Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Lawanoesepr [2022] FCR 95

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
President of the Senate
Senator
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Aventura Resident
Dartanman
Dartanman
presidentofthesenate
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,086
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Lawanoesepr
Defendant

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

Lawanoesepr offered money to people to vote for him in the House of Representatives election. This is highly illegal.

I. PARTIES
1. Lawanoesepr
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On December 4th, 2022, Lawanoesepr offered money to at least two people to vote for him in the House of Representatives election, including the Solicitor General. [Exhibits A and B]
2. The Electoral Act defines Electoral Fraud as "Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats."

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Two counts of Electoral Fraud, for attempting to win the votes of two people by offering them $100 to vote for him in the election.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. The Prosecution recommends a $40,000 fine and 2 months barred from public office ($20,000 and 1 month for each charge). This is slightly under the maximum of $25,000 per charge, as $100 is a very small amount of money in Redmont, and the Prosecution does not seek the maximum penalty for every crime.

EVIDENCE
Exhibit A:
1670213991174.png

Exhibit B:
1670214058059.png

(Note: I did censor Exhibit B for the younger members of DC).

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 4th day of December 2022
 
Hey, I know I'm going to be charged with contempt of court, but he also DMed me this. I replied telling him to not do that and told him it was electoral fraud, he hadn't realised at the time he posted this. I'd just like to ask the court to be lenient on him and give him a smaller fine, as this is his first time + he didn't understand that it was against the law until after being told.

- Psypio
 
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
The Commonwealth requests that the Defendant's non-cash assets be frozen due to indications he may try to hide them to avoid seizure:
Screenshot_20221206_082745_Discord.jpg
 
I would also like to let the court know that Neemfy will be taking over this case. Thank you.
 
I hereby charge Psypio with one count of contempt of court, and order the DOJ to issue the minimum punishment for contempt of court.

Furthermore I will be accepting the emergency injunction and order the freeze of all of lawanoesepr's non-cash assets until the end of this court case.

(Summons will be filed soon)
 
federal-court-png.12082

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 The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Lawanoesepr [2022] FCR 95. 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.​
 
Your honor, I am the defendant's public defender. I will need an additional 24 hour extension due to not being available for IRL reasons.
 
The extension has been granted, you have 24 hours from now to post your response to the case.
 
Good evening, your honor.

I come on behalf of the RBA.

Unfortunately, Matthew100x just decided to resign from the Public Defender program. This is, of course, very sad, given that he agreed to represent the Defendant in this case, and the RBA would like to apologize for wasting the court's time, and request one final 24-hour extension to both assign a new Public Defender and have them post their Answer to the Complaint.

Again, our deepest apologies to you and the court.

Thank you.
 
Just an update, your honor: there was some miscommunication. The Defendant asked Matthew100x NOT to represent him but still wished to have a PD...

It wasn't until after this that Matthew100x resigned. It is (obviously) ultimately up to you whether to allow a new PD to take over or not.
 
Your honor, I will be representing lawanoesepr in this case
 
I hereby charge Lawanoesepr with one count of contempt of court for failing to appear in court or have a lawyer appear in court for him within the initial 48 hours of summons, however I will allow this case to continue. The Defendant has 24 hours to post their reply to the case.

I hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail Lawanoesepr appropriately for his contempt of court charge.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont Prosecution

v.

Lawanoesepr
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense affirms this fact
2. The defense affirms this fact

II. DEFENCES
1. This is not a defense but a plea for leniency, I was unaware of the law until psypio told me so, I hope the court can take this into consideration
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

NO facts are in dispute, the defense moves for a verdict.

DATED: This 10th day of December 2022
 
Your honor, my client has spoken out of line and I request that he be charged with contempt of court and his statement stricken from the record as he agreed to be represented by a public defender, and is therefore not allowed to interject into proceedings
 
ultrapvpnoob said:
Your honor, my client has spoken out of line and I request that he be charged with contempt of court and his statement stricken from the record as he agreed to be represented by a public defender, and is therefore not allowed to interject into proceedings
Click to expand...
The Defendant is always allowed to represent themselves/talk for themselves in court even if they do have a public defender. For that reason I will not be charging him with contempt of court for replying to the case. I do however find Lawanoesepr guilty of contempt of court for his most recent comment. If Lawanoesepr wishes to, he may choose to get rid of his public defender, however he must do so in a respectful manner, and inform the court.

I hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail Lawanoesepr for his 2 counts of contempt of court in this case.

Furthermore the Defendant has already posted a response to this case, and his response will stay however it is your guys' choice as to whether or not you want me to rule on the motion for summary judgement. You have 24 hours to inform the court of your decision.
 
Your honor I was very drunk last night to the point of impaired judgement and I was impatient, I dont want to get rid of my public defender, let him make a proper answer to this complaint.
 
The public defender has 24 hours to post a response to the complaint.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution
v.
lawanoesepr
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFFIRM that lawanoesepr offered money for people to vote for him

2. DO NOT AFFIRM that the defendant's actions constitute electoral fraud

II. DEFENCES

1. While lawanoesepr offered money to people to vote for him, he was so incredibly bad at convincing people to vote for him that he failed to have anyone accept his offer. There is no such crime as ‘attempted electoral fraud,’ and as such he cannot be convicted of electoral fraud if he did not commit it. He did not get the chance to commit the crime as no one accepted his offer.

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.
 
The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, opposing counsel,

Election fraud is defined as “Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.” Key word in the definition: Bribery.

In the White-Collar Crack Down Act, bribery is defined as “the act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity.” It is clear that lawanoesepr offered money, and, even if it had failed, would still have constituted bribery. As such, the crime of election fraud still applies.
 
Thank you to the Plaintiff for their opening statement. The defendant now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, to quote the prosecution:
"In the White-Collar Crack Down Act, bribery is defined as 'the act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity.'”

However, while the prosecution noticed this clause, they did not read the last few words of it which states "holding public office or serving in a legal capacity."

As the people he offered bribes to were acting as private citizens, not as individuals holding public office or serving in a legal capacity, the crime of bribery, and therefore the crime of electoral fraud, does not apply.
 
OBJECTION
Relevance

The defendant has stated that the “crime of bribery” does not apply. While bribery as a crime is listed in the White collar crack down act, the defendant is not charged with bribery, only election fraud. This definition was given in an effort to define bribery in the context of the server, not as proof of bribery (which was already given in the filing of the lawsuit). A common definition for bribery, such as that in a dictionary, could’ve been used to the same effect.
 
Response to objection:

The prosecution was the one that brought up bribery, and we are defending against that. Nowhere else is bribery legally defined in the Redmont law, and internet dictionary usage does not matter when talking about the law. Only legal definitions matter when talking about law.
 
I will be denying this objection as the Prosecution was the initial party that brought up bribery in their filing when they were defining electoral fraud.

We will now move onto witnesses. Both parties have 48 hours to list all of their witnesses, or state that they have none.
 
The prosecution calls no witnesses.
 
Alright, we will now move onto closing statements. The prosecution has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
The prosecution has failed to meet the deadline. I hereby charge neemfy with one count of contempt of court, and order the DOJ to fine/jail him appropriately.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
Apologies for missing the opening statement, Your Honor. The defendant and the state have worked out a plea deal, a guilty plea for a $10,000 fine and a 2 month barring from office.
 
The Defendant has 48 hours to state that they agree or disagree. Furthermore if they disagree, they must post their closing statement within this time period.
 
We do not agree with the plea deal and will be posting our closing statement shortly.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, your Honor, opposing counsel,

My client has attempted to commit election fraud. He attempted to give money to people to vote for him. He is incredibly incompetent, however. He failed miserably at this goal and thus, no one took him up on his offer.

Under Redmont law, the crime of electoral fraud is defined as:

“Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.”

“…rigging or meddling…” means that the person caught must have succeeded. It does not say “has attempted to rig or meddle” or any such similar wording.

A point that the prosecution alluded to was that bribery is defined as:

“The act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity.”

The purpose of this law is to prevent persons in power from being given money to abuse their position. Anyone that was offered money was not offered money for the purpose of using a public office to abuse power. All persons offered money were offered such money as private citizens and as such, the crime of bribery does not fit the bill.

Let me give a hypothetical situation.

If there is a crime that says it is illegal to buy clothing from someone, and I go to 15 different people and offer money to buy a piece of their clothing, but none accepted the offer, I did not commit the crime of buying someone’s clothing. I have attempted to commit that crime, however, I was unsuccessful.

That is the case here today. It seems that the prosecution is blatantly aware of this as they are too afraid to have posted a closing statement and are trying to hide behind a plea offer that was given to the prosecution but was never accepted by the prosecution.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Lawanoesepr [2022] FCR 95

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. The Defendant offered multiple people money to vote for them in the house of representative election.
2. Therefore he has committed electoral fraud by bribing people to vote for him.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant admits to offering money to people in exchange for their vote.
2. The Defendant didn't win the election so the bribery doesn't matter.
3. The Defendant attempted to rig the election, but failed therefore he didn't commit the crime.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Whether or not the Defendant won the election, it is clear and obvious that he tried to bribe people to vote for him.
2. Because he tried to bribe people to vote for him, he meddled with the election. (Again it doesn't matter that he still lost the election).
3. Furthermore, it is extremely likely that Lawanoesepr, despite not winning the election, still got more people to vote for him by paying them.

IV. SENTENCE
1. I hereby find the Defendant guilty on 2 counts of electoral fraud. I hereby order the DOJ to fine Lawanoesepr $15,000 for each charge, for a total of $30,000. Furthermore, Lawanoesepr will be temporarily banned from holding public office for a period of 2 months (1 month for each charge).

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top