Lawsuit: Dismissed The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] SCR 15

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dartanboy

Citizen
President of the Senate
Senator
Homeland Security Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Aventura Resident
Dartanman
Dartanman
presidentofthesenate
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,113
IN THE SUPREME 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:
zzcm0RkVS_6oyoUJ4Yk21RYOUDg9uXGECUrDotgf0VmOagDhwByU2N59mo0I7uNGNbZ14SzsvSLDKJYSizidGxYHDcEl3QiIi4D6xlBLqIHpsS1C6hwTQ4oPMkLvL9kkrK0j4nxOOGvILJ4SgQXkMXA

DcorJEJ_jIvj-pvbv56PZL4cQkR-TFs4Ul-qUqhHQVDzJKZdQ2vU545HRfI0NVyYiwhAD1M8N0PBRQ27qkTRMe-Bn9H1atBu6K4G7oDnHmdqwv4kU6auGCQ3o2CxPKvAI6A_hltRw9yYqa3_oNzKQEs

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.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 35217
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
After careful deliberation, the Supreme Court has decided the following:

1. This is not an appeal or review from the Federal Court
2. It is not seeking to remove one of the following from office: ‌Representatives,‌ ‌Secretary,‌ ‌Senator,‌ ‌Judge,‌ ‌Vice-President,‌ ‌Principal‌ ‌Officers,‌ ‌General‌ ‌Advisors,‌ ‌or President.‌ ‌
3. It is not unclear where the case can be heard.

That is why this case will be dismissed in the Supreme Court, The previous Federal court filing will be re-opened and the defendant summoned.

The Attorney General is hereby warned to properly consider which court to file in and to use the correct format in the future otherwise they will be held in contempt of court.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top