Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Psypio [2022] FCR 43

Status
Not open for further replies.
HugeBob

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
Supporter
hugebob23456
hugebob23456
donator3
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
655
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Psypio
Defendant

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

A candidate for the Willow Commerce Advisor elections made an advertisement for their campaign, when a potential voter for this election suggested that they may vote for the candidate in exchange for a cash payment. The candidate who posted the ad refused, however another candidate seized on the opportunity to make a direct cash payment to the potential voter in question in real time.

The Defendant has confessed to making this payment, however suggests that it was a "joke". The cash payment was never refunded. That potential voter was given material payment under the premise of securing their vote. If a company uses illegal means to avoid taxation, can they then claim that it was a "joke" instead of Tax Evasion? While jokes are certainly not illegal, a real payment was made. Had no payment been made, there would be no case. But that isn't the situation we are in. A candidate for public office made a payment, in real time, to a potential voter that offered to sell their vote to the highest bidder. If that is not Bribery and Electoral Fraud, then what is?

I. PARTIES
1. Psypio
2. Ariyanqwq
3. A__C
4. The Town of Willow

II. FACTS
1. Defendant, a candidate contesting the Willow Commerce Advisor election, makes a payment to Ariyanqwq to the amount of $250.00 after they request that candidates pay them for their vote.
2. Bribery is defined as: "Bribery shall be defined as the act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity." (under the White-Collar Crack Down Act Act of Congress - White-Collar Crack Down Act)
3. Electoral Fraud is defined as: "Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats."

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. Defendant committed an act of Bribery in giving an item or service of value to an individual serving in the capacity of voter.
2. Defendant committed an act of Electoral Fraud by meddling with an election through bribery.

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For Bribery: 10 minutes of jail time, a fine of $10,000.00 (the minimum is $500 and the maximum is $50,000), and removal from public office for a period of one month (the maximum is two months)
2. For Electoral Fraud: A fine of $5,000.00 (the maximum is $25,000), and removal from public office for a period of one month to be appended to the end of the Bribery punishment for a total of two months (there is no maximum length for removal from public office for Electoral Fraud)

V. EVIDENCE
1654719805193.png

1654719820221.png

1654719834957.png



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 June 2022
 
I will be recusing myself from the case, and another judge or justice will preside over this case.
 
federal-court-png.12082


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

The Defendant, @Psypio, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Psypio [2022] FCR 43.

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.​
 
I'm present, Stoltenberg & Partners at Law is representing me.
 
Last edited:
The Defendant, wonders, if in the case that he would plead guilty, would his punishment be lowered?
 

Attachments

  • 1654933601035.png
    1654933601035.png
    10.6 KB · Views: 85
The prosecution has met with the Defendants legal counsel and would like to postpone this lawsuit until the next Attorney General takes office on the 15th of this month to ensure a plea deal, if one occurs, is properly ratified by the State.
 
The extension is granted, this case will resume June 16, 2022.
 
This is a reminder that the Defense has 24 hours to respond.
 
By respond, I mean to respond to the charges with an Answer to Criminal Complaint.
 
I would also like to formally make note to the Court that the Defense and the Prosecution have failed to reach an agreement for a plea deal. We would like to continue with this lawsuit.
 
This is understood, and the Defense has 24 hours from this point to either indicate their intention to plead guilty, or to respond with the Answer to Criminal Complaint. If there is no answer in 24 hours they will be held in contempt of court.
 
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Psypio (represented by Stoltenberg & Partners at Law)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense disputes all charges.

II. DEFENCES
1. In relevance to the charge of Bribery, Ariyanqwq was paid $250 by the Defendant in the form of a donation. My client never asked Ariyanqwq, neither before nor after the sum of money was transferred, for their vote as a direct result of the donation.

2. Regarding the charge of Electoral Fraud, I'd like to emphasize that Ariyanqwq wasn't a resident of Willow during the election, therefore making it impossible for them to vote for my client, or other candidates. In addition to the lack of residency, both my client and Ariyanqwq admitted to joking around, and I'm confident in saying that even if Ariyanqwq had taken place in the election, my clients' donation wouldn't have swayed their vote.

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 19th day of June 2022
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    144.3 KB · Views: 74
  • 2.png
    2.png
    30.5 KB · Views: 69
  • 3.png
    3.png
    247.4 KB · Views: 79
Thank you. The Prosecution may now present their opening statements.
 
This is a reminder that the Prosecution has approximately 14 more hours to present their opening statements.
 
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Psypio (represented by Stoltenberg & Partners at Law)
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, we have numbered our points in line with those of the Defendant for your convenience.

1. The defense claims there was no quid pro quo and therefore bribery is not a valid charge. The definition of Bribery does not require for a formal quid pro quo, stating that merely giving anything of value to "influence" an individual constitutes Bribery. Even on the premise that the Defendant has established wherein the money was given as a "donation", that would still satisfy the legal definition of Bribery. Furthermore, there was a quid pro quo. I would like to again bring attention to the following screenshot:
1655848762348.png


2. The definition of Election Fraud does not require that the fraud be to an extent that it overturns the result of the election. The definition of Election Fraud merely requires that an individual meddles in an election through "alternate accounts, bribery, and/or threats" but also states that it is not limited to these means. Committing Bribery with the intent to impact the result of an election, regardless of how successful this attempt might be, is Election Fraud. Even in the case that this particular bribe recipient was not a resident of Willow, the Defendant did not know this until after the bribe has been sent as evident by a screenshot submitted by the Defendant's counsel showing that they learned the residency status of the citizen on June 12, but this lawsuit was filed on June 8. The Prosecution would like to thank the Defendant for their charitable assistance in this case.
1655849156351.png


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 21st day of June 2022
 
Thank you. The Defense may now present their opening statements.
 
Your honor, how long does the defense have to produce an opening statement?
 
It is 48 hours, as with all communications, and since far more than that time has elapsed we will be moving on without their opening statements.
 
If either party wishes to call witnesses they should produce a list so that all summons can be made at the same time. If you do not have any witnesses to call, simply state so.
 
Your Honor, the defense would like to call Ariyanqwq as a witness.
 
Last edited:
The Prosecution does not have any witnesses to call.
 
federal-court-png.12082

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

Ariyanqwq is required to appear before the court in the case of Commonwealth v. Psypio [2022] FCR 43 as a witness. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the counsel that requested your summons, and may also be cross-examined. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a contempt of court charge.

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, pursuant of the Perjury Act.​
 
Your honor, 48 hours has elapsed. Shall we proceed with the case without this witness?
 
I am finding the witness in contempt of court, they have 24 hours to appear before the punishment escalates.
 
The Defense may now present their questions to the witness.
 
Your honor, more than 48 hours have elapsed. May we please proceed?
 
Yes, as the time has passed, and the Defense has shown they were aware the witness was present, we will now move on without their questions. The Prosecution may present their closing arguments.
 
The Prosecution has now in turn waited past the time window for their closing remarks, and so we will move on without them. The Defense may post their closing arguments, and I would encourage them to be mindful of the 48-hour expectation.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v

Psypio
Defendant

The claims against my client, Psypio, are outlandish. To start off, despite the claims of the Prosecution, there was never a quid pro quo. The funds paid to Ariyanqwq, as previously mentioned, were a donation. My client did not expect anything in return for the funds transferred. Furthermore, Ariyanqwq wasn’t a resident at the time, making it impossible for them to have participated in the election (ie. voting.)

Ariyanqwq had not been and still isn’t very involved within politics, or the server alone. Although I cannot predict the intentions of unquestioned witnesses, my client certainly had no intentions other than to joke around. This inactivity of Ariyanqwq, having a mere 37 minutes in the last month, is certainly intriguing. And Your Honor, please excuse my crudeness, but I must present this question: Seeing as my client has not harmed anyone or their property, a prominent individual in this case (Ariyanqwq) is mostly inactive and uninvolved in the server or its politics, and the Prosecution’s evidence is merely mediocre, is pursuing these charges against my client a reasonable and honest use of government time and funds? In addition to the many reasons, my client is not wealthy or currently holding any political office; so pursuing these charges is nothing more than a witch-hunt against a law-abiding citizen whose words have been twisted into appearing guilty of crimes he did not commit.

Lastly, accusing my client of bribery, despite the fact he never expected nor requested (and never received) Ariyanqwq’s vote in return for the donation he paid, is dishonest. As defined in the White-Collar Crack Down Act, “Bribery shall be defined as the act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual **holding public office or serving in a legal capacity**”; although it’s not my responsibility to interpret laws, neither my client nor Ariyanqwq were holding public office or serving in a legal capacity during the time period of the offenses alleged by the Prosecution.

I yield, thank you.

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, 2022
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Commonwealth v. Psypio [2022] FCR 43

I. PROSECUTION’S POSITION
1. The Defendant sought election to the Willow Commerce Advisor position.
2. An individual claimed to be accepting money in order to vote for a particular candidate in said election.
3. The Defendant paid the individual a sum of $250.
4. This constitutes bribing an individual in order to influence an election unfairly, and against the Electoral Act, as well as the White-Collar Crackdown Act.
5. The Defendant never asked for, or received, their money back, showing that they never intended the payment as a joke.
6. The Defendant did not know that the individual was unable to vote in the election until well after this event.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Defendant paid these funds to the individual as a joke, not to seriously influence any election.
2. The individual also stated that they were joking, so it is clear both parties were not serious about meddling with elections.
3. The individual in question was not a citizen of Willow, so they could not have voted regardless and the payment couldn’t have possibly changed the outcome of any election.
4. Neither the Defendant nor the individual were serving in any public office or legal position, nullifying any possibility of bribery having taken place.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. Bribery is defined in the White-Collar Crackdown Act as “[T]he act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity.”
2. In this same act, in Section 8, Subsection 4, it is written that, “Electoral fraud does not carry the regular criminal punishment for fraud, and is instead outlined in the Electoral Act.”
3. In the Electoral Act, electoral fraud is defined as “[R]igging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.”
4. By these definitions, any method of meddling with an election, whether or not the individual is serving as a public office, is electoral fraud.
5. It is the opinion of the court that Psypio could not have known that Ariyanqwq was ineligible to vote, and paid them the money believing they were capable of casting a vote in his favor.
6. This knowledge and intent to possibly meddle with an election cannot be negated by the simple statement that it was a joke. It would be a different situation had any party involved made it clear that they were joking, but nobody did. Furthermore, the money was never retracted, and making a “donation payment” so soon after such a statement is beyond reasonable doubt an attempt to bribe a voter.

IV. VERDICT
I find as follows on the charges:
1. One count of bribery: Not guilty
2. One count of electoral fraud: Guilty
I hereby order that Psypio be fined $5,000 by the DOJ, and is barred from holding public office for a period of one month.

The Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top