Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. MrFluffy2u94 [2024] SCR 19

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

MrFluffy2u94
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On March 6th, 2024, Mr.Fluffy2u94 cast an affirmative vote on Motion S.28.23. This motion aimed to conclude the impeachment trial of President Goldblooded. Regrettably, despite the procedural mandates outlined in the Peach Act, which stipulates the necessity of a structured trial process, President Goldblooded was not afforded the opportunity for a fair trial as per the foundational principles given to him in the Redmont Constitution.
The failure to conduct a trial constitutes a violation of the Peach Act, an act designed to uphold the integrity of impeachment proceedings and ensure due process for all individuals subject to such inquiries. Moreover, the right to a trial is enshrined as a fundamental entitlement bestowed upon every citizen under the Redmont Constitution.
This egregious oversight not only undermines the sanctity of our legal framework but also raises profound concerns regarding the adherence to constitutional principles and the safeguarding of democratic norms. It is imperative that such breaches of protocol be addressed with utmost urgency to uphold the integrity of our democratic institutions and reaffirm the commitment to the rule of law.

I. PARTIES
1. Commonwealth of Redmont
2. MrFluffy2u94
3 .Goldblooded

II. FACTS
1. Motion S.28.23 was brought to the floor
2. The Motion concluded president Goldblooded’s impeachment trial
3. No Impeachment Trial was held for president Goldblooded therefor the motion was an illegal motion that violated the peach act and the constitution
4. Mrfluffy2u94 voted “aye” for an illegal motion.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 count of treason for not upholding the laws while in a government office leading to the destabilization of the government and the body of laws that support it.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. In accordance with the ‘Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act' the exclusion of Mr Fluffy from a political office for a consecutive 2 months.
2. A $25,000 fine be paid by mr fluffy.

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 march 2024

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. MrFluffy2u94 [2024] SCR 19. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

I am present and will be representing myself. My response will be forthcoming.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Court Rule #5.5 - Lack of Claim

1. In criminal cases, the burden falls on the prosecution to provide adequate evidence and argumentation. In this case, there is no accurately stated claim for the charge of treason. No explanation has been offered as to why voting for a potentially unconstitutional motion has any relation to a deliberate attempt to undermine the country.

2. When alleging treason, the prosecution has failed to state the means in their claim. While the prosecution asserts that treason involves the destabilization of the government, they have not provided any rationale for why the Defendant would have intentions to undermine or destabilize the nation.

3. If Congress passes a potentially unconstitutional motion or act, it's the government that bears responsibility, not the individual legislators who vote in favor. There are numerous cases throughout the court's history where an individual has filed a lawsuit against the government over the passage of a law or motion that is potentially unconstitutional. As a Senator, the Defendant was acting within an official capacity and voting on motions as expected by the law. The only party liable in the alleged violation of President GoldBlooded's rights is the government. Therefore, there is no substantive basis for a claim against the Defendant.

4. The Defendant did not initiate or endorse the motion in question, merely participating in the voting process. There exists no grounds for the prosecution to pursue this case solely based on the act of voting on a motion. To entertain such a case would set a precedent where any legislator could be prosecuted for voting on a motion that may be unknowingly unlawful. The prosecution has not sufficiently substantiated their claims.

5. The situation of the Defendant in this trial may be different from other Defendants, and yet the prosecution has lazily copy-pasted the same case against multiple Senator's. For example, the defendant in this trial did not have the Senator role at the time that the alleged illegal vote took place. The defendants seat was frozen and roles taken by staff several days prior, and that role had not officially been reinstated due to the commands not functioning properly.

6. Furthermore, the Peach Act clearly states “(3) There shall be an ordered process for the impeachment trial. The trial’s presiding officer will be responsible for following this process but will be allowed to make reasonable modifications and impose deadlines as needed. Such modifications and deadlines may be overruled by a simple majority vote from the Senate.” The law is quite clear on the matter. The PRESIDING OFFICER is responsible for following this process. As the defendant is NOT the presiding officer, the defendant holds no responsibility for any of these provisions that were not followed and therefore cannot be charged with treason when they are not the responsible party.

There is a clear lack of claim that the Commonwealth has in this case, and I urge the court to dismiss it with prejudice. The Defendant also asks that the court consider a frivolous case fine to be levied against the Commonwealth for taking a copy-pasted case of no real value against the Defendant.

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 9 day of March 2024

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. MrFluffy2u94 [2024] SCR 19. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

EXTENSION REQUEST

Your honors,

I will need to request an extension. I have been out of town all weekend traveling. I would like to request a 48 hour extension from the time that my response was due, so that I can adequately respond.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

You Honor, The dla and the deffense have reached a plea agreement outside of court. The defendent wishes to plea no contest and in return sentencing one and two be dropped.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[Nacho]

I'm sorry for not getting back to you both sooner. I have come down with a severe case of the flu and have been practically fighting for my ability to stay awake.

The court will be considering the plea deal presented and will have a response within the next day or two.

I would ask that the defendant please have their plea for the court and their opening statement ready should the deal be rejected so we can continue in a timely manner.

 

[Nacho]

The Supreme Court has rejected (3-0) the Plea Deal presented to the court for the following reasons.

1. The deal would make no sense for the court to accept as the defendant would indirectly admit guilt to the crime in exchange for no burden from the law. In the eyes of the court, Treason is one of the Highest Crimes within the Commonwealth.

2. Should the DLA intend to make a deal to waive the charges, the agreement should specify that. Not merely remove the sentencing of the charges but still charge the defendant with the crime.

The Supreme Court will award a 48-hour extension to the defendant and the commonwealth to determine whether they wish to rework the Plea deal or proceed as standard within the case. Should the defendant want to proceed with the case, they will be required to enter their plea following this extension.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Sidebar, your honors?

 

[Nacho]

An invitation has been sent to both parties to join the Judiciary Discord. Please join at your earliest convenience.

Sidebar, your honors?

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Motion to nolle prosequi
Your Honors, the commonwealth would like to drop this case as in occordance to what me the defendent and the courts have discussed in the sidebar.

Thank you for the courts time your Honors​

 

[Nacho]

After reviewing and discussing the sidebar, the Supreme Court (unanimously) will accept the motion and dismiss the charges with prejudice.

The court thanks you for your time.