Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. d3froggy [2023] FCR 60

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

d3froggy
Defendant

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

The Defendant proposed an illegal law which passed, against the Constitution of Oakridge. This action of a government official, which was inconsistent with their official duty, ultimately unfairly benefited the Defendant and the rest of the Oakridge Town Council.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont (Prosecution)
2. d3froggy (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On June 27, 2023, d3froggy proposed the law in Exhibit A, which would give each member of the Town Council, including themself, $30,000 each.
2. On June 28, 2023, the law was passed and actioned, giving each member of the Town Council $30,000 (Exhibit B).
3. This money was taken from Oakridge’s balance (Exhibit B).
4. The Constitution of Oakridge (Constitution - Town Constitution) states:
“The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and pass laws on any topic through a majority of its members with the only stipulations that such legislation may not conflict with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont and any bill which intends to modify this Constitution must abide by the process outlined in Article IV.”
5. Thus, it is illegal, and thus inconsistent with the Council’s official duty, to pass a law that conflicts “with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont.”
6. The Wages Act (Act of Congress - Wages Act) states

• “The Executive will maintain a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels and their associated occupations.” and
• “The Executive has exclusive jurisdiction as to what salary level occupations fall into.”

7. “Town Council” is not in the ‘Government Pay’ guide (Guide - Government Pay), and thus, is not to be paid.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. One count of Corruption, for using their government position to benefit themself and the other members of the Town Council, acting inconsistently with their official duty, and ignoring the rights of the people of Oakridge.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Corruption, the maximum penalty of a $25,000 fine and 2 months barred from public office.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: ”Exhibit A - The Proposal”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit B - The Execution”

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 29th day of June 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, my apologies.

This is obviously a Supreme Court case. I'm not sure why we totally let this slip by in our minds and we filed in the Federal Court.

 

[Milkcrack]

This case is dismissed without prejudice, please re-file the case in the appropriate court using the correct format.

 

[Milkcrack]

This case has been re-opened in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling on [2023] SCR 16.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@d3froggy is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. d3froggy. Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I hereby charge d3froggy with contempt of court and order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately. A default judgement will be entered.

 

[Matthew100x]

Requesting to submit an amicus brief on the legal question on the grounds that I am handling a case that is very similar in nature and fact set as to this one.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Requesting to submit an amicus brief on the legal question on the grounds that I am handling a case that is very similar in nature and fact set as to this one.

The request is granted, please file your amicus brief within 24 hours.

 

[Matthew100x]

Amicus Brief for The Commonwealth of Redmont v. d3froggy [2023] FCR 60.

The question at hand is "Is there any law against commission for town council members"?

There are three points I would like to bring up that we will be arguing for on the behalf of the defendant in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59.

1. Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of a Town Council are entirely unlisted within the “Government Pay” guide and thus are unaffected by the law. (see Guide - Government Pay)
2. In furtherance of the first section of this defense, the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of a Town Council do not receive any pay under the Wages Act and instead receive the pay of the highest tier that they are in instead.
3. Section 3 of the Wages Act states “The Executive will maintain a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels and their associated occupations.” yet fails to list and provide for pay levels for Mayors, Deputy Mayors, and members of a Town Council. (see Act of Congress - Wages Act).

Wages for the government is controlled by the Wages Act (see Act of Congress - Wages Act). The law states "The Executive will maintain a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels and their associated occupations." Yet, when you take a look at the Government Pay guide took look at how the pay levels are organized, Mayors, Deputy Mayors, and Town Councils are entirely unincluded on the guide. Since the law states "The Executive will maintain (emphasis added by me) a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels" and Mayors, Deputy Mayors, and Town Councils are not listed, it is safe to assume that they do not fall under any pay level set by the Wages Act. In further support to this argument, when someone who holds the position of either Mayor, Deputy Mayor, or sit on a Town Council, they receive pay based on the highest pay level that their normal position has. Such as a Mayor is a rep getting $35 an hour or a police office who is a town council member getting $25 an hour. It is fair to conclude that the pay for town positions are entirely uncontrolled by both the Federal Government currently and could be set by the town if they so wanted.

So to finish, is there any law against commission for town council members? No, since they are unaffected by the wages act, they could decide compensation as they wish. It is instead up to the DLA to prosecute for potentially breaking laws vs assuming that the Wages Act controls the pay for town council members.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Thank you. A ruling will be made shortly, in the meanwhile the court will now go into recess.

 

[Dartanboy]

 OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your honor, we request the Amicus Curiae Brief be struck, because in this case, it did not fulfill the purpose of such a filing.

An Amicus Curiae Brief is intended to be filed by a third party - one not directly involved in the suit. They are supposed to be a so-called friend of the court and present facts. In this case, he didn't merely present facts, rather he acted as the Defendant's counsel, providing arguments akin to that of an Opening Statement (and this is even admitted by Matthew100x: "There are three points I would like to bring up that we will be arguing for on the behalf of the defendant in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59.")

Thank you

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

 OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your honor, we request the Amicus Curiae Brief be struck, because in this case, it did not fulfill the purpose of such a filing.

An Amicus Curiae Brief is intended to be filed by a third party - one not directly involved in the suit. They are supposed to be a so-called friend of the court and present facts. In this case, he didn't merely present facts, rather he acted as the Defendant's counsel, providing arguments akin to that of an Opening Statement (and this is even admitted by Matthew100x: "There are three points I would like to bring up that we will be arguing for on the behalf of the defendant in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59.")

Thank you

The objection is sustained and the amicus brief is hereby struck from the record.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. d3froggy [2023] FCR 60

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. The defendant’s actions (paying the council members of Oakridge 30k each) was illegal
2. This is because the town council is not listed under the government pay guide

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant failed to appear before the court.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the government is to keep track of all wages under it in the Government Pay guide.

2. The government, however, has not maintained it to include town positions. This suggests that the towns can do what they wish with their finance, as the court upholds, as long as it is consistent with the law.

3. Therefore, it is the opinion of the court that the executive does not have control over how the town councils spend their own money, as long as it is passed lawfully and through the right processes. Following this, it is not inconsistent with their official duties to provide commission for a service (serving on the council).

4. Additionally the town constitution states that, “The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and pass laws on any topic through a majority of its members with the only stipulations that such legislation may not conflict with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont,” which the court believes should include any expenditure, as long as it is passed with due process. There is no federal law stating that the town council may not be paid for their work.

IV. SENTENCE
1. The court hereby finds d3froggy NOT GUILTY of corruption.

The Federal Court thanks the Commonwealth and Matthew100x for their time.

This case is now adjourned.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

The court will uphold [2023] FCR 23. All posts after this message:

I hereby charge d3froggy with contempt of court and order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately. A default judgement will be entered.

will be stricken from the record (except for the objection) and the court will go into recess until a public defender is appointed. This case is hereby reopened.

 

[Banana]

I will be taking over this case from this point forward.

 

[Banana]

I believe that there has been an irreversible error in proceedings in this trial. It is my belief that there is no other option at this point than to declare a mistrial. As the error was not made on behalf of the Prosecution, I will not be barring them from re-trying this matter. This case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.