Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Aezal [2023] FCR 34

[RandomIntruder]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Aezal
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Commonwealth Reserve Bank was created from the ashes of FINFA, tasked with the responsibility of keeping the economy of the Commonwealth stable. The Bank is chaired by a Reserve Governor who is in charge of running the institution as well as maintaining the in-game company that is used by the Reserve Bank. In reverse to what Spiderman once famously said, with such a big responsibility came big powers. These powers included the ability to deposit to, withdraw from, and even to disband the company and ordering for money to be created out of thin air through minting processes.

There are precautions in place. The Governor of the Reserve Board must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Additionally, any transaction by the Reserve that involved money over $200,000 in a single month must be done with the President’s approval.

However, these precautions are only written in law, and should a Governor choose to no longer be governed by the law, they still have the ability that comes with the position, but none of the checks and balances to stop them. The law is only as restrictive as the Governor chooses it to be.

On March 16, 2023, the Defendant, who was at the time the Governor of the Commonwealth Reserve Bank, decided to quit the server and therefore, his role as the Governor. However, in doing so, he took all the money from the Commonwealth Reserve Bank account out of the company and spent approximately $500,000 of it on various chestshops and used /pay to distribute the money to various players.

This is a violation of Aezal’s duty as the Reserve Governor and the funds, which was government money, was improperly used. Additionally, the amount that was distributed, $500,000, surpassed the monthly limit that should have needed to be pre-approved by the President.This is a clear misuse of their power as the Reserve governor and fits under the Commonwealth’s definition of Corruption, which currently reads as “The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else.” Aezal used his government position as Reserve Governor to unfairly benefit someone else, the recipients of the money. Additionally, introducing such a large amount of money suddenly to the economy both causes public panic as well as exposing the Commonwealth to unnecessary inflation in the coming months. This therefore qualifies Aezal’s crimes as Treason using the definition which states “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” since their actions undermines the stability of the government of Remont by removing large portions of government money and distributing it to the populus illegally.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. Fmr. Governor Aezal
3. Commonwealth Reserve Bank

II. FACTS
1. Aezal was the Governor of the Commonwealth Reserve Bank
2. Aezal had an in-game company registered to their name which held the funds for the Reserve.
3. Aezal withdrew large sums of money on the 16th of March from the in-game company account.
4. They confessed, through a government announcement, to having “stimulated the economy” with $~500,000 from the Reserve account.
5. This was done without a majority vote by the Reserve Board.
6. They resigned as the Reserve Governor in the same announcement.
7. The Commonwealth Reserve Act states that the duty of the Reserve is to do its best to support the stability of the currency of Redmont as well as ensure economic prosperity.
8. The Constitution of the CRB states that the determination of Redmont Fiscal Policy must be approved by the Reserve Board with a majority vote.
9. The Commonwealth Reserve Act section 12 states that “(1) The President must give written approval for any of the following monetary policy changes to be enacted:
(a) Minting, introducing, and distributing currency amounts exceeding a total of $200,000 in any given month.”

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:

1. 1 Count of Corruption
2. 1 Count of Treason

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Corruption: Removal from public office and disbarment from public office for a period of 2 months and $25,000 in fines.
2. For Treason: Removal from public office and disbarment from public office for a period of 2 months and $25,000 in fines.
3. For the money to be seized from the recipients of the illegal distribution through a collaboration between the DLA, DOJ, and necessary staff and placed in the care of the DCGovernment account.

V. EVIDENCE

[Exhibit A: Announcement of Mass Distribution]

[Exhibit B: Public Confession of Wrongdoing]

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 17th day of March 2023

 

[JoeGamer]

Before issuing a summons, the forums show RandomIntruder to not be a member of the Department of Legal Affairs. Would the prosecution please provide proof that the Attorney General has allowed you to prosecute this case or some proof of employment.

 

[RandomIntruder]

Will this suffice?

 

[RandomIntruder]

Additional proof for role in the DLA discord.

 

[JoeGamer]

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

Aezal is required to appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. Aezal. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[RandomIntruder]

You honor, I received more evidence for this case through a warrant after the filing. Would I be able to add those pieces of evidence to this case?

 

[JoeGamer]

You will be able to file that evidence after the defendant has made an answer to complaint.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good day, your honor. It is my pleasure to be representing Aezal in this case.

I will be making another filing shortly.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure | Point of Law

The Constitution is clear:
"IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense." [portions bolded for emphasis]

Your honor, your recent instruction to the Prosecution is unconstitutional, as it makes this trial unfair by refusing to allow the Defendant to fully understand the nature and cause of the accusation, and even more strongly, does not grant my client the right to be confronted with the evidence against them.

It is unfair and unconstitutional for the Defense to be required to respond to the complaint until we have been confronted with the aforementioned evidence.

 

[Dartanboy]

You will be able to file that evidence after the defendant has made an answer to complaint.

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

In the event that the above Objection is overruled due to the objection being made against the presiding judicial's decision, a Motion to Reconsider the decision is also being filed:

I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER
The Constitution is clear:
"IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense." [portions bolded for emphasis]

Your honor, your recent instruction to the Prosecution is unconstitutional, as it makes this trial unfair by refusing to allow the Defendant to fully understand the nature and cause of the accusation, and even more strongly, does not grant my client the right to be confronted with the evidence against them.

It is unfair and unconstitutional for the Defense to be required to respond to the complaint until we have been confronted with the aforementioned evidence.

The Defense requests you allow the evidence to be provided before responding to the complaint. Additionally, the Defense requests an extension to file an Answer to Complaint 48 hours after the evidence is provided.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[Dartanboy]

Additionally, I have an exam and a job interview tomorrow, so if the previous extension is not allowed, I do request only an extra 12 hours after the original deadline to file a response.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[JoeGamer]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure | Point of Law

The Constitution is clear:
"IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense." [portions bolded for emphasis]

Your honor, your recent instruction to the Prosecution is unconstitutional, as it makes this trial unfair by refusing to allow the Defendant to fully understand the nature and cause of the accusation, and even more strongly, does not grant my client the right to be confronted with the evidence against them.

It is unfair and unconstitutional for the Defense to be required to respond to the complaint until we have been confronted with the aforementioned evidence.

Sustained. The Prosecution may provide its additional evidence.

Additionally, I have an exam and a job interview tomorrow, so if the previous extension is not allowed, I do request only an extra 12 hours after the original deadline to file a response.

Thank you, your honor.

Extension granted.

 

[RandomIntruder]

After filing a warrant against the Defendant, we were able to obtain more evidence of corruption in the form of Aezal both using Government Money to buy items from chestshops, presumably for personal use, as well as paying people using /pay after withdrawing money from the CRB ingame company.

[Exhibit C]

Screen_Shot_2023-03-18_at_6.42.17_PM.jpeg

drive.google.com

Images of the Pay logs of Aezal, which totals up to $272,000. (not counting payment to Sec. RandomIntruder for payment to new CRB account.)

[Exhibit D]

[Exhibit E]

Raw Spreadsheet:

Aezal Chestshop Purchases

docs.google.com

This shows that Aezal attempted to spend $272,000 + $327,023 - $130 = ~$598,893

$389,000 was sent to Sec. RandomIntruder to be put back into the CRB account.

 

[RandomIntruder]

I apologize for the edit and the deletion of the previously prematurely sent post. However, I am done presenting the new evidence.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

Your honor, the Prosecution has openly said that they have intentionally omitted some of Aezal's paylogs.

It is possible that the payment(s) made to Sec. RandomIntruder could be evidence showing a difference in how the money that was allegedly taken out of the CRB was used.

Thus, the Defense is asking the court to compel the Prosecution to share those logs as well.

Thank you.

 

[RandomIntruder]

Your honor, I messed up again on the link for Exhibit C (I've never shared an entire folder before).

Aezal Case – Google Drive

drive.google.com

Here is the link to all the payments, including the ones that were compelled in the motion. I apologize for the inconvenience.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that Aezal was the Governor of the CRB.
2. AFFIRM that Aezal had an in-game company registered to their name which held the funds for the Reserve.
3. AFFIRM that Aezal withdrew large sums of money on the 16th of March from the in-game company account.
4. AFFIRM that Aezal explained through a Government announcement that he “stimulated the economy” with $~500,000 from the Reserve account.
5. AFFIRM that this was done without a majority vote by the Reserve Board.
6. AFFIRM that Aezal resigned as the Reserve Governor in the same announcement.
7. AFFIRM that the Commonwealth Reserve Act states that the duty of the Reserve is to do its best to support the stability of the currency of Redmont as well as ensure economic prosperity.
8. AFFIRM that the Constitution of the CRB states that the determination of Redmont Fiscal Policy must be approved by the Reserve Board with a majority vote.
9. AFFIRM that the Commonwealth Reserve Act section 12 states that “(1) The President must give written approval for any of the following monetary policy changes to be enacted:
(a) Minting, introducing, and distributing currency amounts exceeding a total of $200,000 in any given month.”

II. DEFENSES
1. The facts are not in question, and it seems even the legality of the actions are not in question, but the Defense unequivocally DENIES that these actions warrant a Corruption charge and a Treason charge.

That being said, such arguments belong in an Opening Statement, not an Answer to Complaint, so we will be waiting for that. We will state now that we do not wish to have Summary Judgment.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
Exhibit 1 [CRB’s Constitution]: The Constitution of the CRB

 

[JoeGamer]

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

Your honor, the Prosecution has openly said that they have intentionally omitted some of Aezal's paylogs.

It is possible that the payment(s) made to Sec. RandomIntruder could be evidence showing a difference in how the money that was allegedly taken out of the CRB was used.

Thus, the Defense is asking the court to compel the Prosecution to share those logs as well.

Thank you.

Seeing as the prosecution has already fixed the evidence-sharing issue, I will be rejecting this motion due to the motion being moot.


The Court thanks the defendant's counsel for providing their answer to complaint. The Court will move into opening statements. The prosecution as 48 hours to provide the court with its opening statement.

 

[RandomIntruder]

Your honor, may I ask for a 48 hour extension due to irl commitments right now?

 

[JoeGamer]

Extension granted from the original deadline.

 

[RandomIntruder]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth Reserve Bank is given great power within the Government. They’re the only institution in existence that can command for money to be created out of nothing and distributed to the economy. Because of the possible implications of such abilities, only the brightest economic minds in the Commonwealth are allowed to lead the institution as its governor.

Therefore, we, as a Commonwealth, should not take it lightly when a governor, leader of such a powerful institution, breaches their duty to the public and puts the economic state of the Commonwealth into a further state of distress.

The Commonwealth’s current definition of Corruption, as outlined in the Corruption and Espionage Act, states the following: The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.

Whether Fmr. Governor Aezal is guilty of the crimes we are charging them with in this situation rests on answering three simple questions:

Was the Governor of the CRB a government position? The Governor of the CRB is undeniably a government position. The Governor needs to be nominated by the senate and confirmed by the Senate, same as any Cabinet position. The Commonwealth Reserve Act also states that the CRB is “an independent and self-governing Government institution,” leaving the Governor as a government leader.

Was the “unhinged stimmy” an action inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others? To answer this question, we must first identify the official duty of the CRB overall as well as the CRB Governor. The Commonwealth Reserve Act states that the Commonwealth Reserve Bank should try to preserve the stability of the currency of Redmont. However, by introducing close to half a million dollars into the economy, Aezal had destabilized the economy as the currency.

Additionally, what they did was illegal. The Commonwealth Reserve Act, through the Respect the President Act which amended it, declared that distributing more than $200,000 must be previously approved by the president. Aezal knew this because such motions had been brought before President Twixted earlier in his administration. Furthermore, such actions of distributing money should have been approved of by the Commonwealth Reserve Board, which did not happen.

Did the action unfairly benefit themself or others? Yes. Is it fair that certain people, at the judgment of the Fmr. Governor, received immense benefits from this illegal action while others didn’t? Is it fair that Aezal now has, unless they have redistributed outside of our knowledge, $159,000 worth of bank notes from Discover banking and over 6 stacks of netherite ingots and diamonds each? Is it fair that 99.9% of the money that they spent at chestshops, more than half of the redistributed wealth, were distributed to 4 companies? There is no way to argue that the actions were fair.

The Fmr. Governor may argue that he in good faith tried to help the economy, but the Prosecution would like you, your honor, to really consider this. Could an economic mind as advanced as Aezal’s really believe that dumping half a million dollars into an economy already ripe with inflation really be doing what is best for the stability of the economy? The Fmr. Governor had already done a stimulus check at the start of their time in the CRB. Why do this now instead of another stimulus? Why those specific people? Why those companies? There is nothing fair about these actions taken.

DATED: This 25th day of March 2023

 

[RandomIntruder]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INJUNCTION

The Commonwealth would like the courts to temporarily seize the following from Aezal temporarily:

$159,000 worth of written books from Discover Bank as distributed:
WrittenBook#WE: 34
WrittenBook#WF: 9
WrittenBook#WJ: 8
6 stacks of netherite ingots
64 beacons
5.5 stacks of diamond blocks

These are the items that were bought with the money obtained through the CRB through various chestshops. The items will be given back after the court case is finished should the court deem it right to do so. Removal from the economy reduces the amount of damage that can be caused by artificially inflating several markets.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, the Defense would like to respond to the injunction request before a decision is made on it.

 

[JoeGamer]

The Court now calls for the defense's counsel to provide their opening statement within the next 48 hours.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor, the Defense would like to respond to the injunction request before a decision is made on it.

The defense has 24 hours to respond.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO INJUNCTION REQUEST

The Defense holds that this injunction is both illegal and unnecessary, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Defendant threw out and/or randomly gave away all of the items listed above.

2. Even if the Defendant did still have those items, the injunction would be an unreasonable seizure, as the punishment for the alleged crimes is a total of $50,000 and some time barred from public office. If the Commonwealth or other entities, such as Discovery Bank, believe they are entitled to other relief, they must state so in a civil action.

Thank you.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
INJUNCTION

The Commonwealth would like the courts to temporarily seize the following from Aezal temporarily:

$159,000 worth of written books from Discover Bank as distributed:
WrittenBook#WE: 34
WrittenBook#WF: 9
WrittenBook#WJ: 8
6 stacks of netherite ingots
64 beacons
5.5 stacks of diamond blocks

These are the items that were bought with the money obtained through the CRB through various chestshops. The items will be given back after the court case is finished should the court deem it right to do so. Removal from the economy reduces the amount of damage that can be caused by artificially inflating several markets.

I will be rejecting this injunction on the basis that the Court still holds reasonable doubt whether these items are in possession of the defendant. If the prosecution can provide evidence that these items are still in possession of the defendant, the Court will allow for reconsideration.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

(Note: Opening Statement will be provided shortly, as an extension is not needed)

The Defense moves that this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges that this case is a violation of the Defendant's Constitutional rights.

Your honor, the Constitution states: "No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law." [emphasis added]

The Commonwealth Reserve Act states: "(3) Failure to follow [the CRB Constitution] by its members is to be dealt with warnings, and in severe cases removal from the Board either internally or through impeachment." [emphasis added]

Additionally, the CRB Constitution, which is recognized by the Commonwealth Reserve Act as law, states: "Punishments may be issued by the Reserve Governor."

Seeing that he had disobeyed the law, Aezal proceeded to do exactly as the law required, and internally removed himself from the board, using his power as Reserve Governor (a member of the Executive Branch) to fulfill his legal obligation to remove someone who committed a severe violation of the CRB Constitution.

To allow this case to be heard would set the precedent that the Department of Justice (the Executive Branch) can arrest someone and fine them, just for the Commonwealth to sue them again.

My client has already been punished for the actions that this case is suing for, and thus, the Commonwealth cannot sue for these actions, however, Aezal could appeal them if he desired.

Thank you.

 

[RandomIntruder]

May the prosecution respond to the motion to dismiss?

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Aezal
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

(Note: The Defense still believes that the Motion to Dismiss is valid and should be ruled upon. The Opening Statement is only being submitted, despite a pending Motion to Dismiss, to avoid missing a deadline.)

I. INTRODUCTION
Your honor, in this case, we see the Defendant going overboard, stimulating the economy with around half a million dollars. Was this legal? No, and the Defense recognizes this. That being said, the Defense also holds that the actions taken by Aezal do not rise to the level required to be considered Corruption and Treason.

The well-known case Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milky [2022] SCR 16 establishes what has become known as the “Corruption Test,” which is used to decide whether or not certain actions rise to the level of Corruption. Throughout this filing, the Defense will show that the Defendant’s actions do not constitute Corruption nor Treason.

II. OPENING ARGUMENTS
1. The Corruption Test, established in SCR 16, asks “1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? 2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office?” and if the answer is yes to both questions, then the individual in question has committed Corruption.

2. So now we ask, “Did Aezal, in the capacity as CRB Governor, give himself or someone else a notable advantage [over the rest of Redmont]?”

Let’s review perhaps the most important fact of this case:
The money was “indiscriminately used at random chest shops and sent to random players” by Aezal.

The Defense argues that this fact leads to the conclusion that Aezal did not give himself or someone else a notable advantage over others. In fact, these actions were taken to stimulate the economy and help it grow – these are benefits for the whole country, not just Aezal or another individual.

This alone should show that my client is not guilty of Corruption.

3. Next, we ask, “Were Aezal’s actions inconsistent with the official duty of office?”

The Defense does not contest that Aezal’s actions were inconsistent with his official duty, but hold that he was doing it for the betterment of Redmont’s economy.

4. Moving on to Treason, the Defense recognizes the Prosecution’s definition of 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”

5. The Defendant’s actions do not constitute Treason because:
a) The actions were not malicious. The goal was to stimulate the economy.
b) There was no sabotage or undermining of the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the Government of Redmont.

Until the Prosecution provides undeniable evidence of both of those requirements, there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that this can be Treason.

III. REBUTTAL OF PROSECUTION’S OPENING STATEMENT
The Commonwealth Reserve Bank is given great power within the Government. They’re the only institution in existence that can command for money to be created out of nothing and distributed to the economy. Because of the possible implications of such abilities, only the brightest economic minds in the Commonwealth are allowed to lead the institution as its governor.

The Defense does not disagree with this.

Therefore, we, as a Commonwealth, should not take it lightly when a governor, leader of such a powerful institution, breaches their duty to the public and puts the economic state of the Commonwealth into a further state of distress.

The Defense does not disagree with this. In fact, the Defendant already used his power as CRB Governor to punish himself for the actions taken, and internally removed himself from the CRB.

The Commonwealth’s current definition of Corruption, as outlined in the Corruption and Espionage Act, states the following: The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.

The Defense does not disagree with this.

Whether Fmr. Governor Aezal is guilty of the crimes we are charging them with in this situation rests on answering three simple questions:

The Defense affirms that this is essentially a longer version of the “Corruption Test.”

Was the Governor of the CRB a government position? The Governor of the CRB is undeniably a government position. The Governor needs to be nominated by the senate and confirmed by the Senate, same as any Cabinet position. The Commonwealth Reserve Act also states that the CRB is “an independent and self-governing Government institution,” leaving the Governor as a government leader.

The Defense does not disagree with this.

Was the “unhinged stimmy” an action inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others? To answer this question, we must first identify the official duty of the CRB overall as well as the CRB Governor. The Commonwealth Reserve Act states that the Commonwealth Reserve Bank should try to preserve the stability of the currency of Redmont. However, by introducing close to half a million dollars into the economy, Aezal had destabilized the economy as the currency.

The Defense denies that Aezal destabilized the economy, and this should be the assumption, as no evidence has been provided showing any instability in the economy. The Prosecution cannot simply make baseless claims assume they are factual.

Additionally, what they did was illegal. The Commonwealth Reserve Act, through the Respect the President Act which amended it, declared that distributing more than $200,000 must be previously approved by the president. Aezal knew this because such motions had been brought before President Twixted earlier in his administration. Furthermore, such actions of distributing money should have been approved of by the Commonwealth Reserve Board, which did not happen.

The Defense agrees that these actions were illegal, however wish to stress the fact that Aezal has already been punished for these actions – he was internally removed from the CRB, in accordance with the CRB Constitution and the Commonwealth Reserve Act.

Did the action unfairly benefit themself or others? Yes. Is it fair that certain people, at the judgment of the Fmr. Governor, received immense benefits from this illegal action while others didn’t? Is it fair that Aezal now has, unless they have redistributed outside of our knowledge, $159,000 worth of bank notes from Discover banking and over 6 stacks of netherite ingots and diamonds each? Is it fair that 99.9% of the money that they spent at chestshops, more than half of the redistributed wealth, were distributed to 4 companies? There is no way to argue that the actions were fair.

Your honor, as the Prosecution mentioned earlier: “only the brightest economic minds in the Commonwealth are allowed to lead the institution as its governor.”

Why then does the Commonwealth think they know what is better for the economy? The Commonwealth, in the very same filing, said: “Is it fair that 99.9% of the money that they spent at chestshops, more than half of the redistributed wealth, were distributed to 4 companies? There is no way to argue that the actions were fair.”

Your honor, the Defense holds that these actions were fair, as these actions were specifically done to stimulate the economy – a benefit for all. Additionally, many of the benefits went unnoticed and/or unmentioned in this case. For example, all the items bought by Aezal in this stimulus were then given away randomly, further circulating wealth and bolstering the economy.

Thus, it is our understanding that there is no notable and unfair benefit to Aezal or any other specific entity, apart from Redmont as a whole.

The Fmr. Governor may argue that he in good faith tried to help the economy, but the Prosecution would like you, your honor, to really consider this. Could an economic mind as advanced as Aezal’s really believe that dumping half a million dollars into an economy already ripe with inflation really be doing what is best for the stability of the economy? The Fmr. Governor had already done a stimulus check at the start of their time in the CRB. Why do this now instead of another stimulus? Why those specific people? Why those companies? There is nothing fair about these actions taken.

Finally, we once again point to the beginning of the Prosecution’s filing: “only the brightest economic minds in the Commonwealth are allowed to lead the institution as its governor.”

Who are they to argue with one of the “brightest economic minds in the Commonwealth?” They’ve provided no evidence that this was bad for the economy, and have only repeatedly said that Aezal “destabilized the economy” but have continually failed to back up that claim with facts.

Thus, the Defense stresses that Aezal – one of the brightest economic minds in the Commonwealth, according to the Prosecution – was acting in good faith, trying to help the economy.

It will be interesting to see the State of the Commonwealth report next week (I believe it will be released next week) and see if the size of the economy has increased – showing not only that Aezal believed it would be beneficial for the economy, but that it was beneficial for the economy.

IV. SUMMARY
1. Aezal acted in good faith, stimulating the economy to create a net benefit for all of Redmont.
- Even if it ends up being bad for the economy, there is no mal-intent or notable advantage or benefit for one specific entity.
2. The Prosecution believes Aezal is one of the “brightest economic minds in the Commonwealth,” yet also believes that they are better-equipped to make economic decisions.
3. The Prosecution has provided no evidence about their claim that these actions “destabilized the economy”
4. Aezal was already punished for the actions in this lawsuit.

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

DATED: This 28th day of March 2023

 

[JoeGamer]

There will be no need for the Commonwealth to provide a rebuttal to the motion to dismiss because I've made my decision on the motion to dismiss.

I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss brought forth by the defendant's counsel. While the Commonwealth Reserve Bank may have its own built-in ways to deal with members who do not abide by its Constitution, these are not charges made against said person. Only the Department of Legal Affairs can prosecute charges on behalf of the Commonwealth. No prior charges have been issued by the Department of Legal Affairs regarding the issues raised in these criminal charges.

Seeing as both parties have made opening statements, the Court asks for a list of witnesses or expert testimonials each party wishes to testify. Please provide a list, within the next 24 hours otherwise the Court will move on.

 

[Dartanboy]

There will be no need for the Commonwealth to provide a rebuttal to the motion to dismiss because I've made my decision on the motion to dismiss.

I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss brought forth by the defendant's council. While the Commonwealth Reserve Bank may have its own built-in ways to deal with members who do not abide by its Constitution, these are not charges made against said person. Only the Department of Legal Affairs can prosecute charges on behalf of the Commonwealth. No prior charges have been issued by the Department of Legal Affairs regarding the issues raised in these criminal charges.

Seeing as both parties have made opening statements, the Court asks for a list of witnesses or expert testimonials each party wishes to testify. Please provide a list, within the next 24 hours otherwise the Court will move on.

 OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

If only the DLA may prosecute, then RandomIntruder may not be the Commonwealth's counsel for this case. They've been named as a Special Prosecutor but are not an employee of the DLA. The Defense requests that either the Motion to Dismiss be approved or the case be restarted with the DLA prosecuting the Defendant.

 

[Dartanboy]

Also, the Defense does not wish to call any witnesses.

 

[RandomIntruder]

The Prosecution has no witnesses to call. However, we would like a chance to respond to the objection.

 

[JoeGamer]

 OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

If only the DLA may prosecute, then RandomIntruder may not be the Commonwealth's counsel for this case. They've been named as a Special Prosecutor but are not an employee of the DLA. The Defense requests that either the Motion to Dismiss be approved or the case be restarted with the DLA prosecuting the Defendant.

Objection overruled. This issue has already been addressed by the Court. This objection is moot.

The Court now asks the prosecution to give its closing statement within the next 48 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

There will be no need for the Commonwealth to provide a rebuttal to the motion to dismiss because I've made my decision on the motion to dismiss.

I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss brought forth by the defendant's council. While the Commonwealth Reserve Bank may have its own built-in ways to deal with members who do not abide by its Constitution, these are not charges made against said person. Only the Department of Legal Affairs can prosecute charges on behalf of the Commonwealth. No prior charges have been issued by the Department of Legal Affairs regarding the issues raised in these criminal charges.

Seeing as both parties have made opening statements, the Court asks for a list of witnesses or expert testimonials each party wishes to testify. Please provide a list, within the next 24 hours otherwise the Court will move on.

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

Your honor, there are numerous cases, creating precedent showing that the Executive Branch can levy disciplinary action against individuals without bringing them to court.

Such cases include:

• Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 40
• Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dusty_3 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 49
• Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20
• Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72

All of these above cases are appeals about the disciplinary action taken by Executive Branch. Not once have we seen the Executive levy disciplinary action only to sue the alleged offender later in hopes of taking more action against them.

Let's take another look at the Constitution:
Your honor, the Constitution states: "No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law." [emphasis added]

I stress that this does not solely refer to criminal charges but to criminal acts. That is, because my client has been punished for the act(s) mentioned in this lawsuit, it is unconstitutional for this case to go through.

I hope this Motion has further clarified the legality of this case and why it must be dismissed.

Thank you.

 

[RandomIntruder]

Your honor, I would like a ruling on the above motion before presenting our closing statement as I believe the response could be important to how we would like to formulate our closing statement. Therefore, may I have until 24 hours after the decision of the above motion?

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, I would like a ruling on the above motion before presenting our closing statement as I believe the response could be important to how we would like to formulate our closing statement. Therefore, may I have until 24 hours after the decision of the above motion?

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The ruling on the above motion has no effect on closing statements. If it is sustained, there will be no closing statements. If it is overruled, the case will continue as it would have.

This is an obvious attempt by the Commonwealth to delay this case, violating my client's rights.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, it has been well over 48 hours.

 

[RandomIntruder]

Your honor, I requested the extension before the 48 hour period and have been waiting for a response. I am actively following the case, the decision about the motion to reconsider would just affect how the closing statement is presented.

 

[JoeGamer]

Apologies for my delay in response; I was not able to sit down and properly review the motion yesterday due to irl activities.

As stated in the Court's response to the objection, no criminal charges have been filed or acted upon. Under all Court records available, Aezal has not been charged with these crimes regarding the circumstances of this case. I reiterate this point: Only the Department of Legal Affairs has the ability to pursue criminal charges in a court of law. The defendant's council has failed to provide any evidence suggesting otherwise. While the Commonwealth Reserve Bank may have procedures to allow for the removal of individuals, these are not criminal acts as defined in the Constitution. The Court will not change its ruling in this matter.

Since there has been a delay in the Court's response, the Court will grant an additional 48 hours for the prosecution starting at the time of this message. The objection made by the defendant's counsel is overruled.

 

[RandomIntruder]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Aezal
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

The Prosecution wants to again highlight the Corruption Test for this situation.

The Defence claimed that the actions of the Defendant did not benefit just Aezal or any other individual but rather the whole economy. However, the money was not given to the economy indiscriminately. Most of the money was spent at a select few chestshops, as shown in the opening statement. Additionally, the Defendant claimed to have distributed all of the items purchased to the users at spawn, but this was not only not verified, but also irresponsible since if no one picked them up they would have been lost.

The Defence agrees with the prosecution on the inconsistent with official duty claim, so we will not spend further time discussion that.

The Defence claims the charge of Treason is unsubstantiated because of the lack of proof that the actions were both malicious and did not undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the Commonwealth. However, as stated in the previous paragraph, the fact that the Defendant is aware of the economical implications of such actions while also having reports of record high inflation in the Commonwealth at that point makes the actions malicious in nature. Additionally, it undermined the stability of the economy as well as the government because government money was taken and illegitimately reappropriated, decreasing the trust of the public for the CRB. Introducing so much money suddenly to the economy without prior consent from the President, the rest of the Commonwealth Reserve Board, and good reason cannot be argued to have been non-malicious.

The Defence stressed multiple times that the Prosecution claimed that the Defendant is one of the most economically inclined citizens of the Commonwealth, and we stand by this. However, knowing what is good for the economy does not mean that they are confined to actions only beneficial to the economy. Just because someone knows doing something is wrong doesn’t mean they won’t do it. Rather, it means that they cannot claim to have been unaware of the consequences.



Finally, the Defence has repeatedly tried to claim that the punishment within the CRB by themselves is enough. Therefore, this is admitting wrongdoing without wanting to actually suffer the consequences of the actions. We believe that we have shown significant argument of both the malicious intent, advantage to individuals, and government destabilization that the Defence claims does not exist. The question no longer is “was it wrong” but “how should the actions be punished,” and letting the Defendant walk away from this with a slap on the wrist of a “self-induced punishment” of resigning would set a dangerous precedent for future government officials.

The Prosecution rests our case.

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

DATED: This 4th of April 2023

 

[JoeGamer]

The defense counsel may provide its closing statement within the next 48 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

New evidence has been found today that further proves the innocence of my client.

May we present the evidence to the court?

 

[JoeGamer]

Mr. Dartanman, this Court has called for closing statements. This is an extremely inappropriate time to request new evidence be entered into the record. The prosecution has already made its closing statement. If this evidence were allowed to be entered, this would make the case unfair as the Commonwealth has had no time to review the evidence, let alone respond to it.

Request denied.

 

[Dartanboy]

Mr. Dartanman, this Court has called for closing statements. This is an extremely inappropriate time to request new evidence be entered into the record. The prosecution has already made its closing statement. If this evidence were allowed to be entered, this would make the case unfair as the Commonwealth has had no time to review the evidence, let alone respond to it.

Request denied.

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

Your honor, in general, this is true. But this is evidence proving the innocence of my client (something which shouldn't have to be done, given the burden of proof is on the Commonwealth). If Aezal is innocent, you don't want to sentence him for a crime he did not commit, do you?

This new evidence was  literally released by the Commonwealth yesterday, so it is not only unreasonable, but impossible for it to have been entered earlier.

Finally, how is this a fair trial for my client? He finally received evidence proving his innocence and he isn't allowed to have it brought to court?

Let me ask you this:
Which is more important?
1. Disallowing the Defense from providing evidence (which the Commonwealth released yesterday), perhaps resulting in a criminal sentence for an innocent man.
Or
2. Allowing an innocent man to prove his innocence in this court, with the evidence that I once again stress the Commonwealth released yesterday.

Thank you.

 

[RandomIntruder]

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

Your honor, while this may seem counter-intuitive coming from the prosecution, I believe that if there does exist such evidence, the Defence should be allowed to present it as long as the Prosecution is also allowed to respond again.

This would both allow for a fair trial and also prevent a lengthy and tedious retrial/appeal.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
Your honor, this case is a criminal action - not a civil action. This puts an immense burden of proof on the Prosecution - the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Aezal committed both Corruption and Treason.

The Prosecution's arguments rely heavily on emotional tactics and often claims that my client "destabilized the economy."

Regardless, the Prosecution has shown no evidence that the economy was destabilized.

Let's review each of the Prosecution's major points:
1. "The Commonwealth Reserve Act states that the Commonwealth Reserve Bank should try to preserve the stability of the currency of Redmont. However, by introducing close to half a million dollars into the economy, Aezal had destabilized the economy"

Once again, the Prosecution failed to introduce any evidence that Aezal "destabilized the economy."

2. "Did the action unfairly benefit themself or others? Yes."

Your honor, the Prosecution would have you believe that Aezal intentionally chose specific companies and individuals to give money to, however, the Prosecution fails to show any evidence that this is the case. In fact, they've even provided evidence explaining it was "indiscriminately used at random chest shops and sent to random players."

The Prosecution wants you to believe a lie. The Prosecution wants to see my client, an innocent citizen of Redmont, fined for $50,000 and removed from office for four months.

3. "The Defence claimed that the actions of the Defendant did not benefit just Aezal or any other individual but rather the whole economy. However, the money was not given to the economy indiscriminately. Most of the money was spent at a select few chestshops, as shown in the opening statement. Additionally, the Defendant claimed to have distributed all of the items purchased to the users at spawn, but this was not only not verified, but also irresponsible since if no one picked them up they would have been lost."

No matter where Aezal spent the money, the logs would show a finite number of chest shops (as Aezal cannot find infinite chest shops), so the fact that there is a finite number of chest shops is not sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that "the money was not given to the economy indiscriminately."

Furthermore, the Prosecution's claim depends on the idea that the distribution of items was "not verified," but your honor, the Prosecution holds the burden of proof - not the Defense.

4. "[The] fact that the Defendant is aware of the economical implications of such actions while also having reports of record high inflation in the Commonwealth at that point makes the actions malicious in nature. Additionally, it undermined the stability of the economy."

Your honor, the Prosecution points to "the economical implications of such actions," however never (in this paragraph) says what those implications are. If they are referring to "destabilizing the economy," the Defense once again points to their lack of evidence showing this.

Aezal stimulated the economy. He did not destabilize it.

5. "Therefore, this is admitting wrongdoing without wanting to actually suffer the consequences of the actions. We believe that we have shown significant argument of both the malicious intent, advantage to individuals, and government destabilization that the Defence claims does not exist. The question no longer is “was it wrong” but “how should the actions be punished,” and letting the Defendant walk away from this with a slap on the wrist of a “self-induced punishment” of resigning would set a dangerous precedent for future government officials."

The Defense wants to be VERY clear: It is true that the Defendant acted illegally. However, the laws regarding Corruption and Treason were NOT broken. If a Government Official stole from the bank, they would face the punishment for stealing from the bank. Corruption and Treason would not be applied to them. In the same way, this is a case of disobeying the CRB Constitution (and by extension, the Commonwealth Reserve Act) - this has nothing to do with Corruption or Treason.

So yes, the Defendant admits to wrongdoing, however the Defendant is innocent in terms of Corruption and Treason.

6. "However, knowing what is good for the economy does not mean that they are confined to actions only beneficial to the economy. Just because someone knows doing something is wrong doesn’t mean they won’t do it. Rather, it means that they cannot claim to have been unaware of the consequences."

Once again, "the consequences" are mentioned, but what are "the consequences?" Again, the Prosecution fails to show any negative consequences for the economy through Aezal's actions, through which he stimulated the economy.

NEW EVIDENCE
Everything after this line depends on the new evidence being submitted. If the above Motion(s) are overruled, then I expect everything after this line to be struck. Due to the approaching deadline, this Closing Statement must be posted before the Motion(s) are sustained or overruled.

Exhibit 2:

Spoiler: Government Treasury

Exhibit 3:

Spoiler: Size of the Economy

Exhibit 4 (March State of the Commonwealth Report): State of the Commonwealth - SOTC Report - MARCH 2023 (you can find both of the above images there)

This evidence shows:
1. The size of the economy steadily grew at a similar pace compared to the last YEAR.
2. The balance in the Government Treasury INCREASED in March (the same month of Aezal's stimulus).

While this does not necessarily prove that Aezal saved the economy from collapse, it does prove that Aezal's stimulus did not destabilize the economy. It also introduces reasonable doubt regarding mal-intent, that is, a reasonable person can doubt that Aezal acted maliciously.

Furthermore, it shows a net benefit for the economy, as the size of the economy grew at a similar pace to how it has grown for a long time, and the Government Treasury's balance grew. The stimulus was immensely successful.

Thank you.

 

[JoeGamer]

I will be rejecting both motions to reconsider. As said originally, it is too late at this point in the trial to enter new evidence.

The Court thanks both parties for their closing statements. The Court will now stand in recess pending a written verdict.

 

[RandomIntruder]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Aezal
Defendant

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honor, because of your decision to reject the motions of reconsider, I would like to motion for everything from NEW EVIDENCE and below to be struck from the Defendant's closing statement.