ToadKing
Citizen
Representative
Education Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary
Change Maker
Popular in the Polls
Statesman
ToadKing__
Representative
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2025
- Messages
- 123
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
ToadKing
Plaintiff
v.
Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. ToadKing2. Commonwealth of Redmont
3. Juniperfig (Vice President of Redmont, now Acting President)
II. FACTS
1. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant served as Vice President, having assumed that office on 14 June 2025.2. Prior to becoming Vice President, Defendant served as Attorney General from 10 May 2025 to 14 June 2025.
3. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff served as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice.
4. The Constitution explicitly provides that the Vice President "does not have independent executive authority and only inherits delegated executive authority from the President or where expressly provided in law."
5. The Department of Justice Employment Policy establishes that prosecutors must "Never file anything for a lawsuit you have not been explicitly assigned to by the Attorney General or Solicitor General." (P-003)
6. The Department of Justice Employment Policy requires employees to "Follow reasonable directions from management (Attorney General, Solicitor General, RBI Director)" - notably excluding the Vice President from this chain of command. (P-003)
7. The Department of Justice Policy Handbook establishes that prosecutors work "At the direction of the AG or SG," further excluding the Vice President from prosecutorial authority. (P-002)
8. The case Vanguard & Co. v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49 was filed on 17 May 2025, seeking over $12 million in damages and posing significant political and financial liability to the administration, while the Defendant was still serving as Attorney General.
9. Gribble19 served as Solicitor General from 14 May 2025, and upon Defendant's transition to Vice President on 14 June 2025, Gribble19 continued in her role as Solicitor General, maintaining continuity in DOJ leadership.
10. On 17 June 2025, just three days after Defendant became Vice President, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss in the Vanguard case.
11. This motion was filed following pressure from Defendant, who had transitioned from direct authority over the case (as former AG) to having no constitutional authority whatsoever (as VP). (P-001)
12. In Discord communications, Defendant admitted to "stalking the DOJ discord" and stated "i was never here," demonstrating awareness that her interference was improper and required concealment. (P-001)
13. Defendant's pressure was not made in her capacity as a private citizen, but explicitly leveraging her position as Vice President to influence prosecutorial decisions in a case where she had obvious political interests.
14. The motion the Defendant sought was strategically designed to achieve dismissal of the Vanguard case, which posed significant political and financial liability to the current administration.
15. Plaintiff, believing he was required to follow the Vice President's direction, filed the requested motion.
16. The motion succeeded in achieving dismissal of the Vanguard case, exactly as Defendant intended, protecting the administration from a potentially damaging verdict worth over $12 million.
17. Defendant lacked any constitutional or statutory authority to direct prosecutorial actions, as such authority rests exclusively with the President, Attorney General, or Solicitor General.
18. As established in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Bezzergeezer [2024] SCR 31, "Prosecutorial power rests with the executive, and the Department of Justice, namely the Attorney General, is exclusively charged with exercising these powers in the Constitution and Executive Standards Act."
19. The Supreme Court, in the dismissal of both Commonwealth of Redmont v. CaseyLeFaye [2024] SCR 32 and Commonwealth of Redmont v. UnityMaster [2024] SCR 34, explicitly recognised the critical importance of prosecutorial independence, noting that conflicts of interest within prosecutorial authority undermine the rule of law.
20. The Department of Justice Policy Handbook establishes principles of prosecutorial independence, requiring prosecutors to "seek only justice when handling a case, never personal or business interests." (P-002)
21. Defendant's interference violated the fundamental separation of powers by inserting unauthorised executive influence into prosecutorial decision-making.
22. The influence was wielded through Defendant's official position as Vice President, using governmental authority she does not constitutionally possess.
23. As demonstrated in AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General [2021] SCR 19, the Supreme Court has consistently held that government officials cannot exceed their statutory authority, noting that such conduct constitutes an abuse of power requiring judicial remedy.
24. Similar to the misconduct in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16, where an official used government position to achieve outcomes inconsistent with official duties, Defendant used her government position to achieve political objectives beyond her constitutional authority.
25. The transition from Attorney General to Vice President did not grant Defendant continued authority over DOJ operations; instead, it removed all such authority while her political interests in pending cases remained unchanged.
26. The Defendant violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights and undermined the independence of the prosecutorial function that is essential to democratic governance.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Corruption
The Defendant committed Corruption under the Criminal Code Part II, Section 1, by using "a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty."As established in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16, the corruption test requires: "(1) In the capacity as a government official, did/would the act in question give oneself or someone else a notable advantage or benefit and (2) Was the act in question inconsistent with the official duty of office?" The Supreme Court emphasised: "The two-part test is simple" and has been consistently applied across corruption cases.
The Defendant's actions satisfy the first element.
By pressuring Plaintiff to file a motion that achieved dismissal of the Vanguard case, Juniperfig provided her administration with a "notable advantage" - avoiding a potentially damaging verdict that could have resulted in millions in damages and significant political harm. The Supreme Court in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5 established the standard: "The compensation gave xEndeavour an advantage over others by making $30,000 for the race track where others were not provided such an option." Similarly, the Federal Court in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Aezal [2023] FCR 34 found that actions providing substantial benefits constitute "a notable advantage in a highly competitive market." Here, the advantage was far greater - protecting the administration from a case seeking over $12 million in damages and massive political liability. The Vanguard case posed existential threats to the current administration, making its dismissal an enormous "notable advantage."
The second element is definitely satisfied.
The Vice President has no constitutional authority over prosecutorial decisions, making her interference fundamentally "inconsistent with official duty." The Constitution explicitly states that the Vice President "does not have independent executive authority. As reinforced in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Bezzergeezer [2024] SCR 31, prosecutorial power rests exclusively with "the Attorney General" and the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16 established the standard for authority violations: "The Chief of Staff does not have the ability to declassify chats at will... Milqy has used an ability which he does not have the ability to use, and therefore inconsistent with the official duty of office." Just as the Chief of Staff lacked declassification authority, the Vice President lacks prosecutorial authority.
The Supreme Court in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5 emphasised constitutional boundaries: "President Derpy_Bird gave herself power where she held none. This makes the President's actions inconsistent with the official duty of office." Juniperfig's violation is even more egregious - she transitioned from having prosecutorial authority (as Attorney General) to having zero authority (as Vice President), yet continued exercising that power.
Her own words - admitting to "stalking the DOJ discord" while claiming "i was never here" - demonstrate awareness that her interference was improper and required concealment. This distinguishes her conduct from officials who might argue they believed they had authority.
As the Supreme Court concluded in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5: "Putting together the entirety of the corruption test, President Derpy_Bird has both given xEndeavour a notable advantage and the act of purchasing the race track was inconsistent with the official duty of office. Satisfying both portions of the corruption test, President Derpy_Bird has violated the corruption test."
Juniperfig's conduct satisfies both elements of the established corruption test through unauthorised political manipulation designed to achieve favourable outcomes for her administration.
2. Constitutional Violation
Juniperfig's actions violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers by exercising authority she explicitly does not possess. The Constitution carefully delineates executive powers, and the Vice President's interference in prosecutorial matters exceeds her constitutional role. The Constitution explicitly provides that the Vice President "does not have independent executive authority and only inherits delegated executive authority from the President or where expressly provided in law." This clear constitutional limitation means Juniperfig had zero authority over prosecutorial decisions after becoming Vice President.As established in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Bezzergeezer [2024] SCR 31: "Prosecutorial power rests with the executive, and the Department of Justice, namely the Attorney General, is exclusively charged with exercising these powers in the Constitution and Executive Standards Act." The Executive Standards Act reinforces this constitutional boundary by establishing that only the Attorney General and Solicitor General have authority over prosecutorial decisions. The Vice President is conspicuously absent from this chain of command.
This violation parallels the constitutional concerns raised in AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General [2021] SCR 19, where the Supreme Court emphasized that officials cannot exceed their statutory authority, stating: "the Attorney General has unlawfully abused his power" and that "the interpretation that the responsibility of 'initial organization' suddenly provides him veto powers is a stretch of the law." The Court noted that when officials act beyond their legal power, it constitutes an "abuse of power" requiring judicial remedy: "Regardless of whether or not the motion was lawful, it was not his power to prevent and effectively act with judicial authority."
Here, Juniperfig's violation is even more egregious than the conduct in AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General [2021] SCR 19. She transitioned from a position with prosecutorial authority (Attorney General from 10 May to 14 June 2025) to one with explicitly no such authority (Vice President from 14 June 2025), yet continued to exercise influence as if that authority remained. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional governance and the separation of powers. The Constitution does not permit officials to retain authorities from previous positions after transitioning to roles that lack such powers.
The Supreme Court in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5 emphasised constitutional limitations on executive power: "When it comes to the operations of a Department, it is ultimately the Secretary's job to oversee them, not the president. Therefore, when it comes to the decisions of a department, it is the secretary that makes those decisions, not the president." Most importantly, the Court stated: "the executive is obliged to uphold the boundaries set in the Constitution." Juniperfig's conduct violates these constitutional boundaries and requires judicial intervention.
The Court in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5 found a constitutional violation where an official exceeded their authority: "President Derpy_Bird gave herself power where she held none. This makes the President's actions inconsistent with the official duty of office."
The Supreme Court's dismissals in Commonwealth of Redmont v. CaseyLeFaye [2024] SCR 32 and Commonwealth of Redmont v. UnityMaster [2024] SCR 34 reinforced the critical importance of prosecutorial independence: "It is clear to the court that there is a lack of legislative direction in circumstances where a conflict of interest presents itself among prosecutorial authority. This is apparent in the recent use of power to shut cases down which implicate members who hold such authority."
The Court warned that such conflicts "undermine the rule of law and the authority of the judicial system" and recommended establishing "a process for appointing a neutral special prosecution or forced recusal of the Attorney General and delegation of prosecutorial power."
Juniperfig's interference created exactly the type of constitutional crisis the Supreme Court identified - using unauthorised power to influence prosecutorial decisions for political benefit.
The Supreme Court in AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General [2021] SCR 19 recognised the importance of preventing governmental overreach: "The duty of the Attorney General was to remain as uninvolved in the Redmont Bar Association's affairs as possible." This principle applies with even greater force to the Vice President's interference in prosecutorial matters. The Court emphasised that "Congress created the roles within the law, it is up to them to make any applicable changes to it." The Constitution and Executive Standards Act deliberately exclude the Vice President from prosecutorial authority - this exclusion cannot be ignored through unofficial influence.
Juniperfig's own words - "stalking the DOJ discord" and "i was never here" - demonstrate awareness that her interference violated constitutional boundaries. This covert behaviour shows consciousness that her actions exceeded her legitimate authority.
The Supreme Court in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5 noted: "the decisions of the executive are not for the Courts to decide, but the executive is obliged to uphold the boundaries set in the Constitution." Juniperfig's concealment shows she knew she was violating these constitutional boundaries.
In what free democracy would the Executive branch have full and unfettered access to prosecutorial decisions for political gain? Juniperfig's conduct represents exactly the type of constitutional violation that undermines democratic governance and the rule of law. The separation of powers exists precisely to prevent this type of political manipulation of prosecutorial decisions. As the Supreme Court warned in the Commonwealth of Redmont v. CaseyLeFaye [2024] SCR 32 and Commonwealth of Redmont v. UnityMaster [2024] SCR 34 dismissals, such interference undermines "the rule of law and the authority of the judicial system."
Juniperfig's constitutional violation is clear and egregious. She exercised prosecutorial authority she explicitly does not possess, violating the separation of powers and undermining the constitutional framework that protects prosecutorial independence. This conduct requires judicial intervention to vindicate constitutional principles and protect democratic governance.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honourable Court enter judgment in his favour and grant the following relief:Juniperfig's brazen act of corruption, combined with her egregious constitutional violation of the separation of powers, demonstrates fundamental unfitness for constitutional office. The Vice Presidency demands the highest standards of constitutional compliance and integrity.
As established in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Derpy_Bird and xEndeavour [2023] SCR 5, the Supreme Court has recognised that corruption warrants "Removal from public office" when officials exceed their constitutional authority. Similarly, the Court in AlexanderLove v. The Attorney General [2021] SCR 19 emphasised that officials who abuse their power beyond legal authority require a judicial remedy.
Juniperfig's abuse of position to corrupt prosecutorial independence - transitioning from legitimate authority (as Attorney General) to unauthorised interference (as Vice President) while maintaining the same political objectives - violates these fundamental constitutional requirements. Her own admission to "stalking the DOJ discord" while claiming "i was never here" demonstrates consciousness that her conduct violated constitutional boundaries.
The separation of powers exists precisely to prevent this type of political manipulation of prosecutorial decisions. As the Supreme Court warned in the Commonwealth of Redmont v. CaseyLeFaye [2024] SCR 32 and Commonwealth of Redmont v. UnityMaster [2024] SCR 34 dismissals, conflicts of interest in prosecutorial authority "undermine the rule of law and the authority of the judicial system."
Allowing Juniperfig to remain in office after such conduct would establish a dangerous precedent that executive officials can exercise authority they do not possess whenever political interests are at stake. The Constitution explicitly provides that the Vice President "does not have independent executive authority," yet Juniperfig flagrantly violated this limitation to achieve political objectives for her administration.
Removal is essential to preserve the integrity of constitutional governance and protect the prosecutorial independence that is fundamental to democratic institutions.
2. Nominal Damages
The Plaintiff seeks an award of $7,500 in nominal damages for the constitutional injury suffered through Juniperfig's improper interference with prosecutorial independence.
Under Legal Damages Act Section 6, nominal damages are awarded to parties who have established a cause of action. Plaintiff was personally harmed by being improperly pressured to file a motion by an official lacking any constitutional authority to direct prosecutorial decisions.
3. Legal Fees
An award of legal fees in the amount of $6,000, representing the minimum statutory amount for Supreme Court proceedings under Legal Damages Act Section 9(3)(c).
V. WITNESSES
1. Juniperfig2. Gribble19
3. Kaiserin
VI. EVIDENCE
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 11th day of August 2025
Motion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RECUSAL
The Plaintiff respectfully moves that Justice Smallfries recuse themselves from this case, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Justice Smallfries has a close personal relationship with the Defendant that could reasonably call into question their ability to remain impartial in this matter.
2. Justice Smallfries currently sits on the Chancery in Alexandria alongside Juniperfig, creating an ongoing professional relationship that presents an actual or perceived conflict of interest.
3. The close personal and professional ties between Justice Smallfries and Juniperfig could reasonably cause parties to question whether Justice Smallfries can render an impartial decision in a case seeking the removal of Defendant from the Vice Presidency.
4. To preserve the integrity of these proceedings, recusal is necessary to avoid any appearance of bias or conflict of interest.
Last edited:
