IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION
The Commonwealth
Prosecution
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendants as follows:
Bribery is “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.”
xEndeavour participated in the act of offering an item or service of value to influence a future secretary's decision.
Avelanie, who is currently a senior Building Inspector for the DCT, is on track to become the next secretary of the DCT. Armed with this knowledge, xEndeavour has offered to drop the xEndeavour v. Commonwealth [2023] FCR 19 lawsuit, in exchange for Avelanie to rehire End as a constructor when she becomes DCT secretary.
xEndeavour is offering something of value, dropping the lawsuit, to influence an individual who will hold the position of Secretary of the DCT. End has attempted to bribe Avelanie clear as day.
I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. The State
3. Avelanie
II. FACTS
1. xEndeavour is fired from the DCT
2. xEndeavour files a unfair dismissal lawsuit
3. xEndeavour asks for his job back
4. xEndeavour offers a bribe for reinstatement
III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:
xEndeavour is charged with 1 count of bribery.
IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. $50,000 fine and 10 minutes jail time
2. 2 month ban from public office
IN THE SUPREME 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. xEndeavour. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION
Commonwealth
Prosecution
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS
Your honour, the Federal Court dismissed this case because it does not have any credible legal standing. This case is asking the court to set a precedent that any form of transactional proposal involving a government figure is bribery?
1. I made a case against the DCT where, in my prayer for relief, I requested reinstatement.
2. I asked Ave, who is the incoming Secretary, if she planned to reinstate me. In exchange for agreeing to reinstate me, I would drop the case and save everyone the time. This was an attempt at an out of court settlement deal with the incoming secretary.
There are a few issues with the case the prosecution makes:
Bribery is defined in one place in our legal system, the White Collar Crackdown Act
(1) 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.
1. No Gain or Loss. A key component to Bribery is the notion that they receive something of value. For an office holder this is generally either a political or economical gain/lose. In this proposal, Avelanie does not gain in a personal or professional capacity from the decision to reinstate me or not reinstate me. Much the same, she does not suffer a loss in a personal or professional capacity. Nothing of value is gained or lost and the Prosecution has not provided any form of evidence to suggest that she has gained or suffered a loss. Dropping the lawsuit is not a loss, because the case does not financially or legally impact the DCT or Avelanie in the capacity of an office holder.
2. No Office. A key component to Bribery is that a member in the transaction is an office holder an makes a gain or intends to make a gain. Avelanie does not hold an office nor has she been nominated for an office. This is speculative.
3. No Jurisdiction. The DEC and OAG are charged with investigating bribery in accordance with the White Collar Crackdown Act. Has the DLA engaged with either of these Departments or is it operating outside of its jurisdiction? No evidence has been provided of an investigation originating from either of these Departments. Unless the Court is going to recognise that a new department inherits the powers of a defunct department which is similar in function, there is no jurisdiction for the DLA to investigate this criminal offence. Moreover, if the DLA has conducted investigations, this would satisfy the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree.
(1) The DEC in conjunction with the Office of The Attorney General is in charge of Investigating the following crimes; Security Fraud, Embezzlement, Tax Evasion, Gambling Fraud, Anti-Trust, bribery and Money Laundering.
The Federal Court made a sound judgement. The case was dismissed because the prosecution presented an extremely poor case and is pulling at strings to land a charge against someone for attempting to engage in alternative dispute resolution.
According to the White-Collar Crack Down Act, bribery is 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."
Firstly at the time of xEndeavour asking for his job back, Avelanie was not, and currently is not the DCT secretary. Although Avelanie is a senator, the DMs provided are not related to Avelanie's position as a senator, but rather her job in the DCT. Because of this, Avelanie is not considered to be holding public office in this instance nor serving in a legal capacity.
Secondly, xEndeavour is not offering anything of value to Avelanie. Avelanie is not the one being sued, nor does she face the consequences if xEndeavour wins the case. Furthermore End is suing because he allegedly was fired unfairly from the DCT. Offering to drop the case if he gets his job back is not bribery because his prayer for relief is reinstatement, and if he is reinstated, there is no point in continuing to litigate his case.
The Prosecution has not appealed on a basis of law, they have appealed because they do not agree with the verdict.
If the court does not approve of a motion to dismiss, the Defence requests to know a full legal reasoning as to why for each motion and which Justices voted in what way to assist with our case.
The Commonwealth has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.
As a reminder to the defendant, the Court would still wish to have an official Answer to Complaint filed before the 48 hours from the summons have elapsed to know the position of the Defendant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION
Commonwealth
Prosecution
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
Your honour, the Federal Court dismissed this case because it does not have any credible legal standing. This case is asking the court to set a precedent that any form of transactional proposal involving a government figure is bribery?
1. I made a case against the DCT where, in my prayer for relief, I requested reinstatement.
2. I asked Ave, who is the incoming Secretary, if she planned to reinstate me. In exchange for agreeing to reinstate me,
I would drop the case and save everyone the time. This was an attempt at an out of court settlement deal with the incoming secretary.
There are a few issues with the case the prosecution makes:
Bribery is defined in one place in our legal system, the White Collar Crackdown Act
(1) 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.
1. No Gain or Loss. A key component to Bribery is the notion that they receive something of value. For an office holder this is generally either a political or economical gain/lose. In this proposal, Avelanie does not gain in a personal or professional capacity from the decision to reinstate me or not reinstate me. Much the same, she does not suffer a loss in a personal or professional capacity. Nothing of value is gained or lost and the Prosecution has not provided any form of evidence to suggest that she has gained or suffered a loss. Dropping the lawsuit is not a loss, because the case does not financially or legally impact the DCT or Avelanie in the capacity of an office holder.
2. No Office. A key component to Bribery is that a member in the transaction is an office holder an makes a gain or intends to make a gain. Avelanie does not hold an office nor has she been nominated for an office. This is speculative.
3. No Jurisdiction. The DEC and OAG are charged with investigating bribery in accordance with the White Collar Crackdown Act. Has the DLA engaged with either of these Departments or is it operating outside of its jurisdiction? No evidence has been provided of an investigation originating from either of these Departments. Unless the Court is going to recognise that a new department inherits the powers of a defunct department which is similar in function, there is no jurisdiction for the DLA to investigate this criminal offence. Moreover, if the DLA has conducted investigations, this would satisfy the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree.
(1) The DEC in conjunction with the Office of The Attorney General is in charge of Investigating the following crimes; Security Fraud, Embezzlement, Tax Evasion, Gambling Fraud, Anti-Trust, bribery and Money Laundering.
The Federal Court made a sound judgement. The case was dismissed because the prosecution presented an extremely poor case and is pulling at strings to land a charge against someone for attempting to engage in alternative dispute resolution.
According to the White-Collar Crack Down Act, bribery is 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."
Firstly at the time of xEndeavour asking for his job back, Avelanie was not, and currently is not the DCT secretary. Although Avelanie is a senator, the DMs provided are not related to Avelanie's position as a senator, but rather her job in the DCT. Because of this, Avelanie is not considered to be holding public office in this instance nor serving in a legal capacity.
Secondly, xEndeavour is not offering anything of value to Avelanie. Avelanie is not the one being sued, nor does she face the consequences if xEndeavour wins the case. Furthermore End is suing because he allegedly was fired unfairly from the DCT. Offering to drop the case if he gets his job back is not bribery because his prayer for relief is reinstatement, and if he is reinstated, there is no point in continuing to litigate his case.
"1. I made a case against the DCT where, in my prayer for relief, I requested reinstatement.
2. I asked Ave, who is the incoming Secretary, if she planned to reinstate me. In exchange for agreeing to reinstate me, I would drop the case and save everyone the time. This was an attempt at an out of court settlement deal with the incoming secretary."
The poor argument that the bribery was just an "out of court settlement" in this motion to dismiss has many flaws. Firstly, Avelanie is not connected to the case xEndeavour v. Commonwealth [2023] FCR 19 at all. She had no say in the termination of xEndeavour from the DCT.
In addition to this, xEndeavour as a lawyer knows he should be discussing his case with the Attorney General, or at the very least the Secretary at the time of the bribe, LavenderxBlaxxi. Once again Avelanie is not at all connected to the case and has no say over it, making it impossible for her to discuss a so-called "out of court settlement."
Secondly, because Avelanie has no connection to the case, and has no power to make an out of court settlement, she is not currently represented by any member of the DLA. Given this, when the DLA was approached by Avelanie regarding her conversation with xEndeavour, our first reaction was: why on earth is xEndeavour talking to Avelanie about being reinstated? After going over it for a few hours, the conclusion was that, since Avelanie was not connected to the case, there was no reason xEndeavour should've been discussing a quid pro quo, where he would drop a lawsuit for reinstatement, with someone who had no connection to the lawsuit.
xEndeavour, a very experienced lawyer, a former Chief Justice, would know without a doubt that Avelanie could not discuss this "out of court settlement" let alone take any action on it. He knows very well he needs to discuss with the Attorney General about any settlement.
xEndeavour is simply attempting to subvert the DLA, and instead attempt to bribe an incoming Secretary to get his job back.
"1. No Gain or Loss. A key component to Bribery is the notion that they receive something of value. For an office holder this is generally either a political or economical gain/lose. In this proposal, Avelanie does not gain in a personal or professional capacity from the decision to reinstate me or not reinstate me. Much the same, she does not suffer a loss in a personal or professional capacity. Nothing of value is gained or lost and the Prosecution has not provided any form of evidence to suggest that she has gained or suffered a loss. Dropping the lawsuit is not a loss, because the case does not financially or legally impact the DCT or Avelanie in the capacity of an office holder."
This motion to dismiss is built upon the prosecutions evidence, which is not a reason to dismiss. We have to prove that it was bribery in the whole trial, not just the complaint, which we will do in witness testimony and any evidence we find in the future (or have found since the case's submission). xEndeavour attempted to get his job back from a future secretary, and suggested that he could drop a lawsuit against the DCT if Avelanie gave him his job back. For xEndeavour to offer to drop the lawsuit in exchange for his job back, shows that there is gain/loss, and we will prove that in this case.
In order to disprove xEndeavours "no gain or loss" statement I would need to do things such as calling Avelanie up to the stand, submitting additional evidence that contradicts xEndeavours argument, and perhaps even calling xEndeavour up to the stand. A motion to dismiss cannot be based on evidence provided.
xEndeavour would gain from this bribe by being employed back into the DCT, which is seen in the original evidence of him begging for it back. xEndeavour was so desperate for his job back that he offered to drop a lawsuit against the DCT. By dropping the suit, Avelanie would’ve gained an end to the DCT drama that she wants. Avelanie and multiple other members of the DCT have expressed displeasure of the drama of xEndeavour, therefore if the suit was dropped it would’ve ended some drama if not all, and as xEndeavour stated it would’ve saved the DCT time.
Furthermore, Avelanie expressed a distaste in the constant public disagreements between the DCT and xEndeavour following xEndeavours dismissal from the DCT. If the bribe was accepted, xEndeavour would likely stop all his drama and public disagreement (Avelanies belief), which is a gain for Avelanie and the DCT as a whole. In order to provide the court with more evidence, I will need to be able to continue with the trial and call up witnesses and provide further screenshots.
"2. No Office. A key component to Bribery is that a member in the transaction is an office holder an makes a gain or intends to make a gain. Avelanie does not hold an office nor has she been nominated for an office. This is speculative."
This is mostly what my initial appeal was based on. This is another poor argument by xEndeavour.
While Avelanie is not currently secretary of the DCT, she was guaranteed the office. Submitted into our evidence we have shown that even xEndeavour congratulated Avelanie on Secretary of the DCT, showing he also believes she is guaranteed it.
Let's draw a simple comparison. Currently Twixted is President-Elect. He does not hold the office of the president currently, but is guaranteed that office. If xEndeavour stated to Twixted "I'll drop this case against a current president as long as you give me a position in your cabinet," that would still be bribery despite Twix not holding the office of the president. Let's take it one step further.
If we take xEndeavours poor argument as law, the following scenario would be completely legal:
Player: Twixted, if you veto this bill when you get into office I will pay you $100,000
Twixted: Ok!
(For legal reasons Twixted has not accepted any bribes, this is just an example)
Now let's apply this logic back to Avelanie. All 3 serious presidential campaigns had Avelanie listed as their nomination for Secretary of the DCT. Avelanie is also a senator, she has the support of the senate. No reasonable individual could argue Avelanie was not getting DCT Secretary, not even xEndeavour. It was guaranteed. Avelanie has no power to employ xEndeavour at this time, therefore by xEndeavour utilizing quid pro quo to get his job back, the only conclusion that can be made is that xEndeavour was bribing a secretary.
As you can see your honors, unless we want to set a terrible precedent that future office holders can be legally bribed, so long as it's done before they enter office, then I ask you rule against this motion to dismiss.
"3. No Jurisdiction. The DEC and OAG are charged with investigating bribery in accordance with the White Collar Crackdown Act. Has the DLA engaged with either of these Departments or is it operating outside of its jurisdiction? No evidence has been provided of an investigation originating from either of these Departments. Unless the Court is going to recognize that a new department inherits the powers of a defunct department which is similar in function, there is no jurisdiction for the DLA to investigate this criminal offence. Moreover, if the DLA has conducted investigations, this would satisfy the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree."
“(1) The DEC in conjunction with the Office of The Attorney General is in charge of Investigating the following crimes; Security Fraud, Embezzlement, Tax Evasion, Gambling Fraud, Anti-Trust, bribery and Money Laundering.”
Firstly the DLA does not need to work in conjunction with the DEC (now the DOC) when prosecuting crimes such as bribery. It is very specific in stating that if the DEC investigates crimes like bribery it must be done with the OAG, which is now called the DLA (xEndeavour has forgotten to note the name changes of departments). This bribery case is simply prosecuting a crime the DLA received, nowhere does it state the DLA must cooperate with the Commerce Department to prosecute people for crimes, in fact the constitution specifically says that the DLA is responsible for "investigating and prosecuting" crimes.
It would be ridiculous to suggest the DLA can't investigate or prosecute Bribery when the constitution literally says it investigates and prosecutes crimes, and bribery is a crime.
Secondly, both the Attorney General and the Secretary of the DOC are in the same group chat where this bribery case was discussed. I believe xEndeavour has forgotten that the DOC secretary Pugsy is a member of the DLA, and therefore Pugsy has knowledge of cases such as this bribery one. Pugsy has been aware of this case as he has access to the chats where we discuss cases. The law xEndeavour provided is not specific to how much the DOC must cooperate in an investigation with the DLA, but in my personal opinion if the DOC secretary is aware of the DLA's case against xEndeavour, then that constitutes cooperation/engagement with the DLA for the law xEndeavour provided.
Finally, xEndeavours statement that a simple name change of a department creates a whole new department is not only contradicting xEndeavours own past statements, but also does not change the fact that bribery is a crime. The constitution is explicit in only enabling the DLA to be “(b) Investigating and prosecuting on behalf of the Federal Government.”
The DLA investigates crimes. Bribery is a crime. The DLA has no obligation to get the DOC’s permission to prosecute an offender. And finally Pugsy, the literal DOC secretary, is the DLA’s financial crimes director, he is aware of the bribery case and is in the same chats it was discussed.
All motions to dismiss were sub par, and should all be dismissed for the sanctity of our justice system.
This is mostly what my initial appeal was based on. This is another poor argument by xEndeavour.
While Avelanie is not currently secretary of the DCT, she was guaranteed the office. Submitted into our evidence we have shown that even xEndeavour congratulated Avelanie on Secretary of the DCT, showing he also believes she is guaranteed it.
Let's draw a simple comparison. Currently Twixted is President-Elect. He does not hold the office of the president currently, but is guaranteed that office. If xEndeavour stated to Twixted "I'll drop this case against a current president as long as you give me a position in your cabinet," that would still be bribery despite Twix not holding the office of the president. Let's take it one step further.
If we take xEndeavours poor argument as law, the following scenario would be completely legal:
Player: Twixted, if you veto this bill when you get into office I will pay you $100,000
Twixted: Ok!
(For legal reasons Twixted has not accepted any bribes, this is just an example)
Now let's apply this logic back to Avelanie. All 3 serious presidential campaigns had Avelanie listed as their nomination for Secretary of the DCT. Avelanie is also a senator, she has the support of the senate. No reasonable individual could argue Avelanie was not getting DCT Secretary, not even xEndeavour. It was guaranteed. Avelanie has no power to employ xEndeavour at this time, therefore by xEndeavour utilizing quid pro quo to get his job back, the only conclusion that can be made is that xEndeavour was bribing a secretary.
There was no transaction made between Avelanie and the Defendant. The Plaintiff provides an analogy which includes a transaction of funds which is not relevant to the case. No consideration (anything tangible of value) has moved from the Defendant to Avelanie, nor was anything of tangible value offered. The Defendant simply proposed that if the potential future DCT Secretary agrees to fulfil the prayers for relief, the case would be dropped.
There was no transaction made between Avelanie and the Defendant. The Plaintiff provides an analogy which includes a transaction of funds which is not relevant to the case. No consideration (anything tangible of value) has moved from the Defendant to Avelanie, nor was anything of tangible value offered. The Defendant simply proposed that if the potential future DCT Secretary agrees to fulfil the prayers for relief, the case would be dropped.
Seeing as a plea and answer to complaint have been filed, the Court will move to opening statements. The Commonwealth has 48 hours to present its opening statement.
Your honor, may I be granted a 48 hour extension? I have only just landed in Queensland on holiday and I will be very busy irl over the next 5 days. I will have little free time to spend on this case, so a further 48 hours to complete the opening statement to this case will be very much appreciated.
Thank you, your honor
The Defence requests that the Supreme Court reconsider the motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss references the Federal Court's verdict. The case before the Supreme Court has not been raised on a point of law, it has been raised out of disagreement with the FCR's verdict. The Plaintiff has put no further compelling evidence forward beyond what was raised in the FCR case. This is abusing the court system by appealing for the sake of appealing, not because a miscarriage of justice or procedural fault has occurred.
A key reason the case was dismissed is because there is no case, bribery involves a gain or loss and the FCR recognised this. The Plaintiff has still not put forward any credible argument to there being a gain or loss to constitute bribery.
Your honor, may I be granted a 48 hour extension? I have only just landed in Queensland on holiday and I will be very busy irl over the next 5 days. I will have little free time to spend on this case, so a further 48 hours to complete the opening statement to this case will be very much appreciated.
Thank you, your honor
I very much apologise to the Supreme Court for this… but I’m going to have to ask for an extension until the Sunday the 19th.
I have spent the day saving up my phone data to post this message. I bought my laptop on holiday with me in the hopes I could use it to post my responses in these cases. Unfortunately my hotel wifi is awful and I cannot physically do any legal work on it.
I have tried to see if any lawyers could take over my case in the meantime but everyone I’ve asked is either busy or unwilling to take it on.
If this request isn’t accepted I do completely understand, but I will not be able to post anything further until the 19th.
Thank you for your consideration in this case, I greatly appreciate the flexibility already, and I’d be very grateful if anymore can be granted.
The Defence requests that the Supreme Court reconsider the motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss references the Federal Court's verdict. The case before the Supreme Court has not been raised on a point of law, it has been raised out of disagreement with the FCR's verdict. The Plaintiff has put no further compelling evidence forward beyond what was raised in the FCR case. This is abusing the court system by appealing for the sake of appealing, not because a miscarriage of justice or procedural fault has occurred.
A key reason the case was dismissed is because there is no case, bribery involves a gain or loss and the FCR recognised this. The Plaintiff has still not put forward any credible argument to there being a gain or loss to constitute bribery.
I very much apologise to the Supreme Court for this… but I’m going to have to ask for an extension until the Sunday the 19th.
I have spent the day saving up my phone data to post this message. I bought my laptop on holiday with me in the hopes I could use it to post my responses in these cases. Unfortunately my hotel wifi is awful and I cannot physically do any legal work on it.
I have tried to see if any lawyers could take over my case in the meantime but everyone I’ve asked is either busy or unwilling to take it on.
If this request isn’t accepted I do completely understand, but I will not be able to post anything further until the 19th.
Thank you for your consideration in this case, I greatly appreciate the flexibility already, and I’d be very grateful if anymore can be granted.
Your honour, I am aware that many extensions have been generously granted to the DLA in regards to these two supreme court cases, and I am grateful for that. However, being given 2 cases at the last days of their extensions makes things difficult, and I could only create a response for one.
I therefore unfortunately have no other option than to ask for an additional 48h extension.
Your honour, I am aware that many extensions have been generously granted to the DLA in regards to these two supreme court cases, and I am grateful for that. However, being given 2 cases at the last days of their extensions makes things difficult, and I could only create a response for one.
I therefore unfortunately have no other option than to ask for an additional 48h extension.
The Supreme Court will extend the Commonwealth's original deadline to Monday, February 20th at 5:10 EST (Eastern Standard Time). The Supreme Court has already granted close to 120 hours in total time for an opening statement. The Supreme Court expects a response before this time.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement
I believe my colleague Dusty, has again already raised many of the good points the prosecution has in it's arsenal in his filing and objections.
Basis of Complaint
The Defendant has indeed, provided something of a value to the certified future secretary of the Department of Construction and Transportation, which is a blatant case of corruption. The defense has raised points already in their motion to dismiss, and I will only be responding to one in the opening statement as I believe my colleague has done an excellent job of explaining the rest of the case before the court.
RE: The Offer is of No Value to the Future Secretary
We wish to bring that attention of the court to the fact that the offer made by the briber does not need to be of value to the bribed party, but just have the potential to be of value, and/or a belief by the briber that it has value or that the bribed party will believe it has value. Therefore, even though Avelanie has rejected the offer and has seen no value in it, does not mean that the Defendant has not approached the situation with such intent.
I would like to draw the attention of the court to the manner of phrasing used by the Defendant in approaching Avelanie.
Ave I want to come back to my old job I miss it so much I have no purpose atm What do i need to do
The defendant is clearly attempting to find something of value to Avelanie, in order to pursuade her to bring him back to his position via her guaranteed future power.
I'll drop the case for reinstatement Just tell me what you need from me and ill make it happen
This is the part I'd like the court to pay the upmost attention to. Here, the defendant chooses a very specific style of wording, where they keep open a venue for the bribed party to have plausible deniability by allowing her to partake in the bribery without having to explicitly agreeing to it. In a circumstance where Avelanie did bring the defendant back to his desired position, the wording of the defendant has allowed her to claim that the re-hiring had nothing to do with the offer, and was unrelated. Again, this is a very specific way of wording and we believe these are deliberate choice of words to allow such an event to happen.
Therefore, we believe that the Defendant has knowingly offered this route to Avelanie, believing it was of value to her, as not only did he attempt to find what else could be of interest to Avelanie, and then later settled on the dropping of the case, he knowingly created her a path to plausible deniability for if she was covertly attempting to accept the offer.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement
I'm not going to waste the Court's time by trying to explain why engaging with a member of DCT leadership and the incoming potential secretary is not bribery when it was an attempt at an out of court settlement deal.
The court should see through the motivations of this case and realise the significant impact that the court ruling in favour of the plaintiff will have on alternative dispute resolution.
The statements which the Plaintiff has quoted are clearly related to what I need to do to make up for what I've supposedly done for reinstatement, Its not like I'm offering them $1,000,000 or anything of value at all for my job back.
The Defence reaffirms all points made in its motion to dismiss and rests its case. The Defence requests summary judgement.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Witness for Case
The prosecution does not request any witnesses at the moment, but wishes to reserve the right to call & cross-examine witnesses called by the defendant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION
Commonwealth
Prosecution
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS
Your honour, the Federal Court dismissed this case because it does not have any credible legal standing. This case is asking the court to set a precedent that any form of transactional proposal involving a government figure is bribery?
1. I made a case against the DCT where, in my prayer for relief, I requested reinstatement.
2. I asked Ave, who is the incoming Secretary, if she planned to reinstate me. In exchange for agreeing to reinstate me, I would drop the case and save everyone the time. This was an attempt at an out of court settlement deal with the incoming secretary.
There are a few issues with the case the prosecution makes:
Bribery is defined in one place in our legal system, the White Collar Crackdown Act
(1) 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.
1. No Gain or Loss. A key component to Bribery is the notion that they receive something of value. For an office holder this is generally either a political or economical gain/lose. In this proposal, Avelanie does not gain in a personal or professional capacity from the decision to reinstate me or not reinstate me. Much the same, she does not suffer a loss in a personal or professional capacity. Nothing of value is gained or lost and the Prosecution has not provided any form of evidence to suggest that she has gained or suffered a loss. Dropping the lawsuit is not a loss, because the case does not financially or legally impact the DCT or Avelanie in the capacity of an office holder.
2. No Office. A key component to Bribery is that a member in the transaction is an office holder an makes a gain or intends to make a gain. Avelanie does not hold an office nor has she been nominated for an office. This is speculative.
3. No Jurisdiction. The DEC and OAG are charged with investigating bribery in accordance with the White Collar Crackdown Act. Has the DLA engaged with either of these Departments or is it operating outside of its jurisdiction? No evidence has been provided of an investigation originating from either of these Departments. Unless the Court is going to recognise that a new department inherits the powers of a defunct department which is similar in function, there is no jurisdiction for the DLA to investigate this criminal offence. Moreover, if the DLA has conducted investigations, this would satisfy the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree.
(1) The DEC in conjunction with the Office of The Attorney General is in charge of Investigating the following crimes; Security Fraud, Embezzlement, Tax Evasion, Gambling Fraud, Anti-Trust, bribery and Money Laundering.
4. None Responsive. The Government has failed to respond to closing statements which is representative of the government's apathy for this this case after Dusty's departure. It goes to show that the commitment of the commonwealth to this cause did not extend beyond Dusty's vanity project.
The Federal Court made a sound judgement. The case was dismissed because the prosecution presented an extremely poor case and is pulling at strings to land a charge against someone for attempting to engage in alternative dispute resolution.
According to the White-Collar Crack Down Act, bribery is 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."
Firstly at the time of xEndeavour asking for his job back, Avelanie was not, and currently is not the DCT secretary. Although Avelanie is a senator, the DMs provided are not related to Avelanie's position as a senator, but rather her job in the DCT. Because of this, Avelanie is not considered to be holding public office in this instance nor serving in a legal capacity.
Secondly, xEndeavour is not offering anything of value to Avelanie. Avelanie is not the one being sued, nor does she face the consequences if xEndeavour wins the case. Furthermore End is suing because he allegedly was fired unfairly from the DCT. Offering to drop the case if he gets his job back is not bribery because his prayer for relief is reinstatement, and if he is reinstated, there is no point in continuing to litigate his case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CRIMINAL ACTION
Commonwealth
Prosecution
v.
xEndeavour
Defendant
CLOSING STATEMENT
Your honour, the Federal Court dismissed this case because it does not have any credible legal standing.
This case is asking the court to set a precedent that any form of transactional proposal involving a government figure is bribery?
1. I made a case against the DCT where, in my prayer for relief, I requested reinstatement.
2. I asked Ave, who is the incoming Secretary, if she planned to reinstate me. In exchange for agreeing to reinstate me, I would drop the case and save everyone the time. This was an attempt at an out of court settlement deal with the incoming secretary.
There are a few issues with the case the prosecution makes:
Bribery is defined in one place in our legal system, the White Collar Crackdown Act
(1) 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.
1. No Gain or Loss. A key component to Bribery is the notion that they receive something of value. For an office holder this is generally either a political or economical gain/lose. In this proposal, Avelanie does not gain in a personal or professional capacity from the decision to reinstate me or not reinstate me. Much the same, she does not suffer a loss in a personal or professional capacity. Nothing of value is gained or lost and the Prosecution has not provided any form of evidence to suggest that she has gained or suffered a loss. Dropping the lawsuit is not a loss, because the case does not financially or legally impact the DCT or Avelanie in the capacity of an office holder.
2. No Office. A key component to Bribery is that a member in the transaction is an office holder an makes a gain or intends to make a gain. Avelanie does not hold an office nor has she been nominated for an office. This is speculative.
3. No Jurisdiction. The DEC and OAG are charged with investigating bribery in accordance with the White Collar Crackdown Act. Has the DLA engaged with either of these Departments or is it operating outside of its jurisdiction? No evidence has been provided of an investigation originating from either of these Departments. Unless the Court is going to recognise that a new department inherits the powers of a defunct department which is similar in function, there is no jurisdiction for the DLA to investigate this criminal offence. Moreover, if the DLA has conducted investigations, this would satisfy the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree.
(1) The DEC in conjunction with the Office of The Attorney General is in charge of Investigating the following crimes; Security Fraud, Embezzlement, Tax Evasion, Gambling Fraud, Anti-Trust, bribery and Money Laundering.
4. None Responsive. The Government has failed to respond to closing statements which is representative of the government's apathy for this this case after Dusty's departure. It goes to show that the commitment of the commonwealth to this cause did not extend beyond Dusty's vanity project to sue me.
The Federal Court made a sound judgement. The case was dismissed because the prosecution presented an extremely poor case and is pulling at straws to land a charge against someone for attempting to engage in alternative dispute resolution.
According to the White-Collar Crack Down Act, bribery is 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."
Firstly at the time of xEndeavour asking for his job back, Avelanie was not, and currently is not the DCT secretary. Although Avelanie is a senator, the DMs provided are not related to Avelanie's position as a senator, but rather her job in the DCT. Because of this, Avelanie is not considered to be holding public office in this instance nor serving in a legal capacity.
Secondly, xEndeavour is not offering anything of value to Avelanie. Avelanie is not the one being sued, nor does she face the consequences if xEndeavour wins the case. Furthermore End is suing because he allegedly was fired unfairly from the DCT. Offering to drop the case if he gets his job back is not bribery because his prayer for relief is reinstatement, and if he is reinstated, there is no point in continuing to litigate his case.
The Prosecution has not appealed on a basis of law, they have appealed because they do not agree with the verdict.
This case seeks to answer the legal question of:
Can a plaintiff (End) engage in alternative dispute resolution and offer to drop a case if the defendant (DCT) agrees to the prayers for relief that they are asking for.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Commonwealth of Redmont v. xEndeavour [2023] SCR 7
I. PROSECUTION’S POSITION
1. The Prosecution charges the Defendant with one count of Bribery.
2. The Defendant contacted Avelanie to attempt to get his job at the Department of Construction and Transportation back in exchange for dropping a lawsuit against the government.
3. The Defendant attempted to exchange something of value to the future Secretary of the DCT in order for a personal benefit, meeting the standards for bribery.
4. The Defendant also knowingly attempted to make a deal with a party of the government not having to do with its legal affairs, which disproves the claim that it was an attempt at an out-of-court settlement.
II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Defendant pleads not guilty to the charge of Bribery.
2. The Defendant was not exchanging anything of actual value in return for his job back, simply the dropping of litigation that had the same end.
3. Avelanie did not hold the office of Secretary, so there is no element of holding public office sufficient to constitute bribery.
4. The Department of Legal Affairs does not have the authority to prosecute an individual for bribery, as it is listed as something the Office of the Attorney General can investigate and prosecute under the relevant law.
III. COURT’S OPINION
Justice BananaNova delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Justice JoeGamer joined.
Justice BananaNova delivers the Opinion of the Court
In this case, the Supreme Court must consider several elements. The Prosecution has argued that the Defendant knowingly attempted to offer a bribe to a public official, in the form of dropping a lawsuit against the government, in exchange for his government job back. The Defense has argued that he was seeking an out-of-court settlement, and that the government official in question was not serving in a legal capacity or as the Secretary of the department at the time.
The definition of bribery per the White-Collar Crack Down Act is “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”. An undisputed fact is that the Defendant was acting under the assumption that Avelanie would eventually become the Secretary of the Department of Construction and Transportation (DCT), and that on this basis the Defendant reached out to Avelanie in order to propose that he drop the lawsuit against the government in exchange for being hired into the DCT once Avelanie became the Secretary. However, it is the opinion of the Court that simply because one party believed, or even if Avelanie herself believed, that she would become the Secretary of the DCT, that does not make her acting as “an individual holding public office” as prescribed in the White-Collar Crack Down Act (WCCDA) under the definition of bribery. Simply holding the belief that something would eventually happen, even if based on statements from other individuals such as candidates for the Presidency, does not guarantee that that will happen. Being the stated pick for a cabinet position does not confer upon one the power of that cabinet position, and naturally cannot confer the responsibilities of the same. Avelanie was also not acting in a legal capacity, as she was entirely removed from the DCT and the position of the Defendant’s career.
The Defendant has also raised the issue of the ability of the DLA to investigate and prosecute the potential bribery in this case. In the WCCDA, the Office of the Attorney General is tasked with the role of investigating white-collar criminal activity, and in specific cases other departments are listed as being authorized to investigate alongside the Office of the Attorney General. As the DLA is not listed in this law, the Defendant has argued that it does not have the power to prosecute for anything listed. The Court did wish to address this specific question, as it could have a significant impact on the criminal investigation process, depending on its constitutionality. The Court has found that in the Constitution, among the duties prescribed to the Department of Legal Affairs, is listed “Investigating and prosecuting on behalf of the Federal Government”. It is the opinion of the Court that because the Constitution supersedes ordinary Acts of Congress, the DLA does have the authority to prosecute any and all crimes on behalf of the Federal Government. This includes bribery, and everything else listed under the White-Collar Crack Down Act.
For the reasons above, including Avelanie’s not holding the office, as well as not acting in a legal capacity, it is the opinion of the Court that the deal requested by xEndeavour did not in fact constitute bribery.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
