they function within the executive enforcement system rather than the judicial system, where "obligations backed by law are carried out." The Contracts Act defines such obligations as legally binding duties between parties that are adjudicated through judicial proceedings. Police have administrative employment duties to their superiors, not legal obligations within the legal system, and must petition courts for warrant approval precisely because they operate outside the judicial framework.

​

C. Officer Rookieblue14 Was Not "Acting" When the Alleged Bribery Occurred​

19. The Prosecution's Fact 2 states:

The messages occurred after the arrest was complete and the Defendant was already in jail. This timing is fatal to the Prosecution's case.

20. [2022] SCR 10 requires "acting upon their legal authority" and the ability to "engage in a particular situation." Both phrases require active exercise of authority in an ongoing matter. "Acting upon" is a present active construction - it describes contemporaneous exercise of authority, not past completed actions or potential future actions.

21. When the Defendant sent the messages, Officer Rookieblue14 had already completed the arrest. He was no longer "acting upon" any authority - executive, legal, or otherwise. The enforcement action was finished. The officer was passively receiving messages, not actively exercising authority. He was not "engaged in a particular situation"; he was simply the recipient of unwanted solicitations.

22. The messages themselves confirm this. Defendant requested: "get me out of here" (P-003), and "id like out of prison, and you as an informant in the PD" (P-008). These requests sought future actions - release from jail and future assistance. None targeted any contemporaneous exercise of authority because there was no contemporaneous authority being exercised. The arrest was complete. The Bribery statute requires influencing someone "serving in a legal capacity" - meaning actively engaged in the exercise of that capacity. A police officer who has completed an arrest and is passively receiving messages is not "serving in" any capacity at that moment.

D. Conclusion​

The charge of bribery requires the Prosecution to prove that the target was "holding public office OR serving in a legal capacity." The entire case depends on establishing that the officer was "serving in a legal capacity" (Fact 5). The Supreme Court's binding verdict in [2022] SCR 10 establishes a clear definition of "legal capacity", which can be broken down into three elements: (1) acting upon legal authority, (2) ability to undertake or maintain legal status, and (3) operating within the framework of the legal system. Police officers fail all three elements.

Police officers do not serve in "legal capacity" under the Supreme Court's definition in [2022] SCR 10. Officer Rookieblue14 exercised executive enforcement authority under delegated administrative powers, not legal authority within the framework of the legal system. Additionally, Officer Rookieblue14 was not "acting upon" any authority when the alleged bribery occurred. The arrest was complete, and he was passively receiving unwanted messages. The [2022] SCR 10 standard requires active exercise of authority, not mere employment status.

This court is bound by the Supreme Court and must act accordingly. This case must be dismissed with prejudice because the Prosecution cannot prove the essential elements of the offence as a matter of law.

Permission to respond, Your Honour.

 

[dearev]

Permission to respond, Your Honour.

you may, however keep in mind no delays of this kind will be tolerated moving on.

 

[ToadKing]

Permission to respond, Your Honour.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defence objects to the Prosecution’s failure to comply with the Court’s clear instruction regarding undue delays. Despite being granted permission to respond over 24 hours ago, the Prosecution has neither submitted a response to the Defence’s motion to dismiss, nor requested an extension of time. This conduct directly contravenes the Court’s order that "no delays of this kind will be tolerated moving on," demonstrating a clear disregard for judicial authority. The Defence maintains that such inaction is both negligent and obstructive to the administration of justice.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court hold the Prosecution in contempt for their failure to act in accordance with the Court’s order and for their neglect of their prosecutorial duties.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

The defenses restrictive position that the police do not, and in this case - were not acting within their ‘legal authority’, would suggest that the only time a police officer ‘could be’ bribed would be when they’re actively arresting someone, and not at any point after their arrest to release them - such as the case in front of us.

The difference between SCR 10 and this case was that the candidate running was neither in their legal authority nor were they holding public office at the time. - The important aspect to note here is that the candidate could not have made promises to exercise any sort of power within their legal authority, because they lacked said authority to enact upon it.

This is not the case here, where the officer in question did not lack the legal authority to operate as an “informant” for the Defendant, nor did they lack the legal authority to release them from jail, or use their power within the DHS to identify the locations or identities of other officers.

To suggest that an ‘off-duty’ police officer cannot be bribed ‘at all’ would be akin to enabling bribery for ‘off-duty’ police officers. This is clearly not the intent of the law, and certainly would render the law almost entirely ineffective outside of the niche situation of someone attempting to bribe an officer only when they’re actively being arrested.

The prosecution asks the court to deny the motion to dismiss- there is certainly a claim here being staked and it differs greatly from the conditions surrounding SCR 10.

Further, the defense makes a mistake in suggesting that the police in Redmont do not ‘adjudicate legal determinations’, this is simply incorrect - Summary offences are exactly this, appealable to the DCR.


The defense also blathers on about many such unrelated matters to help bulk up a word-count but provides an abysmal lack of legal clarity.


To address the SCR 10 definition directly:

1. Rookieblue must have been acting - or would have been acting within their legal authority to enact upon the offer received.
2. They have the ability to undertake and maintain their legal status as a police officer.
3. They would be operating within the framework of the legal system to release a prisoner early; find officer locations; and point out officer identities.

 

[dearev]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defence objects to the Prosecution’s failure to comply with the Court’s clear instruction regarding undue delays. Despite being granted permission to respond over 24 hours ago, the Prosecution has neither submitted a response to the Defence’s motion to dismiss, nor requested an extension of time. This conduct directly contravenes the Court’s order that "no delays of this kind will be tolerated moving on," demonstrating a clear disregard for judicial authority. The Defence maintains that such inaction is both negligent and obstructive to the administration of justice.

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court hold the Prosecution in contempt for their failure to act in accordance with the Court’s order and for their neglect of their prosecutorial duties.

Sustained.

Plea

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Destiny2Guru
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA​

1. The Defendant pleads Not Guilty, to 1x count of Bribery.

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 2025

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. RULE 5.5 - LACK OF CLAIM​

The Prosecution charges Destiny2Guru with Bribery under Criminal Code Act, Part II, Section 5, alleging:

The Prosecution's Fact 5 asserts that:


This complaint fails as a matter of law because police officers do not serve in a legal capacity under precedent established by the Supreme Court.

A. Supreme Court Definition​

In Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 10, the Supreme Court definitively defined "Legal Capacity":

This definition establishes three elements, all of which must be satisfied:
(1) acting upon legal authority,
(2) ability to undertake or maintain a certain legal status, and
(3) operating within the framework of the legal system.

B. Police Officers Fail All Three Elements​

Police Do Not Act Upon "Legal Authority"​

1. Justice Drew_Hall's reasoning in [2022] SCR 10 provides critical guidance for interpreting "acting upon their legal authority".
The Justice stated that:

This analysis establishes that "legal authority" refers to authority exercised in contexts involving legal interpretation, creation of binding obligations, or adjudication between parties. Police officers, by contrast, perform administrative and enforcement functions that are executive, not legal, in nature. The phrase "a legal aspect of a legal nature" establishes a critical interpretive boundary within [2022] SCR 10. "Acting in a legal capacity" requires the presence of a legally operative act - one that creates, interprets, or adjudicates legal rights and obligations between parties. The example of "contractual negotiations" illustrates this: contractual negotiations create enforceable legal obligations, establish legal relations, and directly engage the legal system as defined by the Court. Thus, the "legal aspect" refers to an act that carries legal consequences or effect, while "of a legal nature" confines those acts to situations arising within formal legal relationships or proceedings. This definition excludes acts that are merely administrative or executive in character, even if performed lawfully or by a government official.

2. The Contracts Act defines what constitutes "legal aspects of a legal nature" through its framework for creating binding legal relationships. Section 4 establishes that contracts "create an obligation to do or not do a particular thing" and require parties to "demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations." Section 16(m) defines "Legal Relations" as "rights and obligations recognised by law" that arise between parties. Justice Drew_Hall's reference to "contractual negotiations" as exemplifying legal authority aligns with this statutory framework - contractual negotiations involve parties creating binding legal obligations and establishing legal relations between themselves.

3. The Modern Legal Reform Act confirms that only licensed legal practitioners possess the authority to engage in such "legal-related situations" by "providing legal representation, advocacy, and advisory services" and "filing cases on behalf of clients." Police officers are not licensed legal practitioners and cannot engage in contractual negotiations, legal representation, or the creation of binding legal obligations between parties. The licensing requirements demonstrate that "legal aspects of a legal nature" require specialised legal training and certification that police officers do not possess.

4. The Constitution establishes three distinct governmental functions: the Legislature writes law, the Judiciary interprets law, and the Executive "administers and enforces the law".
The Constitution, Section 23 states:

The Constitution, Section 14, confirms this division:


5. Police officers cannot engage in the "legal aspects of a legal nature" that Justice Drew_Hall identified as essential to legal authority. The Executive Standards Act, Section 7(1)(a), specifically charges the Department of Homeland Security with:

This statutory mandate is enforcement, not interpretation. Police officers, while operating under lawful executive authority, do not perform acts that carry intrinsic legal effect within the legal system - they neither adjudicate disputes nor alter legal relationships between parties. Accordingly, they act under executive, not legal, authority. [2022] SCR 10, therefore, confirms that law enforcement officers cannot be considered as "acting in a legal capacity" when performing enforcement duties, as their actions fall outside the "legal aspects of a legal nature" envisioned by the Court. Police apply the consequences the legislature has prescribed; they do not determine what those consequences should be or interpret ambiguous legal language.

6. Further evidence of this distinction appears in the judicial power to issue warrants. The Constitution, Section 18(1)(e), grants the Federal Court exclusive authority for "Issuing warrants." When a judge issues a warrant, the judge interprets the probable cause standard and determines whether the legal requirements are satisfied - this creates a new legal status making an otherwise unlawful search lawful. Police, by contrast, must "request them from the court" (DHS Training Guide) because they lack interpretive authority to make this legal determination. This structural limitation confirms that police exercise enforcement authority, not the interpretive authority that constitutes "legal authority" under [2022] SCR 10.

Police Cannot "Undertake or Maintain A Certain Legal Status"​

7. Police cannot "undertake or maintain" legal status because they lack the authority to create or modify legal determinations. [2022] SCR 10 requires the ability to "undertake or maintain a certain legal status" - language that describes active creation or modification of legal relationships, not passive execution of predetermined consequences. The Modern Legal Reform Act demonstrates what "undertaking legal status" requires by granting Solicitors the power to "officiate marriage and divorce proceedings." When a Solicitor officiates a marriage, they undertake to create a new legal status, transforming individuals into legally recognized spouses with specific legal rights. The Marriage Act confirms this creates "Legal Protections", including representation rights. Police officers cannot officiate marriages, divorces, or any legal ceremonies that create legal relationships between parties.

8. Similarly, the Wills Act demonstrates what "maintain legal status" means by granting courts power to "make an order authorising the making or alteration of a will" or "revocation of the whole or any part of a will." Courts maintain legal status by modifying, enforcing, or revoking testamentary arrangements. The Act requires wills to be witnessed by "players holding a current legal qualification," demonstrating that maintaining legal status requires legal expertise that police do not possess.

9. The judicial power to issue injunctions and writs further demonstrates what "undertake or maintain legal status" actually means. In GoldBlooded v. Commonwealth [2024] SCR 14, the Supreme Court "issued a writ of mandamus requiring Congress to impeach people for constitutional violations" and issued a "permanent injunction ending the impeachment trial." The court undertook a new legal status by creating binding obligations for Congress and maintained a legal status by permanently protecting GoldBlooded from further impeachment proceedings. Similarly, in RBA v. Zanokuhle [2024] FCR 104 and Plura72 v. Reverse Class action Group, the court undertook to modify legal status by issuing an injunction barring parties from filing lawsuits, while maintaining other legal rights of those parties. The Judicial Standards Act, Section 18(1) confirms this power, granting courts authority to issue "orders that compel a party in a case to do something or to refrain from doing something."

10. Police execute predetermined statutory consequences but cannot "undertake or maintain" the legal determinations that create those consequences. While police arrests do change a person's status from free to detained, police do not undertake this legal status; they execute a status change that the legislature has predetermined and courts have authorised through warrants. The Constitution, Section 18(1)(e), vests warrant-issuing authority exclusively in judges because only judges can undertake the legal determination. Police cannot issue injunctions, writs, or any binding legal determinations that would undertake or maintain legal status within the legal system.

Police Operate Outside "The Framework of the Legal System"​

11. [2022] SCR 10 defined "the legal system" as:

This phrase has a specific legal meaning.

The Contracts Act, Section 4(1), defines obligations as duties created through "a legally binding agreement between two or more parties."
The Contracts Act, Section 16(m) defines "Legal Relations" as "rights and obligations recognised by law" that arise between parties.
"Obligations backed by law", therefore, means legally binding duties between parties that are adjudicated and enforced through judicial proceedings.

12. The Constitution establishes that all executive authority flows from the President through a hierarchical chain of delegation. The Constitution, Section 27 states:

The Constitution, Section 28(1) states:

The Executive Standards Act operationalises this delegation by establishing that the Secretary of Homeland Security leads the DHS under presidential appointment, and Section 5(3) provides that:

This statutory framework demonstrates that all DHS authority - including police authority - flows downward from the President through executive delegation, not upward from legal obligations within the legal system. The DHS Code of Conduct's Chain of Command ("Officers → Management → Leadership → Vice President → President") reflects this constitutional structure of delegated executive authority. Police officers receive their authority through employment relationships with executive superiors, not through legal obligations.

13. The Prosecution may argue that police have "obligations backed by law" because they are legally required to enforce laws. This argument fundamentally misunderstands what constitutes "obligations backed by law" within the legal system as defined by [2022] SCR 10. The Contracts Act establishes that legal obligations arise from "legally binding agreements between two or more parties" that create "Legal Relations" involving "rights and obligations recognised by law" between those parties. Police officers have administrative employment duties flowing through the executive chain of delegation, but these duties do not create the inter-party legal relationships that define "obligations backed by law" within the legal system. Police employment duties operate entirely within the executive branch's administrative structure and do not create "legal relations" between officers and arrestees as contemplated by the Contracts Act. When an officer arrests someone, no contractual obligation is formed under the Contracts Act's requirements for "clear intention to create legal obligations" between parties. No legal relationship is negotiated, and no inter-party obligation is adjudicated through judicial proceedings. The officer executes a predetermined statutory consequence using delegated executive authority - the same administrative enforcement function that flows from the President through the chain of command. The Executive Standards Act, Section 8(1)(c), confirms this relationship by requiring the Department of Justice to act "ethically and lawfully at the President's direction," demonstrating that even prosecutorial functions operate under executive delegation rather than creating the independent legal obligations between parties that define the legal system under [2022] SCR 10.

14. By contrast, when a judge issues a court order, the judge creates an "obligation backed by law" between parties - a legally binding duty that establishes legal relations. When attorneys negotiate a settlement, they create contractual obligations between parties. These are activities occurring "within the framework of the legal system" because they involve the creation, interpretation, or adjudication of legal obligations between parties. Police enforcement involves none of this.

15. The structural evidence confirms that police operate outside the legal system. When police testify in court, they appear as witnesses - subjects brought into the legal system as evidence sources, not legal actors operating within it. When police request warrants, they petition the legal system for permission from Federal Court judges, proving they operate outside the judicial system and must seek entry to it. If police operated within the legal system, they would possess the authority to issue their own warrants rather than requesting judicial approval.

Summary​

16. Police officers fail all three elements of the Supreme Court's definition in [2022] SCR 10.
First, police do not "act upon legal authority" because they exercise executive enforcement authority rather than the interpretive legal authority required by Justice Drew_Hall's analysis. The Justice specified that legal authority requires "a legal aspect of a legal nature[...]like contractual negotiations or other similarly legal-related situations" - activities involving legal interpretation, creation of binding obligations, or adjudication between parties. The Contracts Act and Modern Legal Reform Act confirm that such activities require specialised legal licensing that police do not possess. Police cannot engage in contractual negotiations, legal representation, or the creation of binding legal obligations; they execute predetermined statutory consequences under executive delegation. The Constitution's separation of powers confirms this distinction: the Executive "administers and enforces" law while the Judiciary "interprets" law, and police belong to the executive enforcement system.

17. Second, police cannot "undertake or maintain a certain legal status" because they lack the authority to create, modify, or adjudicate legal determinations. The Modern Legal Reform Act demonstrates that "undertaking legal status" requires powers like officiating "marriage and divorce proceedings" - creating new legal relationships with specific legal rights. The Wills Act shows "maintaining legal status" involves court orders "authorising the making or alteration of a will" - modifying existing legal arrangements. Police cannot officiate legal ceremonies, modify testamentary documents, or issue the injunctions and writs that courts use to undertake and maintain legal status.

18. Third, police operate outside "the framework of the legal system" because they function within the executive enforcement system rather than the judicial system, where "obligations backed by law are carried out." The Contracts Act defines such obligations as legally binding duties between parties that are adjudicated through judicial proceedings. Police have administrative employment duties to their superiors, not legal obligations within the legal system, and must petition courts for warrant approval precisely because they operate outside the judicial framework.

​

C. Officer Rookieblue14 Was Not "Acting" When the Alleged Bribery Occurred​

19. The Prosecution's Fact 2 states:

The messages occurred after the arrest was complete and the Defendant was already in jail. This timing is fatal to the Prosecution's case.

20. [2022] SCR 10 requires "acting upon their legal authority" and the ability to "engage in a particular situation." Both phrases require active exercise of authority in an ongoing matter. "Acting upon" is a present active construction - it describes contemporaneous exercise of authority, not past completed actions or potential future actions.

21. When the Defendant sent the messages, Officer Rookieblue14 had already completed the arrest. He was no longer "acting upon" any authority - executive, legal, or otherwise. The enforcement action was finished. The officer was passively receiving messages, not actively exercising authority. He was not "engaged in a particular situation"; he was simply the recipient of unwanted solicitations.

22. The messages themselves confirm this. Defendant requested: "get me out of here" (P-003), and "id like out of prison, and you as an informant in the PD" (P-008). These requests sought future actions - release from jail and future assistance. None targeted any contemporaneous exercise of authority because there was no contemporaneous authority being exercised. The arrest was complete. The Bribery statute requires influencing someone "serving in a legal capacity" - meaning actively engaged in the exercise of that capacity. A police officer who has completed an arrest and is passively receiving messages is not "serving in" any capacity at that moment.

D. Conclusion​

The charge of bribery requires the Prosecution to prove that the target was "holding public office OR serving in a legal capacity." The entire case depends on establishing that the officer was "serving in a legal capacity" (Fact 5). The Supreme Court's binding verdict in [2022] SCR 10 establishes a clear definition of "legal capacity", which can be broken down into three elements: (1) acting upon legal authority, (2) ability to undertake or maintain legal status, and (3) operating within the framework of the legal system. Police officers fail all three elements.

Police officers do not serve in "legal capacity" under the Supreme Court's definition in [2022] SCR 10. Officer Rookieblue14 exercised executive enforcement authority under delegated administrative powers, not legal authority within the framework of the legal system. Additionally, Officer Rookieblue14 was not "acting upon" any authority when the alleged bribery occurred. The arrest was complete, and he was passively receiving unwanted messages. The [2022] SCR 10 standard requires active exercise of authority, not mere employment status.

This court is bound by the Supreme Court and must act accordingly. This case must be dismissed with prejudice because the Prosecution cannot prove the essential elements of the offence as a matter of law.

Granted.


Case Dismissed with Prejudice.