Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Galavance
Defendant

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

The Defendant proposed and passed an illegal law, against the Constitution of Oakridge. This action of a government official, which was inconsistent with their official duty, ultimately unfairly benefited the Defendant and their friend, CrackedAmoeba1.

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

II. FACTS
1. On June 24, 2023, Galavance proposed the law in Exhibit A, which would give Galavance $85,000 and give CrackedAmoeba1 $15,000.
2. On June 26, 2023, the law was passed and actioned, giving Galavance $85,000 and CrackedAmoeba1 $15,000 (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. The Constitution of Oakridge also states that the Mayor is part of the Town Council.
6. Thus, it is illegal, and thus inconsistent with the Mayor’s official duty, to pass a law that conflicts “with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont.”
7. 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.”

8. “Mayor”, “Deputy Mayor”, and “Town Council” are not in the ‘Government Pay’ guide (Guide - Government Pay), and thus, are 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 CrackedAmoeba1, acting inconsistently with their official duty, and ignoring the rights of the people of Oakridge.
2. One count of Embezzlement, for withholding $85,000 for personal gain, when as the Mayor of Oakridge, they were entrusted with the balance 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.
2. For embezzlement, the maximum penalty of a $50,000 fine, repaying $85,000 to the Oakridge town balance, and a suspension of the Defendant’s entrepreneur license until embezzlement is stricken from their criminal record.

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 5th day of July 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 15.

 

[Milkcrack]

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

@Galavance is hereby required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance. 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.

​

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, my firm will be representing Galavance in this case. This case is massive in scope and scale due to an enormous counterclaim that we are currently working on. Given that the prosecution had ample time to bring this case forward, we are requesting a 72 hour extension to post an answer as well as the counterclaim.

 

[Milkcrack]

In a criminal court, the introduction of a counterclaim is prohibited because claims are inherently civil. Furthermore, the defendant lacks the authority to represent the government and consequently cannot initiate charges within this courtroom.

If there are any separate or related claims against the government, they must be filed as a separate civil case. If these claims will impede the progress of this court, the proceedings will be temporarily halted until the matter is resolved.

However, the court is extending the deadline for filing an answer to the complaint by an additional 24 hours. Therefore, the new deadline is: Sunday, July 09 2023 15:28:00 GMT+0000

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

The counterclaim involves this criminal proceeding, we're focusing on the ideas of Innocent Until Proven Guilty and Nulla Poena Sine Lege (no penalty without law). The prosecution is now charging my client of crimes after he has already been removed from office and a special election for the township of Mayor has happened. These claims are intrinsically linked because a criminal prosecution should have been the impetus to remove my client from office, not the Executive Office unilaterally moving to end the democratic mandate that the Town of Oakridge has. Would you like us to file a new case or just keep the countersuit contained to this thread?

 

[Milkcrack]

Filing a counter-claim means you are seeking civil relief therefore it's a civil affair and can not be handled by this court. You may assert defences without relief but this criminal court does not have the authority to handle civil cases. So if you are asking for relief from the government you must file in a separate thread.

 

[Matthew100x]

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

Commonwealth of Redmont (DLA representing, Lead Counsel Bibsfi4a)
Prosecution

v.

Galvance (Prodigium | Attorneys at Law representing, Lead Counsel Matthew100x)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. On June 24, 2023, Galavance proposed the law in Exhibit A, which would give Galavance $85,000 and give CrackedAmoeba1 $15,000.

The Defendant affirms this fact.

2. On June 26, 2023, the law was passed and actioned, giving Galavance $85,000 and CrackedAmoeba1 $15,000 (Exhibit B).

The Defendant affirms this fact.

3. This money was taken from Oakridge’s balance (Exhibit B).

The Defendant affirms this fact.

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.”

The Defendant affirms this fact.

5. The Constitution of Oakridge also states that the Mayor is part of the Town Council.

The Defendant affirms this fact.

6. Thus, it is illegal, and thus inconsistent with the Mayor’s official duty, to pass a law that conflicts “with laws passed by the Federal Government of Redmont.”

The Defendant affirms this fact.

7. 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.”

The Defendant affirms this fact.

8. “Mayor”, “Deputy Mayor”, and “Town Council” are not in the ‘Government Pay’ guide (Guide - Government Pay), and thus, are not to be paid.

The Defendant disputes this fact.

II. DEFENCES

On the Matter of Towns and Payment for Work Done:

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 the guide fails to list and provide for pay levels for Mayors, Deputy Mayors, and members of a Town Council. (see Act of Congress - Wages Act)

On Corruption:

1. As a builder, the defendant was in full right to have payment for the work he did. As Mayor, the defendant did not individually pay himself for the work, the town council instead as a whole paid him. Though the defendant submitted the bill, the Town Council unanimously voted for payment of the defendant’s legitimate labor in his significant efforts to revamp and rebuild the town. (see Prosecution's Exhibit A)
2. The prosecution fails to meet the Corruption Test as laid out in The Commonwealth v. Milky [2022] SCR 16. (see
   

   Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth (hugebob23456 and Mask3D_WOLF representing) Prosecution v. Milqy Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: Corruption is when someone uses their...

   www.democracycraft.net
3. The statutory language of the crime of corruption is “to give some advantage with official duty and the rights of others unfairly benefit oneself”. The payment was not an “advantage” given by official duty nor affected the rights of others as it was simply payment for the labor of building. (see Act of Congress - Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act)

On Embezzlement:

1. The statutory language for embezzlement is defined as “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.” (see Act of Congress - White-Collar Crack Down Act)
2. No assets were withheld and there was no purpose of conversion.
3. Per The Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16, “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).
4. Per The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68 and The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79, when there is a lack of evidence to support embezzlement, the Federal Court has refrained from declaring the defendant guilty. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79 respectively)

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 8th day of July, 2023.

 

[Milkcrack]

The prosecution has 24 hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

This is an enormous case, and we do not believe we can properly create an entire legal argument in just 24 hours, given that we must sleep, eat, and prioritize people in our lives IRL.

We ask that we be given the standard 48 hours.

Thank you.

 

[Milkcrack]

Very well, all deadlines from now on are 48 hours, unless otherwise stated. Your deadline has been extended by 24 hours, meaning you must submit your opening statement by Tuesday 09:44 AM GMT.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Good day your honor, the Prosecution will be primarily dividing the Opening statement into two parts – Rebuttal to Defendant’s answer to complaint and the Opening Statement.

Additionally, bibsfi4a was unable to post due to time zone differences and school, so I have posted the Opening Statement.

II. REBUTTAL

This rebuttal has been made by the Prosecution to deny all the claims of the defendant and provide clear insight.

1. The Defense says:

While it is true that Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of a Town Council are not listed within the “Government Pay” guide, the law is still quite relevant.

The main purpose of the Wages Act is to provide (or not provide) income to all the members of the government. For the entire Government (including towns), the Government Pay guide, under the Wages Act, dictates how much people can be paid for their government jobs.

The fact that the above listed positions are not mentioned in the Government Pay guide does not mean they are unaffected by the law, but requires that, without a change to the Government Pay guide, they are not to be paid for their government duties.

Of course, they can be paid for other Government jobs they had – and in fact, they are paid for that, but taking money from the town’s balance is simply illegal and not in line with the Wages Act.


2. The Defense says:

Here, the Defense argues that Galavance and/or CrackedAmoeba1, needed to be paid for their duty as a builder. However, the Prosecution holds that such a payment made without going through the proper procedures is Corruption. Ultimately, the Defendant used their government position to gain money from the Oakridge town balance and receive an advantage of $85,000.


3. The Defense says:

Your honor, the Defense is correct on the definition of embezzlement, as defined by the White-Collar Crack Down Act, however the Prosecution contests the second point there – “No assets were withheld and there was no purpose of conversion.” If the court allows for Exhibit C below to be entered into this case, it is clear that Galavance did convert the assets in some way or another, as they do not have $85,000+ in their balance, and in fact have less than $600.
Furthermore, the money (assets) of Oakridge was entrusted to Galavance, yet Galavance withheld it for personal gain, seeing as it was spent or stored somewhere.

Finally, the Prosecution agrees that when there is a lack of evidence to support embezzlement, the defendant of such a case should not be declared guilty, however we do assert that there is sufficient evidence in this case.

III. OPENING STATEMENT
In addition to the above rebuttals, we would like to introduce the following arguments as well:
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.”

Again, this is absent from Oakridge’s Constitution, thus there is no legal basis for the Town (and its council) to distribute funds. So, while the Town council has the ability to create bills, they don't have the ability to authorize payments. This is not an implied power (or it would need not be specifically mentioned in the other towns), the surrounding local government all mention within their Constitution a means of funding management either in the form of a budget or in the means of assets.

2. Redmont’s Constitution clearly states that the Department of State holds the responsibility of “Administration, facilitation of, and communication with towns, including notification of any laws that may impact towns.”

Your honor, it is clear that, absent a clause regarding assets/budgets/etc. within the town Constitution, any such payments must be authorized by the Department of State – not the Mayor who wishes to pay themself.

IV. MOTION TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE
Your honor, below we have included “Exhibit C – Galavance’s Balance” and request that it be allowed in this case.

Spoiler: ”Exhibit C – Galavance’s Balance”

IV. CONCLUSION

The State 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 10th day of July, 2023.

 

[Milkcrack]

The defence has 48 hours to submit its opening statement.

 

[Matthew100x]

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.

1. How does the prosecution know for certain that the defendant converted the assets?
2. Is moving money from a personal account into another account considered a conversion or a transfer?
3. Is not having the money in a personal balance, where it is wealth taxed, considered withholding?
4. 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?
5. 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?
6. 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.

 

[Milkcrack]

The commonwealth has 48 hours to submit its witnesses list and any objections to the motion to submit new evidence.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor,
The Commonwealth has no objections to the new evidence, and wishes to call the following individuals as witnesses:

Former Mayor Galavance
Former Head of Urban Development Shadownba

 

[cheeseeater77]

Free Galavance and I love DemocracyCraft! milk

 

[Milkcrack]

I hereby charge @cheeseeater77 with 1 count of contempt of court for talking when not a party to a case, and I order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.

 

[Milkcrack]

The evidence is allowed to enter the record, and the defence has 48 hours to submit its witnesses list as well as the relevant questions. The prosecution is hereby also requested to post their list of questions within 48 hours.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

We have no witnesses for this trial. Respectfully, we wish to see the Prosecution's questions prior to drafting our own for cross-examination.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor,
here are the questions-

Questions for Galavance:

-What is the definition of a bill within the town of Oakridge?
-What is the difference between the Legislative and Executive branches of Oakridge's government?
-Who were all the builders you offered the job for the construction you paid yourself for?
-Was your payment issued as a bill or motion?
-When was this construction completed?

Questions for Shadownba:

-As the head of Urban Development, were you aware of the decision that Galavance would be doing this construction?
-Was the construction job done by Galavance offered to anyone else?

There will be follow-up questions.

 

[Milkcrack]

Cross-examination questions will be asked after the prosecution, has finished its line of inquiry. Seeing as Galavance has already been summoned, I will only summon Shadownba on discord however both will be required to testify.

I would also like to remind the accused of their right against self-incrimination.

 

[Milkcrack]

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

Shadownba and Galavance are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance FCR 59 as witnesses.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff will have 48 hours to post all of their questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies.

​

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, we would like to waive our right to cross-examine the witnesses in exchange to include evidence of work done for Oakridge by Galavance prior to concluding statements.

 

[shadownba]

Your honor,

I am present, here are the answers to the prosecutions questions.

In response to "As the head of Urban Development, were you aware of the decision that Galavance would be doing this construction?"

I had knowledge that Galavance was involved in the building process, however, I had believed that he would be assisted by the likes of Reaperay.

In response to "Was the construction job done by Galavance offered to anyone else?"

No, as Head of Urban Development, I did not have power to intervene in the development of the towns, and the development process was managed by local leadership

 

[Milkcrack]

Your honor, we would like to waive our right to cross-examine the witnesses in exchange to include evidence of work done for Oakridge by Galavance prior to concluding statements.

Rights are not bargaining chips. As we don't have a formal discovery process. as long as the evidence is submitted before the closing statements, you can enter it into the record provided the prosecution doesn't have objections to the contents of the evidence.

 

[Milkcrack]

Thank you shadownba, there may be follow-up questions so please stick around. Before moving on we are still waiting on @Galavance to answer the questions.

 

[Galavance]

Good Evening Your Honor,

I am present to answer the questions that the prosecution has posited.

-What is the definition of a bill within the town of Oakridge?

My lawyer has advised me that there isn't a strict definition for a bill, just that a bill is the prior step to something becoming law as long as it meets the necessary requirements.

-What is the difference between the Legislative and Executive branches of Oakridge's government?

The Executive Branch consists of the Mayor and departments enabled by the bylaws. The Legislative branch consists of Advisors, Deputy Mayor, and Mayor.

-Who were all the builders you offered the job for the construction you paid yourself for?

CrackedAmoeba, ReaperRay, FlyingBlocks were offered the job for the entire project. However, Nacho, LouderLeo, Rurge, and Dakman were offered to do smaller parts of the project.

-Was your payment issued as a bill or motion?

My lawyer has advised me that legally payment would have been issued as a law after being passed as a bill.

-When was this construction completed?

At various points throughout the last two months. I have provided my attorney with screenshots regarding the work that was done for the town.

 

[Matthew100x]

Rights are not bargaining chips. As we don't have a formal discovery process. as long as the evidence is submitted before the closing statements, you can enter it into the record provided the prosecution doesn't have objections to the contents of the evidence.

Thank you your honor.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO ENTER NEW EVIDENCE

The Defense would like to submit evidence to back-up and prove claims that the defendant, as well as CrackedAmoeba, was paid for the labor of building Oakridge. Please accept the following exhibits.

DATED: This 18th day of July, 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

Follow-up Questions for Galavance:
1. While the job may have been offered to others, ultimately who's decision was it to hire you for the construction job?

2. Since you claimed that "legally payment would have been issued as a law after being passed as a bill," why didn't the payment show up in the "Passed Bills" section of the Oakridge Discord?

There will likely be one more set of follow-up questions for both witnesses.

 

[Galavance]

-While the job may have been offered to others, ultimately who's decision was it to hire you for the construction job?

I was the Mayor at the time and leading the project, thus I made the hiring decisions.

-Since you claimed that "legally payment would have been issued as a law after being passed as a bill," why didn't the payment show up in the "Passed Bills" section of the Oakridge Discord?

We posted proof of passage within the "Town Funds" channel as there is no requirement that states that any passed bills must show in the "Passed Bills" section. The council felt it was appropriate given that we did this action previously.

 

[Dartanboy]

Follow-up Questions for Galavance:
1. If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?

2. Why did this payment not appear within the By-Laws on the Forums?



Follow-up Questions for shadownba:
1. As a member of the town council, were you aware of the decision to only post this information in the "Town Funds" channel?

 

[shadownba]

As a member of the town council, were you aware of the decision to only post this information in the "Town Funds" channel?

Yes, I agreed to the decision for payment and saw that it got posted in "Town Funds".

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection
Ambiguous Question

The prosecution's first question in their second set of question towards Galavance is neither clear nor precise and is asking for an open-ended answer.

 

[Dartanboy]

ANSWER TO OBJECTION

Presumably, the Defendant's Counsel is referring to this question: "While the job may have been offered to others, ultimately who's decision was it to hire you for the construction job?"

This is not an open-ended question. The only correct answer is the name of the person (or similarly identifiable pronoun or title) who ultimately decided to hire Galavance for the job.

 

[Matthew100x]

Counselor,

I had stated the following:

The prosecution's first question in their second set of question

Which means the objection is focused on this question:

1. If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?

 

[Matthew100x]

I have been informed that I am incorrect in my assessment. Though I would like to point that the objection was for the third set of questions,

"If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?"

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, may I respond to the newly-confirmed objection?

 

[Milkcrack]

Yes, you may respond.

 

[Dartanboy]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
With the new knowledge that the Defendant's Counsel refers to this question: "If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?" the Prosecution would like to say:

This is not an open-ended question. The Passed Bills channel has a purpose, and the Prosecution wishes for the court to understand its purpose.

The only correct answer is the purpose of the channel. There is no open-endedness, because there is only one correct answer.

 

[Milkcrack]

Objection Denied. The question is asking Galavance for the purpose of the channel. If Galavance was personally involved in the creation of the channel he should be able to answer.

 

[Milkcrack]

@Galavance is required to answer or reply to the follow-up questions within 48 hours, otherwise, they will be held in contempt (@Matthew100x )

 

[Galavance]

If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?

It is for passed bills of legislation. Historically, we have not placed the spending bills in "Passed Bills" and instead placed them in "Town Funds".

Why did this payment not appear within the By-Laws on the Forums?

There is no requirement to do so.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you Galavance and shadownba for your time. The Prosecution yields the floor.

 

[Milkcrack]

Does the defence wish to cross-examine the witnesses?

 

[Matthew100x]

We do not, your Honor.

 

[Milkcrack]

Alright, we will now be moving on to closing statements. The prosecution has 48 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor, this case is clear.

1. Not even the Head of Urban Development was involved in the final decision of who would do this construction work for Urban Development. Galavance made the decision to hire their self, and abuse their authority to use public funds for their own self interest.

Yes, Galavance did work, but ultimately Galavance made the decision to hire their self to get paid for the work. This is not a legal work-around the Corruption law. This is not a successful way to get around Embezzlement. This is Corruption. This is Embezzlement.

2. We also point to the legal understanding that Towns are extensions of the Executive (see Financial Standards Act:
“(1) No non-government agency, department or, entity will be fully or partially exempt from paying tax.
(a) Towns are an extension of the Executive and are protected by this clause.” (emphasis added))

Thus, town positions are part of the Federal Government, and thus, if they were to be paid, it would be clear in the Government Pay Guide according to the Wages Act.

3. 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 is not true, as seen in the Town Revisions Executive Order (most recently EO 19/23 - previously EO 2/23 with similar stipulations):
"Towns can create by-laws. By-laws are an extension of Executive jurisdiction - or the absence of Federal Legislation - that is delegated to local jurisdictions for the purposes of implementing and enforcing regulations within their specified jurisdiction.
- Build height limits. (No more than 40 blocks high, no exceptions) (Enforced by the DCT).
- Plot zoning (Enforced by the DCT)
- Local elections + Council formation (if any) (All local elections are actioned by the DOS)
- Plot Pricing (actioned by staff)
- Town Constitution (enforced by the town government in coordination with Federal Departments)
- Town building regulations (facilitated by town government)
- Transportation within towns (facilitated by town government)
- Plot evictions within town jurisdiction (facilitated by town government, actioned by the DCT)
- In the event that any Town legislation contradicts any Federal legislation, the Federal legislation shall apply within the jurisdiction of the Town, unless such legislation expressly the jurisdiction. Any Federal code which is not an Act of Congress, an Executive Order, or within the Constitution, such as department policy, does not take precedence over Town legislation."

Your honor, the Commonwealth believes that this order is clear: Towns can create by-laws. This is the only legislating power that is delegated to local jurisdictions. Any other form of legislation is illegal and intentionally creating such legislation (the bill in which Galavance paid their self $85,000) and enforcing it (actually paying their self $85,000) is Corruption.

We believe that, seeing as Galavance did not believe it was important for it to be put up with the by-laws, as well as its lack of appearing within the passed bills channel, it is clear that this was an illegal act of Corruption.

 

[Milkcrack]

The defence has 48 hours to post its closing statement.

 

[Matthew100x]

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:

1. Not even the Head of Urban Development was involved in the final decision of who would do this construction work for Urban Development. Galavance made the decision to hire their self, and abuse their authority to use public funds for their own self interest.

Yes, Galavance did work, but ultimately Galavance made the decision to hire their self to get paid for the work. This is not a legal work-around the Corruption law. This is not a successful way to get around Embezzlement. This is Corruption. This is Embezzlement.

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:

2. We also point to the legal understanding that Towns are extensions of the Executive (see Financial Standards Act:
“(1) No non-government agency, department or, entity will be fully or partially exempt from paying tax.
(a) Towns are an extension of the Executive and are protected by this clause.” (emphasis added))

Thus, town positions are part of the Federal Government, and thus, if they were to be paid, it would be clear in the Government Pay Guide according to the Wages Act.

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:

3. 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 is not true, as seen in the Town Revisions Executive Order (most recently EO 19/23 - previously EO 2/23 with similar stipulations):
"Towns can create by-laws. By-laws are an extension of Executive jurisdiction - or the absence of Federal Legislation - that is delegated to local jurisdictions for the purposes of implementing and enforcing regulations within their specified jurisdiction.
- Build height limits. (No more than 40 blocks high, no exceptions) (Enforced by the DCT).
- Plot zoning (Enforced by the DCT)
- Local elections + Council formation (if any) (All local elections are actioned by the DOS)
- Plot Pricing (actioned by staff)
- Town Constitution (enforced by the town government in coordination with Federal Departments)
- Town building regulations (facilitated by town government)
- Transportation within towns (facilitated by town government)
- Plot evictions within town jurisdiction (facilitated by town government, actioned by the DCT)
- In the event that any Town legislation contradicts any Federal legislation, the Federal legislation shall apply within the jurisdiction of the Town, unless such legislation expressly the jurisdiction. Any Federal code which is not an Act of Congress, an Executive Order, or within the Constitution, such as department policy, does not take precedence over Town legislation."

Your honor, the Commonwealth believes that this order is clear: Towns can create by-laws. This is the only legislating power that is delegated to local jurisdictions. Any other form of legislation is illegal and intentionally creating such legislation (the bill in which Galavance paid their self $85,000) and enforcing it (actually paying their self $85,000) is Corruption.

We believe that, seeing as Galavance did not believe it was important for it to be put up with the by-laws, as well as its lack of appearing within the passed bills channel, it is clear that this was an illegal act of Corruption.

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:

1. If not all passed bills go into "Passed Bills" then what is the purpose of that channel?

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.

 

[Milkcrack]

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:

Spoiler: THE COURT OPINION

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.

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.