Lawsuit: Pending Commonwealth v. IamJeb_ [2025] FCR 53

[ameslap]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

IamJeb_
Defendant

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

Even when deported, the Mafia holds a firm grip on the citizens of Redmont. This latest example is perhaps one of the biggest examples of the threat that they pose to our democracy. By posting an ad, and offering payments for votes, IamJeb_ has sought to meddle in an election and sway the result through bribery.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. IamJeb_

II. FACTS
1. On 5/23/2025, the Defendant posted 3 consecutive ads claiming “Vote Zlost for oakridge election and naezathereus promises u 10k” (P-001, P-002, P-003)
2. The Defendant admitted that the conduct was illegal. (P-001, P-002, P-003, P-004)
3. When confronted at the time and in an investigation, the Defendant confessed to their crimes. (P-005, P-006).

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 count Election Fraud (Electoral Act Section 10). By attempting to buy votes, the Defendant was “caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.”


IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. The maximum fine of $25,000 as allowed by the Electoral Act.
2. A two month barring of holding any public office, one for each offense.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

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 30 day of May, 2025

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Iamjeb_ is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Iamjeb_ [2025] FCR 53

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.

 

[ameslap]

Your honor, we have reached a plea deal.

The Defendant will plead guilty and in exchange will be fined $18,000 and have a 2 month bar on all public offices.

 

[Imza]

Your honor, we have reached a plea deal.

The Defendant will plead guilty and in exchange will be fined $18,000 and have a 2 month bar on all public offices.

Your honor, the Defense confirms this.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Imza]

Your honor, the Defense confirms this.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 55836

Your honor, after careful consideration, the Defense's counsel has decided not to go through with this plea bargain. We apologize for any confusion.

 

[Imza]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

IamJeb_
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. The Defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to one count of electoral fraud.

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 sixth day of June 2025

 

[ko531]

Alright, as the plea deal has been shot down, we will now be entering discovery. Discovery will last 5 days starting now.

 

[ameslap]

Plea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PLEA

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

IamJeb_
Defendant

I. ENTRY OF PLEA
1. The Defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to one count of electoral fraud.

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 sixth day of June 2025

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEEDURE

Rule 3.2 states:
All answers, even Small Claims, must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format and must have:

1. An affirmation of what facts are affirmed, denied, or non contested.
2. Either defenses under the law, defenses under facts, or a statement of defense that will develop throughout the course of discovery.

While the template provided by the Courts does not have specific sections for this in the plea, a plea is still an answer and must include both 1 & 2.

 

[Imza]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEEDURE

Rule 3.2 states:
All answers, even Small Claims, must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format and must have:

1. An affirmation of what facts are affirmed, denied, or non contested.
2. Either defenses under the law, defenses under facts, or a statement of defense that will develop throughout the course of discovery.

While the template provided by the Courts does not have specific sections for this in the plea, a plea is still an answer and must include both 1 & 2.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO OBJECTION
Your Honor,
As the Prosecution themselves have stated, the template that the courts provide does not contain the required sections. There have also been many prosecutions where the exact same template as the Defense has been used, yet neither the Presiding Judicial Officers nor the Prosecutors have raised any issues.

Some examples include:
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. v__d
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Sirbucket420
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nacholebraa
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. The_Superior10

Lastly, your Honor,
Rule 3.2 states:
"ALL ANSWERS, even small claims, must use the appropriate 'Creating a Lawsuit format'..."
As we have highlighted here, rule 3.2 states that "All answers.... must use the appropriate 'Creating a Lawsuit format...'", in Criminal Proceedings, the term "Answer" is not used, and instead, the term "Plea" is used, this implies that rule 3.2 was created for Civil Proceedings rather then Criminal ones.

Due to the above reasons, the Defense respectfully requests that the court deny this objection.

Thank you.

 

[ko531]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEEDURE

Rule 3.2 states:
All answers, even Small Claims, must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format and must have:

1. An affirmation of what facts are affirmed, denied, or non contested.
2. Either defenses under the law, defenses under facts, or a statement of defense that will develop throughout the course of discovery.

While the template provided by the Courts does not have specific sections for this in the plea, a plea is still an answer and must include both 1 & 2.

Objection Overruled.

As shown in the Court Rules and Procedure and demonstrated in multiple previous cases, There is no answer to complaint in criminal prosecutions and instead a Plea. Pleas are used to either contest or confirm the crimes alleged with guilty, not guility or no contest. This plea will be accepted as it fits the criteria.

 

[ameslap]

Objection Overruled.

As shown in the Court Rules and Procedure and demonstrated in multiple previous cases, There is no answer to complaint in criminal prosecutions and instead a Plea. Pleas are used to either contest or confirm the crimes alleged with guilty, not guility or no contest. This plea will be accepted as it fits the criteria.

Motion

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

Your honor, opposing counsel has argued that because the term "answer" and "plea" are different then the rules do not apply. Firstly, this is a dangerous precedent to set as there is no distinction in any place on when to apply rules to criminal vs civil trials. This would open a pandora's box.

Secondly, let us go to the templates once again. I submit before you as proof that pleas and answers are one in the same.

Spoiler: Pleas are Called "Answer to Criminal Complaint"

Additionally your honor, just stating the plea does nothing. All parties and the court itself should be aware of the facts that are in contention.

 

[Imza]

Motion

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

Your honor, opposing counsel has argued that because the term "answer" and "plea" are different then the rules do not apply. Firstly, this is a dangerous precedent to set as there is no distinction in any place on when to apply rules to criminal vs civil trials. This would open a pandora's box.

Secondly, let us go to the templates once again. I submit before you as proof that pleas and answers are one in the same.

Spoiler: Pleas are Called "Answer to Criminal Complaint"

View attachment 55879

Additionally your honor, just stating the plea does nothing. All parties and the court itself should be aware of the facts that are in contention.

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully requests permission to respond to the Motion to Reconsider.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully requests permission to respond to the Motion to Reconsider.

Granted. You have 24 hours

 

[Imza]

Granted. You have 24 hours

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,
Firstly, after some more consideration, we concede to the Prosecution in regards to our attempt to differentiate between “Plea” and “Answer”; we agree that this step of action would be a very dangerous precedent.

Regarding the second point, the template guide shown by the Prosecution only shows “Answer to Criminal Complaint” as a label to make finding the template easier; the actual template itself contains the wording “PLEA” instead of “Answer.”

Furthermore, the Defense still maintains that a plea should not contain anything more than the plea itself.

This practice is supported by many Criminal Proceedings, in which the Defense provides their answer as to whether a fact is affirmed, denied, or non-contested in an opening statement. (see Commonwealth v. Nacholebraa [2024] SCR 37)

The Defense also wishes to state once more that it has been a common principle in many Criminal Proceedings to use the default court-provided template as a plea, rather than adding any additional changes. These Proceedings have been presided over by many of the most well-known legal minds of our Nation, and in many instances, both the Prosecution and Defense of these cases have also contained very well-known legal minds, and yet none of them have raised any issues in regards to the plea template.

Due to the above reasons, the Defense respectfully asks that the court deny this Motion to Reconsider.

Thank you.

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

Your honor, opposing counsel has argued that because the term "answer" and "plea" are different then the rules do not apply. Firstly, this is a dangerous precedent to set as there is no distinction in any place on when to apply rules to criminal vs civil trials. This would open a pandora's box.

Secondly, let us go to the templates once again. I submit before you as proof that pleas and answers are one in the same.

Spoiler: Pleas are Called "Answer to Criminal Complaint"

View attachment 55879

Additionally your honor, just stating the plea does nothing. All parties and the court itself should be aware of the facts that are in contention.

Motion to Reconsider Denied.

You claim that pleas are answers by showing the template but you ignore in the template where it talks about stating a plead to the crimes (guilty, not guilty, no contest) and not addressing the facts. Besides there is about a dozen cases were a plea of this nature has been accepted in the past.

 

[ameslap]

Your honor, we are ready to end discovery if the defendant is.

 

[Imza]

Your honor, we are ready to end discovery if the defendant is.

Your honor, the Defense has no issues with ending discovery early.

 

[ko531]

As Discovery has been agreed to be ended early, the Prosectution has 72 hours to provide their opening statement

 

[ameslap]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, this may be the most open and shut case in all of Redmontian legal history.

The Defendant hoped to turn the tide of an election. On three separate occasions, the Accused posted publicly and as an ad “Vote Zlost for oakridge election and naezathereus promises u 10k if zlost wins (not me [buying])”. (See P-001)

The defendant was then approached by the attorney general in-game, while the defendant was on. The AG told the accused that what the defendant was doing was illegal, the Defendent’s response: “Yes it is”. (See P-004)

Then, during a formal investigation and interrogation, the defendant blatantly admitted to the crime say: “Yk agrari…i wasnt blackmailed i am guilty… better just admit it now ey?... so yeah i did all it… help with buying votes… everything”. (See P-006).

Now, the defendant will probably try to pull this whole stunt as “we didn’t buy the votes, we just advertised for the person that is”. However, we must look to the law itself. The electoral act defines Electoral Fraud as: Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.

The act of posting an ad (whether for yourself or for a third party) that claims monetary relief for those that vote a certain way is the definition of meddling with an election through bribery.

In summary:
The Defendant posted multiple instances of attempting to buy votes AND they admitted to all of their wrongdoing in a formal interrogation.

The Defendant knew what they were doing and committed Election Fraud, plain and simple.

Thank you.

 

[ko531]

The Defense has 72 hours to provide their opening statement.

 

[Imza]

Your Honour,

Due to a possible Conflict of Interest and ethical concerns, I can no longer represent the Defendant. He has informed me that he will find new counsel. I apologize for this last-second decision and request that the court grant an extension to opening statements to preserve the Defendant's right to a speedy trial.

Thank you.

 

[ko531]

Your Honour,

Due to a possible Conflict of Interest and ethical concerns, I can no longer represent the Defendant. He has informed me that he will find new counsel. I apologize for this last-second decision and request that the court grant an extension to opening statements to preserve the Defendant's right to a speedy trial.

Thank you.

The defense has an extra 48 hours to find new counsel and provide their opening statement.

 

[Franciscus]

The defense has an extra 48 hours to find new counsel and provide their opening statement.

Your honor,

MZLD will be taking over defense in this case.

If it please the Court, we respectfully request a further extension of 24 hours to provide the opening statement.

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent

 

[ko531]

Your honor,

MZLD will be taking over defense in this case.

If it please the Court, we respectfully request a further extension of 24 hours to provide the opening statement.

Spoiler: Evidence of consent to represent

View attachment 55990

Granted.

 

[Franciscus]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

The Prosecution's case comes down to one simple allegation involving alleged bribery
The Prosecution here has a very simple case theory: as succinctly put in the prosecution's opening statement, the prosecution alleges that the Defendant engaged in "meddling with an election through bribery". This, per the prosecution, is the alleged reason for this criminal charge; the prosecution alleges bribery as seen as a predicate offense to support the allegation of electoral fraud.

But this case theory ain't all it's cracked up to be. There is simply not proof beyond a reasonable that the Defendant actually committed bribery as defined under the laws of the Commonwealth, and the Prosecution has not even attempted to prove certain necessary elements of the predicate crime in this case.

The Prosecution has not proven, and has not even charged, the allegation of bribery core to its case theory
Under the laws of the Commonwealth, "bribery" is not some undefined term that can be strewn about willy-nilly. Rather, it is a specific term with a specific meaning; Commercial Standards Act 12(1) defines "bribery" as "The act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity".

The Prosecution does not allege in any fact contained within its filings that the Defendant attempted to influence an individual holding public office, nor an individual serving in a legal capacity. These are necessary elements for the predicate crime of bribery. The legislative intent behind the definition of bribery is clear — it is to prevent quid-pro-quo actions involving public officials which lead them to corruption and to prevent corrupt actions by those acting under color of law. Neither of these intents clearly apply to this case; as such, no evidence is presented by the Prosecution that provides direct support for certain necessary elements involving the alleged predicate offense.

At a certain level, the omission of any proof of these necessary elements of the predicate crime of bribery makes sense — the Prosecution did not even choose to charge the Defendant with the predicate offense itself. But it's also what makes the Prosecution's case so weak: despite it being at the center of the Prosecution's case for alleged electoral fraud, the Prosecution hasn't charged, nor attempted to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, certain necessary elements for the predicate offense. As the Prosecution's case theory relies on proving this predicate offense — which would require proving all necessary elements of bribery as defined under the laws of the Commonwealth — the prosecution's case theory has a hole.

That hole, the defense submits, is one large enough for reasonable doubt.

The Prosecution provides no other theory to support its allegation of electoral fraud

The Prosecution has not, of course, provided any evidence that the Defendant''s alleged actions actually rigged an election. Nor has it provided any evidence that the defendant engaged in any threats with respect to the election. Nor any evidence that the plaintiff abused alternative accounts in any relevant way. The Defense cannot identify any other theory has been offered by the Prosecution other than the predicate offense theory laid out above.

Conclusion: There exists reasonable doubt as to the sole alleged predicate offense and, consequentially, there exists reasonable doubt in this case
The Defense submits that the Prosecution has not proven, and has not submitted the evidence required to prove, the predicate allegation of bribery beyond a reasonable doubt. Because bribery is the sole alleged predicate offense, and no other apparent theory presented by the Prosecution would render the Defendant criminally liable in this situation, this Court should find the Defendant not guilty of the crime alleged.

Thank you.

 

[ko531]

As no witnesses were called, we will be moving to closing statements. The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide their closing statement.

 

[ameslap]

As no witnesses were called, we will be moving to closing statements. The Prosecution has 72 hours to provide their closing statement.

I would like to request a 24 hour extension. Father’s Day weekend is here (if you know you know).

 

[ko531]

I would like to request a 24 hour extension. Father’s Day weekend is here (if you know you know).

Granted.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor,

I anticipate that this week will be busy for me. I respectfully request that, when closing statements are permitted for the defense, that the defense be granted 96 hours (a 24 hour extension) to provide them to this Court.

 

[ameslap]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Defense in their opening statement claims that bribery has not been properly established, however the Prosecution would like to argue that bribery itself does not have to be proven in this case. The Defendant has been charged with Electoral Fraud, which is defined in the Electoral Act as. "Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats." note that it says “but not limited to”. If the Courts are convinced that offering to buy our citizen’s votes does not fall under bribery, then this does not mean that no Electoral Fraud has occured. Buying votes for an election clearly falls under meddling with an election and is something which the defendant not only did per the evidence submitted, but also admitted to during an official interrogation (see P-006).

There is simply not proof beyond a reasonable that the Defendant actually committed bribery as defined under the laws of the Commonwealth

Commercial Standards Act 12(1) defines "bribery" as "The act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity".

Furthermore the Defense’s argument itself is mistaken, as there is clear proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant actually committed bribery as defined under the laws of the Commonwealth. Let us look at the elements of bribery:

• An offer, gift, solicitation, or receipt of an item or service of value. The Defendant posted an ad publicly offering money.
• To influence. The money was offered in return for voting a certain way in an election, thus attempting to influence decision-making.
• An individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity. When ads are posted they are shown to everyone online on the server. The offer was thus extended to everyone online at the time the ad was posted. P-005 shows evidence of two public officials being online at the time of the ad being posted, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security and this final element is also apparent.

The Defendant offered money to public officials (among others) to vote a certain way. This is the definition of bribery.

Your honor, there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the Defendant committing Election Fraud through attempting to buy votes and bribery. The Defendant has admitted to this, and has provided zero evidence to the contrary. If the Courts allow this crime to go unpunished and do not find buying votes to be a form of meddling with an election, they would open the door for elections to be bought, destroying our democracy as we know it.

Thank you.

 

[ko531]

The defense has 72 hours to provide their closing statement.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor,

I anticipate that this week will be busy for me. I respectfully request that, when closing statements are permitted for the defense, that the defense be granted 96 hours (a 24 hour extension) to provide them to this Court.

The defense has 72 hours to provide their closing statement.

Your honor,

May I have a 24-hour extension, per the above?

 

[ko531]

Your honor,

May I have a 24-hour extension, per the above?

Granted.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor,

I request a further extension of 12 hours.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

In their Closing Statements, and their arguments generally, the Prosecution inappropriately stretches the law beyond previous Supreme Court precedent.

1. Under Supreme Court Precedent, the Commonwealth must prove bribery in this case

The guidance around Electoral Fraud, and its relation to bribery, is laid out by the Supreme Court in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 10. In that case, the Defendant was charged with both Bribery and Electoral Fraud. The Prosecution, in that case, accesed Defendant Milqy of attempting to pay an individual to drop out of an electoral race. The relevant text of the laws in both that case and now appear to be the same, though the laws appear in a different location due to shuffling over the years. As the text appears the same, the precedent here would provide key guidance as to how the Federal Court should act.

Despite finding that Milqy did indeed offer money to a candidate to drop out of an electoral race, The Court in Commonwealth v. Milqy found the Defendant not guilty on both charges. Why?

Simple. The Court found Milqy not guilty on bribery, having found that the offered party neither held public office nor acted in a legal capacity. As the Court notes, the offered party "holding a public office or acting within a legal capacity, must be fulfilled" in order for bribery to be sustained.

The Court then turned to the charge of electoral fraud. The justices were unanimous in their agreement that the only means by which electoral fraud could have occurred would have been if bribery would occurred:

• In the opinion of Justice Drew_Hall, "Having come to the conclusion that Milqy did not, under current law, bribe lawanoesepr, this by default eliminates the charge of Electoral Fraud simultaneously since that charge is dependent on the bribery charge."
• In the opinion of Mhadsher101 "Electoral fraud can only be charged in this case when bribery is proven, so bribery must first and foremost be proven."
• This is reflected in the Court's opinion; the Court found that "the charge of bribery has not been fulfilled. As a result, the charge of electoral fraud has not been fulfilled either."

The Supreme Court did not entertain the infinite stretching of the law to a nebulous interpretation of the word "meddline", as the Prosecution asks here. The Defense asks that this Court act in the same way, and reject this stretch of the law beyond its established and clear meaning.

As such, the prosecution’s second contention – that the defendant somehow “meddled” in the election – fares no better. “Meddling,” by itself, is not a defined offense in our criminal code. It is a colloquial term, not a charge, and the prosecution tellingly never provided a legal definition for it. In fact, the only context in which “meddling” appears in our laws is within the definition of Electoral Fraud, which describes: “rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and/or threats." This means that to prove Electoral Fraud via meddling, the prosecution must show a concrete wrongful act – such as ballot rigging with alt accounts, bribery (addressed and disproven below), or coercive threats. Simply using the word “meddling” as an epithet is not enough, particularly in light of precedent.

2. Bribery is not Proven
In this case, the Prosecution claims that a general advertisement sent to everyone on the server, and, as at least one public official was online, this means that the public official was bribed. But this is a misreading of the law and precedents.

The message in question was a general appeal to voters at large, not a targeted bribe aimed at any particular public official or office-holder. Simply put, no evidence shows the defendant specifically sought to influence an official in the exercise of their public duties, as required by the bribery law.

Furthermore, the Milqy decision clarified that merely participating in an election (for example, as a voter or candidate) does not place someone in a “legal capacity” for purposes of the bribery statute. Running for office or voting is the right of every citizen – it is not an official duty or a position of public trust. The bribery law was designed to prevent corruption of public servants; even if any government officials happened to see the defendant’s message, there is no indication the message was directed at influencing them in their official roles.

The prosecution has presented no evidence of a quid pro quo directed at any office-holder – no promise like “I will pay Councilor X money so that Councilor X uses their office in my favor.” Absent such targeted corruption, the bribery allegation collapses. To convict on these facts would not only contradict the plain language of the statute, it would also set a dangerous precedent that dilutes the meaning of bribery beyond recognition. I urge the Court to follow the law as written and as interpreted in Milqy: if no public official was specifically targeted, no bribery occurred.

More importantly, the prosecution has failed to prove any act that would qualify as illegal election interference under our law. The record is devoid of any evidence of the classic forms of election rigging. To illustrate, none of the following occurred in this case:

• There were no fake or alternate accounts used to alter the vote tally (no ballot stuffing or multi-voting was even alleged).
• There were no threats, intimidation, or coercion directed at voters or officials by the defendant.
• There was no valid bribery of an official, as we have shown exhaustively (the offer was not aimed at influencing any office-holder’s official duties).

Each of those bullet points corresponds to the specific misconduct enumerated in the Electoral Fraud statute. Not a single one is present here.

 

[ko531]

Case is in recess pending verdict.