Lawsuit: In Session Commonwealth of Redmont v. The_Superior10 [2024] FCR 119

[Nacho]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

The_Superior10
Defendant

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

PROSECUTING AUTHORITY REPORT
The_Superior10 advertises that he farms votes and collects a fee for doing so publicly. The_Superior10 has attempted to manipulate voter turnout by offering a monetary incentive to benefit a specific ticket over the next. The The_Superior10's actions of paying individuals a monetary incentive is a textbook case of meddling in elections by manipulating voter turnout. It is apparent to the Department of Justice that this is not the first time this has happened.

I. PARTIES
1. The_Superieor10
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Commonwealth agent identified an Oakridge black market stall owned by The_Superior10 with information about purchasing votes.
2. Screenshots of the interaction with The_Superior10 were submitted to the prosecutor's office for review.
3. The_Superior10 outlined the process of collecting votes via money transactions.
4. The_Superior10 described his process to obtain money and distribute votes to candidates.
5. The Commonwealth determined that The_Superior10 did not capture money but expressed interest in collecting funds and distributing votes.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 count of Conspiracy to commit electoral fraud - The Defendant has attempted to distribute funds to meddle and manipulate voter turnouts within an election managed by the Department of State.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. Charge 1 - $25,000 + Temporary removal of up to 2 months from public office.


By making this submission, I agree to understand the penalties of lying in court and that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 26 day of August 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@The_Superior10 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. The_Superior10. 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.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

The_Superior10 (Represented by AlexanderLove)
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. The defense pleas not guilty.


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 28th day of August 2024

 

[Unseatedduke1]

We will now begin a 3-day discovery period. After this period, the prosecution will have 72 hours to submit their opening statement, followed by 72 hours for the defense to submit theirs. Any objections or motions from the same party must be consolidated into a single post. Failure to comply will result in a contempt charge—this serves as your warning.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The Prosecution would like to submit the following evidence before the court. Just so you know, we have redacted the names of Department of Justice informants.

Should the court or the defense wish to view this information, we can submit it via closed court.

P-01 - Click Here - The file is too large to upload to forums. Please click the words.

Witnesses

1. The_Superior10 (Accused)

 

[Nacho]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

The counsel of the accused has prior knowledge of this case and was aware of its interworkings before being filed to the court. While there is no apparent objection, this can be filed under the following conditions:

We'd like to ask the court to take action on its authority to remove the individual from the accused counsel because the knowledge counsel has will be violating the ethical doctrine enforced by this court upon lawyers.

Counsel will be violating attorney-client privilege by not knowing previous information on the case. I've attached (P-04) a segment of the counseling being notified of the intent within the Department of Justice investigation thread.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

The Prosecution would like to submit the following evidence before the court. Just so you know, we have redacted the names of Department of Justice informants.

Should the court or the defense wish to view this information, we can submit it via closed court.

P-01 - Click Here - The file is too large to upload to forums. Please click the words.

Witnesses

1. The_Superior10 (Accused)

Your honor, The_Superior10 will not be testifying. He cannot be compelled to testify against himself (for the prosecution).

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

The counsel of the accused has prior knowledge of this case and was aware of its interworkings before being filed to the court. While there is no apparent objection, this can be filed under the following conditions:

We'd like to ask the court to take action on its authority to remove the individual from the accused counsel because the knowledge counsel has will be violating the ethical doctrine enforced by this court upon lawyers.

Counsel will be violating attorney-client privilege by not knowing previous information on the case. I've attached (P-04) a segment of the counseling being notified of the intent within the Department of Justice investigation thread.

Your honor, the evidence shows no indication that I was informed about this case. I haven’t worked for DOJ for quite a while. Even then, I can’t be thrown off simply for having prior involvement. Court is about openness, so holding prior knowledge doesn’t give me any undue advantage.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Should the court or the defense wish to view this information, we can submit it via closed court.

Objection

Improper Evidence

The other two exhibits are not correctly labelled or marked. Furthermore, the evidence has been edited/tampered with which is not permitted.

Objection

Hearsay

These exhibits feature out of court statements by some mystery person that cannot be cross examined, and are therefore inadmissible. (An intelligent reading on what hearsay actually is, if the prosecution decides to play semantics with the objections guide: link)

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Rule 5.5, lack of claim, is of issue here as no crime has actually been committed. Conspiracy, "the act of intending to commit a crime, without yet having done so", requires two elements. The first is intent, which has not been established. The pictures only describe a potential process, yet does not indicate any clear, unambiguous, attempt to actually carry out an alleged crime (election fraud). The signs in the black market stall do not make any clear intent to commit election fraud, only to sell a vote, in a general sense. This brings us to the second requirement: the commission of a crime. Selling a vote is not inherently illegal. This could be a board of director vote, this could be a vote for Prom King. Neither of those cases are illegal to trade votes. The prosecution is leaping to assumptions that the defendant wishes to sell a vote specifically in a political election, but this is unfounded by the evidence provided. Therefore, lacking both necessary components for conspiracy by the end of discovery, this claim must be dismissed with prejudice.
2. Rules 5.11 and 5.12 jointly deny the prosecution the lack of authority to prosecute under conspiracy of a crime due to the fact black market stalls are statutorily protected under the law. The sign affixed to the outside of the stall even affirms staff's intent to allow the commission of "any illegal services" in this particular black market stall, and since the list of crimes permitted are at staff's discretion, all illegal services are indeed protected in the defendant's black market stall. Furthermore, the law itself is vague as to which crimes are allowed and which are not. This does not permit any citizen intending to utilize the black market stalls for their intended purpose a fair opportunity to know what crimes can and cannot be committed in a stall, so the Court must rule that all crimes are permitted to even the scales and prevent absurdity. Until a more refined list is provided and published by staff and/or the Government, selective cherry-picking violates the right to equality under the law in the Constitution. The only remedy is to permit all crimes in black market stalls until the issue is rectified. Therefore, given the clear staff intent via the sign as well as the constitutional rights issue, this case must be dismissed with prejudice under rules 5.11 and 5.12.

Spoiler: D-1

 

[Alexander P. Love]

P-01 - Click Here -

I apologize for another post with objections, I caught this after I had already posted and didn't want to edit the previous post without the permission of the Court.

Objection

Improper Evidence

Per the Court rules, discord media links are not permitted due to instability.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, The_Superior10 will not be testifying. He cannot be compelled to testify against himself (for the prosecution).

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

The defense has failed to appropriately label this response as either an objection or a motion. We would like to ask that the response be struck from the record and the defense be sanctioned for failing to follow court procedure.

Objection​

Improper Evidence

The other two exhibits are not correctly labelled or marked. Furthermore, the evidence has been edited/tampered with which is not permitted.

Response to Objection:

Your Honor,

While I understand I am not attending or working for a college in IRL, I would like to know how we improperly labeled our evidence. With my 5'' thick lenses, I am reviewing the court guide... I see the following...

And then I review our naming conventions....

I then further conducted a legal analysis of the defense's submission before the court...

According to the guide for evidence submission, we didn't do anything wrong. Further, for the last piece with a redacted name, we informed the court of the exact reason for it being redacted and offered to submit it to the court in closed court. We request that this objection be overruled and the defense be sanctioned for wasting the court's time.

Objection​

Hearsay

These exhibits feature out of court statements by some mystery person that cannot be cross examined, and are therefore inadmissible. (An intelligent reading on what hearsay actually is, if the prosecution decides to play semantics with the objections guide: link)

Response to objection:

Your Honor,

The defense is not very demure in its action on this objection. They state they are excellent lawyers but also need to remember that the official dictionary of Redmont is the Oxford Dictionary (See Clarity Act). Please take a look at the attached definition, which further supports the court's Objection guide.

Furthermore, the court dictates that 'Hearsay' only applies to witness testimony. In this case, it doesn't seem to be enough. The prosecution has also offered the court the ability to provide the unredacted version to the court in closed court. We respectfully request that the court honor this and allow the prosecution the ability to submit it like so.

Objection​

Improper Evidence

Per the Court rules, discord media links are not permitted due to instability.

Response to objection:

Your Honor,

As previously said, we will inevitably purchase a billboard so the defense can read it. We have offered for the court to review the evidence within closed court. We are still determining how to word it better or make the point more apparent to the defense.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defense has failed to appropriately label this response as either an objection or a motion. We would like to ask that the response be struck from the record and the defense be sanctioned for failing to follow court procedure.

The posting was neither an objection nor a motion, it was a declaration. No rule states that everything has to be one of those two items. Informational statements like this as well as unformatted requests have been historically allowed in Court, such as deadline expiration reminders, amicus requests, and more.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

The counsel of the accused has prior knowledge of this case and was aware of its interworkings before being filed to the court. While there is no apparent objection, this can be filed under the following conditions:

We'd like to ask the court to take action on its authority to remove the individual from the accused counsel because the knowledge counsel has will be violating the ethical doctrine enforced by this court upon lawyers.

Counsel will be violating attorney-client privilege by not knowing previous information on the case. I've attached (P-04) a segment of the counseling being notified of the intent within the Department of Justice investigation thread.

Overruled.

Your honor, The_Superior10 will not be testifying. He cannot be compelled to testify against himself (for the prosecution).

He will be testifying for the prosecution. He may plead the 5th during questioning if he likes.

Objection

Improper Evidence

The other two exhibits are not correctly labelled or marked. Furthermore, the evidence has been edited/tampered with which is not permitted.

Objection

Hearsay

These exhibits feature out of court statements by some mystery person that cannot be cross examined, and are therefore inadmissible. (An intelligent reading on what hearsay actually is, if the prosecution decides to play semantics with the objections guide: link)

Motion

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

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Rule 5.5, lack of claim, is of issue here as no crime has actually been committed. Conspiracy, "the act of intending to commit a crime, without yet having done so", requires two elements. The first is intent, which has not been established. The pictures only describe a potential process, yet does not indicate any clear, unambiguous, attempt to actually carry out an alleged crime (election fraud). The signs in the black market stall do not make any clear intent to commit election fraud, only to sell a vote, in a general sense. This brings us to the second requirement: the commission of a crime. Selling a vote is not inherently illegal. This could be a board of director vote, this could be a vote for Prom King. Neither of those cases are illegal to trade votes. The prosecution is leaping to assumptions that the defendant wishes to sell a vote specifically in a political election, but this is unfounded by the evidence provided. Therefore, lacking both necessary components for conspiracy by the end of discovery, this claim must be dismissed with prejudice.
2. Rules 5.11 and 5.12 jointly deny the prosecution the lack of authority to prosecute under conspiracy of a crime due to the fact black market stalls are statutorily protected under the law. The sign affixed to the outside of the stall even affirms staff's intent to allow the commission of "any illegal services" in this particular black market stall, and since the list of crimes permitted are at staff's discretion, all illegal services are indeed protected in the defendant's black market stall. Furthermore, the law itself is vague as to which crimes are allowed and which are not. This does not permit any citizen intending to utilize the black market stalls for their intended purpose a fair opportunity to know what crimes can and cannot be committed in a stall, so the Court must rule that all crimes are permitted to even the scales and prevent absurdity. Until a more refined list is provided and published by staff and/or the Government, selective cherry-picking violates the right to equality under the law in the Constitution. The only remedy is to permit all crimes in black market stalls until the issue is rectified. Therefore, given the clear staff intent via the sign as well as the constitutional rights issue, this case must be dismissed with prejudice under rules 5.11 and 5.12.

Spoiler: D-1

View attachment 47494

All overruled and motion denied.

We will hear this case in a closed court setting.

I apologize for another post with objections, I caught this after I had already posted and didn't want to edit the previous post without the permission of the Court.

Objection

Improper Evidence

Per the Court rules, discord media links are not permitted due to instability.

Sustained. Let's figure out a way to share this.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

The defense has failed to appropriately label this response as either an objection or a motion. We would like to ask that the response be struck from the record and the defense be sanctioned for failing to follow court procedure.

Sustained and struck.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

Upon re-reading your transition with discovery, the prosecution is confused. Should we go right into our opening statements or await your indication before we post?

We ask as we are notably torn between understanding the wording and fear of violating Rule 1.7 Due notice for the court procedure as it's been recently updated.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Please wait while I create the closed court; we will then move on.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

He will be testifying for the prosecution. He may plead the 5th during questioning if he likes.

Motion to Reconsider
This makes zero sense. I have to CROSS examine MY client? My client has to testify FOR the prosecution, and therefore AGAINST himself? This is a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Motion to Reconsider
This makes zero sense. I have to CROSS examine MY client? My client has to testify FOR the prosecution, and therefore AGAINST himself? This is a miscarriage of justice.

Denied.