Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Westray & Partypig678 [2022] FCR 47

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nacho said:
I hereby charge Trentricl_Lamar with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
Click to expand...
cheeburger
 
Trentrick_Lamar said:
cheeburger
Click to expand...
I hereby charge Trentrick_Lamar with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Westray and Partypig678
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

In accordance with the Judicial Standards Act, this is formal request to recuse the presiding Judge due to bias. We respectfully allege:

1. This case deals with allegations involving money taken from the budget of the Department of State (DOS). The presiding Judge is now the Deputy Secretary of the Department of State. Given this is a senior leadership position within the DOS as next-in-line to Secretary, the presiding Judge would have a vested interest in protecting the Department of State and its budget. Given that, we believe there is a significant conflict of interest.
2. This case also deals with allegations involving money taken from the budget of the Department of Public Affairs (DPA), the presiding Judge is an employee of the Department of Public Affairs as an Archivist. While not as significant of a conflict of interest as the Deputy Secretary of the DOS, this may also present vested interests elsewhere.
3. The presiding Judge may also present the appearance of bias with respect to corporate ventures. It is possible that as the CEO of the Chip Corporation, there may be bias against a competing business such as Amazon. Given this and the clashing of corporate interests with the Co-Defendant, we believe there is a strong appearance of bias.
4. On June 9, the Co-Defendant was presented a cease and desist directly from the presiding Judge with respect to allegations of defamation against Chip Corporation. This could be seen as prior work as a lawyer against a party in the case.
5. The presiding Judge has made several disparaging comments in the past, including "Office memes = shit" on June 22 in reference to the Defendant. This could also create an appearance of bias against one who has an affinity for the wonderful television series known as The Office.

With respect to the Judicial Standards Act, I have cited §13.4.b the conflict of interests, §13.4.a the appearance of bias, and §13.4.e prior work as a lawyer for either party. We hope this is addressed accordingly so that a fair trial presided over by an impartial judge can occur.

DATED: This 9th day of July 2022
 
The commonwealth does not have an objection, your honour.
 
Westray said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Westray and Partypig678
Defendant

MOTION TO RECUSE

In accordance with the Judicial Standards Act, this is formal request to recuse the presiding Judge due to bias. We respectfully allege:

1. This case deals with allegations involving money taken from the budget of the Department of State (DOS). The presiding Judge is now the Deputy Secretary of the Department of State. Given this is a senior leadership position within the DOS as next-in-line to Secretary, the presiding Judge would have a vested interest in protecting the Department of State and its budget. Given that, we believe there is a significant conflict of interest.
2. This case also deals with allegations involving money taken from the budget of the Department of Public Affairs (DPA), the presiding Judge is an employee of the Department of Public Affairs as an Archivist. While not as significant of a conflict of interest as the Deputy Secretary of the DOS, this may also present vested interests elsewhere.
3. The presiding Judge may also present the appearance of bias with respect to corporate ventures. It is possible that as the CEO of the Chip Corporation, there may be bias against a competing business such as Amazon. Given this and the clashing of corporate interests with the Co-Defendant, we believe there is a strong appearance of bias.
4. On June 9, the Co-Defendant was presented a cease and desist directly from the presiding Judge with respect to allegations of defamation against Chip Corporation. This could be seen as prior work as a lawyer against a party in the case.
5. The presiding Judge has made several disparaging comments in the past, including "Office memes = shit" on June 22 in reference to the Defendant. This could also create an appearance of bias against one who has an affinity for the wonderful television series known as The Office.

With respect to the Judicial Standards Act, I have cited §13.4.b the conflict of interests, §13.4.a the appearance of bias, and §13.4.e prior work as a lawyer for either party. We hope this is addressed accordingly so that a fair trial presided over by an impartial judge can occur.

DATED: This 9th day of July 2022
Click to expand...
The motion to recuse is herby denied on the following grounds

  1. I have been in both positions for a long time, long before this case has come to the courts. The leadership position is a recent appointment due to a vacancy and by default was offered as my long-time standing within the DOS. the basis of the arguments of the case does not directly relate to either department being well off. Either position would not be affected should this case be concluded in favor or against the defendant.
  2. The company possessed under my name is merely a figure on a piece of paper - The Chip Corporation has not operated under my name for quite some time as it was incorporated and operated under the executive board of directors. Which at the same time has been inactive and is commonly referred to as a meme in recent months.
  3. The described cease and desist letter is signed by the executive board of directors. It was not delivered to a specific person but rather an entity in direct relation to a subsidiary that the Co-Defendant's primary company owned.
  4. The comment issued within the public forum of the DC discord was in relation to a gif posted by a member of the public which continued office-related materials. This is a known aspect that I do not watch or entertain watching the show known as "The Office".

Defendant's council still has 2 hours and 58 minutes (11:50 PM EST) to provide their plea to the court.
 
Your honour in relation to the warrant. In between the approval of the warrant and now, the great warrant act has been signed into law and the Federal court can also issue a warrant to the Dept. of legal affairs. The Department of Justice also needs its resources to perform other tasks. Is it possible to authorise the warrant to the Department of Legal Affairs instead of the Department of Justice?
 
Nacho said:
The motion to recuse is herby denied on the following grounds

  1. I have been in both positions for a long time, long before this case has come to the courts. The leadership position is a recent appointment due to a vacancy and by default was offered as my long-time standing within the DOS. the basis of the arguments of the case does not directly relate to either department being well off. Either position would not be affected should this case be concluded in favor or against the defendant.
  2. The company possessed under my name is merely a figure on a piece of paper - The Chip Corporation has not operated under my name for quite some time as it was incorporated and operated under the executive board of directors. Which at the same time has been inactive and is commonly referred to as a meme in recent months.
  3. The described cease and desist letter is signed by the executive board of directors. It was not delivered to a specific person but rather an entity in direct relation to a subsidiary that the Co-Defendant's primary company owned.
  4. The comment issued within the public forum of the DC discord was in relation to a gif posted by a member of the public which continued office-related materials. This is a known aspect that I do not watch or entertain watching the show known as "The Office".

Defendant's council still has 2 hours and 58 minutes (11:50 PM EST) to provide their plea to the court.
Click to expand...
Your honeur, given you will not recuse yourself voluntarily, §13.3 of the Judicial Standards Act needs to be excercised accordingly:

"(3) Where a judge does not voluntarily recuse, a second Judge will respond to the motion and either accept or deny it. In the instance the judge accepts the motion, that judge will then preside over the case."

Respectfully, we disagree with the response to these concerns and feel they have not been properly addressed. We believe that your position within the DOS as second-in-line to the Secretary (as Deputy Secretary) poses a significant conflict of interest. This case involves allegations of embezzlement from the DOS budget, and as the Deputy there is a conflict of interest presented.

The claims about your company cannot be verified. We have no understanding of the inner workings of the company aside from the fact that your position as CEO creates an appearance of bias, evidently when you sent a cease and desist to the co-defendant's company.

This is not a question of absolute bias or anything of that matter. It's about two key elements, Appearance of Bias, and Conflict of Interest. The Judicial Standards Act is very clear in §13.4.a and §13.4.b. Both of these clauses outline the appearance of bias and vested interests that could pose issues. In a fair and just court system, it is crucial that both parties have faith in the presiding Judge, thus the need for the strict appearance of impartiality.

Thank you for your understanding.
 
1657427116688.png

MOTION TO RECUSE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE NACHOLEBRAA
IN THE CASE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT v. WESTRAY & PARTYPIG678

Having reviewed the motion to recuse and Federal Court Judge Nacholebraa’s reason for not voluntarily recusing himself. Our decision is as follows.

Reason for Recusal
1. Judge Nacholebraa’s position as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of State and archivist in the Department of Public Affairs is a direct interest in the case.
2. Judge Nacholebraa’s position as the CEO of The Chip Corporation may present bias to companies with which Judge Nacholebraa is in competition, such as Amazon.
3. Judge Nacholebraa has delivered a cease and desist to a company that one of the Co-Defendants owns.
4. Judge Nacholebraa’s blasphemy against images that reference the American mockumentary sitcom television series that depicts the everyday work lives of office employees at the Scranton, Pennsylvania, branch of the fictional Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, The Office.

Burden of Proof
In Prodigium Partners at Law v _Austin27_ [2021] FCR 11, Former Judge Matt_S0 provided a statement on the Motion to Recuse​
The Judiciary has an obligation to be impartial, and individuals are nominated on the basis that they can perform their duties with impartiality and integrity. As such, the burden of proof falls to the accuser that a recuse is necessary, and any proof has to be overwhelming, given the severity of such an allegation. A successful motion to recuse is not to be discounted as something of negligible importance - a successful motion would demonstrate not only a Judge’s partiality within the matter but also incompetence in accepting the case when not necessary and damage trust in the Judiciary. I simply do not find the evidence before the Court to be of the required compelling nature to reach the standard required for such a motion.​
Click to expand...

Ruling
The Supreme Court’s ruling will be issued in three separate points.
Judge Nacholebraa’s position within the Department of State and within the Department of Public Affairs does not present enough of an interest in the case to present a bias in Judge Nacholebraa’s decisions. As pointed out by Judge Nacholebraa, the promotion to Deputy Secretary was yesterday at 2:43 AM EST, prior to Judge Nacholebraa taking the case. At the time of the case, Judge Nacholebraa had no direct interest in the case. This same holds true in Judge Nacholebraa’s position in the Department of Public Affairs; Judge Nacholebraa has no direct interest in the case. And as correctly pointed out by Judge Nacholebraa, the arguments of this case have nothing to do with the well-being of either department. At the foundation of this case is a criminal case against the defendants, not protecting the Department of State nor the Department of Public Affairs.

Second, Judge Nacholebraa’s position as the CEO of The Chip Corporation does not pose a conflict of interest in this case. The described instances have nothing to do with the case presented before the Federal Court. At the foundation of this case are the charges brought forth by the Commonwealth against Westray and Partypig678. This is not a case about the cease and desist sent by The Chip Corporation, nor is this case concerning any of the companies The Chip Corporation may or may not have direct competition with. Furthermore, the burden of proof falls on the accuser that a recuse is necessary. The defendant's alleged bias against companies to which the defendants have ties isn’t relevant to the arguments laid forth before the court. The suspected bias is all speculative; no evidence exists to show that Judge Nacholebraa has any personal bias against either of the defendants.

Finally, Judge Nacholebraa’s opinions on NBC’s hit sitcom The Office, an American mockumentary sitcom television series that depicts the everyday work lives of office employees at the Scranton, Pennsylvania, branch of the fictional Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, have no relevance to the case laid before the court. Even if the defendants disagree with Judge Nacholebraa over NBC’s hit show, this disagreement shows no bias or appearance of bias from Judge Nacholebraa.

Remarks
Based on the current known facts of the case, as Acting Chief Justice, I hereby overrule the motion to recuse Federal Court Judge Nacholebraa from this case.

Thank you for your time.​
 
The time of 11:50 pm EST has come and surpassed the courts. I will be charging the Defendant with 1 count of contempt of court for failure to appear before the court.

This charge comes with greater concern as an awarding of a 24-hour extension has already been granted to the defense. I would like to remind the defense that it is required by law to be present and aware of their case. I will be providing a 6-hour (6:44 AM EST) continuance to allow the defense another chance to respond to the case with their plea.​
 
Your honeur, we would like to petition for a writ of certiorari to be considered with regards to moving this case to the Supreme Court. This is in accordance with the constitutional provision:
Only‌ ‌the‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌shall‌ ‌hear‌ ‌cases‌ ‌that‌ ‌would‌ ‌remove‌ ‌a‌ ‌person/persons‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌following‌ positions:‌ ‌Representatives,‌ ‌Secretary,‌ ‌Senator,‌ ‌Judge,‌ ‌Vice-President,‌ ‌Principal‌ ‌Officers,‌ ‌General‌ ‌Advisors,‌ ‌President.‌ ‌
Click to expand...
With respect to this provision, the Prosecution is asking that a Defendant is removed from office for a period of two months. This case is apparently in regards to an alleged act that occurred while the Defendant was President, therefore within the list of cases that must be heard by the Supreme Court.

Thank you for consideration.
 
1657431346916.png

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN CASE [2022] FCR 47
RESPONSE TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI

The Supreme Court has voted to deny this petition for a writ of certiorari.

This petition has not been made at the proper time nor is it the correct use of a writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari is used to set aside a previous decision for an appellate court to review a case at it's own discretion. Such petition is to set aside a previous court decision. How can the Supreme Court issue a writ of certiorari when no court decision has been issued on this case?

Furthermore, on the question of original jurisdiction. Under the powers given to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction for all cases which that remove a person from the following positions: Representatives,‌ ‌Secretary,‌ ‌Senator,‌ ‌Judge,‌ ‌Vice-President,‌ ‌Principal‌ ‌Officers,‌ ‌General‌ ‌Advisors,‌ ‌President, Executive Officers. Both of the defendants don't not hold these positions currently. This case will not be removing Westray or Partypig678 form these positions so the Federal Court has original jurisdiction.

Thank you for your time.​
 
Okay, thank you, your honour.

Nacho said:
The time of 11:50 pm EST has come and surpassed the courts. I will be charging the Defendant with 1 count of contempt of court for failure to appear before the court.

This charge comes with greater concern as an awarding of a 24-hour extension has already been granted to the defense. I would like to remind the defense that it is required by law to be present and aware of their case. I will be providing a 6-hour (6:44 AM EST) continuance to allow the defense another chance to respond to the case with their plea.​
Click to expand...

Both Defendants will be asleep at 6:44am EST. This 6 hour deadline after charging us for 1 count of contempt is extreme. This is a block game, and people have lives outside of it. We ask that the court gives an adequate amount of time to be able to respond appropriately, especially given that the court has now dismissed our concerns about impartiality.

The Department of Legal Affairs has been considering an out of court settlement plea deal for the offences. Therefore we feel it is not appropriate to enter a plea at this time. Added to this, most cases have allocated for extensions far beyond 24 or the 6 hour remark. Thank you for consideration.
 
Westray said:
Okay, thank you, your honour.



Both Defendants will be asleep at 6:44am EST. This 6 hour deadline after charging us for 1 count of contempt is extreme. This is a block game, and people have lives outside of it. We ask that the court gives an adequate amount of time to be able to respond appropriately, especially given that the court has now dismissed our concerns about impartiality.

The Department of Legal Affairs has been considering an out of court settlement plea deal for the offences. Therefore we feel it is not appropriate to enter a plea at this time. Added to this, most cases have allocated for extensions far beyond 24 or the 6 hour remark. Thank you for consideration.
Click to expand...
I granted an original 24-hour extension - I will not be granting any additional time as the original extension was not utilized. Extensions are granted as needed and the one being requested has already been granted. In the time since I have posted a further extension of 6 hours, the defense has responded to the courts with everything but the requests for plea response.

I expect and require a prompt response from the defense within the allotted time frame. Which as I calculated is approximately 3 hours and 31 minutes (6:45 AM EST)​
 
KeyboardAlex said:
Its 3am on a Sunday. Let the man sleep. :(
Click to expand...
I hereby charge KeyboardAlex with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
 
Your honeur, the Prosecution and Defence have came to an agreement on a plea deal:

PLEA
1. The Defendant, Westray, pleads guilty to one count of embezzlement and one count of corruption pursuant to this deal.
2. The Co-Defendant, Partypig678, pleads guilty to one count of accomplice to commit a crime pursuant to this deal.

PLEA BARGAIN DEAL
In exchange for a plea bargain, the Prosecution will issue the following lowered punishments:
1. For Westray: A fine of $24,000, 10 minutes of jail time, removal from public office for two months, a mandated apology, and the requirement to compensate the government for $76,000.
2. For Partypig678, 10 minutes of jail time, and requirement to compensate the government in the event that the other Defendant is unable to.
3. Any outstanding charges are dropped accordingly.

Pursuant of the provisions of the plea bargain deal, I present this mandated apology:

APOLOGY

Dear, citizens of redmont

I have devoted a large portion of my time to Redmont, even before it was even called that. During my extensive tenure in all three respective branches, I have done nothing but uphold the law and acted in the best interest of the people of Redmont. I can honestly say I have never done anything that I believed to be unfair or harmful to the people.

Now, in my final day of office, there was an incident. I intentionally unfined partypig678 76k from the DOS and DPA bank accounts. Many thought it was rather funny, and did not see the issues it would cause seeing as the budget would be replenished in a couple days or so. I maintain it was a joke and not hurtful to the community as a whole since I was willing to payback the money anytime.

What I did not intend was to cause any harm to the taxpayer or anything of that nature. I've donated several thousands and paid thousands more in taxes to the government in my time here, so by no means did I ever have any intent to be malicious or cause harm. Given the matter of embezzlement, I did not foresee the consequences of my actions.

Although I am unable dictate the perception that this may have, I have committed countless months to public service and I hope that continues to be remembered. Partypig678 and I have been on the server for over two years, and have enjoyed our time with the community and supporting it in every instance we have been able to.
Click to expand...
 
Would the state be able to confirm this plea bargain that has been presented to the courts?
 
Yes, the state agrees with the plea bargain, your honour.
 

Verdict



I will be accepting this plea bargain. This case is hereby adjourned in favor of the state. The DOJ is hereby ordered to carry out the fine and charges associated with the plea bargain as described.

1. For Westray: A fine of $24,000, 10 minutes of jail time, barred from public office for two months, a mandated apology, and the requirement to compensate the government for $76,000.

2. For Partypig678, 10 minutes of jail time, and a requirement to compensate the government in the event that the other Defendant is unable to.

The court would also like to note that the required apology is accepted under point one and the defendant will not have to issue another one.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top