Lawsuit: Dismissed Commonwealth of Redmont v. MilkCrack [2023] FCR 74

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

MilkCrack
Defendant

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

As the Attorney General, I hold deep sorrow that the circumstances have become so extreme as to require a criminal prosecution against the Chief Justice himself.

Unfortunately, the unilateral actions taken by the Chief Justice, the lasting consequences of those actions, the lies stated in court, among other illegal action(s), have all led up to this case.

Throughout this case, it will become clear that Chief Justice MilkCrack destroyed several months of court records, lied about (some of) those records’ classification and/or “classified” them without the proper authority to do so, unilaterally made decisions on behalf of the Supreme Court, and leaked classified information.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. MilkCrack (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On July 18, 2023, MilkCrack admitted to the Associate Justices that he had deleted “the old forums” [Exhibit A].
2. These Discord forums held months of court records [Exhibit A].
3. On July 18, 2023, MilkCrack claimed that “all court records are on the forums” (referring to the DemocracyCraft forums) [Exhibit A].
4. MilkCrack then claimed that “deliberations aren’t supposed to be logged” even though they are official court communications – available for subpoena and FOI request at any time [Exhibit B].
5. On August 1, 2023, a subpoena was issued by the Federal Court, requiring MilkCrack to appear in the Federal Court [Exhibit D].
6. After receiving a contempt of court charge for tardiness, MilkCrack appeared on August 4, 2023 [Exhibit E]
7. On August 4, 2023, MilkCrack claimed “The only proper response would be to determine whether the information is properly classified” [Exhibit F].
8. Through witness testimony and/or a subpoena/warrant, it will be further shown in this case that the information requested by the Federal Court was not classified whatsoever. [Waiting for Witness Testimony]
9. On August 5, 2023, the Federal Court created a Closed Court with classification level SECRET. MilkCrack leaked this classified information to an unauthorized individual – LilDigiVert – by adding him to the channel. [Exhibit G, Exhibit H, Exhibit M]
10. On August 6, 2023, MilkCrack claimed “The Supreme Court has decided to allow the Chief Justice to review the evidence as stated within the Classification Act” [Exhibit I].
11. Just 6 minutes later, MilkCrack claimed “Upon thorough examination and contemplation, I have reached the determination that the only evidence within the scope of the subpoena is 1 message by Justice JoeGamer.

The rest of the deliberations are not available as they were most likely not kept on in the course of a re-organization of the judiciary discord which happened a month ago.

It is my understanding that this message should be classified SECRET to protect the integrity of our judicial process. If it were to be released it could cause significant collateral damage to the integrity of the court and by extension the government” [Exhibit J].
12. MilkCrack admitted that it was he who deleted the records [Exhibit A, Exhibit K].
13. Through witness testimony and/or a subpoena/warrant, it will be further shown in this case that the claim made by MilkCrack (in Fact 10) in the Federal Court was false testimony. [Waiting for Witness Testimony]
14. Breach of Integrity is defined by the Classification Act as “Where an individual shares information of classified nature when unauthorised.”
15. Perjury is defined by the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act as “The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court.”
16. Corruption is defined by the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act as “The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.”
17. Treason is defined by the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act as “The act of a party in federal office who is caught attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.”
18. The Classification Act states “Judicial discussions for ongoing court cases are classified by default and no player outside the discussion may be given access to view them, regardless of clearance. The classification expires when the verdict is announced, however the Supreme Court may classify parts of the discussion to prevent confidential evidence from being released.”
19. The White Collar Crack Down Act defines Fraud as “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation”
20. As this case does not seek to remove MilkCrack from office, the Federal Court has original jurisdiction.
21. The Classification Act states “(1) By default, security clearances are applied as follows below. However, the Chief of Staff may manage clearances at the direction of the President. Security clearances are reverted to default with a new President. Note a high clearance does not give access to multiple classification levels. (i.e., SC-1 does not give clearance to CABINET information)
a. SC-1 - Authorised to view SECRET information. This clearance includes all Representatives and Senators.
b. SC-2 - Authorised to view CABINET information. This clearance includes all members of Cabinet, including the President.
c. SC-3 - Authorised to view OFFICIAL information that is in relation to their course of duties. This clearance includes all members of a department, each department having a separate SC-3 clearance.
d. Nil - Authorised to view UNCLASSIFIED information. This includes all players.“ – Thus, the President does not have SC-1 clearance by default.
22. The Classification Act states “Judicial Privilege - Legal immunity enjoyed by judges and parties of litigation whereby information being used in court as evidence is exempt from Breach of Integrity. Content of the evidence should be considered to determine if an open court is appropriate.”
23. Although some of the evidence in this case was classified, the content was considered by the DLA and it was determined that open court is appropriate, in accordance with Fact 22 and the Classification Act.. Additionally, the evidence was provided by a whistleblower – the evidence was obtained legally and the whistleblower’s identity is to be protected unless they choose to make their identity known.

III. CHARGES
1. One count of Breach of Integrity – By leaking classified information (active closed-court proceedings) to an unauthorized individual (LilDigiVert), MilkCrack committed the crime of Breach of Integrity.
2. One count of Perjury – By claiming that “The Supreme Court has decided to allow the Chief Justice to review the evidence as stated within the Classification Act,” MilkCrack gave false testimony in court and thus committed the crime of Perjury.
3. One count of Corruption – By acting unilaterally as the sole decision-maker of the Supreme Court, MilkCrack covered up the mistakes he made and committed multiple crimes to improve his standing within the Judiciary. These actions were inconsistent with his official duty and gave a notable advantage to himself.
4. One count of Treason – By acting unilaterally as the sole decision-maker of the Supreme Court, MilkCrack covered up the mistakes he made and committed multiple crimes to improve his standing within the Judiciary. These actions undermined the sovereignty and stability of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court, and by extension, the Commonwealth of Redmont. These actions were malicious in nature, as they were criminal by nature and intended to benefit solely himself.
5. One count of Fraud – The Federal Court justifiably relied on the misrepresentation of whether or not the Supreme Court actually “decided to allow the Chief Justice to review the evidence.” As a result, the procedure of the case changed, not in accordance with the actual facts. As a result, MilkCrack defrauded the Judiciary, the Federal Court, and by extension, the Commonwealth of Redmont.

IV. SENTENCING
1. For one count of Breach of Integrity – a $20,000 fine.
2. For one count of Perjury – a $50,000 fine and 60 minutes in jail.
3. For one count of Corruption – a $25,000 fine.
4. For one count of Treason – a $25,000 fine.
5. For one count of Fraud – $10,000 in punitive damages.
Total: $130,000 in fines and 60 minutes in jail.

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Exhibit E

Spoiler: Exhibit F

Spoiler: Exhibit G

Spoiler: Exhibit H

Spoiler: Exhibit I

Spoiler: Exhibit J

Spoiler: Exhibit K

Exhibit L:
Included in case I didn’t screenshot something important.
Lawsuit: In Session - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62

Spoiler: Exhibit M

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 10th day of August 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE I

We ask that MilkCrack recuse himself from this case, as he is the defendant.

MOTION TO RECUSE II

We ask that BananaNova recuse himself from this case, as he is shown in the evidence to already have opinions on the matter.

MOTION TO RECUSE III

We ask that JoeGamer recuse himself from this case, as he is shown in the evidence to already have opinions on the matter.

 

[JoeGamer]

After careful consideration and review of all facts, charges, and evidence, I have made the determination to not recuse myself from this case

The reason for recusal against me was that I have already formed opinions on the matter laid before the Federal Court. However, this claim is not backed by facts, charges, and evidence laid before the Court. The Commonwealth has laid out five charges against the Chief Justice of which I have never claimed the Chief Justice has done. In evidence A and B, I can be seen expressing my discontent with Chief Justice Milkcrack deleting several channels in the Judiciary discord and why I was frustrated. Further, I've given Chief Justice Milkcrack my interpretation of things when asked and we've disagreed on multiple things. However, I never expressed the actions could be illegal let alone lead to criminal charges being brought before the Federal Court. There is a big line between expressing displeasure about something and saying something is illegal and should be prosecuted. Again, I never claimed the defendant did something illegal, only that this could be problematic and that I was frustrated with the decision of the Chief Justice.


As a Justice of Redmont, I've been appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court to preside over and deliver non-bias verdicts and to uphold the Constitution of Redmont. The Constitution provides all accused the right to a fair and speedy trial. I will uphold my duty to the Constitution and preside over this case with the same dignity and integrity I hold myself to all other cases I preside and deliver an opinion on; this case is no exception.

 

[JoeGamer]

Before I issue a summons, I would like to know how the evidence from the Judiciary discord was obtained to make sure that it was obtained legally. The Commonwealth is to provide how this evidence was obtained to the Court. This is to be done within the next 48 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

After careful consideration and review of all facts, charges, and evidence, I have made the determination to not recuse myself from this case

The reason for recusal against me was that I have already formed opinions on the matter laid before the Federal Court. However, this claim is not backed by facts, charges, and evidence laid before the Court. The Commonwealth has laid out five charges against the Chief Justice of which I have never claimed the Chief Justice has done. In evidence A and B, I can be seen expressing my discontent with Chief Justice Milkcrack deleting several channels in the Judiciary discord and why I was frustrated. Further, I've given Chief Justice Milkcrack my interpretation of things when asked and we've disagreed on multiple things. However, I never expressed the actions could be illegal let alone lead to criminal charges being brought before the Federal Court. There is a big line between expressing displeasure about something and saying something is illegal and should be prosecuted. Again, I never claimed the defendant did something illegal, only that this could be problematic and that I was frustrated with the decision of the Chief Justice.


As a Justice of Redmont, I've been appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court to preside over and deliver non-bias verdicts and to uphold the Constitution of Redmont. The Constitution provides all accused the right to a fair and speedy trial. I will uphold my duty to the Constitution and preside over this case with the same dignity and integrity I hold myself to all other cases I preside and deliver an opinion on; this case is no exception.

Your honor,

With all due respect, we believe that your expressed displeasure with MilkCrack's actions create the appearance of bias - a valid reason for recusal according to the JSA.

Thus, under the JSA, we will be requesting than Justice @Banana make a decision regarding JoeGamer's recusal.

I will also note that this is likely going to be my last forums post before Monday, due to IRL circumstances. Should a response from me be requested, I ask for an extension until Monday.

 

[Banana]

It is my opinion that Justice JoeGamer's opinions were not sufficiently negative towards Chief Justice MilkCrack to cause a biased outcome. I believe that Justice JoeGamer has the ability to make an impartial decision based on the facts and arguments alone. I will reject the request to recuse Justice JoeGamer from this case.

 

[Dartanboy]

Very well. @JoeGamer I request to be permitted to answer your request on Monday after I return from an out-of-state funeral.

(I'm sending this message on my phone).

 

[Dartanboy]

Before I issue a summons, I would like to know how the evidence from the Judiciary discord was obtained to make sure that it was obtained legally. The Commonwealth is to provide how this evidence was obtained to the Court. This is to be done within the next 48 hours.

Your honor,

The evidence was obtained via a whistleblower complaint, which is protected.

Thank you.

 

[JoeGamer]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milkcrack. 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.​

 

[Westray]

Your honour, I would like to petition the court for permission to file an amicus curiae (brief) to provide some insight that I believe may be overlooked by both parties.

This is requested in accordance with previous precedent where legal professionals seeking to provide relevant information have been granted the opportunity to provide perspective.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honour, I would like to petition the court for permission to file an amicus curiae (brief) to provide some insight that I believe may be overlooked by both parties.

This is requested in accordance with previous precedent where legal professionals seeking to provide relevant information have been granted the opportunity to provide perspective.

You may file an amicus curiae. Please do so within the next 24 hours.

 

[Milkcrack]

Your honour, I have had some unexpected personal obligations surrounding my school. Although I was aware of this lawsuit before being summoned, there were a number of recent events and developments between that and me being summoned, therefore I had not had the proper time to come up with a response. That is why I want to request a 24-hour extension on the deadline.

 

[Westray]

You may file an amicus curiae. Please do so within the next 24 hours.

Thank you, your honour. Apologies for the delay. I appreciate the opportunity to present the court with the following.

This is a case of significance that will have an impact on the future of the judiciary as well as how the separation of powers is constitutionally interpreted. Before this case gets underway, some important context should be noted.

Based on the screenshots provided by the prosecution, the evidence was obtained through the submission of the Hon. Justice BananaNova. Under the evidence presented, Exhibit C and G clearly show discord pings directed towards BananaNova (other discord screenshots also line up with the same timezone records). Identifying who provided this evidence is important to being able to verify its validity, and the prosecution's "whistleblower protection" argument shouldn't hold up in this case. It is important that the court acknowleges that someone specific provided those screenshots, so that witness testimony and context of those snippets can be argued before the court.

If it is true that BananaNova did provide those screenshots to the attorney general, then it is important that the full context of this report should be revealed. What did Banana present to the prosecution? Is there potential infighting or sabotage within the judiciary that should be investigated?

I also want to continue to stress the importance of this matter. While this case may not involve the removal of the Chief Justice as the defendant, it does involve answering questions that will apply for the future. These questions could include:

- What are the limits of presidential authority to see classified information?
- What happens when judges have disputes with one another in this context?
- Does the court have any authority to modify channels on the discord?
- Is it considered destroying evidence if any private government discord channel is deleted for reorganization?

Finally, I want to highlight my reasoning why this case should be brought before congress instead. There is far too many conflicts in this the case of the appearance of bias. Allegations of judicial corruption have almost always been investigated through congressional means, via hearings and an impeachment process.

While I believe that you have the best intentions of this case, your honour. You are not fit to take this case in terms of an appearance of bias. You have outrightly argued with the defendant about this issue and therefore have a potential for prejudice on the case. I point out this clause in our constitutional rights:

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed 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 defense.

While the defendant has a right to a speedy trial, they also have a right to a fair trial.

With that I respectfully submit such.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The Amicus Curiae Brief fails miserably to solely provide facts and legal analysis, and acts primarily as a Motion to Recuse and/or Motion to Dismiss.

For this reason, we believe the Brief should be struck.

 

[Milkcrack]

Your Honor,
During this case being filed and me having an opportunity to respond several events happened to which I was not yet able to respond. That is why I have also included a few arguments/comments about those events for the court to consider.

Comments on the Motion to Recuse:
The motion for recusal was severely lacking in content and therefore the court could not have possibly considered all possible reasons for recusal, thus undermining the very right the motion is tasked to protect, the right to a fair trial presided over by an impartial judge. That i why I would like to state that preventing me from voicing my concerns regarding recusal infringes upon my constitutional rights.

Furthermore, my constitutional rights mandate that the prosecution make clear the accusations against me including the evidence against me. Regrettably, this obligation has been insufficiently fulfilled. The insufficiently established scope of the case impedes my ability to mount an effective defence and also evaluate the necessity of recusal. Consequently, I am required to await a ruling on the motion to dismiss, which should clarify the case's scope before I can consider filing a potential motion to recuse.

Motion to Disallow Classified Evidence:
Your Honor, the way the prosecution has handled this classified information is appalling. The prosecution's unilateral disclosure of classified information in open court raises significant concerns.

The argument, the prosecution stated for doing so however is fundamentally flawed.

A whistleblower's immunity does not declassify shared information nor exempt it from the preservation of integrity when accessed by unauthorized parties. The Classification Act and the court procedures distinctly outline the procedure for utilizing classified information in closed court settings. This procedure, disregarded by the prosecution, constitutes a breach of integrity by the Attorney General.

That is why I request the Court to bar the use of the classified evidence, given its unlawful introduction.

This breach of integrity was clearly motivated by either malicious intent or impetuous negligence, aiming to manipulate public opinion instead of upholding justice. Should the case not be dismissed, I seek a pre-trial hearing to demonstrate the malicious prosecution initiated by the Attorney General.

Motion to Dismiss:
Your Honor, this motion to dismiss will consist of some general arguments as well as some arguments relating to each specific charge.

Disruption of Judicial Process:
The prosecution's actions suggest a focus on swaying public opinion rather than adhering to legal procedure. Public release of unauthorized classified evidence, propagation of baseless allegations, and manipulation of public sentiment have considerably disrupted the judicial process, warranting case dismissal.

Violation of Due Process Rights and Malicious Prosecution.
The prosecution's attempts to mould the trial into a public spectacle including but not limited to adding baseless charges to get a higher fine amount and petitioning every available judge to recuse to have the case not ruled upon. This is a violation of my right to a fair and speedy trial, which warrants this case's dismissal.

If this case is not dismissed based on its merits alone I request a pre-trial hearing on the matter of malicious prosecution.

Violation of Separation of Powers:
This case pertains to my official responsibilities as Chief Justice. Matters involving my official duties are within the purview of Congress, not the Department of Legal Affairs. The prosecution's manoeuvre to exploit jurisdictional nuances reflects a violation of due process rights and the separation of powers.

Subject matter jurisdiction concerns:
The prosecution's case hinges upon invalidating Supreme Court decisions, exceeding the court's authority. Continuing the case poses a dangerous precedent and necessitates its dismissal. Suing a justice personally should not be a new legal loophole to get an appeal on a Supreme Court decision ruled over by a single federal court judge.

Breach of Integrity Charge:
The prosecution has failed to establish a proper cause of action for the breach of integrity charge. Even if the facts presented by the prosecution are assumed to be true, the following elements required for a breach of integrity charge have not been adequately alleged:
(a) Lack of Authorization: The prosecution has not adequately alleged the lack of authorization of LilDigiVert. Without a clear and substantiated accusation of non-authorization, I cannot adequately defend against this charge. President LilDigivert had the proper clearance.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Determining the authorization status of LilDigiVert falls within the purview of the Chief Justice, and it is beyond the jurisdiction of this court to question or override this decision.

Perjury Charge:
The perjury charge lacks a proper cause of action. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements required for a perjury charge:
(a) Supreme Court Statements: The prosecution has inaccurately labelled my statement as perjury regarding the Supreme Court's decision. As the Chief Justice, it is my duty to announce Supreme Court decisions and therefore I did not provide testimony.
(b) State of Mind Element: The prosecution has not provided any probable cause to believe that I knowingly made a false statement in court. A charge of perjury requires a showing of intentional deception, which has not been demonstrated.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: For the perjury charge to continue, the Supreme Court's ruling must be invalidated, a Supreme Court decision that is beyond the authority of this court.

Corruption Charge:
The prosecution's case for the corruption charge lacks a proper cause of action. The essential elements required for a corruption charge have not been adequately alleged:
(a) Inconsistent Actions: The prosecution has not sufficiently alleged how my actions were inconsistent with official duty. It is also not clear what actions are referenced specifically.
(b) Rights of Others: The prosecution has failed to establish how my actions infringed upon the rights of others.
(c) Unfair Benefit: The prosecution has not provided evidence to demonstrate how I unfairly benefited myself or someone else through the alleged actions.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Like the previous charges, for the corruption charge to proceed, the Supreme Court's ruling must be invalidated, a decision that is outside the scope of this court's jurisdiction.

Treason Charge:
The prosecution's case for the treason charge lacks a proper cause of action. The essential elements required for a treason charge have not been adequately alleged:
(a) State of Mind: The prosecution has not presented any facts or evidence regarding my state of mind, which is essential to establish the malicious intent required for treason.
(b) Sabotage or Undermining: The prosecution has failed to allege any acts of sabotage or undermining of the government's stability, sovereignty, or security, a key element for a treason charge.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: For the treason charge to proceed, the Supreme Court's ruling must be invalidated, a decision that falls beyond the jurisdiction of this court.

Fraud Charge:
The prosecution's case for the fraud charge lacks proper grounding and fails to establish the necessary elements for a fraud charge:

• The prosecution has not adequately shown intentionality or recklessness in my alleged misrepresentation.
• The victim, reliance on misrepresentation, and actual damages have not been demonstrated.
• Who would be the victim is also not clear.
• What the quantifiable injury would be is also not clear.
• How the statement acted as a material inducement is also not clear.

For the reasons listed above, I respectfully ask this court to dismiss this case.

 

[JoeGamer]

Apologies Milkcrack, I wasn't able to respond to your extension request yesterday. I will admit your statement as I would have granted the extension.

The Commonwealth has 48 hours to respond to all motions and requests made to the Court.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The Amicus Curiae Brief fails miserably to solely provide facts and legal analysis, and acts primarily as a Motion to Recuse and/or Motion to Dismiss.

For this reason, we believe the Brief should be struck.

I will be accepting this motion.
The point of an Amicus Curiae Brief (literally meaning "friend of the court") is to provide the Court with a legal analysis of the case presented and additional facts that may have been left out. However, this brief has provided no legal analysis that pertains to this case. It is not for this Court to decide what should be handled by Congress and what should be handled by the Department of Legal Affairs. If Congress believes that the actions presented in this case warrant Congressional inquiry, then they may pursue that.
Further, the Court will not allow for a brief to actively attack this Court including myself. This is a completely inappropriate use of an Amicus Curiae and will not be tolerated.

 

[Krix]

This Court case is just a hit job by two associate justices on the Chief Justice because they don't like him and want his job lets not beat around the bush.

 

[JoeGamer]

Representative Krix, you have not been summoned to this case. I hereby find you in direct contempt of court. The DOJ is to fine Representative Krix $500. Do not interfere or obstruct with court proceedings.

 

[Krix]

I apologize your honour,

Your honour, I would like to petition the court for permission to file an amicus curiae (brief) to provide some insight that I believe may be overlooked by both parties.

This is requested in accordance with previous precedent where legal professionals seeking to provide relevant information have been granted the opportunity to provide perspective.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS

I. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISALLOW CLASSIFIED EVIDENCE

The Defendant claims, "Your Honor, the way the prosecution has handled this classified information is appalling. The prosecution's unilateral disclosure of classified information in open court raises significant concerns.

The argument, the prosecution stated for doing so however is fundamentally flawed.

A whistleblower's immunity does not declassify shared information nor exempt it from the preservation of integrity when accessed by unauthorized parties. The Classification Act and the court procedures distinctly outline the procedure for utilizing classified information in closed court settings. This procedure, disregarded by the prosecution, constitutes a breach of integrity by the Attorney General.

That is why I request the Court to bar the use of the classified evidence, given its unlawful introduction."

Your honor, as already stated in Fact 22, the Classification Act clearly grants "Legal immunity enjoyed by judges and parties of litigation whereby information being used in court as evidence is exempt from Breach of Integrity. Content of the evidence should be considered to determine if an open court is appropriate." (emphasis added)

The Classification Act clearly allows for classified evidence to be used in court - even open court if it is appropriate. We do not believe any of this information holds any significant danger or detriment to the Commonwealth or her people, and for this reason, we believe open court is appropriate, in accordance with the Classification Act.

The evidence was introduced lawfully. The Chief Justice has made several statements without citing any laws or facts to back up their claims, including saying the evidence had an "unlawful introduction," stating that this case is "breach of integrity by the Attorney General," that this case is "aiming to manipulate public opinion," and that this is a "malicious prosecution initiated by the Attorney General."

Despite the evidence-less claims made by the Defendant, the State has provided legal arguments and facts backing up our points, including:

• The legality of classified evidence in this court room
• The fact that this does not constitute Breach of Integrity

Furthermore, I am appalled that the Chief Justice would stoop as low as to attack my character, but it does not matter. I urge the court to consider the facts and the laws, and not emotional attacks such as these.

I would also like to note that while I am representing the Commonwealth in this court room, I am not the only person working on this case, but due to the political nature of the Defendant's high-level government position, and the involvement of the President, they understandably do not wish to be identified. I will not back down for fear of political attacks. This term's DLA strives to uphold justice.

II. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
As the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss consisted of several sections, so too will the response.

ON DISRUPTION OF JUDICIAL PROCESS
The Defendant claims, "The prosecution's actions suggest a focus on swaying public opinion rather than adhering to legal procedure. Public release of unauthorized classified evidence, propagation of baseless allegations, and manipulation of public sentiment have considerably disrupted the judicial process, warranting case dismissal."

• We have fully adhered to legal procedure, providing a criminal action along with other reasonable court filings.
• The release of classified evidence was already addressed.
• There are 13 Exhibits of evidence and 23 Facts which the Defendant has not opposed. I'm not sure how these accusations could be remotely "baseless."
• The Commonwealth does not care about the public sentiment surrounding this case. We are to focus on the laws and the facts of the case.

For these reasons, we oppose this Motion to Dismiss.

ON VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
The Defendant claims, "The prosecution's attempts to mould the trial into a public spectacle including but not limited to adding baseless charges to get a higher fine amount and petitioning every available judge to recuse to have the case not ruled upon. This is a violation of my right to a fair and speedy trial, which warrants this case's dismissal.

If this case is not dismissed based on its merits alone I request a pre-trial hearing on the matter of malicious prosecution."

• Once again, the Commonwealth does not care about the public opinion. We are not attempting "to mould the trial into a public spectacle." All charges have evidence and facts to back them up, and we intend to fully prove them throughout this case.
• We asked every Judge to recuse because we believed each Judge had a Conflict of Interest. This is a reasonable thing to do, and is certainly not a valid reason to dismiss a case.
• This case involves someone with a high-level government position, and it is therefore a naturally high-profile case, but again, the Commonwealth wants to focus on facts and laws, and we urge both the Defendant and the Court to do the same.

For these reasons, we oppose this Motion to Dismiss.

ON VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
The Defendant claims, "This case pertains to my official responsibilities as Chief Justice. Matters involving my official duties are within the purview of Congress, not the Department of Legal Affairs. The prosecution's manoeuvre to exploit jurisdictional nuances reflects a violation of due process rights and the separation of powers."

• Yes, this case pertains to MilkCrack's official responsibilities as Chief Justice.
• While Congress is free to investigate these actions independently, so too is the Department of Legal Affairs.
• This is not an attempt to exploit jurisdictional nuances, it is a simple investigation and prosecution of the DLA.

For these reasons, we oppose this Motion to Dismiss.

ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CONCERNS
The Defendant claims, "The prosecution's case hinges upon invalidating Supreme Court decisions, exceeding the court's authority. Continuing the case poses a dangerous precedent and necessitates its dismissal. Suing a justice personally should not be a new legal loophole to get an appeal on a Supreme Court decision ruled over by a single federal court judge."

I'm not sure I fully understand the Defendant's point here. We have not invalidated even one Supreme Court decision, so I'm not sure what the Defendant means. Furthermore, this is not a legal loophole nor has there been any appeals.

ON BREACH OF INTEGRITY
The Defendant claims, "The prosecution has failed to establish a proper cause of action for the breach of integrity charge. Even if the facts presented by the prosecution are assumed to be true, the following elements required for a breach of integrity charge have not been adequately alleged:
(a) Lack of Authorization: The prosecution has not adequately alleged the lack of authorization of LilDigiVert. Without a clear and substantiated accusation of non-authorization, I cannot adequately defend against this charge. President LilDigivert had the proper clearance.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Determining the authorization status of LilDigiVert falls within the purview of the Chief Justice, and it is beyond the jurisdiction of this court to question or override this decision."

Lack of Authorization was fully alleged. We claimed "By leaking classified information (active closed-court proceedings) to an unauthorized individual (LilDigiVert), MilkCrack committed the crime of Breach of Integrity."

Clearly, we alleged that LilDigiVert was unauthorized, and we intend to prove so throughout this case.

Furthermore, the Defendant claims that this is a responsibility held solely by the Chief Justice, but fails to provide any laws or evidence showing that this is the case. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth has presented the Classification Act, Fact 21, and Exhibit M.

ON PERJURY
The Defendant claims, "The perjury charge lacks a proper cause of action. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements required for a perjury charge:
(a) Supreme Court Statements: The prosecution has inaccurately labelled my statement as perjury regarding the Supreme Court's decision. As the Chief Justice, it is my duty to announce Supreme Court decisions and therefore I did not provide testimony.
(b) State of Mind Element: The prosecution has not provided any probable cause to believe that I knowingly made a false statement in court. A charge of perjury requires a showing of intentional deception, which has not been demonstrated.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: For the perjury charge to continue, the Supreme Court's ruling must be invalidated, a Supreme Court decision that is beyond the authority of this court."

When you represent another entity in court, it is still you who may be found guilty of perjury. Here are a few examples:

• Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72
• Lawsuit: Adjourned - Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20

Your honor, we said, "By claiming that “The Supreme Court has decided to allow the Chief Justice to review the evidence as stated within the Classification Act,” MilkCrack gave false testimony in court and thus committed the crime of Perjury." and "Through witness testimony and/or a subpoena/warrant, it will be further shown in this case that the claim made by MilkCrack (in Fact 10) in the Federal Court was false testimony. [Waiting for Witness Testimony]"

While we didn't say it verbatim, we believe that MilkCrack knows that he did not ask the rest of the Supreme Court about this decision and that he made it himself. We also believe that, after witness testimony, there will be sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt that this is, in-fact, perjury.

If this requires a case filing amendment, we will oblige (see precedent: Lawsuit: Dismissed - Supersuperking v. bibsfi4a [2023] FCR 55).

Once again, we are not invalidating any Supreme Court decisions.

ON CORRUPTION
The Defendant claims, "The prosecution's case for the corruption charge lacks a proper cause of action. The essential elements required for a corruption charge have not been adequately alleged:
(a) Inconsistent Actions: The prosecution has not sufficiently alleged how my actions were inconsistent with official duty. It is also not clear what actions are referenced specifically.
(b) Rights of Others: The prosecution has failed to establish how my actions infringed upon the rights of others.
(c) Unfair Benefit: The prosecution has not provided evidence to demonstrate how I unfairly benefited myself or someone else through the alleged actions.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Like the previous charges, for the corruption charge to proceed, the Supreme Court's ruling must be invalidated, a decision that is outside the scope of this court's jurisdiction."

We claimed, "By acting unilaterally as the sole decision-maker of the Supreme Court, MilkCrack covered up the mistakes he made and committed multiple crimes to improve his standing within the Judiciary. These actions were inconsistent with his official duty and gave a notable advantage to himself."

Crimes are, by nature, inconsistent with all government official duty. Crimes are, by nature, infringing upon the rights of others. These particular crimes, by nature, give a benefit to the perpetrator. Even so, we claimed "these actions were inconsistent with his official duty and gave a notable advantage to himself."

Finally, in [2022] SCR 16 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16), the Supreme Court established what has become known as "The Corruption Test" which is used to decide whether or not an action is considered Corruption. This is the test: "1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? 2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office?"

Again, we alleged that both of these questions would be answered with a yes.

Once again, we are not invalidating any Supreme Court decisions.

ON TREASON
The Defendant claims, "The prosecution's case for the treason charge lacks a proper cause of action. The essential elements required for a treason charge have not been adequately alleged:
(a) State of Mind: The prosecution has not presented any facts or evidence regarding my state of mind, which is essential to establish the malicious intent required for treason.
(b) Sabotage or Undermining: The prosecution has failed to allege any acts of sabotage or undermining of the government's stability, sovereignty, or security, a key element for a treason charge.
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: For the treason charge to proceed, the Supreme Court's ruling must be invalidated, a decision that falls beyond the jurisdiction of this court."

We claimed, "By acting unilaterally as the sole decision-maker of the Supreme Court, MilkCrack covered up the mistakes he made and committed multiple crimes to improve his standing within the Judiciary. These actions undermined the sovereignty and stability of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court, and by extension, the Commonwealth of Redmont. These actions were malicious in nature, as they were criminal by nature and intended to benefit solely himself."

Once again, we alleged malicousness and undermining of the sovereignty and stability of the Commonwealth. It's all right there.

Once again, we are not invalidating any Supreme Court decisions.

ON FRAUD
The Defendant claims, "The prosecution's case for the fraud charge lacks proper grounding and fails to establish the necessary elements for a fraud charge:

• The prosecution has not adequately shown intentionality or recklessness in my alleged misrepresentation.
• The victim, reliance on misrepresentation, and actual damages have not been demonstrated.
• Who would be the victim is also not clear.
• What the quantifiable injury would be is also not clear.
• How the statement acted as a material inducement is also not clear."

We said, "The Federal Court justifiably relied on the misrepresentation of whether or not the Supreme Court actually “decided to allow the Chief Justice to review the evidence.” As a result, the procedure of the case changed, not in accordance with the actual facts. As a result, MilkCrack defrauded the Judiciary, the Federal Court, and by extension, the Commonwealth of Redmont."

• Your honor, similarly to the perjury charge, we believe intentionality is reasonably implied, and will be proven during witness testimony. Again, if an amendment is required, we will oblige.
• The victim is the Commonwealth, and that has been alleged.
• The reliance on the misrepresentation is also alleged, by saying "as a result, the procedure of the case changed, not in accordance with the actual facts."
• The actual damages is also alleged, in the same sentence as above.
• Once again, the victim is clearly the Commonwealth.
• The quantifiable injury is the procedure of one case changing, not in accordance with the actual facts.

III. FINAL NOTES
As far as we can tell, the Defendant made zero references to any laws, apart from vaguely mentioning Constitutional Rights (and grossly mis-applying them). We believe that our arguments are backed up by a large amount of Evidence, Facts, and Laws.

Furthermore, we implore the court not to entertain emotional arguments, political moves, nor to allow the public opinion to get in the way. We ask for all parties of this case to focus on Facts and Laws.

Thank you.

 

[JoeGamer]

I apologize your honour,

Your honour, I would like to petition the court for permission to file an amicus curiae (brief) to provide some insight that I believe may be overlooked by both parties.

This is requested in accordance with previous precedent where legal professionals seeking to provide relevant information have been granted the opportunity to provide perspective.

Permission denied.

 

[Krix]

Permission denied.

Thank you, your honour.

Apologies for the delay. I appreciate the opportunity to present the court with the following.

This is a case of significance that will have an impact on the future of the judiciary as well as how the separation of powers is constitutionally interpreted. Before this case gets underway, some important context should be noted.

Based on the screenshots provided by the prosecution, the evidence was obtained through the submission of the Hon. Justice BananaNova. Under the evidence presented, Exhibit C and G clearly show discord pings directed towards BananaNova (other discord screenshots also line up with the same timezone records). Identifying who provided this evidence is important to being able to verify its validity, and the prosecution's "whistleblower protection" argument shouldn't hold up in this case. It is important that the court acknowleges that someone specific provided those screenshots, so that witness testimony and context of those snippets can be argued before the court.

If it is true that BananaNova did provide those screenshots to the attorney general, then it is important that the full context of this report should be revealed. What did Banana present to the prosecution? Is there potential infighting or sabotage within the judiciary that should be investigated?

I also want to continue to stress the importance of this matter. While this case may not involve the removal of the Chief Justice as the defendant, it does involve answering questions that will apply for the future. These questions could include:

- What are the limits of presidential authority to see classified information?
- What happens when judges have disputes with one another in this context?
- Does the court have any authority to modify channels on the discord?
- Is it considered destroying evidence if any private government discord channel is deleted for reorganization?

Finally, I want to highlight my reasoning why this case should be brought before congress instead. There is far too many conflicts in this the case of the appearance of bias. Allegations of judicial corruption have almost always been investigated through congressional means, via hearings and an impeachment process.

While I believe that you have the best intentions of this case, your honour. You are not fit to take this case in terms of an appearance of bias. You have outrightly argued with the defendant about this issue and therefore have a potential for prejudice on the case. I point out this clause in our constitutional rights:

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed 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 defense.

While the defendant has a right to a speedy trial, they also have a right to a fair trial.

With that I respectfully submit such.

 

[JoeGamer]

Representative Krix, you have not been summoned to this case and the Court has explicitly denied you the ability to file your brief. I hereby find you in direct contempt of court. The DOJ is to fine Representative Krix $1000 and 5 minutes of jail time are to be served by the Representative. Do not interfere or obstruct with court proceedings.

 

[JoeGamer]

After careful consideration, the Court is prepared to rule on all pending motions.

On the matter of classified evidence
I am extremely disappointed in the actions of the Attorney General in this case. The Attorney General admitted in his initial filing that some of the evidence given to the Court was classified and instead of presenting this evidence in closed court, made the decision to release the evidence in an open court. This is unacceptable. It is not the duty of the Attorney General to declassify material how he sees fit. As the defendant correctly points out, a whistleblower's immunity in presenting classified information to a body does not declassify the material. This is not how evidence is to be handled from a whistleblower. Seeing as the classified evidence has been mishandled by the Attorney General by putting knowingly classified evidence into open court, all classified material will be struck from the record and will not be permitted into this trial. Improper evidence will not be allowed in a trial.

On the motions to dismiss
Under Section 18 of the Redmont Constitution, all Supreme Court decisions are binding on the lower courts. On the matters brought before the case today, the Supreme Court has made its final decision and the Federal Court cannot change the decision of the Supreme Court. The matters brought before the Court lack jurisdiction in the Federal Court. If the Court were to find Milkcrack guilty of any of the charges, the Federal Court would be going directly against the decision the Supreme Court made. This would be unconstitutional as the Federal Court is bound to the decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has made its final decision on the matters in the case, the Federal Court cannot overturn its decision.

This case is hereby dismissed.

The Court thanks each party for their time.