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

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Westray and Partypig678
Defendant

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

Former President Westray, unfined Partypig which was his First-Lady at the time an amount totalling $76000 from the DCGovernmentDOS and DCGovernmentDPA accounts. This unfine happened shortly before Westray would no longer be president. No such budget expenditure for the DOS or DPA was recorded even though it is mandated by Congress.

The Former President is charged with "Embezzlement" which 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." under section 4 "Type of Fraud" of the White Collar Crack Down Act. The president withheld $76000 from the government which was entrusted to the government and by defacto Westray as the President is the head of the government.

The Former President is charged with "Fraud" which is defined as "an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.” under section 1 of the White Collar Crack Down Act. Failing to report, the expenditure is an omission of an important material fact to a victim(congress) justifiable relies on.

The Former President is charged with 2 counts of "Corruption" which is defined as "To use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures. By applying for a position or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves." Former President Westray used his government position as president to benefit his own private interests or corporate venture by unfining his First-Lady and long-time friend Partypig government assigned money for no apparent reason.
"The other count of Corruption is committed by the fact that Westray attempted to pre-pardon Partypig for "any crimes related to Tax Evasion, Fraud, and Evasion of Building Regulations." Which would include Embezzlement.

Former First Lady Partypig is charged with being an "Accomplice to commit Embezzlement". Although Partypig was not personally entrusted with the money he received he was a conspirator and facilitated the exchange and did not report it to the Government.

I. PARTIES
1. The State - Prosecution
2. Westray - Defendant
3. Partypig678 - Co-defendant

II. FACTS
1. Westray would seize to be president after the inauguration which roughly occurred on Thursday the 16th of June at 2:00 am UTC.
2. Westray unfined his first lady and long-time friend Partypig678 $56000 from the DOS account at [00:43:36] UTC on the 16th of June the same day.
3. Westray unfined partypig678 $20000 from the DPA account at [00:44:44] on the 16th of June the same day.
4. No such expense was recorded in the #budget channel.

III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
1. 1 count of Embezzlement against Former President Westray
2. 1 count of Fraud against former President Westray
3. 2 counts of Corruption against Former President Westray
4. 1 Count of Accomplice to commit Embezzlement

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. For the charge of 1 count of Embezzlement against Former President Westray the prosecution asks the maximum fine of $50.000 and 10min of jail time as well as being required to compensate the government.
2. For the charge of 1 count of Fraud against Former President Westray the prosecution asks the maximum fine of $50.000 and 10min of jail time.
3. For the charges of 2 counts of Corruption against Former President Westray the prosecution asks the maximum fine of $10.000 + Removal from public office for 2 months.
4. For the 1 Count of Accomplice to commit Embezzlement the prosecution asks for the maximum fine of $37500 and 7,5min of jail time as well as being required to compensate the government.

The Prosecution is willing to do an in-game trial starting with the Opening Statements

Edited to clarify that partypig refers to partypig678. Seeing as there has been no summons yet I think it is not an issue.*

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 6th day of July 2022

 

[Westray]

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

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Prosecution

v.

Westray and "Partypig"
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Given that past precedents have allowed the Defendant to post a motion to dismiss before being summoned (References can be provided on request), the Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Prosecution has listed a Defendant that has never existed within this community. The user "Partypig" has never joined DC. Every other case has listed the Defendant's full username however the Prosecution has failed to do so. Partypig is a steve skin random player according to namemc: https://namemc.com/profile/partypig.1
2. Under sentencing recommendations, the prosecution uses three zeros rather than two zeros for cents. For instance, under Section 4.1 of the complaint, it states "asks the maximum fine of $50.000" - what is $50.000? Is it $50 or something else? It does not use the regular complaint formatting for Redmont money.
3. Under charges, the prosecution does not even note who the charge of "Accomplice to commit Embezzlement" would even be directed at, despite the previous charges naming the Defendant. It does not explicitly name this "Partypig" user as the accomplice in sentencing or charges.
4. The allegation of Corruption over a pardon is frivolous with no legal basis. The President cannot be found guilty of Corruption for the use of a preemptive pardon. In fact, in Executive Order 19/21, Austin27 was pardoned for electoral fraud by then-President Hugebob, which he later used as a defence in a case. The Department of Legal Affairs did not prosecute Hugebob for this act.
5. The Prosecution has provided no explanation why double charges of both "Fraud" and "Embezzlement" are being alleged.
6. In the Defendant's will (titled "We All Shall Fall"), the Defendant clearly willed all crimes to be inherited by Krix. The Department of Legal Affairs has not listed Krix as a Defendant despite this.
7. The Prosecution's claims are inaccurate and frivolous. While they have have presented a screenshot of an alleged act, their arguments are full of inaccuracies and frivolous claims. In accordance with the constitution, every citizen has the right to a fair trial. How can this be deemed a fair trial when this much of the claims are inaccurate? Let alone #1 that notes how the prosecution failed to even properly name the co-defendant.

This motion to dismiss alleges a wide range of inaccuracies and frivolous claims by the Prosecution. If the government cannot even properly address a co-defendant or provide coherent claims in a poorly formatted month-late case, it is a beyond disappointing breach of duty. This case should be dismissed.

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 6th day of July 2022

 

[Nacho]

Point > 1 - Common spelling is recognized within the court - In your own motion to dismiss your further provided failure to properly spell former HugeBob23456's name.
Point > 2 - I will be accepting this format of money as all cultures of life are welcomed within the court of Redmont, this includes different cultures of monetary recognition. Furthermore, I would ask for clarity on the record for the court that we further continue the case within the normalized and generally accepted format as the following "0,000.00" - This will be practiced to ensure the record is easily able to be followed.
Point > 3 - I will be denying this irregularity as "Partypig" is listed as a co-defendant within the initial filings.
Point > 4 - The allegation of corruption based on the evidence provided to the courts at this time provides reason to believe that the possibility of corruption could have occurred in relation to the evidence that has been provided to the courts.
Point > 5 - The listed explanation of the charges is laid out before the court in the complaint.
Point > 6 - Crimes and legal charges cannot be simply willed away - The court has always emplored and empowered the understanding of "If you do the crime, you do the time." So the court will be denying this point.


I will be further denying this motion to dismiss. I will be issuing a summons in a matter of moments.

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Westray & Partypig678 [2022] FCR 47. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also 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.​

 

[Bubblybo]

Westray, it’s corruption. Just pull a BubblyBo

 

[Nacho]

Westray, it’s corruption. Just pull a BubblyBo

I hereby charge BubblyBo with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

 

[wetc]

I got $15,000 on The Commonwealth of Redmont, anyone want to take that bet? I’ll give 3:1 odds.

 

[Bubblybo]

I hereby charge BubblyBo with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

At least it’s not an @JoeGamer Charge

 

[Nacho]

I hereby charge Wetc with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

I got $15,000 on The Commonwealth of Redmont, anyone want to take that bet? I’ll give 3:1 odds.

 

[Nacho]

At least it’s not an @JoeGamer Charge

I hereby charge BubblyBo with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

 

[Muffins29]

charge dn

 

[wetc]

I hereby charge Wetc with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

I hereby charge you with having:

One count No Game

One count of No Play

Three counts of No Bitches

 

[wetc]

charge dn

What’s rn?

 

[wetc]

What’s rn?

Dn*

 

[Bubblybo]

I hereby charge BubblyBo with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

What happened to freedom of speech?

 

[Nacho]

charge dn

I hereby charge Muffins29 with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

 

[Nacho]

I hereby charge you with having:

One count No Game

One count of No Play

Three counts of No Bitches

I hereby charge Wetc with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

 

[Nacho]

Dn*

I hereby charge Wetc with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

 

[Nacho]

What happened to freedom of speech?

I hereby charge BubblyBo with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

 

[Bubblybo]

There’s no point trying, unless u want to go over the fine and get impeached like @JoeGamer (thats an L btw)

Also be nice to wetc, he’s probably drunk

 

[wetc]

There’s no point trying, unless u want to go over impeached

Also be nice to wetc, he’s probably drunk

I didn’t even know you could get drunk off Bofa

 

[Muffins29]

whats bofa???

 

[Twixted]

charge dn

Common Muffins W

 

[wetc]

whats bofa???

>

 

[wetc]

>

Why tf did it turn my text emoji into that shit

 

[Muffins29]

it dont want us learning about bofa :/

 

[Bubblybo]

WOT IS BOFA

 

[Bubblybo]

Not @Nacho giving up

 

[Psypio]

Westray, it’s corruption. Just pull a BubblyBo

 

[black_ven0m]

I wanna join this party

 

[Milkcrack]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
The Commonwealth asks that all of Former President Westray's & First lady Partypig678's asset will be frozen from most to least valuable until the value of the assets exceeds the prayer for relief. This would last until the remainder of the trial. Westray & Partypig678 are currently still in possession of many valuable assets and in the case of a guilty verdict, the commonwealth may be required to seize this asset if Westray and/or Partypig678 are unable to pay with cash.

The assets include but are not limited to:
Shares in the Stock Market
Plots
Valuable Item reserves such as beacons, netherite and iron_blocks.
Any vehicles.

 

[Westray]

OBJECTION
To our understanding, in accordance with past precedent and the Judicial Standards Act, emergency injunctions are to be filed alongside the original claim. The Prosecution cannot simply request an injunction during the middle of the case after the Defendant has already presented a motion to dismiss. This precedent of emergency injunctions needing to be filed alongside the original claim is crucial, as it is the only way for a Defendant to be able to defend themselves.

Cases Kycnn1703 v. Department of State [2022] SCR 8, UtCowboy21 Vs. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 31, nnmc v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 6, Hamilton City Bank v. Wetc [2022] FCR 10, Galavance v. Trentrick_Lamar ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101 [2021] FCR 76, and xlayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 12, all include an emergency injunction that was filed before arguments from the Defence were presented. In these cases, which includes Supreme Court precedent, these injunctions were filed alongside the original claim.

 

[wetc]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
The Commonwealth asks that all of Former President Westray's & First lady Partypig678's asset will be frozen from most to least valuable until the value of the assets exceeds the prayer for relief. This would last until the remainder of the trial. Westray & Partypig678 are currently still in possession of many valuable assets and in the case of a guilty verdict, the commonwealth may be required to seize this asset if Westray and/or Partypig678 are unable to pay with cash.

The assets include but are not limited to:
Shares in the Stock Market
Plots
Valuable Item reserves such as beacons, netherite and iron_blocks.
Any vehicles.

Assets can also include offshore items in Sugondese

 

[bubbarc]

Your honor, I would like to file an amicus brief

 

[Nacho]

There’s no point trying, unless u want to go over the fine and get impeached like @JoeGamer (thats an L btw)

Also be nice to wetc, he’s probably drunk

I hereby charge BubblyBo with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

I didn’t even know you could get drunk off Bofa

I hereby charge Wetc with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

whats bofa???

I hereby charge Muffins29 with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

Common Muffins W

I hereby charge Twixted with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

>

I hereby charge Wetc with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

Why tf did it turn my text emoji into that shit

I hereby charge Wetc with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

it dont want us learning about bofa :/

I hereby charge Muffins29 with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

WOT IS BOFA

I hereby charge BubblyBo with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

Not @Nacho giving up

I hereby charge BubblyBo with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

View attachment 26578

I hereby charge Psypio with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

I wanna join this party

I hereby charge black_ven0m with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.
-=-

Assets can also include offshore items in Sugondese

I hereby charge Wetc with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

This court will come to order. I have informed the DOJ that should an individual arrive at the 3rd offense threshold then a maximum fine of $1,500 + 10 min jail time shall be issued to the person charged.

 

[Nacho]

OBJECTION
To our understanding, in accordance with past precedent and the Judicial Standards Act, emergency injunctions are to be filed alongside the original claim. The Prosecution cannot simply request an injunction during the middle of the case after the Defendant has already presented a motion to dismiss. This precedent of emergency injunctions needing to be filed alongside the original claim is crucial, as it is the only way for a Defendant to be able to defend themselves.

Cases Kycnn1703 v. Department of State [2022] SCR 8, UtCowboy21 Vs. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 31, nnmc v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 6, Hamilton City Bank v. Wetc [2022] FCR 10, Galavance v. Trentrick_Lamar ShinHeYing & Hong_Kong_101 [2021] FCR 76, and xlayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 12, all include an emergency injunction that was filed before arguments from the Defence were presented. In these cases, which includes Supreme Court precedent, these injunctions were filed alongside the original claim.

Objection Overruled - On the grounds that the defense posted their motion to dismiss before being summoned to the court to allow the opportunity for the plaintiff to possibly submit their emergency injunction.

 

[Nacho]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
The Commonwealth asks that all of Former President Westray's & First lady Partypig678's asset will be frozen from most to least valuable until the value of the assets exceeds the prayer for relief. This would last until the remainder of the trial. Westray & Partypig678 are currently still in possession of many valuable assets and in the case of a guilty verdict, the commonwealth may be required to seize this asset if Westray and/or Partypig678 are unable to pay with cash.

The assets include but are not limited to:
Shares in the Stock Market
Plots
Valuable Item reserves such as beacons, netherite and iron_blocks.
Any vehicles.

I will be granting this Emergency Injunction - All assets of the Defendant and Co-Defendant from the initial filing of the case are herby frozen and cannot be exchanged or used. I grant a Search Warrant for the DOJ to properly log and itemize a list of these assets.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, I would like to file an amicus brief

Please explain to the courts in what capacity including why the courts should grant this brief.

 

[Taro]

What is my perfect crime? I break into the hypothetical bank that holds the government’s budget at midnight. Do I go for the DER? No, I go for the DOS and DPA budgets. They’re priceless. As I'm working out a plan, a player catches me. He tells me to stop. It's “Ketterdam’s” money. He’s Partypig678, rightful owner of Ketterdam. I say no. I unfine him the budgets. In the morning, the cops come and I escape in one of their uniforms. I tell him to meet me in Mexico, but I go to Canada. I don't trust him. Besides, I like the cold. Thirty years later, I get a postcard. I have a son and he's the chief of police. This is where the story gets interesting. I tell Partypig to meet me in Hamiltom by the Capitol. He’s been waiting for me all these years. He’s never taken another lover. I don't care. I don't show up. I go to Raybucks. That's where I stashed the other budgets no one knew I took.

 

[Milkcrack]

I will be granting this Emergency Injunction - All assets of the Defendant and Co-Defendant from the initial filing of the case are herby frozen and cannot be exchanged or used. I grant a Search Warrant for the DOJ to properly log and itemize a list of these assets.

Your, honour Partypig had around 90k on his balance yesterday which is now 0$. Does this warrant also extend to viewing /pay commands to see where this money went?

 

[partypig678]

I didn't read this lawsuit I just did that cause I posted my will the other day and Simon in my will so I just gave all the money in my account to him democracycraft.net/threads/me-will.13844/
forgot this was happening tbh

so leave me out of this idk whats going on

 

[Nacho]

What is my perfect crime? I break into the hypothetical bank that holds the government’s budget at midnight. Do I go for the DER? No, I go for the DOS and DPA budgets. They’re priceless. As I'm working out a plan, a player catches me. He tells me to stop. It's “Ketterdam’s” money. He’s Partypig678, rightful owner of Ketterdam. I say no. I unfine him the budgets. In the morning, the cops come and I escape in one of their uniforms. I tell him to meet me in Mexico, but I go to Canada. I don't trust him. Besides, I like the cold. Thirty years later, I get a postcard. I have a son and he's the chief of police. This is where the story gets interesting. I tell Partypig to meet me in Hamiltom by the Capitol. He’s been waiting for me all these years. He’s never taken another lover. I don't care. I don't show up. I go to Raybucks. That's where I stashed the other budgets no one knew I took.

I hereby charge Taro with 1 count of Contempt of Court - Please do not speak when not involved or summoned to speak within the case.

 

[Nacho]

Your, honour Partypig had around 90k on his balance yesterday which is now 0$. Does this warrant also extend to viewing /pay commands to see where this money went?

Yes, the scope of the warrant extends to the Co-Defendant.

 

[Nacho]

The court requests a plea from the defendant(s) in relation to the charges brought against them by the state and requires that it be submitted to the court within 24 hours.

 

[Westray]

Your honeur, I would like to request a 72 hour extension while we coordinate with our legal team and consider all options. In addition, there is personal matters that protrude us being able to provide a clear response to the criminal complaint within a short timespan. We believe this is a justified request given the constitutional right to a fair trial.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

Cheeburger

 

[partypig678]

I have found important evidence for this case: Partypig Scandal

 

[Nacho]

Your honeur, I would like to request a 72 hour extension while we coordinate with our legal team and consider all options. In addition, there is personal matters that protrude us being able to provide a clear response to the criminal complaint within a short timespan. We believe this is a justified request given the constitutional right to a fair trial.

I will grant a 24-hour extension which should be more than enough time for your legal team to organize its initial plea. Please be prompt when responding back to the case. The court will be in recess until 7/9/22 @ 11:50 pm.

 

[Nacho]

Cheeburger

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.

 

[Nacho]

I have found important evidence for this case: Partypig Scandal

Please only respond to the thread when directly asked a question. I will provide you a warning as you have been summoned by not called to answer a question.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

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.

cheeburger

 

[Nacho]

cheeburger

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.

 

[Westray]

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

 

[Milkcrack]

The commonwealth does not have an objection, your honour.

 

[Nacho]

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 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.

 

[Milkcrack]

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?

 

[Westray]

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 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.

 

[JoeGamer]

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.​

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.​

 

[Nacho]

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.​

 

[Westray]

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.‌ ‌

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.

 

[JoeGamer]

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.​

 

[Westray]

Okay, thank you, your honour.

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.​

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.

 

[Nacho]

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.

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)​

 

[Nacho]

Its 3am on a Sunday. Let the man sleep.

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.

 

[Westray]

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.

 

[Nacho]

Would the state be able to confirm this plea bargain that has been presented to the courts?

 

[Milkcrack]

Yes, the state agrees with the plea bargain, your honour.

 

[Nacho]

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.