Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59
- Thread starter Bibsfi4a
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2020
- Messages
- 506
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
Prelude:
Your Honor,
If anything is clear, it is that this case has been bungled by the prosecution. The focus has been mismatched: First on payment for labor in towns, then on embezzlement, then on corruption. They are grasping for straws and I want to take the time to go over this before going deeper into the defenses.
When the Prosecution originally launched the case, they argued solely that the The Wages Act controlled pay for Town Councils. When this argument was explained and disproved by Town Councils being not listed on the Guide for Government Pay, they began arguing differently. First they argued that the Town of Oakridge did not have the power to create spending bills. Now the prosecution uses a law related to taxes that grants exemption to taxes to explain why the Town Councils shouldn’t be paid by relinking them to the The Wages Act. They then argue that by EO, Towns are unable to implement bylaws that fit outside of the listed criteria mentioned within the EO. So which argument is the prosecution actually going with?
The same can be said for the Embezzlement Charges. Originally, the prosecution argued that the money was “withheld” from the Town, completely ignoring the fact that even if the payment is in dispute, the town still willingly transferred over the money to the defendant. They then argued that because the $85,000 dollars was not within the Town’s Balance that it constituted embezzlement. I asked 6 questions pertaining to the matter so that Your Honor can understand what it is they’re exactly arguing, these questions were ignored. They then argue that the defendant “made the decision to hire themselves, and abuse their authority to use public funds for their own self interest” to justify their charge of Embezzlement, while completely ignoring that embezzlement requires “withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets”. So again, which argument is the prosecution actually going with?
On Corruption, the prosecution originally asserted that the defendant used their government position to benefit themselves. This was thoroughly debunked by the defendant’s legal analysis within their Opening Statement under title On Corruption. The prosecution has yet to link how the defendant’s labor may have been incorrect. First they argue that “payment made without going through the proper procedures is Corruption”. They then argued that Oakridge Town Council did not have a legal basis for payments in their constitution, unlike Aventura and Willow. In their closing statement, they try to pin down ShadowNBA’s words that the defendant “made the decision to hire themselves, and abuse their authority to use public funds for their own self interest” in order to justify allegations of Corruption. So we need to reiterate, which argument is the prosecution actually asserting for this charge?
Closing Statement:
I will try to make this brief by making a couple of points to explain why the defendant establishes sufficient doubt to prove that they are not guilty of the crimes based on the prosecution’s closing statement.
First the prosecution argues:
Further, there is a small supply of well-known builders on the server. Like the legal field, the construction field is incredibly important to our nation. There are only so many people who can work on large scale projects like this effectively. I ask this, why shouldn’t the defendant be able to build for the town? The prosecution argues that this is “not a legal work-around the Corruption law”. Why? Are Town Mayors who happen to be builders not able to choose themselves to complete work for the town? Would the same argument apply to Town Mayors who are Lawyers who decide to work on a case for the town? As we showed in Exhibits F-Q, the defendant as well as CrackedAmoeba extensively worked on the Town of Oakridge and were discussing it often. While we did not choose to submit additional evidence, there is more proof to show that the defendant worked hard on the town, such as making the custom forests surrounding the town. The defendant worked, this did not inappropriate payment for nothing done.
This also ignores the fact that the Defendant did not pay himself, the town council as a whole did. The Town Council would’ve been within their right to deny the bill for spending money, but they did not. This includes ShadowNBA, who approved the spending bill. Additionally, even if it was considered as a fact that the payment of labor was incorrect and an abuse of power, such a transfer at the time was considered legitimate by the defendant. As such the defendant carried no Mens Rea of “withholding assets” since the assets being “withheld” was considered by the defendant to be personal property as legitimate payment for labor. This is backed by the fact that they’ve gotten paid previously for labor done to the town on 01/02/2023 (see Exhibit D) and had not gotten prosecuted for it.
The defendant can safely assume that the assets were theirs until otherwise proven, and as such was not withholding assets that they did not believe was theirs. Such analysis is required by Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16, as “When it comes to embezzlement, assets entrusted to one person or group of persons must be withheld for personal gain.” (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16), thus proving the prosecution wrong on the charges of Embezzlement. Further, again pointing to the 6 questions that we asked that were not answered, there exists a lack of evidence as required by Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68 and The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79 (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79 respectively).
As for Corruption, the Defendant submitted their brief and analysis on the Corruption test implemented by The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16 within their opening statements. The Prosecution did not present their own analysis of the case law to disprove the defense's assertions that payments were being done solely as a builder. They also completely ignore the fact that CrackedAmoeba also got paid for work they did, thus proving that the act did not give oneself or someone else notable advantage, as required by the statute and case law. Therefore the prosecution is wrong on the charges of Corruption.
Second the Prosecution argues:
Towns being an extension of the Executive and being tax-exempt does nothing to disprove the above argument of them not being included within the Government Pay guide. Thus they are currently unaffected by the Wages Act and thus payment does not conflict with the laws of the Federal Government of Redmont.
Third the Prosecution argues:
Bylaws can cover any topic that is not superseded by federal legislation. The only law cover this matter is the Wages Act. As discussed extensively previously, the Wages Act fails to cover Town Councils/Mayors and therefore do not apply to them. Such that there is an absence of federal legislation, Town Bylaws can come in and supplement. Such as this instance where a form of legislation was made to pay for labor that the defendant did as a builder.
There is also a second misinterpretation made by the prosecution in this argument. They state “Finally, the former Mayor claimed that ‘There is no requirement to do so” when asked why the payment did not appear within the By-Laws on the Forums.” This answer is in response to the question made by the prosecution:
Final Remarks:
It is important to place cases like these into context. We need to think about the future and what a potential ruling on this case could mean for future cases. On Corruption, do we really want Town Councils being unable to pay themselves for work that they did? On Embezzlement, do we really want to charge someone for transferring money in a bank account to avoid the wealth tax? The greater context that this case has is that it can deeply impact the Town’s ability to work. Remember, we are a small nation with a limited number of people, do we want to make case law that would disallow people from working for their specialty if there presents a conflict of interest? In this context, I think it is important to say that the defendant should be found not guilty because the greater implications of being declared guilty will have deep impacts on towns moving forward.
The Defense rests their case.
CLOSING STATEMENT
Prelude:
Your Honor,
If anything is clear, it is that this case has been bungled by the prosecution. The focus has been mismatched: First on payment for labor in towns, then on embezzlement, then on corruption. They are grasping for straws and I want to take the time to go over this before going deeper into the defenses.
When the Prosecution originally launched the case, they argued solely that the The Wages Act controlled pay for Town Councils. When this argument was explained and disproved by Town Councils being not listed on the Guide for Government Pay, they began arguing differently. First they argued that the Town of Oakridge did not have the power to create spending bills. Now the prosecution uses a law related to taxes that grants exemption to taxes to explain why the Town Councils shouldn’t be paid by relinking them to the The Wages Act. They then argue that by EO, Towns are unable to implement bylaws that fit outside of the listed criteria mentioned within the EO. So which argument is the prosecution actually going with?
The same can be said for the Embezzlement Charges. Originally, the prosecution argued that the money was “withheld” from the Town, completely ignoring the fact that even if the payment is in dispute, the town still willingly transferred over the money to the defendant. They then argued that because the $85,000 dollars was not within the Town’s Balance that it constituted embezzlement. I asked 6 questions pertaining to the matter so that Your Honor can understand what it is they’re exactly arguing, these questions were ignored. They then argue that the defendant “made the decision to hire themselves, and abuse their authority to use public funds for their own self interest” to justify their charge of Embezzlement, while completely ignoring that embezzlement requires “withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets”. So again, which argument is the prosecution actually going with?
On Corruption, the prosecution originally asserted that the defendant used their government position to benefit themselves. This was thoroughly debunked by the defendant’s legal analysis within their Opening Statement under title On Corruption. The prosecution has yet to link how the defendant’s labor may have been incorrect. First they argue that “payment made without going through the proper procedures is Corruption”. They then argued that Oakridge Town Council did not have a legal basis for payments in their constitution, unlike Aventura and Willow. In their closing statement, they try to pin down ShadowNBA’s words that the defendant “made the decision to hire themselves, and abuse their authority to use public funds for their own self interest” in order to justify allegations of Corruption. So we need to reiterate, which argument is the prosecution actually asserting for this charge?
Closing Statement:
I will try to make this brief by making a couple of points to explain why the defendant establishes sufficient doubt to prove that they are not guilty of the crimes based on the prosecution’s closing statement.
First the prosecution argues:
In witness statements, it is confirmed that the defendant reached out to a variety of people: CrackedAmoeba, ReaperRay, and FlyingBlocks were all asked to help with major roles while Nacho, LouderLeo, Rurge, and Dakman were offered to do smaller parts of the project. So it wasn’t just the defendant working by himself to gain money, it was an offered position made to a variety of well-known builders.
Further, there is a small supply of well-known builders on the server. Like the legal field, the construction field is incredibly important to our nation. There are only so many people who can work on large scale projects like this effectively. I ask this, why shouldn’t the defendant be able to build for the town? The prosecution argues that this is “not a legal work-around the Corruption law”. Why? Are Town Mayors who happen to be builders not able to choose themselves to complete work for the town? Would the same argument apply to Town Mayors who are Lawyers who decide to work on a case for the town? As we showed in Exhibits F-Q, the defendant as well as CrackedAmoeba extensively worked on the Town of Oakridge and were discussing it often. While we did not choose to submit additional evidence, there is more proof to show that the defendant worked hard on the town, such as making the custom forests surrounding the town. The defendant worked, this did not inappropriate payment for nothing done.
This also ignores the fact that the Defendant did not pay himself, the town council as a whole did. The Town Council would’ve been within their right to deny the bill for spending money, but they did not. This includes ShadowNBA, who approved the spending bill. Additionally, even if it was considered as a fact that the payment of labor was incorrect and an abuse of power, such a transfer at the time was considered legitimate by the defendant. As such the defendant carried no Mens Rea of “withholding assets” since the assets being “withheld” was considered by the defendant to be personal property as legitimate payment for labor. This is backed by the fact that they’ve gotten paid previously for labor done to the town on 01/02/2023 (see Exhibit D) and had not gotten prosecuted for it.
The defendant can safely assume that the assets were theirs until otherwise proven, and as such was not withholding assets that they did not believe was theirs. Such analysis is required by Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16, as “When it comes to embezzlement, assets entrusted to one person or group of persons must be withheld for personal gain.” (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16), thus proving the prosecution wrong on the charges of Embezzlement. Further, again pointing to the 6 questions that we asked that were not answered, there exists a lack of evidence as required by Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68 and The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79 (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79 respectively).
As for Corruption, the Defendant submitted their brief and analysis on the Corruption test implemented by The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16 within their opening statements. The Prosecution did not present their own analysis of the case law to disprove the defense's assertions that payments were being done solely as a builder. They also completely ignore the fact that CrackedAmoeba also got paid for work they did, thus proving that the act did not give oneself or someone else notable advantage, as required by the statute and case law. Therefore the prosecution is wrong on the charges of Corruption.
Second the Prosecution argues:
Again, we assert that 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.
Towns being an extension of the Executive and being tax-exempt does nothing to disprove the above argument of them not being included within the Government Pay guide. Thus they are currently unaffected by the Wages Act and thus payment does not conflict with the laws of the Federal Government of Redmont.
Third the Prosecution argues:
This is a misinterpretation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order clearly states “Towns can create by-laws. By-laws are an extension of Executive jurisdiction - or the absence of Federal Legislation (Emphasis added) - that is delegated to local jurisdictions for the purposes of implementing and enforcing regulations within their specified jurisdiction”. Bylaws do not have to fit within a mold listed by the EO. Where the Wages Act clearly states.”The Executive will maintain a guide on forums called 'Government Pay' that will list Government pay levels and their associated occupations” showing that “maintaining a guide” creates an exhaustive list, this EO states that the “absence of Federal Legislation” allows for bylaws to fit any context that is not already covered by Federal Law, thus creating a non-exhaustive list.
Bylaws can cover any topic that is not superseded by federal legislation. The only law cover this matter is the Wages Act. As discussed extensively previously, the Wages Act fails to cover Town Councils/Mayors and therefore do not apply to them. Such that there is an absence of federal legislation, Town Bylaws can come in and supplement. Such as this instance where a form of legislation was made to pay for labor that the defendant did as a builder.
There is also a second misinterpretation made by the prosecution in this argument. They state “Finally, the former Mayor claimed that ‘There is no requirement to do so” when asked why the payment did not appear within the By-Laws on the Forums.” This answer is in response to the question made by the prosecution:
The answer that “There is no requirement to do so” focuses solely on whether or not the defendant needed to post the payment in “Passed Bills”. There is no requirement in either the Bylaws or the Town Constitution on how and where to organize passed bylaws. Further, the prosecution’s own EO that they posted also does not have a specified location on where enacted bylaws should be placed. So the defense finds it disingenuous that the prosecution argues these words out of context.
Final Remarks:
It is important to place cases like these into context. We need to think about the future and what a potential ruling on this case could mean for future cases. On Corruption, do we really want Town Councils being unable to pay themselves for work that they did? On Embezzlement, do we really want to charge someone for transferring money in a bank account to avoid the wealth tax? The greater context that this case has is that it can deeply impact the Town’s ability to work. Remember, we are a small nation with a limited number of people, do we want to make case law that would disallow people from working for their specialty if there presents a conflict of interest? In this context, I think it is important to say that the defendant should be found not guilty because the greater implications of being declared guilty will have deep impacts on towns moving forward.
The Defense rests their case.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
Verdict
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Galavance used town money to pay themselves $85,000
2. Galavance was not allowed to pay himself because mayors are part of the federal government and federal government pay is regulated by the government wages act in which mayors are not included.
3. The Oakridge town council did not have the authority to distribute funds, unlike the other towns which have a special section added to their constitution. Therefore this should be regulated through the DOS.
4. Galavance abused his authority as a mayor to appoint himself a builder and pay himself a large amount of money.
II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. On the matter of town and payment, a lack of inclusion in the explicit pay guide means their pay is discretionary.
2. Galavance's role as a builder was legitimized through the town council.
3. Corruption requires some benefit inconsistent with official duty. Galavance's actions were consistent with official duty.
4. The broad legislative powers of the Oakridge constitution authorise the town to spend money.
III. THE COURT OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence, the facts, the arguments provided, past precedent and the contract law the following decision has been made:
On the charge of Embezzlement.
The white-collar crack down act defines embezzlement as follows:
“The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.”
In this case, the element of embezzlement which has been discussed the most is the element of conversion.
It is clear that there has been some confusion about the meaning of conversion. For this case, the conversion will mean as follows:
"To exercise ownership inconsistent with the real's owner right of possession."
To determine whether Galavance exercised ownership inconsistent with the real's owner right of possession. The court will have to determine whether the town council had the authority to pay remuneration to Galavance for services rendered.
The court considers the following arguments presented by the prosecution.
1) The Government Wages Act:
The prosecution argued that Mayors are not listed in the government pay guide and should therefore not be paid at all.
To support this argument the prosecution cites the following paragraph from the wages act.
" (b) The Executive has exclusive jurisdiction as to what salary level occupations fall into."
Furthermore, the prosecution argues that towns are an extension of the executive as per the financial services act and therefore a part of the federal government.
" (a) Towns are an extension of the Executive and are protected by this clause."
The defence on the other hand argues that a lack of inclusion means they are not bound by any pay level.
The court considers the following:
The wages act states that government salaries are set by the executive and pay levels must be recorded in the relevant Executive Order. To use this law, the prosecution must first establish that the form of the remuneration awarded to Galavance was a salary.
The court finds that a salary must be a fixed regular payment. The prosecution has failed to prove that the form of remuneration for Galavance's services was a fixed regular payment.
However the prosecution's case is not entirely rested on this law, but also the executive order.
It appears the prosecution believes that all occupation titles must be included in the actual executive orders in order for an occupation to be included. However, it's this court's understanding that the way it is set up is that occupations fall within a certain pay level based on their importance and function responsibilities, which in turn are outlined in the relevant executive orders:
Executive Order 02/22 - Wages & Deficit Reduction
Executive Order 28/21 - Wages
In the cases where the occupation falls in a different category than expected or if there is confusion, the occupation would be separately listed in the relevant executive orders:
Executive Order 39/22 Government Wages EO
Executive Order 18/23 - Government Wages Update
The mayor's lack of inclusion is therefore not noteworthy.
If the mayor currently receives no salary one of the following must be true:
a. The mayor position is a commission-based position. Level 0
b. The mayor position is a position with no remuneration.
2) The town council's ability to appropriate funds.
The prosecution has argued that the Oakridge town council lacked the authority to distribute funds because a special segment in their constitution was not present which was present in the constitution of Willow and Aventura.
The defence has argued that the town council did have the power to do so. Thereby citing the Oakridge Constitution.
"Article II –The Legislature of Oakridge shall consist of a single, unicameral Town Council which will consist of the Advisors, Deputy Mayor, and Mayor. 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"
The court considers the following:
Town laws are binding unless in conflict with a law passed by the Federal Government. The prosecution has confirmed Willows and Aventura's ability to pass remuneration and appropriation laws and has provided no evidence as to why Oakridge would have a special position from a Federal Law perspective.
Therefore the court rules that the authority provided to the legislature of Oakridge by the constitution of Oakridge to pass laws on any topic is sufficient to allow the legislature to pass laws regarding remuneration and appropriations as long as not in conflict with Federal Law.
In summary, the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of laws in conflict with Oakridge's ability to pass appropriations and remuneration laws. This means that the town had the proper authority to pay Galavance for services rendered.
As both parties agreed that the town council voted in favour of paying remuneration to Galavance. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Galavance was acting inconsistently with the right of ownership of the funds in the form of remuneration as he himself was the owner.
Considering the above element, the court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge of embezzlement against Galavance. Therefore, the court finds Galavance not guilty of embezzlement.
On the charge of Corruption.
In addressing the charge of corruption, the court follows the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case:
The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16.
"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?"
Did Galavance in his capacity as mayor give himself a notable advantage or benefit by performing the act?
As the prosecution has not clearly stated the act in question the court has considered the following 2 acts.
1) Galavance appoints himself as a builder.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that being a builder for the town of Oakridge was a notable benefit on its own. No evidence has been provided towards the existence of any especially lucrative or competitive contract. Perhaps it could be that it would be especially beneficial to Galavance however no evidence of that has been provided either.
It's the court's understanding that remuneration was discretionary by the town council and based on performance, which could have been given to any qualified builder who has done services for Oakridge.
2) Galavance proposing his own remuneration
The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Galavance gave himself a notable benefit or advantage by proposing his own remuneration.
As both of these elements are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, corruption can not be proven. However, the court believes that it might be difficult to separate the two elements of corruption completely, therefore it has opted to also consider the inconsistency with official duties as well, to potentially clarify any questions regarding the ruling on the notable benefit or advantage.
Regarding the inconsistency of the acts with the official duty of office:
1) Galavance appoints himself as a builder.
While the act of commissioning a builder is not inconsistent with official duty, appointing himself to a special position could be deemed inconsistent if it is not necessarily in the best interest of the town. However, it's the court's opinion that the defence has raised a reasonable doubt as to whether Galavance's involvement as a builder was not within the official duty.
Getting qualified builders to build buildings can be a competitive process the defence has asserted that Galavance has offered many builders the ability to build for Oakridge. The defence also has provided enough evidence and arguments to suggest that Galavance was qualified enough as a builder for his appointment to be in the best interest of the town.
2) Galavance proposing his own remuneration
As the mayor is a part of the town council and proposed the amount for his own remuneration there is a clear conflict of interest. However, that does not necessarily mean that his actions constitute corruption as it must also be proven that Galavance acted in his own interest that was conflicting with the town's interest.
Proposing laws and voting on laws is within the official duty of as a mayor. Proposing laws not in the best interest of the town, however, is not. The court has determined that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law stating the remuneration was not in the best interest of the town.
Considering the above elements, the court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge of corruption against Galavance. Therefore, the court finds Galavance not guilty of corruption.
The white-collar crack down act defines embezzlement as follows:
“The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.”
In this case, the element of embezzlement which has been discussed the most is the element of conversion.
It is clear that there has been some confusion about the meaning of conversion. For this case, the conversion will mean as follows:
"To exercise ownership inconsistent with the real's owner right of possession."
To determine whether Galavance exercised ownership inconsistent with the real's owner right of possession. The court will have to determine whether the town council had the authority to pay remuneration to Galavance for services rendered.
The court considers the following arguments presented by the prosecution.
1) The Government Wages Act:
The prosecution argued that Mayors are not listed in the government pay guide and should therefore not be paid at all.
To support this argument the prosecution cites the following paragraph from the wages act.
" (b) The Executive has exclusive jurisdiction as to what salary level occupations fall into."
Furthermore, the prosecution argues that towns are an extension of the executive as per the financial services act and therefore a part of the federal government.
" (a) Towns are an extension of the Executive and are protected by this clause."
The defence on the other hand argues that a lack of inclusion means they are not bound by any pay level.
The court considers the following:
The wages act states that government salaries are set by the executive and pay levels must be recorded in the relevant Executive Order. To use this law, the prosecution must first establish that the form of the remuneration awarded to Galavance was a salary.
The court finds that a salary must be a fixed regular payment. The prosecution has failed to prove that the form of remuneration for Galavance's services was a fixed regular payment.
However the prosecution's case is not entirely rested on this law, but also the executive order.
It appears the prosecution believes that all occupation titles must be included in the actual executive orders in order for an occupation to be included. However, it's this court's understanding that the way it is set up is that occupations fall within a certain pay level based on their importance and function responsibilities, which in turn are outlined in the relevant executive orders:
Executive Order 02/22 - Wages & Deficit Reduction
Executive Order 28/21 - Wages
In the cases where the occupation falls in a different category than expected or if there is confusion, the occupation would be separately listed in the relevant executive orders:
Executive Order 39/22 Government Wages EO
Executive Order 18/23 - Government Wages Update
The mayor's lack of inclusion is therefore not noteworthy.
If the mayor currently receives no salary one of the following must be true:
a. The mayor position is a commission-based position. Level 0
b. The mayor position is a position with no remuneration.
2) The town council's ability to appropriate funds.
The prosecution has argued that the Oakridge town council lacked the authority to distribute funds because a special segment in their constitution was not present which was present in the constitution of Willow and Aventura.
The defence has argued that the town council did have the power to do so. Thereby citing the Oakridge Constitution.
"Article II –The Legislature of Oakridge shall consist of a single, unicameral Town Council which will consist of the Advisors, Deputy Mayor, and Mayor. 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"
The court considers the following:
Town laws are binding unless in conflict with a law passed by the Federal Government. The prosecution has confirmed Willows and Aventura's ability to pass remuneration and appropriation laws and has provided no evidence as to why Oakridge would have a special position from a Federal Law perspective.
Therefore the court rules that the authority provided to the legislature of Oakridge by the constitution of Oakridge to pass laws on any topic is sufficient to allow the legislature to pass laws regarding remuneration and appropriations as long as not in conflict with Federal Law.
In summary, the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of laws in conflict with Oakridge's ability to pass appropriations and remuneration laws. This means that the town had the proper authority to pay Galavance for services rendered.
As both parties agreed that the town council voted in favour of paying remuneration to Galavance. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Galavance was acting inconsistently with the right of ownership of the funds in the form of remuneration as he himself was the owner.
Considering the above element, the court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge of embezzlement against Galavance. Therefore, the court finds Galavance not guilty of embezzlement.
On the charge of Corruption.
In addressing the charge of corruption, the court follows the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case:
The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16.
"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?"
Did Galavance in his capacity as mayor give himself a notable advantage or benefit by performing the act?
As the prosecution has not clearly stated the act in question the court has considered the following 2 acts.
1) Galavance appoints himself as a builder.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that being a builder for the town of Oakridge was a notable benefit on its own. No evidence has been provided towards the existence of any especially lucrative or competitive contract. Perhaps it could be that it would be especially beneficial to Galavance however no evidence of that has been provided either.
It's the court's understanding that remuneration was discretionary by the town council and based on performance, which could have been given to any qualified builder who has done services for Oakridge.
2) Galavance proposing his own remuneration
The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Galavance gave himself a notable benefit or advantage by proposing his own remuneration.
As both of these elements are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, corruption can not be proven. However, the court believes that it might be difficult to separate the two elements of corruption completely, therefore it has opted to also consider the inconsistency with official duties as well, to potentially clarify any questions regarding the ruling on the notable benefit or advantage.
Regarding the inconsistency of the acts with the official duty of office:
1) Galavance appoints himself as a builder.
While the act of commissioning a builder is not inconsistent with official duty, appointing himself to a special position could be deemed inconsistent if it is not necessarily in the best interest of the town. However, it's the court's opinion that the defence has raised a reasonable doubt as to whether Galavance's involvement as a builder was not within the official duty.
Getting qualified builders to build buildings can be a competitive process the defence has asserted that Galavance has offered many builders the ability to build for Oakridge. The defence also has provided enough evidence and arguments to suggest that Galavance was qualified enough as a builder for his appointment to be in the best interest of the town.
2) Galavance proposing his own remuneration
As the mayor is a part of the town council and proposed the amount for his own remuneration there is a clear conflict of interest. However, that does not necessarily mean that his actions constitute corruption as it must also be proven that Galavance acted in his own interest that was conflicting with the town's interest.
Proposing laws and voting on laws is within the official duty of as a mayor. Proposing laws not in the best interest of the town, however, is not. The court has determined that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law stating the remuneration was not in the best interest of the town.
Considering the above elements, the court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge of corruption against Galavance. Therefore, the court finds Galavance not guilty of corruption.
IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby finds the defendant Galavance:
Not guilty of the 1 count of embezzlement
Not guilty of the 1 count of corruption
The Federal Court thanks all parties involved.
- Status