Good Afternoon Your Honor,
Today we present the opening arguments for the defense. We’re going to focus on expanding each of our defenses. Additionally, we will also be providing a slight rebuttal of the prosecution's case.
Our Defenses:
On the Matter of Towns and Payment for Work Done:
Wages for the government are 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 and see 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 (see
Guide - Government Pay). In further support to this argument, when someone who holds the position of either Mayor, Deputy Mayor, or sits 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 officer 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.
In Oakridge, the constitution controls powers of the town government, here’s what it has to say on the topic of legislative power:
The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and [B]pass laws on any topic[/B] (emphasis added by me) 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 (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/town-constitution.8763/).
Does the bill proposed by the Town Council to pay the Defendant conflict with the laws of the Federal Government of Redmont? No, since the Town Council is unaffected by the wages act, they could decide compensation as they wish. The basis for the argument that “there is no legal basis for the Town (and its council) to distribute funds” per the prosecution's opening statement is simply unfounded. They are arguing that the town has no ability to control its own purse, this is a farcical argument at best and an extremely detrimental argument to town autonomy at worst. Your honor, we hope that you see it our way and acknowledge that the Town of Oakridge has the right to use its wallet as it wishes as long as it does not conflict with Federal Law.
On Corruption:
Corruption is a complicated charge because the statutory language requires an act that “give some advantage
inconsistent (Emphasis added by me, as this portion was inexplicable missing in our initial answer to complaint) with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else”, which is hard for the prosecution to prove in this instance. How is paying for the labor of building in reconstructing the town inconsistent with official duty? We do not believe it is.
The issue at hand per the prosecution is that the by being paid by the town for their duty as a builder, “without going through the proper procedures” is corruption. The rules for such a case revolves around the definition of corruption, the common law test of Corruption established by the Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16, and whether or not the town of Oakridge had “proper procedures” for payment of services. The rule for corruption is as follows:
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 (see [URL]https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/corruption-and-espionage-offenses-act.15526/[/URL]).
This crime has has been charged to various people in the past and such rulings culminated in a corruption test, the rule for which is as follows:
The two-part test is simple: 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? As the Court analysis’s each charge of corruption, the same test will be used to determine whether the defendant violated the Corruption Act (see [URL]https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/the-commonwealth-v-milqy-2022-scr-16.14452/post-55434[/URL]).
Now we need to move on to whether or not there are any rules for whether or not the Town of Oakridge can spend money. The prosecution claims that there is not any procedure that would allow the town to spend their money in their opening statements:
1. The Oakridge Town Council, including the Mayor, does not have the authority to make payments on behalf of Oakridge. Oakridge’s Constitution does not provide a legal basis for the Town to distribute funds.
This is something present in the other Towns’ constitutions.
Willow’s Constitution says: “The Mayor may oversee and manage the town of Willow and its assets.”
Aventura’s Constitution says: “The Commerce Councilor shall be in charge of the Office of Commerce. They shall be responsible for overseeing the treasury and setting the town’s budget.”
This is simply untrue. As we listed in the defense,
On the Matter of Towns and Payment for Work Done, the town of Oakridge does have the power of the purse through its legislative branch. The rule for spending comes from its sweeping all-encompassing legislative power and is as follows:
The Town Council shall have the power to author, propose, and pass laws on any topic (emphasis added by me) 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 (see [URL]https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/town-constitution.8763/[/URL]).
Thus, with the rules listed, we can move on to the analysis of the rules.
To begin with, we must try the standards of the corruption test, which applies the statutory language to the alleged crime. First, would the act give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit? On the face of the issue, the answer may seem to be yes since the Defendant was the mayor of the town at the time of payment. However, Your Honor, he was acting as a builder and was being paid as a builder, his payment had nothing to do with being Mayor. The defendant’s action, or I should say the payment itself, was not done with no valid reason and it did not confer an advantage or benefit, it was payment for labor done. Second, was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office? The answer is no as proven by the fact that CrackedAmoeba1 also assisted in constructing the town of Oakridge and was also paid for his services (and not prosecuted for being paid). The fact is that anyone who worked on and built for Oakridge would have been paid for their labor. There is no inconsistency in the action done by the town council.
Then comes the issue of whether or not the town was able to pay the defendant. The answer is yes. Per the constitution, the Town Council is able to pass a law “on any topic” as long as it does not conflict with Federal Law. While the prosecution argues that the charge of corruption causes a conflict with Federal Law, we would argue that this is being applied to Ex Post Facto as a prosecution. In fact, the defendant had done work on the town previously and had been paid for his services, please see the exhibits we will be submitting in our
Motion to Submit New Evidence as Exhibit D.
So with the analysis, I hope your honor has seen how we have come to the conclusion that the defendant is not guilty of the alleged crime of corruption. The Prosecution fails to meet the standards of the corruption test and falsely claims that the town is unable to pay for labor.
On Embezzlement:
Embezzlement is another difficult charge as the statutory language requires that “withholding assets for the purpose of conversion for personal gain”. The prosecution argues that there was conversion of the assets in a farcical way. They argue that the $85,000 dollars legitimate payment for labor is being withheld and converted. They’ve submitted a photo of the defendant’s balance as proof of the conversion and that he is guilty of this crime. Instead of applying extensive legal analysis, we would like to ask the Prosecution a series of questions to help us, both the defense and the honorable Justice Milkcrack, understand how this “conversion” is “withheld” and how it applies to embezzlement. Additionally, we argue that the current level of evidence is insufficient to prove anything, much less that the defendant is potentially guilty of embezzlement.
- How does the prosecution know for certain that the defendant converted the assets?
- Is moving money from a personal account into another account considered a conversion or a transfer?
- Is not having the money in a personal balance, where it is wealth taxed, considered withholding?
- Is the wealth tax considered a conversion of assets by the government, and if so, is said taxed money being withheld from the prosecution and defendant?
- If moving money to a bank account is a conversion, is it still being withheld if it can be freely pulled and brought forward if necessary?
- Would you be able to bring forth evidence to prove that the money was converted and not simply transferred?
The prosecution also argues that the defendant's withholding of the assets of Oakridge constitutes embezzlement. While the defendant does have the town’s money at this moment, it is not being converted or spent. We are awaiting resolution of a civil claim that has yet to be filed regarding the legality of the removal of the defendant from the position of the Town’s Mayor. I as the defendant’s counsel has instructed the defendant to hold that money and not spend any of it at all until we can resolve all legal issues. We will attach evidence for it in
Motion to Submit New Evidence as Exhibit E.
Opening Statement
As you can see your honor, we’ve gone through, organized, and compiled the reasons for why the defendant is not guilty of the alleged crimes.
As far as the withholding of the town’s assets, we are still seeking a legal resolution to the legality of the removal of the mayor from the town. We do not believe removing an entire Town Council is one of the president’s implied powers. Since this case is focused on a prosecution of the defendant, we will leave such analysis to a future case, however if need be we are capable of transferring the town balance of Oakridge at any point. We just need a legitimate order as well as a legitimate place to send it too. That money is being kept safe and is not being converted whatsoever, we are willing to work with the DLA in whatever manner necessary to prove this fact. Once we come to a resolution on that issue though, have a legitimate transfer order, as well as a legitimate place to transfer the money too, that money will be released to the town of Oakridge. This is why we argued and requested for a counterclaim prior to our answer.
Motion to Submit New Evidence
We formally request to submit the attached files: Exhibit D and Exhibit E.
Conclusion
The Defense thanks the Court for their time.
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 13th day of July, 2023.
Former Mayor Galavance
