Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont (As Special Prosecutor)
Prosecution

v.

xLayzur
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I was appointed by the Attorney General to investigate oval office corruption and prosecute independently. xLayzur rigged and is attempting to rig the recent HOR election in his favor, failed to cooperate with questioning, and failed to do his duties in the Congress.


I. PARTIES
1. xLayzur
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. The Department of State

II. FACTS
1. xLayzur refused to cooperate with DLA questioning, going beyond his rights.
2. xLayzur attempted to interfere with an election by intimidating the Secretary of State.
3. xLayzur has failed to hold Speaker of the House elections in a timely manner, ignoring Representatives.
4. xLayzur fired the Secretary of State because she didn't rig the election on behalf of the President.
5. xLayzur hired a new player with no experience who stated he would be reviewing past elections, further evidence of rigging.

III. CHARGES
1. x1 Count of Obstruction of Justice
2. x2 Counts of Corruption
3. x2 Counts of Electoral Fraud
4. x1 Count of Treason

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For obstruction of justice, one verbal warning.
2. For two counts of corruption, $50,000 fine and barring from holding public office for four months.
3. For two counts of electoral fraud, $50,000 fine and permanent barring from holding public office.
4. For one count of treason, $25,000 fine and barring from holding public office for two months.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

All other evidence will be posted by Discovery. Due to the urgency of the timeline of events, I am pushing out this case before I am able to post all of the evidence.

VI. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to the President's propensity to fire those disloyal to him and because I am prosecuting the President himself, I motion to have the Court block any attempts to fire me from my Special Prosecutor role or remove me from this case. I further ask the Court to block any attempt by the Department of Legal Affairs to motion to nolle prosequi. If I am fired before this motion is heard, I ask the Court to reinstate me for the purposes of this case and other cases pertaining to my mandate as a Special Prosecutor.

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 January 2024.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Emergency Injunction
The Commonwealth motions for the Court to compel the President to commence Speaker of the House elections pursuant to Congressional Standing Orders.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Emergency Injunction
The President has abused his position to try and remove political enemies from office and obstruct the House of Representatives, he does not have this power. Due to the immense power associated with the Office of the President and the severity of the charges being alleged, the Commonwealth requests that xLayzur be removed from office for the duration of this lawsuit. We will utilize the following precedent: Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24

and

Lawsuit: In Session - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23

 

[Dartanboy]

Alex, please provide proof you have the authority to represent the Commonwealth in court.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

 

[Nacho]

As there appears to be a lack of response when reviewing the case docket within the court.

The court requests that the prosecution recertify the filing before we re-issue the summons or request that the prosecution withdraw their claims.

Please have an answer submitted to the court within 48 hours.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I will be continuing these cases under authority as a special prosecutor within the Department of Legal Affairs, your honor.

 

[Nacho]

The court will require the Attorney General to confirm this authority has been given in person. While you have submitted a picture to the court, we will require confirmation as no public announcement was given, as is standard practice from the DLA.

Once confirmation is acquired, the court will re-issue the summons for the defendant.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
I confirm that I gave alexander love permission to continue this prosecution as a special prosecutor

 

[Nacho]

Thank you,

Will re-issue summons.

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd 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.​

 

[Nacho]

The defendant failed to appear before the court. A public defender will be assigned to the case when one is available.

The court will be in recess until one can be assigned.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Although a Public Defender has been hired, due to a lack of another available Justice, this case will remain in recess.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to Justice SumoMC's nomination passing earlier this morning, we will be moving forward.

Due to the Defense not presenting, a Public Defender will be summoned.
They have 72 hours to give an answer to complaint or motion to dismiss.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

---

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

xLayzur
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. We deny that "xLayzur refused to cooperate with DLA questioning, going beyond his rights."
2.We deny that "xLayzur attempted to interfere with an election by intimidating the Secretary of State."
3. We neither affirm or deny that "xLayzur has failed to hold Speaker of the House elections in a timely manner, ignoring Representatives.
4. We deny that "xLayzur fired the Secretary of State because she didn't rig the election on behalf of the President.
5. We neither affirm or deny that " xLayzur hired a new player with no experience who stated he would be reviewing past elections, further evidence of rigging.

II. DEFENCES
1. The defence will prove throughout the case that the alleged actions either do not match the charges brought forward, or the evidence provided is not sufficient for alleged actions.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 15th of May, 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

Apologies for not moving this case sooner. We will now be moving into Discovery, this will last for a period of 7 days.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Interrogatory

1) Isn't it true xlayzur refused to cooperate with DLA questioning given the lack of straight answers in exhibit C?
2) Isn't it true xlayzur, as President, told his subordinate, the Secretary of State, to "fix" election results and announce wetc as the winner of the Representative election? "this better get fixed tonight..."
3) Isn't it true xlayzur fired somehumanonearth shortly after she didn't "fix" the election results and announce xlayzur's political ally, wetc, as winner of the Representative election?
4) Isn't it true Crobi268, who had less than an hour of playtime, was appointed as acting Secretary of State?

The prosecution reserves the right to ask up to one more question during discovery.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Inquiry to the Court​

---

Most Honourable Court,
As per the nature of my assignment as a Public Defender, I often have very little, unhelpful or in many cases non existent communication with my clients. As such, it may not be plausible to respond to the interrogatories. I will attempt to get answers, but I cannot guarantee a timely response.

Please instruct on how you wish us to proceed,

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Inquiry to the Court​

---

Most Honourable Court,
As per the nature of my assignment as a Public Defender, I often have very little, unhelpful or in many cases non existent communication with my clients. As such, it may not be plausible to respond to the interrogatories. I will attempt to get answers, but I cannot guarantee a timely response.

Please instruct on how you wish us to proceed,

So long as the answers are provided within a timeline or an extension is asked then all is fine on our end.

 

[ColonelKai]

The problem is that I often represent those who no longer have a presence in the server, and do not respond. I might not get an answer at all.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Inquiry to the Court​

---

Most Honourable Court,
As per the nature of my assignment as a Public Defender, I often have very little, unhelpful or in many cases non existent communication with my clients. As such, it may not be plausible to respond to the interrogatories. I will attempt to get answers, but I cannot guarantee a timely response.

Please instruct on how you wish us to proceed,

Your honor, the defense attorney should be able to answer the questions with or without consultation. The evidence attached contains all the answers.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your honor, the defense attorney should be able to answer the questions with or without consultation. The evidence attached contains all the answers.

Please don't respond unless asked. This is struck.

The problem is that I often represent those who no longer have a presence in the server, and do not respond. I might not get an answer at all.

As a Public Defender, the defense responding is not needed and more often you'll have them not responding.
Given that you are to act as a normal attorney just without communicating with your client.

 

[ColonelKai]

1) Isn't it true xlayzur refused to cooperate with DLA questioning given the lack of straight answers in exhibit C?

From what can be seen in exhibit c, there was a single question asked to the defendant and the defendant asked a single question back. Hardly any proof towards refusal of cooperation on behalf of the defendant.

2) Isn't it true xlayzur, as President, told his subordinate, the Secretary of State, to "fix" election results and announce wetc as the winner of the Representative election? "this better get fixed tonight..."

The evidence does have a quote of the latter, yes. If you are intending to ask whether or not the defendant has told the secretary to "fix" the election results in a malicious manner, I would not be able to tell you.

3) Isn't it true xlayzur fired somehumanonearth shortly after she didn't "fix" the election results and announce xlayzur's political ally, wetc, as winner of the Representative election?

I would not be able to answer this question.

4) Isn't it true Crobi268, who had less than an hour of playtime, was appointed as acting Secretary of State?

I cannot attest to the playtime of the mentioned person at the mentioned time.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I would not be able to answer this question.

Objection, your honor. Non-responsive. The defendant can state whether or not the secretary was fired in those circumstances.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I cannot attest to the playtime of the mentioned person at the mentioned time.

Objection, your honor. Non-responsive. I asked if the person in question was appointed, not what his playtime was.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Objection, your honor. Non-responsive. The defendant can state whether or not the secretary was fired in those circumstances.

Objection is sustained.

Objection, your honor. Non-responsive. I asked if the person in question was appointed, not what his playtime was.

This Objection is overruled.

 

[ColonelKai]

3) Isn't it true xlayzur fired somehumanonearth shortly after she didn't "fix" the election results and announce xlayzur's political ally, wetc, as winner of the Representative election?

I do not have access to the reasoning behind the firing of the secretary. Neither can I attest to the fact that it was due to the actions or inactions of the secretary, or whether wetc was a political ally.

 

[RelaxedGV]

With Discovery now over we will be moving into Opening Statements.

The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

AlexanderLove is hereby found in Contempt of Court and I order the DHS to fine/jail appropriately.

The defense now has 72 hours to file their Opening Statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

AlexanderLove is hereby found in Contempt of Court and I order the DHS to fine/jail appropriately.

The defense now has 72 hours to file their Opening Statement.

I never received the notification, but whatever. Holding in contempt for that is so lame. My opening statement could be “ “.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statements​

---

Good morning everyone,
Your honour and the honourable courts, I would like to begin my opening statement by drawing attention to the list of charges brought forward unto my client by the prosecution. They all share the same doctrine of creating a large, impressive, albeit baseless list of accusations to create a certain weight, when the complaint holds none.
For the following reasons, I believe that the charges are either unfounded, unproven or does not fall within the word of the law.

1. Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of justice is defined as such by the Savior* Act.

Willfully interfering with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer or by providing false information.

The defence assumes that this is related to Exhibit C. To begin with, the validity of any resistance in that regard if not minimal is questionable. The prosecution claims that the defendant "refused to cooperate". Not only would that be an exaggeration of what happened, even if it were true, it would not prove Obstruction of Justice. Not answering questions is not providing false information, and this does not fall into the first part of the provision either, as the defendant in this case would himself be the witness.

2. Treason
A day does not go by in Redmont without a political figure being prosecuted for Treason. Under the Corruption and Espionage Offenses act, the act of Treason is defined as such;

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.

The wording and purpose of treason being illegal is clear. As the provision itself states, the undermining of the stability, sovereignty etc must be malicious in nature. The omitting of this requirement makes Treason an often misused venue for prosecuting political misconduct in the commonwealth.
Treason charges should be used to prevent people from attempting to harm commonwealth, not from their personal view of themselves or their political ideologies, but straight up attempt to harm the commonwealth out of a hatred or any other motivation against the commonwealth.
Even if a person were to commit a crime in order to get to a position of power in the commonwealth, this should be considered to be a myriad of other crimes, but not Treason, for they saw their rise to power as something inherently good for the commonwealth, and thus had no malice against the commonwealth. Again, the burden of proof in regards to this falls to the prosecution.

3. Corruption & Electoral Fraud (General Argument)
Our argument generally comes from the fact that the amount and quality of evidence provided to the courts during this case has been unsatisfactory and small. Considering the severity of the allegations, we believe the following burdens of proof must have been fully satisfied for any of this to be valid, while no proof supporting any of them was provided to the court;

1. That another candidate won the vote definitively,
2. The defendant's claims of possible electoral discrepancy were unfounded, OR the claims were made with a malicious intent & illegally to gain political advantage
3. The election therefore was overturned illegally,
4. The state secretary was fired due to such malicious reasons.

The lack of evidence towards such crucial components of the case is striking. We cannot make an argument against evidence that does not exist.

Therefore, that will be all.

Best Regards,

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, due to neither side filing witnesses we will be moving straight into Closing Statements.
The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I'd like to request a 24 hour extension.

 

[SumoMC]

This case is hereby in recess pending the appointment of another Justice

 

[End]

This case will now recommence with Chief Justice Dartanman, Justice Sumo, and myself presiding.

The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement. Please advise if this needs to be changed to support change of representation etc.

@Alexander P. Love
@ColonelKai

 

[End]

@Alexander P. Love

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, the narrative is simple. Former President xlayzur abused his position to consolidate power maliciously and selfishly for his party's gain, failed to cooperate with the (then called) Department of Legal Affairs when questioned about this, and appointed grossly unqualified acting Secretaries to further obstruct any attempt to halt or punish this treason. The case is only now coming to an end because of the former President's actions.

The President first rigged an election abusing his oversight authority over the Department of State. As seen in the evidence, the former Secretary SomeHumanOnEarth was bullied and intimidated into "fix[ing]" the results (the double meaning here is 100% applicable). The DOS formally announced that the winning candidate was in fact Dodrio3, going against the defense's point that this fact was unproven. It is common knowledge and available on public record. Then, indisputably, the President approached the Secretary and told her to announce wetc as the winner under the implied (and eventually carried out) threat of termination. wetc was a member of the RNP alongside xlayzur, showing personal political gain for the former President if the results were "fixed" in his favor.

The Secretary stood her ground and followed the law. She was then fired and replaced by a grossly unqualified person only with loyal to the RNP. His job? To "fix" the results in the RNP's favor. The results were unconstitutionally overruled, as decided by the Supreme Court in Dodrio3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. After all this, he was questioned by the Department of Legal Affairs in which he evaded answering questions and used stall tactics. While one can refuse to incriminate oneselves, they must still cooperate with questioning. They must give indication they are exercising their right to not self incriminate. They must, with reason, assist the interrogator in ensuring the swiftness and due diligence of the interrogation. Stalling on hiring a lawyer is unreasonably against one's right to an attorney. This refusal to cooperate shows even more complicity in the plot to overthrow fair and free elections.

The arm behind all of this was former President xlayzur himself, who knowingly took part in this conspiracy to hijack an election. Undermining democratic principles for personal gain is corruption and treason. We hold our fair and free elections dear to our hearts, so anything threatening these values must be so severely punished no one dare attempt it again. Be a reasonable person: there is no other explanation for what happened. The tone of the messages, the timeline of events, and the cause & effect relationships show a clear story: xlayzur is corrupt, treasonous, and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court must find him guilty and sentence him to the maximum. Thank you.

 

[End]

The Defence has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement. Please advise if this needs to be changed to support change of representation etc.

@ColonelKai

 

[End]

Dusty_3 is hereby held in contempt of court, your response has been struck from the record.

 

[Krix]

I would like to submit an amicus brief to the Court, Thank you and God Bless.

 

[Dusty_3]

I would like to submit an amicus brief to the Court. I think it would be of great value given my past expertise on constitutional and criminal law.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, this is a criminal trial, not some constitutional civil case. No input is required from riffraff that don’t play the server anymore.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

You can't delete posts. You need to strike them. You should also recuse yourself while you are at it

View attachment 44619

Your honor, I motion to strike and ask the court hold this rowdy disrupter in contempt.

 

[End]

Dusty_3 is hereby held in contempt of court, your response has been struck from the record.

 

[End]

Your honor, I motion to strike and ask the court hold this rowdy disrupter in contempt.

Accepted

 

[End]

I would like to submit an amicus brief to the Court, Thank you and God Bless.

The court accepts, you may provide an amicus brief within 48 hours.

 

[End]

The Defence has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement. Please advise if this needs to be changed to support change of representation etc.

@ColonelKai

@ColonelKai

 

[End]

I would like to submit an amicus brief to the Court. I think it would be of great value given my past expertise on constitutional and criminal law.

The court has unanimously denied your request to submit an amicus brief.

You have already demonstrated an unwillingness to conduct yourself appropriately in the court.

Noting your actions in this case, the court does not believe that you will be a friend of the court in your advice, rather that you will attempt to mount a second defence.

 

[ColonelKai]

@ColonelKai

Due to in real life circumstances I have shared, I am unable to work at the moment. I request an extension until middle of next week as I suspect I will not be available until then. If time is of prime concern regarding this case, and such a long extension may not be afforded, the defence will have to rest its case, making no further arguments.

Best Regards,

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Due to in real life circumstances I have shared, I am unable to work at the moment. I request an extension until middle of next week as I suspect I will not be available until then. If time is of prime concern regarding this case, and such a long extension may not be afforded, the defence will have to rest its case, making no further arguments.

Best Regards,

Your honor, time is always of prime concern to cases due to the Constitution specifying trials must be reasonably quick. While a 24 or even 48 hour extension can be reasonable in certain scenarios, week long extensions are highly undesirable. I motion to move this case into recess pending a verdict.

 

[Krix]

The court accepts, you may provide an amicus brief within 48 hours.

AMICUS BRIEF
Thank your for the opportuinty to file an amicus brief to aid with the courts deliberations on this matter.


CASE RULED ON PRIOR
The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont has already dismissed this case through Commonwealth of Redmont v. Bezzergeezer [2024] SCR 3 wherin presiding Justice Drew_Hall asked for proof of the Department of Legal Affairs continued willingness to pursue the prosecutions of the Office of the President by special prosecutor AlexanderLove appointed previously by then Former Attorney General Pacman.

The Attorney General at the time IncompleteRiver stated that he did wish to extend the remit of AlexanderLove as special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption of the Office of the President for the following reasons found here

EXHIBIT A:

Justice Drew_Hall established here in Exhibit B that the DLA must reauthorize mandates given to external bodies on a reoccurying basis where there is a change in officeholder as to not allow a prolonged abdication of department powers bestowed solely to the Department of Legal Affairs in the constitution.

This must also extend to cases SCR1 and SCR2 as they were all pursued under the same mandate granted initially by Attorney General Pacman. It would be impossible for the Supreme Court to distinguish these cases as the very act of doing so would violate the rights of parties in SCR1 and SCR2. The Attorney General indicated the wish for all cases to be dismissed without prejudice and they all were, as you cannot plausibly allow the continued prosecution of SCR 1 and SCR2 when the court mandated the DLA inform them of their willingness to pursue a specific case for a specific reason which is cover in all three cases.

It is clear it was the act of the the Supreme Court to dismiss all three courts without prejudice in law based on the Attorney Generals fillings in SCR 3.SCR1 and SCR2 were likely not dismissed from this forum as a result of human error and not kept open intentionally as the cases went without comment from any party for 3 months.

EXHIBIT B:

CONCLUSION
I therefore strongly urge this Court to dismiss this case without delay and recommend to the Department of Legal Affairs should they wish to pursue the matter further the must refile the case under a valid mandate.

 

[End]

Due to in real life circumstances I have shared, I am unable to work at the moment. I request an extension until middle of next week as I suspect I will not be available until then. If time is of prime concern regarding this case, and such a long extension may not be afforded, the defence will have to rest its case, making no further arguments.

Best Regards,

The Supreme court will allow until this coming Wednesday 7pm EST for your submission.

 

[End]

AMICUS BRIEF
Thank your for the opportuinty to file an amicus brief to aid with the courts deliberations on this matter.


CASE RULED ON PRIOR
The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont has already dismissed this case through Commonwealth of Redmont v. Bezzergeezer [2024] SCR 3 wherin presiding Justice Drew_Hall asked for proof of the Department of Legal Affairs continued willingness to pursue the prosecutions of the Office of the President by special prosecutor AlexanderLove appointed previously by then Former Attorney General Pacman.

The Attorney General at the time IncompleteRiver stated that he did wish to extend the remit of AlexanderLove as special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption of the Office of the President for the following reasons found here

EXHIBIT A:

View attachment 44709


Justice Drew_Hall established here in Exhibit B that the DLA must reauthorize mandates given to external bodies on a reoccurying basis where there is a change in officeholder as to not allow a prolonged abdication of department powers bestowed solely to the Department of Legal Affairs in the constitution.

This must also extend to cases SCR1 and SCR2 as they were all pursued under the same mandate granted initially by Attorney General Pacman. It would be impossible for the Supreme Court to distinguish these cases as the very act of doing so would violate the rights of parties in SCR1 and SCR2. The Attorney General indicated the wish for all cases to be dismissed without prejudice and they all were, as you cannot plausibly allow the continued prosecution of SCR 1 and SCR2 when the court mandated the DLA inform them of their willingness to pursue a specific case for a specific reason which is cover in all three cases.

It is clear it was the act of the the Supreme Court to dismiss all three courts without prejudice in law based on the Attorney Generals fillings in SCR 3.SCR1 and SCR2 were likely not dismissed from this forum as a result of human error and not kept open intentionally as the cases went without comment from any party for 3 months.

EXHIBIT B:
View attachment 44710

CONCLUSION
I therefore strongly urge this Court to dismiss this case without delay and recommend to the Department of Legal Affairs should they wish to pursue the matter further the must refile the case under a valid mandate.

The court thanks you for your brief.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The court thanks you for your brief.

Your honor, given the brief was filed after my closing statement, I was given no chance to respond to it. It essentially acts as a second defense that I can’t do anything about. I therefore motion the court to permit a rebuttal within the scope of exclusively the amicus brief.

 

[End]

Your honor, given the brief was filed after my closing statement, I was given no chance to respond to it. It essentially acts as a second defense that I can’t do anything about. I therefore motion the court to permit a rebuttal within the scope of exclusively the amicus brief.

You may submit a response to the contents of the amicus brief.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Inquiry to the Court​

---

The defence requests a sidebar with the Supreme Court. If needed, the plaintiff may also join in.

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Inquiry to the Court​

---

The defence requests a sidebar with the Supreme Court. If needed, the plaintiff may also join in.

Please provide more information about the sidebar topic and the SCR will consider. At this stage you have approximately 34 hours to file a closing statement before the court moves into verdict.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Inquiry to the Court​

---

The defence requests a sidebar with the Supreme Court. If needed, the plaintiff may also join in.

Your honor, if there is a sidebar, the prosecution requests to be included otherwise this would deny the state fair representation in this case.

 

[ColonelKai]

The sidebar request has been revoked.

 

[ColonelKai]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Recuse​

---

The current justice overseeing the case has previously had commented frequently on the political standing between himself and the defendant, including comments on his behaviour, conduct and ethicacy. Your honour has advocated for the prosecution of the defendant, which this case is one of, and has repeatedaly and publicly stated his political dislike. For these reasons, under the following grounds, the defence asks for a recusal of your honour from this case:

● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it
● Rulings, comments, or conduct

and lightly matching all other grounds.

Evidence as attached;

Spoiler: Evidence

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Recuse​

---

The current justice overseeing the case has previously had commented frequently on the political standing between himself and the defendant, including comments on his behaviour, conduct and ethicacy. Your honour has advocated for the prosecution of the defendant, which this case is one of, and has repeatedaly and publicly stated his political dislike. For these reasons, under the following grounds, the defence asks for a recusal of your honour from this case:

● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it
● Rulings, comments, or conduct

and lightly matching all other grounds.

Evidence as attached;

Spoiler: Evidence

View attachment 44759View attachment 44760View attachment 44761View attachment 44762

Your honor, this is a ridiculous last ditch effort to win a case when the evidence is stacked against the defendant. We have come this far, let’s finish the case without hiccups.

 

[Dartanboy]

As the Chief Justice, I feel it is my duty to inform the Prosecution that Colonel_Kai has resigned from the Public Defenders' office.

I assume End will respond to the Motion to Recuse when he is able to.

We will still allow the Prosecution to respond to the contents of Krix's brief (default deadline of 72h after you were informed you may do so), but we will then enter a recess until a Public Defender can be appointed.

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Recuse​

---

The current justice overseeing the case has previously had commented frequently on the political standing between himself and the defendant, including comments on his behaviour, conduct and ethicacy. Your honour has advocated for the prosecution of the defendant, which this case is one of, and has repeatedaly and publicly stated his political dislike. For these reasons, under the following grounds, the defence asks for a recusal of your honour from this case:

● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it
● Rulings, comments, or conduct

and lightly matching all other grounds.

Evidence as attached;

Spoiler: Evidence

View attachment 44759View attachment 44760View attachment 44761View attachment 44762

I will be denying the motion to recuse on the following basis:

a. The evidence presented shows me, well before my time on the court, discussing the conduct of the president (at a time which I believe I may have been in Congress?). The comments presented aren't directly related to the contents of this case and are otherwise general in nature. The comments made reflect a time where I was likely in political office and for which I was engaging in political rhetoric.

b. If we used comments which are general in nature from months earlier to recuse Justices, no one on this court would be considered impartial enough to rule on this case. In fact, I would make the argument that very few in the legal field let alone on the court could be considered impartial. Redmont is a small community and people who are qualified for this office will have had interactions with parties to court cases they rule on, negative or positive.

c. My ability to impartially deliver a verdict is not informed by my time in Congress from half a year ago.

If you believe I have erred in my decision, you may re-motion for my recusal in which another Justice will rule on my recusal.

 

[Dartanboy]

@ko531 has been appointed to represent the Defendant.

 

[xLayzur]

I wish to Present myself within this case.

 

[Dartanboy]

I wish to Present myself within this case.

Very well. You have 72 hours to provide a Closing Statement.

 

[xLayzur]

Very well. You have 72 hours to provide a Closing Statement.

I apologize Chief Justice Dartanboy, ko531 will be my legal representation.

 

[Dartanboy]

I apologize Chief Justice Dartanboy, ko531 will be my legal representation.

Noted. Same deadline applies.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Justice End states that the comments were "General in Nature" and the comments presented "aren't directly related to the contents of this case." yet if we look at this screenshot:

This is End talking about facts of this case in a negative manner since he is listing them as reason for impeachment/incapacitation. He believes that these actions (which are facts to this case) are wrong and already has negative opinions before presiding over this case. End is bias and has to recuse

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Dart resigned from the Judicary because of the Layzur Administation and "Abusing their persuasive power" He also talk about their "evil plot to maliciously impeach" him. Dart had made these allegations with zero evidence.. This can make it easy to believe that because Dart has already alleged that the defendent has done negative/possible illegal acts against him then it is easier for dart to believe that Layzur has done additional illegal acts.

Along with this Dart has talked publicly about his bias and how it doesnt exist which would be him talking about how he would rule against a motion such as this. This I would see as a reason of recusal as Breach of Judicial Conduct more specifically under the RBA ethics doctorine 3.3.1 and "engaging in conduct that undermines the administration of justice."

 

[Dartanboy]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Justice End states that the comments were "General in Nature" and the comments presented "aren't directly related to the contents of this case." yet if we look at this screenshot:
View attachment 44784

This is End talking about facts of this case in a negative manner since he is listing them as reason for impeachment/incapacitation. He believes that these actions (which are facts to this case) are wrong and already has negative opinions before presiding over this case. End is bias and has to recuse

It is, frankly, impossible to find an active player in the legal field who has not had either a positive or negative interaction with former President xLayzur, seeing as Redmont is not a large country, and the entire legal field is closely tied to the Executive Branch. For this reason, the concept of an Appearance of Bias must be different when applying to, for lack of a better word, celebrities.

This is not unlike IRL legal concepts, such as altered requirements for Defamation when speaking about public figures - a concept created by Courts, not Legislatures.

With that in mind, we must take context into consideration. xEndeavour was, at the time, acting as a political officeholder and actively campaigning. The lens that the facts were looked at through were political lenses which warranted similarly political rhetoric.

Such behavior would not be allowed on the Court, and if Mr. End had been a Justice when he made those comments, he would certainly be recused. But, he did not make those comments on the bench - they were made nearly half a year prior to his nomination.

Now as a member of the Supreme Court, the very same set of facts is closely examined through the lens of the Constitution and the law - one which sees only in black and white, that applies the highest level of scrutiny to all facts and evidence in order to fairly judge the case on its merit alone, without bias.

For this reason, I must  deny the motion to recuse Justice End.

The same deadline for Closing Statements is still in effect.

 

[ko531]

It is, frankly, impossible to find an active player in the legal field who has not had either a positive or negative interaction with former President xLayzur, seeing as Redmont is not a large country, and the entire legal field is closely tied to the Executive Branch. For this reason, the concept of an Appearance of Bias must be different when applying to, for lack of a better word, celebrities.

This is not unlike IRL legal concepts, such as altered requirements for Defamation when speaking about public figures - a concept created by Courts, not Legislatures.

With that in mind, we must take context into consideration. xEndeavour was, at the time, acting as a political officeholder and actively campaigning. The lens that the facts were looked at through were political lenses which warranted similarly political rhetoric.

Such behavior would not be allowed on the Court, and if Mr. End had been a Justice when he made those comments, he would certainly be recused. But, he did not make those comments on the bench - they were made nearly half a year prior to his nomination.

Now as a member of the Supreme Court, the very same set of facts is closely examined through the lens of the Constitution and the law - one which sees only in black and white, that applies the highest level of scrutiny to all facts and evidence in order to fairly judge the case on its merit alone, without bias.

For this reason, I must  deny the motion to recuse Justice End.

The same deadline for Closing Statements is still in effect.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Arguement that it is impossible to find an active player who isnt bias has no merits. There is no where in the law that says something along the lines of "When you have no one else use what you have" The law is very clear in the fact that judges who have bias or the appearance of bias must recuse. No where does it give exceptions to this rule meaning it ALWAYS applys no matter the circumstances.

Even though these comments were made about Half a year ago does not change anything either. This case was already filed by the time End made these comments which essentially means he was making opinionated comments on an active supreme court case meaning he can not preside over that case now that he is a justice.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Sumo was fired from Attorney General due to his investigation into xLayzur, which he has admitted. He even got to the point of starting to write a case against lazyur with the prosecutor of this case Alexanderlove. This case would have been for the same crimes of Treason and Corruption against the same defendant, xLayzur. In order to work on a prosecution of a person as AG means you believe them to be guilty. This could make Sumo very easily persuaded by the arguement that Layzur committed corruption and Treason on a different occassion.

 

[Dartanboy]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Dart resigned from the Judicary because of the Layzur Administation and "Abusing their persuasive power" He also talk about their "evil plot to maliciously impeach" him. Dart had made these allegations with zero evidence.. This can make it easy to believe that because Dart has already alleged that the defendent has done negative/possible illegal acts against him then it is easier for dart to believe that Layzur has done additional illegal acts.
View attachment 44785

Along with this Dart has talked publicly about his bias and how it doesnt exist which would be him talking about how he would rule against a motion such as this. This I would see as a reason of recusal as Breach of Judicial Conduct more specifically under the RBA ethics doctorine 3.3.1 and "engaging in conduct that undermines the administration of justice."

View attachment 44786
View attachment 44787

The motion for my recusal is twofold, as such my ruling on the recusal will have two separate parts.

On my Resignation Letter
My resignation letter was the advent of my shortlived political career. As such, it is - much like End's - made in the context of politics. I was beginning a political campaign and political rhetoric was used. It is extremely important to once again apply a rational understanding of the concept of Appearance of Bias.

Anyone and everyone who is active within the legal field has certainly had either positive or negative interaction with former President xLayzur, and as such comments made many months prior to Judicial nomination cannot be used as evidence of an Appearance of Bias.

As a member of the Supreme Court, I examine each case through the lens of the Constitution and the law, without regard to the name of the Defendant nor any reputation they have. While our Constitution certainly has many flaws, it is the foundational document of our entire Governmental system, and no political comments from  literally two Presidents ago have any ground in an attempt to make any member of this court appear biased.

MOTION TO RECUSE

Dart resigned from the Judicary because of the Layzur Administation and "Abusing their persuasive power" He also talk about their "evil plot to maliciously impeach" him. Dart had made these allegations with zero evidence.. This can make it easy to believe that because Dart has already alleged that the defendent has done negative/possible illegal acts against him then it is easier for dart to believe that Layzur has done additional illegal acts.
View attachment 44785

Along with this Dart has talked publicly about his bias and how it doesnt exist which would be him talking about how he would rule against a motion such as this. This I would see as a reason of recusal as Breach of Judicial Conduct more specifically under the RBA ethics doctorine 3.3.1 and "engaging in conduct that undermines the administration of justice."

View attachment 44786
View attachment 44787

The motion for my recusal is twofold, as such my ruling on the recusal will have two separate parts.

On my Resignation Letter

My resignation letter was the advent of my shortlived political career. As such, it is - much like End's - made in the context of politics. I was beginning a political campaign and political rhetoric was used. It is extremely important to once again apply a rational understanding of the concept of Appearance of Bias.

Anyone and everyone who is active within the legal field has certainly had either positive or negative interaction with former President xLayzur, and as such comments made many months prior to Judicial nomination cannot be used as evidence of an Appearance of Bias.

As a member of the Supreme Court, I examine each case through the lens of the Constitution and the law, without regard to the name of the Defendant nor any reputation they have. While our Constitution certainly has many flaws, it is the foundational document of our entire Governmental system, and no political comments from  literally two Presidents ago have any ground in an attempt to make any member of this court appear biased.

On the recent Discord Messages
I explained thoroughly the definition of Bias, Appearance of Bias, and explained that I am not biased.

To construe this as "undermining the administration of justice" is not something I can even comprehend. It's quite literally talking about the definition of a couple words.

The second comment shown was, if I recall correctly, directed towards Dusty_3 - a non-party to this case who was attempting to construe comments from the past as a modern reflection of my alleged bias.

For these reasons, I have no choice but to  deny the motion for my recusal.

If you disagree with this decision, you may file a second. In my absence from the decision, I believe Sumo is more senior than End and shall act as the Chief Justice in my place.

 

[Dartanboy]

(Apologies for posting a weird double post. Wrote it on my phone)

 

[Dartanboy]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Arguement that it is impossible to find an active player who isnt bias has no merits. There is no where in the law that says something along the lines of "When you have no one else use what you have" The law is very clear in the fact that judges who have bias or the appearance of bias must recuse. No where does it give exceptions to this rule meaning it ALWAYS applys no matter the circumstances.

Even though these comments were made about Half a year ago does not change anything either. This case was already filed by the time End made these comments which essentially means he was making opinionated comments on an active supreme court case meaning he can not preside over that case now that he is a justice.

It isn't an argument that it is impossible. It is a fact. Furthermore, the right to a Speedy and Fair trial is at play here.

It is important to apply the Golden Rule (Mischief Rule) here. Recusing the entire Supreme Court would have drastic side effects on both the Fairness and the Speediness of this case.

This is why the Supreme Court has chosen to interpret the law about Appearance of Bias in the way it has. This is an interpretation that strongly lines up with several popular methods of Judicial Interpretation, including Pragmatism, Originalism, Structuralism, and recognizing the Mischief Rule. The only method of interpretation which even  might interpret it in a different way is Textualism, but even then likely only in its heaviest forms.

For these reasons, the Motion to Reconsider is  overruled.

Sumo will respond to the motion for his recusal.

The same deadline for Closing Statement is still in effect.

 

[SumoMC]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Sumo was fired from Attorney General due to his investigation into xLayzur, which he has admitted. He even got to the point of starting to write a case against lazyur with the prosecutor of this case Alexanderlove. This case would have been for the same crimes of Treason and Corruption against the same defendant, xLayzur. In order to work on a prosecution of a person as AG means you believe them to be guilty. This could make Sumo very easily persuaded by the arguement that Layzur committed corruption and Treason on a different occassion.

View attachment 44788
View attachment 44789

Motion to Recuse is Denied. I was acting in my capacity as Attorney General. i am now on the court and have a proven record of being unbiased. You wont find anyone in the legal community that hasnt said something on this case.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

These comments that Dart made in his motion to recuse are not just an act of a person trying to get elected. Dart Resigned from the Judicary to persue politics only to fix what the layzur administration had done. Dart has said multiple times that he hates politics meaning that his actions were done out of necessity due to strong beliefs. These comments made in his resignation letter should not be thrown out because their political but they should be considered even more harshly since Dart hates poltics. In order for Dart to do something he hates must mean it was back behind VERY strong beliefs which can impact his decision making in this case.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Sumo as AG gave the green light to work on prosecuting Layzur for Corruption and Treason. Attorney Generals dont prosecute people they believe to be innocent that would just be stupid. So Sumo Believe Layzur was guilty of Corruption and Treason and not only did he give the green light he helped work on the case. He didnt work alone either as he worked with the same prosecutor that is prosecuting this case right now.

This isnt just about Sumo trying to prosecute Layzur but more about what is meant for Sumo to try and Prosecute Layzur. Sumo Believed as AG that Layzur was guilty of Treason and Corruption, the same crimes being charged in this case. This can impact Sumo's decision by making it easier to believe Layzur is guilty and it can be made it even more believable since the person prosecuting is the same person who tried helping Sumo prosecute.

 

[ko531]

Before Im yelled at, yes the previous message was edited but it was accidental and I have no clue what was changed. If I do figure out what was changed I will try to reverse said change

 

[Dartanboy]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Sumo as AG gave the green light to work on prosecuting Layzur for Corruption and Treason. Attorney Generals dont prosecute people they believe to be innocent that would just be stupid. So Sumo Believe Layzur was guilty of Corruption and Treason and not only did he give the green light he helped work on the case. He didnt work alone either as he worked with the same prosecutor that is prosecuting this case right now.

This isnt just about Sumo trying to prosecute Layzur but more about what is meant for Sumo to try and Prosecute Layzur. Sumo Believed as AG that Layzur was guilty of Treason and Corruption, the same crimes being charged in this case. This can impact Sumo's decision by making it easier to believe Layzur is guilty and it can be made it even more believable since the person prosecuting is the same person who tried helping Sumo prosecute.

I will  sustain this Motion to Recuse Justice SumoMC.

I have chosen to do so on the basis that prior work as a lawyer is specifically listed as a reason for recusal.

I want to be clear, this is  not a recusal based on Appearance of Bias, which does not seem to be present here, but based on Prior Work as a Lawyer, as the AG is the Commonwealth's lawyer and Sumo actively sought to investigate and prosecute the Defendant for the same crimes alleged in this lawsuit in his capacity as a lawyer.

 

[End]

Motion denied, I am satisfied with the reasoning of the Chief Justice's decision to remain on this case. The amplifying remarks in your second motion to recuse the Chief Justice don't introduce new information to the court concerning his recusal.

MOTION TO RECUSE

These comments that Dart made in his motion to recuse are not just an act of a person trying to get elected. Dart Resigned from the Judicary to persue politics only to fix what the layzur administration had done. Dart has said multiple times that he hates politics meaning that his actions were done out of necessity due to strong beliefs. These comments made in his resignation letter should not be thrown out because their political but they should be considered even more harshly since Dart hates poltics. In order for Dart to do something he hates must mean it was back behind VERY strong beliefs which can impact his decision making in this case.
View attachment 44792
View attachment 44793
View attachment 44794
View attachment 44795

 

[End]

In a 3-0 decision (made prior to recusal), @ColonelKai is held in contempt of court for requesting an extension and failing to meet the timing.

 

[End]

The Defence has 24 hours to deliver a closing statement. I have reduced the time period noting that the Defence has had an extensive period to deliver a closing statement already. @ko531

 

[ko531]

CLOSING STATEMENTS

This entire case and every charge being brought against xLayzur has insufficient evidence. The Prosecution is relying on assumptions, speculation, and storytelling to argue these charges. For this closing statement, I am going to go one by one through the facts of this case brought against xlayzur

1. "Refusing" to Answer DLA questions

The commonwealth has claimed that xLayzur refused to answer the DLA's questions which is completely false. If you examine Exhibit C you will see nothing but cooperation. Not a single time does xLayzur refuse anything. It was Alexander who almost immediately started accusing xLayzur of things with zero evidence. Alex went into that interview with xLayzur already believing he was guilty which could be one of the reasons he is the one prosecuting this case.

2."Rigging" DOS Elections

The Prosecution claims that President xLayzur rigged an election by trying to force then DOS secretary SomeHumanOnEarth to change the results to have Wetc win. This is just false, Wetc was originally announced as the winner and the DOS changed their results and declared Dodrio3 as the winner. In the lawsuit Dodrio3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 4 it was declared that the DOS changing these results to Dodrio was outside of their power. The Commonwealth also quotes this precedent in its closing statement but intends to mislead the court with it. Even though the case says that Dodrio3 should have won the seat this was a typo admitted by former Cheif Justice Nacho in a House Hearing because Wetc was the first announced winner and not Dodrio3

One responsibility of the president is ensuring the executive branch runs efficiently and effectively and when the DOS is acting outside of their power it should concern the president. He discovered evidence of votes not being counted, He pressed the DOS Secretary to try to fix this mistake of lost votes. Only after Human was given every chance to count these lost votes followed by her refusal to do such did xLayzur fire her and hire Crobi which both acts are protected under the law. The President can fire Secretaries for any reason and there are zero requirements on who can and can not be secretary. Both acts would be within the president's official duties and therefore not Corruption.

The Commonwealth claims that the President was trying to "Fix" the election in the RNP's favor which is only speculation and assumptions. They Assumed what layzur meant when using the word "fix" and they assumed it meant to rig and not only that the Commonwealth speculated that it was to rig the election in the RNP's favor. If you look at Exhibit B you will see the RNP is never mentioned nor is any party. The only thing talked about is votes not being counted which should concern every president when happening.

For the charge of treason based on the claim of "rigging elections" " if anything, xLayzur upheld democratic principles instead of undermining them by making sure every vote is counted and removing a Secretary who stepped outside of their power in the DOS as declared by the Supreme Court in Dodrio's case

3. "Refusing" to hold SOH election

Exhibit D shows a 24-hour period where President xLayzur was pinged 5 times to run the elections. This is yet another assumption made by the prosecution as nothing in their evidence shows refusal. xLayzur was busy that day, It is crazy to ask someone to put DC over Real Life. xLayzur did hold the election at his earliest convenience but not holding the election in the first 24 hours is hardly a refusal.

CONCLUSION

The Commonwealth has failed by a long margin to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that xlayzur committed corruption, Treason, electoral fraud, and obstruction of justice. Their entire case is backed by zero evidence. They have evidence that fits nicely into their little story but if you remove and examine each charge by itself then the story falls like a house of cards

1. They assumed what layzur meant with the word "Fix" to mean Rig
2. They speculated that xlayzur intention when trying to "fix" votes not being counted is to win the election for the RNP
3. They tried to mislead the court when it comes to the precedent of Dodrio3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 4
4. They assumed that not holding the SOH election in the first 24 hours meant refusal instead of being busy
5. They jumped to the conclusion that asking questions to the DLA meant refusing to answer questions.

There are so many points of "fact" argued by the prosecution with zero evidence it should be impossible to convict anyone under the standard of Beyond a reasonable doubt. There is enough reasonable doubt here that xLayzur has to be found innocent of all the charges.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the Defense for promptly providing a Closing Statement.

This case is now in recess pending a verdict.

 

[Dartanboy]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. xLayzur refused to cooperate with DLA (now known as DoJ) questioning, which is inconsistent with his rights.
2. xLayzur attempted to interfere with a Congressional election by intimidating the Secretary of State to make them change the result.
3. xLayzur failed to hold a Speaker of the House election in a timely manner, intentionally undermining the stability of the Government.
4. xLayzur fired the Secretary of State because she didn't rig the election on behalf of the President.
5. xLayzur hired a new player, Crobi268, with no experience who stated he would be reviewing past elections, which is evidence of Electoral Fraud.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. xLayzur did not refuse to cooperate, Alex was just hostile.
2. Had he refused to cooperate, it still isn't illegal to do so.
3.The Prosecution failed to prove the Defendant committed these acts, which may not even be criminal, with the intent required to be considered Treason.
4. In regards to Corruption and Electoral Fraud, the Prosecution has failed to prove any of the following in this case:
a - That wetc was not the rightful winner of the election,
b - That the claims made by xLayzur were false or that they were made with treasonous intent,
c - That the election was illegally overturned,
d - That the state secretary was fired due to such malicious reasons.

III. THE COURT OPINION
The opinion of the Supreme Court was written by Chief Justice Dartanboy. Justice xEndeavour signed on. Justice SumoMC was recused from the case prior to the verdict.

Note that at the beginning of this case, the Department of Justice was called the Department of Legal Affairs. For consistency’s sake, I will refer to it solely as the DLA.

In this case, the Prosecution claims that the Defendant – xLayzur – committed 1 count of Obstruction of Justice, 2 counts of Corruption, 2 counts of Electoral Fraud, and 1 count of Treason.

I’ll begin with the definitions of each crime:
- Obstruction of Justice: “Willfully interfering with the process of justice through influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, police officer or by providing false information.” (Act of Congress - Savior* Act)
- Corruption: “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.” (Act of Congress - Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act)
- Electoral Fraud: “Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.” (Act of Congress - Electoral Act)
- Treason: “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.” (Act of Congress - Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act)

According to the Prosecution,
1 - xLayzur refused to cooperate with the DLA in a questioning, which allegedly goes beyond the Defendant’s rights.
2 - xLayzur attempted to interfere with an election by intimidating the Secretary of State
3 - xLayzur failed to hold Speaker elections in a timely manner and ignored Representatives’ requests to hold one.
4 - xLayzur fired the Secretary of State because she refused to rig the election.
5 - xLayzur hired a new player as Secretary of State and stated this new player would be reviewing past elections.

According to the Defense,
1 - Refusing to answer questions from the DLA is not what happened, and even if it was, that’s not Obstruction of Justice.
2 - The Prosecution failed to prove the Defendant committed these acts in an attempt to maliciously undermine the stability, sovereignty, or national security of Redmont, and only proved that some actions, which may not even be criminal, occurred.
3 - In regards to Corruption and Electoral Fraud, the Prosecution has failed to prove any of the following:
a - That another candidate won the vote definitively,
b - The defendant's claims of possible electoral discrepancy were unfounded, OR the claims were made with a malicious intent & illegally to gain political advantage
c - The election therefore was overturned illegally,
d - The state secretary was fired due to such malicious reasons.

When reviewing the evidence, which is honestly quite limited, I see only:
1 - xLayzur informing Former DoS Secretary Human that “this” is unacceptable. It is clear there are some screenshots beforehand, but the context is not available.
2 - Human agreeing with xLayzur that “this” is unacceptable.
3 - xLayzur instructing Human to fix “this” and announce wetc as the winner of the election.
4 - xLayzur explaining that it is very suspicious that the amount of “purposely thrown out” votes was exactly equal to the amount of votes needed for wetc to win the race.
5 - Crobi268 appointed as Acting Secretary of State, and that Crobi would be auditing the recent elections.
6 - xLayzur approached by AlexanderLove - a DLA employee.
7 - xLayzur asking clarifying questions before being told he has 24 hours to decide whether to get a lawyer.
8 - Several pings from Representatives to xLayzur in the Congressional Discord “#speaker-elections” over the course of ~22 hours.

Before continuing, the Prosecution failed to specify which Facts are related to which charges, so I’m trying my best to put it together.

Ultimately, this case comes down to these questions:
1 - Did xLayzur refuse to cooperate with the DLA’s questions? If yes, is this Obstruction of Justice?
2 - Did xLayzur attempt to interfere with an election by intimidating the Secretary of State? If yes, is this Electoral Fraud and/or Corruption?
3 - Did xLayzur fail to hold the Speaker of the House elections in a timely manner, ignoring Representatives? If yes, is this Treason?
4 - Did xLayzur fire the Secretary of State because she didn't rig the election? If yes, is this Electoral Fraud and/or Corruption?
5 - Did xLayzur hire a new player with no experience who stated he would be reviewing past elections? If yes, is this evidence of Electoral Fraud?

In regards to xLayzur’s alleged refusal to cooperate with the DLA’s questions, there is simply no evidence suggesting he refused to cooperate. In fact, xLayzur asked clarifying questions, and the evidence provided does not go further than that. Additionally, refusing to answer questions from the DLA is not Obstruction of Justice, as the definition of that crime is narrowly focused on willful interference with the process of justice through:
- Influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or police officer
- Providing false information

In regards to xLayzur’s alleged intimidation of the former Secretary of State to interfere with an election, there is simply not enough evidence to convince me that he did so beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s certainly possible, but there is still reasonable doubt – xLayzur may have wholeheartedly believed wetc was the rightful winner of the election (and as pointed out by the defense, wetc was originally declared the winner). Additionally, the evidence fails to show any sort of “intimidation” or “threat” beyond the assertive language of “this better get fixed.” For the same reasons I cannot find xLayzur guilty of Electoral Fraud, I cannot find him guilty of Corruption, as there is simply insufficient evidence to say he intimidated the Secretary of State to interfere with the election. I will say, however, if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, this would very likely be Electoral Fraud, as the allegation of intimidating the Secretary of State to interfere with an election is almost precisely the definition of the crime. In similar fashion, if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, someone would benefit here, and it would be inconsistent with xLayzur’s official duty, and it would likely be Corruption.

In regards to xLayzur’s alleged failure to hold Speaker Elections in a timely manner, the evidence only shows that for at least 22 hours, the former President did not hold a Speaker Election. That is not even an entire day, and thus the evidence presented in this courtroom fails to convince me that xLayzur failed to hold them in a timely manner. Furthermore, even if it was shown that he failed to do so, the evidence presented fails to convince me he did so maliciously and thus, cannot be convicted of Treason.

In regards to xLayzur’s alleged firing of the Secretary of State because she refused to rig the election, there is no evidence submitted to the court to show that she was fired for this reason – and in fact, no evidence submitted that she was fired at all. Furthermore, even if there was, in accordance with the precedent of [2022] SCR 24 (Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24) the President cannot be found guilty of a crime for firing a Secretary, as it is their expressed constitutional power.

In regards to xLayzur’s alleged hiring of a new player with no experience and reviewing past elections, yes – there is strong evidence to support this. Crobi268 was a relatively new player, and he publicly announced he would be auditing past elections. With that, the question remains: is this Electoral Fraud? Once again, I find a serious lack of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Electoral Fraud took place. An audit does not implicitly mean overturning, changing, or meddling with an election. Whilst appointing a new player to the position of Secretary may be suspicious, it does not rise to the level of proof required to convict the Defendant of a crime.

Ultimately, the Prosecution gave a great story of how the Defendant could have committed several crimes, but failed to provide sufficient evidence for any of them. A great story does not make a good prosecution. Facts and evidence do.

With all of that said, I find the Defendant NOT GUILTY on all charges brought forth by the Prosecution.

IV. VERDICT
The Court finds xLayzur NOT GUILTY on all charges.

Thank you to all parties for their time and patience in this case.