Lawsuit: Pending xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 55

[Dartanboy]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xEndeavour (Justice Compass, Ltd. representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

xEndeavour, a citizen of the Commonwealth, was recently violated by the Congress. The Congress, who is meant to represent the will of the people, has betrayed that trust and overstepped their bounds, executing a power-play over the Plaintiff, mocking him in public, and fining him exorbitant amounts of money. Yes, the Congress has decided Mr. End has committed the crime of "Contempt of Congress" with no legal standing... twice.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
Note: All times will be in Central Daylight Time, as that is my timezone.

1. On August 5 at 11:04 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress for his "abhorrent behavior" [Exhibit P-001].
2. On August 6 at 11:25 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress again, for his "bad behavior in the oversight hearing" [Exhibit P-002].
3. The Criminal Code Act, Part I, Section 6, Subsection 3 reads:

(3) Criminal Offence Classification
(a) All criminal offences must carry the classification of either: Indictable or Summary.
(b) Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offence can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial, subject to Criminal Jurisdiction rules.
(c) Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings,
(d) Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offence must be proven in a trial.
(e) If a criminal offence fails to be specified as an Indictable or Summary Offense, then it shall not be added to the code.

(Emphasis added).
4. The Verdict of [2022] FCR 97 reads (excerpt):

1. The Constitution states that the Judiciary has the duty to “interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive”.
2. This does not include any mention of executing laws or maintaining offices that are not specified.
3. It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”.
4. These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
4. Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.
6. The Executive branch may not interpret laws without a Constitutional amendment giving it the power to. Likewise, the Judicial branch may not enforce or execute laws without a Constitutional amendment providing it with the power to do so.

5. The Constitution provides the following right:

Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Constitutional Violation. The Congress is a Legislative body, not an Executive nor Judicial one. It can neither find an individual guilty of a crime nor punish someone for it, yet they found the Plaintiff guilty of a crime and punished him for it, acting as both Judge and Executor.
2. Constitutional Rights Violation. The Plaintiff was not given a trial for the alleged crime. The Plaintiff was not confronted with the evidence against them until after they had been found guilty. The Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to have a defense, and was not given the opportunity to contest the charge with legally qualified counsel.
3. Criminal Code Violation. The Congress passed the Criminal Code and clearly stated that only Government Departments and Judicial Officers can enforce criminal law. As such, the Congress does not have the power to punish an individual for alleged crimes, including Contempt of Congress.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Both Contempt of Congress charges be overturned.
2. $8,000 in refunded fines.
3. $7,500 in Nominal Damages, per the Legal Damages Act.
4. $6,000 in Legal Fees, payable to JusticeCompass (or Dartanboy), per the Legal Damages Act.

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

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 7th day of August 2025.

Spoiler: Consent to Represent

 

[AmityBlamity]

Writ of Summons

@dearev is required to appear before the District Court of Redmont in the case of xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[dearev]

The commonwealth is present your honor.

 

[AmityBlamity]

The commonwealth is present your honor.

You have 48 hours to provide your Answer to Complaint.

 

[Dogeington]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that on August 5 at 11:04 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress for his "abhorrent behavior"
2. AFFIRM that on August 6 at 11:25 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress again, for his "bad behavior in the oversight hearing".
3. AFFIRM that The Criminal Code Act, Part I, Section 6, Subsection 3 reads:

(3) Criminal Offence Classification
(a) All criminal offences must carry the classification of either: Indictable or Summary.
(b) Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offence can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial, subject to Criminal Jurisdiction rules.
(c) Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings,
(d) Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offence must be proven in a trial.
(e) If a criminal offence fails to be specified as an Indictable or Summary Offense, then it shall not be added to the code.

4. AFFIRM that The Verdict of [2022] FCR 97 reads (excerpt):

1. The Constitution states that the Judiciary has the duty to “interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive”.
2. This does not include any mention of executing laws or maintaining offices that are not specified.
3. It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”.
4. These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
4. Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.
6. The Executive branch may not interpret laws without a Constitutional amendment giving it the power to. Likewise, the Judicial branch may not enforce or execute laws without a Constitutional amendment providing it with the power to do so.

5. AFFIRMS that The Constitution provides the following right:

Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.

II. DEFENSES

1. The Legislative Standards Act §17.1 states that:

(1) The House of Representatives, Senate, or any committee may vote to hold a person"in contempt" by a majority vote.

This act clearly gives congress the ability to hold a person in contempt via majority vote.

2. The Criminal Code Act states that:

(2) Summary Offence means an offence that may be dealt with by immediate penalty, without the need for formal trial. This can be contested before a judicial officer after issue.

This provision defines a summary offense as one that can be charged without a trial.

3. The Criminal Code Act defines Contempt of Congress as:

6 - Contempt of Congress
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 40 Penalty Units
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) refuses to testify, withholds information, or obstructs a congressional inquiry \or
investigation.
(b) engages in conduct that is disrespectful or unbecoming of the dignity of Congress or
its proceedings.

As defined by the Criminal Code Act, Contempt of Congress is a summary offense, and therefore subject to the earlier definition. As it is subject to that definition, the plaintiffs’ claim that their rights were violated because they were not given an opportunity to contest the charge is utterly ridiculous, as there is no provision for such actions with summary offenses. The only action available to the plaintiff is to contest the charge after issue, which is currently being done.

4. The plantiff has failed to provide any evidance that Congress acted as "both Judge and Executor." The only evidance provided shows that the Plantiff was charged with contempt of Congress via a majority vote.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 14th day of August 2025

 

[AmityBlamity]

We shall now enter Discovery. Discovery shall last 5 days, or less if both parties agree to end it earlier.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Case Filing FACTS section as follows:

II. FACTS
Note: All times will be in Central Daylight Time, as that is my timezone.

1. On August 5 at 11:04 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress for his "abhorrent behavior" [Exhibit P-001].
2. On August 6 at 11:25 AM, Speaker Omegabiebel made an announcement that xEndeavour was being held in Contempt of Congress again, for his "bad behavior in the oversight hearing" [Exhibit P-002].
3. The Criminal Code Act, Part I, Section 6, Subsection 3 reads:

(3) Criminal Offence Classification
(a) All criminal offences must carry the classification of either: Indictable or Summary.
(b) Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offence can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial, subject to Criminal Jurisdiction rules.
(c) Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings,
(d) Punishments for an Indictable Criminal Offence must be proven in a trial.
(e) If a criminal offence fails to be specified as an Indictable or Summary Offense, then it shall not be added to the code.

(Emphasis added).
4. The Verdict of [2022] FCR 97 reads (excerpt):

1. The Constitution states that the Judiciary has the duty to “interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive”.
2. This does not include any mention of executing laws or maintaining offices that are not specified.
3. It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”.
4. These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
4. Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.
6. The Executive branch may not interpret laws without a Constitutional amendment giving it the power to. Likewise, the Judicial branch may not enforce or execute laws without a Constitutional amendment providing it with the power to do so.

5. The Constitution provides the following right:

Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.

6. The Criminal Code Act (previously linked in Fact 3), Part 3, Sections 6, reads:

6 - Contempt of Congress
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 40 Penalty Units
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) refuses to testify, withholds information, or obstructs a congressional inquiry or investigation.
(b) engages in conduct that is disrespectful or unbecoming of the dignity of Congress or its proceedings.

7. The Legislative Standards Act, Section 17, reads:

(1) The House of Representatives, Senate, or any committee may vote to hold a person "in contempt" by a majority vote. The Speaker will then report the incident to the Department of Justice to be actioned.

To refuse to testify, won't provide information requested by the House or the Senate, or obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee.
First Offence: $1500 fine and 10 minutes of jail time
Second Offence: $2000 fine and 20 minutes of jail time
Third Offence: $4000 fine, 40 minutes of jailtime, and a Censure

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Case Filing CLAIMS FOR RELIEF section as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Constitutional Violation. The Congress is a Legislative body, not an Executive nor Judicial one. It can neither find an individual guilty of a crime nor punish someone for it, yet they found the Plaintiff guilty of a crime and punished him for it, acting as both Judge and Executor and determined the punishment, acting as a Judicial body, not a Legislative one.
2. Constitutional Rights Violation. The Plaintiff was not given a trial for the alleged crime. The Plaintiff was not confronted with the evidence against them until after they had been found guilty. The Plaintiff was not given an opportunity to have a defense, and was not given the opportunity to contest the charge with legally qualified counsel.
3. Criminal Code Violation. The Congress passed the Criminal Code and clearly stated that only Government Departments and Judicial Officers can enforce criminal law. As such, the Congress does not have the power to punish an individual for alleged crimes, including Contempt of Congress.
4. Ambiguous Law Requiring Clarification. The Legislative Standards Act and Criminal Code Act differ on both the definition and penalty of Contempt of Congress.

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Case Filing PRAYER FOR RELIEF section as follows:

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Both Contempt of Congress charges be overturned.
2. $8,000 in refunded fines.
3. $7,500 in Nominal Damages, per the Legal Damages Act.
4. $6,000 in Legal Fees, payable to JusticeCompass (or Dartanboy), per the Legal Damages Act.
5. A public apology in #government-announcements from Congress apologizing for their illegal conduct.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

The Plaintiff seeks to add the following additional facts to the FACTS section of the Case Filing:
8. The Commonwealth did not confront xEndeavour with any evidence when charging him in #government-announcements [P-001, P-002].

9. The Burden of Proof of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt falls on the Commonwealth when charging citizens with crimes.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Both Motions are granted.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

The defence moves to amend its Answer to Complaint as follows:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
6. AFFIRMS that the Criminal Code Act (previously linked in Fact 3), Part 3, Sections 6, reads:

6 - Contempt of Congress
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 40 Penalty Units
A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) refuses to testify, withholds information, or obstructs a congressional inquiry or investigation.
(b) engages in conduct that is disrespectful or unbecoming of the dignity of Congress or its proceedings.

7. AFFIRMS that the Legislative Standards Act, Section 17, reads:

(1) The House of Representatives, Senate, or any committee may vote to hold a person "in contempt" by a majority vote. The Speaker will then report the incident to the Department of Justice to be actioned.

To refuse to testify, won't provide information requested by the House or the Senate, or obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee.
First Offence: $1500 fine and 10 minutes of jail time
Second Offence: $2000 fine and 20 minutes of jail time
Third Offence: $4000 fine, 40 minutes of jailtime, and a Censure

8. DENYS that the Commonwealth did not confront xEndeavour with any evidence when charging him in #government-announcements [P-001, P-002].
9. AFFIRMS that the Burden of Proof of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt falls on the Commonwealth when charging citizens with crimes.

II. DEFENSES
...
5. While not explicitly stated as evidance, Congress did provide reasoning for their charges against xEndeavour, which included quotes from both the Plantiff and attending Congress people.

(where green and bold should be added to the Answer to Complaint)

 

[AmityBlamity]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

The defence moves to amend its Answer to Complaint as follows:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
6. AFFIRMS that the Criminal Code Act (previously linked in Fact 3), Part 3, Sections 6, reads:

7. AFFIRMS that the Legislative Standards Act, Section 17, reads:

8. DENYS that the Commonwealth did not confront xEndeavour with any evidence when charging him in #government-announcements [P-001, P-002].
9. AFFIRMS that the Burden of Proof of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt falls on the Commonwealth when charging citizens with crimes.

II. DEFENSES
...
5. While not explicitly stated as evidance, Congress did provide reasoning for their charges against xEndeavour, which included quotes from both the Plantiff and attending Congress people.

(where green and bold should be added to the Answer to Complaint)

Granted.

 

[Dogeington]

Your honor,
Given the changes to the complaint, the defense seeks to extend discovery by 24 hours.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Does the plaintiff object to the extension?

 

[Dartanboy]

Yes, your honor, please consider this our oppositional statement:

The Defense has requested an extension, one which apparently serves no purpose but to extend this case longer, violating my client's right to a speedy trial.

While on the surface, their request may seem legitimate:

Given the changes to the complaint, the defense seeks to extend discovery by 24 hours.

This seems illegitimate to the Plaintiff, as the Defense has already filed amendments to their answer in response to the changes to the complaint. Additional time is not necessary.

We request the case continue onward with haste.

Thank you.

 

[AmityBlamity]

I will be granting the extension to Discovery. An additional 24 hours is not going to infringe on the Plaintiff's right to a speedy trial, and I believe it is a reasonable request considering the quantity of amendments from both sides.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Discovery is now ended. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to file their Opening Statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Introduction
Your honor, the Defense seems to believe that Congress is permitted unlimited, unchecked power, however this is not the case. The Constitution enumerates the Congress' powers, and as upheld in [2022] FCR 97, anything beyond these enumerated powers is illegal.

Furthermore, the Defense claims that a Summary Offense does not require the same due process as an Indictable Offense, and while this is true, we argue that there is still some due process that must be followed.

In this Opening Statement, you will read a persuasive argument on behalf of the Plaintiff, addressing the enumerated powers of Congress, the implied powers of Congress, the balance of power between the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches, the Penumbral Right to Due Process in the Constitution, the Criminal Code itself, and the ambiguity caused by the Criminal Code Act's conflict with the Legislative Standards Act.

Part I - The Enumerated Powers of Congress
The Constitution, Part I, Section 2, clearly enumerates the powers of Congress:

(1) Create and Amend Rules and Laws. Congress may create, amend, and remove legislation and server rules.
(2) Override Executive Orders. Congress may override a Presidential Executive Order with a supermajority vote.
(3) Override Vetoes. Congress may override a Presidential veto on all legislation, with the exception of appropriation bills.
(4) Power of the Purse. Congress controls taxation, government spending, appropriations, and borrowing.
(5) Non-binding Resolutions. Congress may pass non-binding resolutions to express opinions or make formal requests without Presidential assent.
(6) Remove the President. Congress may vote to remove the President through impeachment for crimes against the Constitution.
(7) Elastic Clause. Congress may pass any law necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers, enabling Congress to address issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
(8) Check and Balance. Congress will review and oversee actions by the Executive and Judicial branches to ensure accountability, prevent abuse of power, confirm appointments, and ratify treaties.

Notably, nowhere within this document, which is the highest law in our Commonwealth, does it even suggest that the Congress has Judicial Power. As such, Congress is legally incapable of finding an individual guilty of a crime, including Contempt of Congress.

Part II - The Implied Powers of Congress
It would be exceedingly difficult to attempt to list out all of the implied powers of Congress, so I will not attempt to do so. That being said, I will show that the Judicial Power to find an individual guilty of a crime is not among the Legislative Branch's implied powers.

Congress' implied power comes from the Elastic Clause of the Constitution:

(7) Elastic Clause. Congress may pass any law necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers, enabling Congress to address issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

This clause of our esteemed Constitution allows the Congress to make laws which are "necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers." There are seven other enumerated powers, and we will explore these powers and see how the Judicial Power to find an individual guilty of a crime is neither necessary nor proper to carry them out.

• Create and Amend Rules and Laws
  • Finding an individual in Contempt of Congress has no relation with the execution of the power to create and amend rules and laws.
• Override Executive Orders
  • Finding an individual in Contempt of Congress has no relation with the execution of the power to override executive orders.
• Override Vetoes
  • Finding an individual in Contempt of Congress has no relation with the execution of the power to override vetoes.
• Power of the Purse
  • Finding an individual in Contempt of Congress has no relation with the execution of the power to control taxation, government spending, appropriations, and borrowing.
• Non-Binding Resolutions
  • Finding an individual in Contempt of Congress has no relation with the execution of the power to pass non-binding resolutions.
• Remove the President
  • Finding an individual in Contempt of Congress has no relation with the execution of the power to remove the President through impeachment.
• Check and Balance
  • Finding an individual in Contempt of Congress has no relation with the execution of the power to reviewing and overseeing actions by the Executive and Judicial branches to ensure accountability, prevent abuse of power, confirm appointments, and ratify treaties.

Part III - The Balance of Power
The Constitution, Part II, Section 13, states:

The‌ ‌Judicial‌ ‌arm‌ ‌of‌ ‌Government,‌ ‌consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌District‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌Federal Court,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌ interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌

This clause, as upheld for several years since [2022] FCR 97, establishes the Balance of Power among the three branches of our Government - the Judicial branch interprets the law, the Legislature writes the law, and the Executive executes the law. Any difference in that balance must be legislated not through a regular Act of Congress, but through a Constitutional amendment. As such, the Congress is not currently able to find an individual guilty of a crime, even Contempt of Congress, and must pass this responsibility on to another entity.

Part IV - The Penumbral Right to Due Process
The Constitution establishes a right to Due Process, not explicitly, but through the other rights which are explicitly established:

• All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state.
• Every citizen has the right to not produce self-incriminating evidence in any situation. In criminal matters, no adverse inferences may be made from this right being exercised, specifically such that the exercise of this right in itself shall not be weighted when determining a verdict in criminal Court.
• Rights cannot be withheld on the basis of criminality, rights are inalienable.
• Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.
• Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.
• Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
• No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted, in accordance with the law.
• Every citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them.

A penumbral right is a right which exists in the periphery of the explicitly stated rights of the Constitution, and all of these aforementioned rights create the penumbra in which the Right to Due Process resides.

As such, my client, xEndeavour has the right to a Due Process, and although the Criminal Code Act allows the Executive to process Summary Offenses without a trial, it does not permit them to do so without providing evidence or giving them a chance to defend themselves. Furthermore, Congress certainly does not have this power, as they are the Legislature.

Part V - The Criminal Code Act
Congress already knows they lack the power to find individuals guilty of crimes, which is why they excluded themselves within the Criminal Code Act, stating:

(b) Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offence can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial, subject to Criminal Jurisdiction rules.
(c) Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings

You should notice the distinct lack of Congress within these statements. Summary Offenses can be carried out by "the relevant Government Department without a trial" (notably, Congress is not a Government Department). It also states "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings" (notably, Congress is not a Judicial Officer).

So not only do we see in the law and Constitution that Congress does not have this power, it is even clear through what they wrote that they did not even intend to have this power.

Part VI - The Criminal Code Act and the Legislative Standards Act
The Legislative Standards Act fails to hold up to the scrutiny it deserves. It is not a Constitutional Amendment, and as such, it lacks the power to provide Congress with the ability to hold an individual guilty for a crime (see Parts II and III), even Contempt of Congress.

Regardless, we also see it differing from the Criminal Code Act in both the definition and punishment for Contempt of Congress.

Since the Legislative Standards Act lacks the authority to establish a Congressional power to judge, and the Criminal Code Act was established more recently than the Legislative Standards Act, it seems clear that the Criminal Code Act overrides the Legislative Standards Act, further establishing Congress had no power to find xEndeavour guilty of a crime.

Conclusion
Congress represents the will of the people, so when they overreach and go beyond the powers entrusted to them by the people, they must be checked and held in balance by the courts.

Congress knows they don't have the power to find an individual guilty of a crime. It's not in the Constitution they wrote and got approved by the people; it's not in the Criminal Code Act they wrote; it was not the Congress' intent to have this power.

Even if they did have that power, Congress knows they abused it, violating my client's right to Due Process, and ignoring the very laws they wrote.

Congress knows that Judicial Power is vested in the Courts of Redmont, and that their Constitutional duty is to legislate, and empower the Courts to exercise their Judicial Power.

Yet, for some reason the Commonwealth will bend over backwards and maintain radical levels of cognitive dissonance to defend these unlawful actions.

Thank you for reading, your Honor.

 

[AmityBlamity]

The Defendant has 48 hours to file their Opening Statement.

 

[Dogeington]

Your honor,
The defense requests a 12 hour extension to the Opening Statement

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your honor,
The defense requests a 12 hour extension to the Opening Statement

Granted.

 

[Dogeington]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The case before you today is one that should be simple. If what the Plaintiff alleges is true, this would be an open and shut case where xEndeavor was clearly wronged by the Congress of Redmont. Instead of that simple case, before you is a bundle of baseless accusations by the Plaintiff, who has taken no interest in discovering the truth and is instead only interested in receiving legal damages from the Commonwealth in this retaliatory lawsuit. The Plaintiff has presented no evidence to defend their claims, and the evidence and facts of the case presented have little to do with the alleged actions of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth seeks to defend its own innocence, especially considering that the Plaintiff has presented no evidence in which the Commonwealth can be painted as otherwise.

Innocent until proven guilty. That is the guiding principle which defines the Redmont Judicial System. Until proven otherwise, the Commonwealth of Redmont is innocent of any alleged actions, and this will remain true until otherwise ruled by this court. The entirety of the evidence against the Commonwealth presented by the Plaintiff is two screenshots: one screenshot of the initial announcement of xEndeavor’s contempt charges and a second screenshot of xEndeavor’s subsequent contempt charges. The Plaintiff has not sought any internal communications of the Commonwealth, has not asked any interrogatory questions, and has not called any witnesses. The Plaintiff has not provided evidence to support the claim that xEndeavor was ever fined following these announcements. They have not provided evidence to support the claim that Congress did not recommend these charges to the DOJ. They have not provided evidence to support the claim that xEndeavor was not given an opportunity to have a defense or to contest the charges. The Plaintiff has not even provided evidence to support the claim that it was Congress who issued these charges to xEndeavor and not an agent of the DOJ, if those charges were even issued. While an absence of evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist, failure to submit any evidence and an unwillingness to seek any evidence to support their claims does make the Plaintiff's accusations baseless. The Commonwealth cannot be presumed guilty; it has the same rights as any citizen within these courts.

Even if we were to assume that the Plaintiff had any evidence to support their claims, the claims themselves have little merit. The Plaintiff alleges that their rights were violated through the regular application of the law, that being the procedure surrounding summary offenses. In the Criminal Code Act, there is no provision for any of the actions the Plaintiff alleges they were owed for a summary offense. The only action available to the Plaintiff is to contest the charge after it is issued. The Plaintiff claims that they were not “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, or confronted with the evidence against them.” If we refer to the only evidence submitted in this trial, P-001 and P-002, Omegebiebel explains the nature and cause of the accusation by stating the reasons for the charge within the post and explaining the penalties associated with the crime. The evidence for these accusations is clearly linked and explained in each announcement.

This case should have been simple. If Congress had really not followed procedure to the degree alleged by the Plaintiff, evidence of it would be simple and easy to find. The Defense is astonished that, even given an additional 24 hours following their revised complaint, the Plaintiff could not submit any evidence to support their claims. They not only failed to submit any evidence but did not call a single witness or ask a single interrogatory that could have confirmed that Congress committed these acts. While the Defense agrees with the Plaintiff, as they allege in their filing, that in criminal action it is the Commonwealth upon whom the burden of proof rests, the Defense would remind the Plaintiff that in civil action, it is with the complaining party that this burden rests.

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

Rule 5.5 permits dismissal where the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief or where the claim is unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Regarding Claim #1:
The Plaintiff alleges that Congress acted as both judge and executor by finding them guilty and punishing them. However, the Plaintiff has submitted no evidence showing that Congress adjudicated guilt or imposed punishment. The only evidence presented, two screenshots (P-001 and P-002), reflects announcements of charges, not findings of guilt or enforcement actions. Without evidence that Congress itself exercised judicial or executive authority, this claim fails under Rule 5.5.

Regarding Claim #2:
The Plaintiff alleges that they were denied a trial, counsel, and confrontation with evidence. Even if taken as true, these allegations do not establish a claim, as such rights are not guaranteed under the Criminal Code Act’s procedure for summary offenses. The announcements themselves explain the nature of the charge and the penalty associated. Since the alleged “rights violations” are not applicable to summary offenses, and no evidence has been submitted to suggest otherwise, this claim fails.

Regarding Claim #3:
The Plaintiff alleges that Congress lacked authority to punish crimes, which rests with Departments and Judicial Officers. Yet, the Plaintiff provides no evidence that Congress actually carried out enforcement. The record does not show that Congress fined the Plaintiff, imposed penalties, or acted outside its authority. Without evidence of enforcement by Congress, this claim rests on assumption rather than fact and cannot survive a motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff has failed to state any valid claims and has presented no evidence sufficient to support the relief sought. For these reasons, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the action under Rule 5.5.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Plaintiff alleges that Congress acted as both judge and executor by finding them guilty and punishing them.

Objection

PERJURY

The executor claim was amended out. We do not allege this and Defense seems to be claiming we did in order to get a favorable ruling.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, may we respond to the Motion to Dismiss?

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your honor, may we respond to the Motion to Dismiss?

You may. My apologies for the delay. The forum didn't see fit to notify me of new posts here.

 

[Dartanboy]

Response

Defense Claims:

Regarding Claim #1:
The Plaintiff alleges that Congress acted as both judge and executor by finding them guilty and punishing them. However, the Plaintiff has submitted no evidence showing that Congress adjudicated guilt or imposed punishment. The only evidence presented, two screenshots (P-001 and P-002), reflects announcements of charges, not findings of guilt or enforcement actions. Without evidence that Congress itself exercised judicial or executive authority, this claim fails under Rule 5.5.

Notably, the Plaintiff does not claim Congress acted as both judge and executor, but only as judge. Nonetheless, P-001 and P-002 are announcement of charges and enforcement actions - and by virtue of the enforcement actions, guilt is presumed.

Note that the announcements both clearly stated: "xEndeavour is hereby fined 40 penalty points ($4,000) in accordance with Part III Section 6 of the Criminal Code Act."

Is the Commonwealth actually making the argument that the Commonwealth may have been lying when they made this announcement?

Your honor, in this Civil Case, we must look at a balance of probabilities: Which is more likely? Did the Commonwealth make this announcement and lie about fining the Plaintiff, or did they fine the Plaintiff?

Defense Claims:

Regarding Claim #2:
The Plaintiff alleges that they were denied a trial, counsel, and confrontation with evidence. Even if taken as true, these allegations do not establish a claim, as such rights are not guaranteed under the Criminal Code Act’s procedure for summary offenses. The announcements themselves explain the nature of the charge and the penalty associated. Since the alleged “rights violations” are not applicable to summary offenses, and no evidence has been submitted to suggest otherwise, this claim fails.

We believe we have substantiated this claim in the Opening Statement, particularly regarding the Penumbral Right to Due Process.

Defense Claims:

Regarding Claim #3:
The Plaintiff alleges that Congress lacked authority to punish crimes, which rests with Departments and Judicial Officers. Yet, the Plaintiff provides no evidence that Congress actually carried out enforcement. The record does not show that Congress fined the Plaintiff, imposed penalties, or acted outside its authority. Without evidence of enforcement by Congress, this claim rests on assumption rather than fact and cannot survive a motion to dismiss.

This claim is misunderstood by the Defense. Only Judicial Officers and Government Departments can impose any punishments. By imposing a punishment, even if said punishment was handed off to a Government Department, Congress disobeyed the Criminal Code Act (not to mention the blatant Constitutional violations).

 

[dearev]

Motion

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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

Rule 5.5 permits dismissal where the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief or where the claim is unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Regarding Claim #1:
The Plaintiff alleges that Congress acted as both judge and executor by finding them guilty and punishing them. However, the Plaintiff has submitted no evidence showing that Congress adjudicated guilt or imposed punishment. The only evidence presented, two screenshots (P-001 and P-002), reflects announcements of charges, not findings of guilt or enforcement actions. Without evidence that Congress itself exercised judicial or executive authority, this claim fails under Rule 5.5.

Regarding Claim #2:
The Plaintiff alleges that they were denied a trial, counsel, and confrontation with evidence. Even if taken as true, these allegations do not establish a claim, as such rights are not guaranteed under the Criminal Code Act’s procedure for summary offenses. The announcements themselves explain the nature of the charge and the penalty associated. Since the alleged “rights violations” are not applicable to summary offenses, and no evidence has been submitted to suggest otherwise, this claim fails.

Regarding Claim #3:
The Plaintiff alleges that Congress lacked authority to punish crimes, which rests with Departments and Judicial Officers. Yet, the Plaintiff provides no evidence that Congress actually carried out enforcement. The record does not show that Congress fined the Plaintiff, imposed penalties, or acted outside its authority. Without evidence of enforcement by Congress, this claim rests on assumption rather than fact and cannot survive a motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff has failed to state any valid claims and has presented no evidence sufficient to support the relief sought. For these reasons, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the action under Rule 5.5.

I will be taking over as the judicial officer in this case.
Motion to dismiss is hereby Denied.

 

[dearev]

Since no witnesses have been listed the plaintiff shall have 72 hours to provide a closing statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Since no witnesses have been listed the plaintiff shall have 72 hours to provide a closing statement.

Your honor, I know I am a couple minutes late.

I had an emergency this morning. Could I have a 24h extension?

 

[dearev]

Your honor, I know I am a couple minutes late.

I had an emergency this morning. Could I have a 24h extension?

you may

 

[Dartanboy]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Introduction

Your honor, the Defendant has brought forth multiple defenses in their Opening Statement. In particular, they argue that the Plaintiff's accusations are baseless, that the Plaintiff provided no evidence, that the Commonwealth is innocent until proven guilty, that the Commonwealth has rights, that the allegedly un-evidenced claims have no merit, and that the burden of proof still lies with the Plaintiff.

These defenses each fall into one of two categories: complete misconception, or misapplied law. We will address each of the aforementioned defenses throughout this Closing Statement.

Part I - Baseless Accusations

The Defense claims:

The case before you today is one that should be simple. If what the Plaintiff alleges is true, this would be an open and shut case where xEndeavor was clearly wronged by the Congress of Redmont. Instead of that simple case, before you is a bundle of baseless accusations by the Plaintiff, who has taken no interest in discovering the truth and is instead only interested in receiving legal damages from the Commonwealth in this retaliatory lawsuit.

The Plaintiff's accusations are not baseless, and this is in-part shown by the response to the Motion to Dismiss, and the Motion to Dismiss' subsequent denial.

Nonetheless, we will address this in-full. The core of the Plaintiff's arguments are:

• Congress does not have the authority to find an individual guilty of a crime, and thus, cannot direct the Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security to prosecute/fine/jail anyone.
  • This was shown through Parts I, II, III, V, and VI of the Opening Statement.
• Even if Congress had that authority, which they do not, they exercised it in such a way that it was inconsistent with the Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights.
  • This was shown through Part IV of the Opening Statement.
• Even if Congress had that authority, which they do not, the Criminal Code Act which they cited when charging the Plaintiff (see Exhibits P-001, P-002), clearly allows only Government Departments and Judicial Officers to impose punishments for crimes, distinctly lacking a provision allowing the Congress to do so.
  • This was shown through Parts V and VI of the Opening Statement.
• The Legislative Standards Act and Criminal Code Act are in disagreement regarding the definition and punishment of Contempt of Congress, and that this law must be clarified by the courts.
• That the evidentiary standard of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt applies to criminal acts, including Contempt of Congress, and as shown in court, this was not reached.
  • This was shown through Part IV of the Opening Statement.

If the Defendant wishes to erroneously disagree with these facts, then so be it, but to call them baseless is either immensely ignorant or an intentional misrepresentation of what happened. I certainly hope it is not the latter.

Part II - Evidence, Standards of Evidence, and Criminal Accusations

The Defense claims:

The Plaintiff has presented no evidence to defend their claims, and the evidence and facts of the case presented have little to do with the alleged actions of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth seeks to defend its own innocence, especially considering that the Plaintiff has presented no evidence in which the Commonwealth can be painted as otherwise.
...
The Plaintiff has not provided evidence to support the claim that xEndeavor was ever fined following these announcements. They have not provided evidence to support the claim that Congress did not recommend these charges to the DOJ. They have not provided evidence to support the claim that xEndeavor was not given an opportunity to have a defense or to contest the charges. The Plaintiff has not even provided evidence to support the claim that it was Congress who issued these charges to xEndeavor and not an agent of the DOJ, if those charges were even issued. While an absence of evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist, failure to submit any evidence and an unwillingness to seek any evidence to support their claims does make the Plaintiff's accusations baseless.
...
If we refer to the only evidence submitted in this trial, P-001 and P-002, Omegebiebel explains the nature and cause of the accusation by stating the reasons for the charge within the post and explaining the penalties associated with the crime. The evidence for these accusations is clearly linked and explained in each announcement.
...
If Congress had really not followed procedure to the degree alleged by the Plaintiff, evidence of it would be simple and easy to find. The Defense is astonished that, even given an additional 24 hours following their revised complaint, the Plaintiff could not submit any evidence to support their claims. They not only failed to submit any evidence but did not call a single witness or ask a single interrogatory that could have confirmed that Congress committed these acts.

The Defendant is right about one (relevant) thing. In particular, they are right that the Plaintiff only submitted two screenshots of evidence, which showed the Congress finding the Plaintiff guilty of a crime, and punishing him publicly. The rest of this quoted text is irrelevant, misleading, or downright untrue. Let's address it.

• The Defense claims that the Plaintiff "has presented no evidence to defend their claims."
  • This is clearly false as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 were submitted.
• The Defense claims "the evidence and facts of the case presented have little to do with the alleged actions of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth seeks to defend its own innocence, especially considering that the Plaintiff has presented no evidence in which the Commonwealth can be painted as otherwise."
  • This is clearly false as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 are directly related to the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the Congress, and places it on full display in #government-announcements.
• The Defense claims "The Plaintiff has not provided evidence to support the claim that xEndeavor was ever fined following these announcements."
  • This is clearly false, as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 clearly state that xEndeavour "is hereby fined" which say that the Plaintiff was fined, not merely threatened by a fine. To argue that the Plaintiff may not have been fined is intellectually dishonest, at best.
• The Defense claims "They have not provided evidence to support the claim that Congress did not recommend these charges to the DOJ."
  • This is clearly false, as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 distinctly explain "xEndeavour is hereby held in contempt of Congress ... according to [a Motion passed by Congress]." This explains in no uncertain terms that a Motion by Congress was the single factor which found xEndeavour guilty -- not a charge by the DoJ.
• The Defense claims "They have not provided evidence to support the claim that xEndeavor was not given an opportunity to have a defense or to contest the charges."
  • This is clearly false, as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 distinctly explain that xEndeavour was found guilty by a Congressional Motion, not a trial. Most individuals are unable to speak in a Congressional Motion, unless they are themselves a Member of Congress, which the Plaintiff is not.
• The Defense claims "The Plaintiff has not even provided evidence to support the claim that it was Congress who issued these charges to xEndeavor and not an agent of the DOJ, if those charges were even issued."
  • This is clearly false, as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 distinctly explain that xEndeavour was found guilty by a Congressional Motion, not a decision of a Government Department or Court.
• The Defense claims "While an absence of evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist, failure to submit any evidence and an unwillingness to seek any evidence to support their claims does make the Plaintiff's accusations baseless."
  • This is misleading and irrelevant.
    • Irrelevant: Every single claim regarding the evidence so far has been thoroughly debunked.
    • Misleading: While this case is technically a civil action, the truth of the matter is we are contesting a Criminal Charge, which requires Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt to find the Plaintiff guilty (this was affirmed by the Defense in Answer #9). They failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the Plaintiff did in-fact commit the crime of Contempt of Congress, and as such, the charge must be overturned.
      • Nonetheless, the Plaintiff has provided evidence so it does not matter, for this case, whether the Commonwealth is correct or not (but they aren't).
• The Defense claims "If we refer to the only evidence submitted in this trial, P-001 and P-002, Omegebiebel explains the nature and cause of the accusation by stating the reasons for the charge within the post and explaining the penalties associated with the crime. The evidence for these accusations is clearly linked and explained in each announcement."
  • The Plaintiff contends that quotes without evidence that the quotes are real are not valid "cause" of an accusation. The Plaintiff also contends that merely saying "the oversight hearing" is insufficient to consider it "evidence for these accusations." The Plaintiff furthermore contends that by hearing this from Congress, rather than a body which has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to charge an individual with a crime, he was insufficiently informed of the nature of the accusation.
• The Defense claims "If Congress had really not followed procedure to the degree alleged by the Plaintiff, evidence of it would be simple and easy to find."
  • They're actually correct here, but present this fact in a misleading way. They seem to be attempting to mislead the court into believing that there was no evidence, however, as explained throughout this Part of the Closing Statement, Exhibits P-001 and P-002 are the evidence of Congress' illegal actions that was simple and easy to find.
• The Defense claims "The Defense is astonished that, even given an additional 24 hours following their revised complaint, the Plaintiff could not submit any evidence to support their claims. They not only failed to submit any evidence but did not call a single witness or ask a single interrogatory that could have confirmed that Congress committed these acts."
  • While it is true that we did not call any witnesses or ask interrogatories, we did submit evidence in the form of Exhibits P-001 and P-002, which are themselves extremely solid evidence of the illegal actions taken by Congress.

Part III - Innocence Until Proven Guilty

The Defense claims:

Innocent until proven guilty. That is the guiding principle which defines the Redmont Judicial System. Until proven otherwise, the Commonwealth of Redmont is innocent of any alleged actions, and this will remain true until otherwise ruled by this court.

As predicted in the Opening Statement: "Yet, for some reason the Commonwealth will bend over backwards and maintain radical levels of cognitive dissonance to defend these unlawful actions."

The Plaintiff is contesting a Criminal Charge that was made illegally by a body which had no authority to make the charge. The Plaintiff has shown that no evidence was provided for the charge. The Plaintiff was assumed guilty without the chance to even try to prove his innocence.

Yet, the Commonwealth will stand in this courtroom and claim "The Commonwealth is innocent until proven guilty."

This. Is. Shameful.

Part IV - Rights

The Defense claims:

The Commonwealth cannot be presumed guilty; it has the same rights as any citizen within these courts.

Notably, they're right that the Commonwealth cannot be presumed guilty without evidence, however the evidence in this case is very persuasive, thorough, and the law clearly is on the side of justice, which in this case is the side of the Plaintiff.

However, they are wrong regarding rights. The Government does not have rights. The Constitution establishes rights for players, citizens of the Commonwealth. Not the Government. Since we're talking about rights again, I encourage the Court to re-read Part IV of the Opening Statement, regarding the Penumbral Right to Due Process, which was clearly broken in the actions of the Congress.

Part V - The Burden of Proof

The Defense claims:

While the Defense agrees with the Plaintiff, as they allege in their filing, that in criminal action it is the Commonwealth upon whom the burden of proof rests, the Defense would remind the Plaintiff that in civil action, it is with the complaining party that this burden rests.

We believe we have met the burden of proof required for a civil action (see the entire Case Filing and Opening Statement).

Part VI - The Burden of Proof (Again)

The Defense claims:

While the Defense agrees with the Plaintiff, as they allege in their filing, that in criminal action it is the Commonwealth upon whom the burden of proof rests, the Defense would remind the Plaintiff that in civil action, it is with the complaining party that this burden rests.

Let's pretend we didn't meet the burden of proof required for a civil case. The Plaintiff contends that while this case is labeled as a civil action, it is fundamentally an appeal of a criminal charge. There is no appeal form for the District Court, and as such it is impossible to fill out the appeal. As such, the burden of proof lies on the Commonwealth to prove that xEndeavour actually committed the crimes alleged.

This interpretation of the burden of proof has been upheld for years (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 40, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72).


Conclusion

Nearly every single claim by the Defense has been thoroughly disproven, debunked, or otherwise shown irrelevant, with only very few exceptions that have actually been shown to favor the Plaintiff.

We ask the Court to consider the facts and evidence of this case, and uphold justice for my client, rather than uphold the tyrannical overreach of Congress.

 

[dearev]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Introduction

Your honor, the Defendant has brought forth multiple defenses in their Opening Statement. In particular, they argue that the Plaintiff's accusations are baseless, that the Plaintiff provided no evidence, that the Commonwealth is innocent until proven guilty, that the Commonwealth has rights, that the allegedly un-evidenced claims have no merit, and that the burden of proof still lies with the Plaintiff.

These defenses each fall into one of two categories: complete misconception, or misapplied law. We will address each of the aforementioned defenses throughout this Closing Statement.

Part I - Baseless Accusations

The Defense claims:

The Plaintiff's accusations are not baseless, and this is in-part shown by the response to the Motion to Dismiss, and the Motion to Dismiss' subsequent denial.

Nonetheless, we will address this in-full. The core of the Plaintiff's arguments are:

• Congress does not have the authority to find an individual guilty of a crime, and thus, cannot direct the Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security to prosecute/fine/jail anyone.
  • This was shown through Parts I, II, III, V, and VI of the Opening Statement.
• Even if Congress had that authority, which they do not, they exercised it in such a way that it was inconsistent with the Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights.
  • This was shown through Part IV of the Opening Statement.
• Even if Congress had that authority, which they do not, the Criminal Code Act which they cited when charging the Plaintiff (see Exhibits P-001, P-002), clearly allows only Government Departments and Judicial Officers to impose punishments for crimes, distinctly lacking a provision allowing the Congress to do so.
  • This was shown through Parts V and VI of the Opening Statement.
• The Legislative Standards Act and Criminal Code Act are in disagreement regarding the definition and punishment of Contempt of Congress, and that this law must be clarified by the courts.
• That the evidentiary standard of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt applies to criminal acts, including Contempt of Congress, and as shown in court, this was not reached.
  • This was shown through Part IV of the Opening Statement.

If the Defendant wishes to erroneously disagree with these facts, then so be it, but to call them baseless is either immensely ignorant or an intentional misrepresentation of what happened. I certainly hope it is not the latter.

Part II - Evidence, Standards of Evidence, and Criminal Accusations

The Defense claims:


The Defendant is right about one (relevant) thing. In particular, they are right that the Plaintiff only submitted two screenshots of evidence, which showed the Congress finding the Plaintiff guilty of a crime, and punishing him publicly. The rest of this quoted text is irrelevant, misleading, or downright untrue. Let's address it.

• The Defense claims that the Plaintiff "has presented no evidence to defend their claims."
  • This is clearly false as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 were submitted.
• The Defense claims "the evidence and facts of the case presented have little to do with the alleged actions of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth seeks to defend its own innocence, especially considering that the Plaintiff has presented no evidence in which the Commonwealth can be painted as otherwise."
  • This is clearly false as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 are directly related to the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the Congress, and places it on full display in #government-announcements.
• The Defense claims "The Plaintiff has not provided evidence to support the claim that xEndeavor was ever fined following these announcements."
  • This is clearly false, as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 clearly state that xEndeavour "is hereby fined" which say that the Plaintiff was fined, not merely threatened by a fine. To argue that the Plaintiff may not have been fined is intellectually dishonest, at best.
• The Defense claims "They have not provided evidence to support the claim that Congress did not recommend these charges to the DOJ."
  • This is clearly false, as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 distinctly explain "xEndeavour is hereby held in contempt of Congress ... according to [a Motion passed by Congress]." This explains in no uncertain terms that a Motion by Congress was the single factor which found xEndeavour guilty -- not a charge by the DoJ.
• The Defense claims "They have not provided evidence to support the claim that xEndeavor was not given an opportunity to have a defense or to contest the charges."
  • This is clearly false, as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 distinctly explain that xEndeavour was found guilty by a Congressional Motion, not a trial. Most individuals are unable to speak in a Congressional Motion, unless they are themselves a Member of Congress, which the Plaintiff is not.
• The Defense claims "The Plaintiff has not even provided evidence to support the claim that it was Congress who issued these charges to xEndeavor and not an agent of the DOJ, if those charges were even issued."
  • This is clearly false, as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 distinctly explain that xEndeavour was found guilty by a Congressional Motion, not a decision of a Government Department or Court.
• The Defense claims "While an absence of evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist, failure to submit any evidence and an unwillingness to seek any evidence to support their claims does make the Plaintiff's accusations baseless."
  • This is misleading and irrelevant.
    • Irrelevant: Every single claim regarding the evidence so far has been thoroughly debunked.
    • Misleading: While this case is technically a civil action, the truth of the matter is we are contesting a Criminal Charge, which requires Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt to find the Plaintiff guilty (this was affirmed by the Defense in Answer #9). They failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the Plaintiff did in-fact commit the crime of Contempt of Congress, and as such, the charge must be overturned.
      • Nonetheless, the Plaintiff has provided evidence so it does not matter, for this case, whether the Commonwealth is correct or not (but they aren't).
• The Defense claims "If we refer to the only evidence submitted in this trial, P-001 and P-002, Omegebiebel explains the nature and cause of the accusation by stating the reasons for the charge within the post and explaining the penalties associated with the crime. The evidence for these accusations is clearly linked and explained in each announcement."
  • The Plaintiff contends that quotes without evidence that the quotes are real are not valid "cause" of an accusation. The Plaintiff also contends that merely saying "the oversight hearing" is insufficient to consider it "evidence for these accusations." The Plaintiff furthermore contends that by hearing this from Congress, rather than a body which has the Constitutional and Statutory authority to charge an individual with a crime, he was insufficiently informed of the nature of the accusation.
• The Defense claims "If Congress had really not followed procedure to the degree alleged by the Plaintiff, evidence of it would be simple and easy to find."
  • They're actually correct here, but present this fact in a misleading way. They seem to be attempting to mislead the court into believing that there was no evidence, however, as explained throughout this Part of the Closing Statement, Exhibits P-001 and P-002 are the evidence of Congress' illegal actions that was simple and easy to find.
• The Defense claims "The Defense is astonished that, even given an additional 24 hours following their revised complaint, the Plaintiff could not submit any evidence to support their claims. They not only failed to submit any evidence but did not call a single witness or ask a single interrogatory that could have confirmed that Congress committed these acts."
  • While it is true that we did not call any witnesses or ask interrogatories, we did submit evidence in the form of Exhibits P-001 and P-002, which are themselves extremely solid evidence of the illegal actions taken by Congress.

Part III - Innocence Until Proven Guilty

The Defense claims:


As predicted in the Opening Statement: "Yet, for some reason the Commonwealth will bend over backwards and maintain radical levels of cognitive dissonance to defend these unlawful actions."

The Plaintiff is contesting a Criminal Charge that was made illegally by a body which had no authority to make the charge. The Plaintiff has shown that no evidence was provided for the charge. The Plaintiff was assumed guilty without the chance to even try to prove his innocence.

Yet, the Commonwealth will stand in this courtroom and claim "The Commonwealth is innocent until proven guilty."

This. Is. Shameful.

Part IV - Rights

The Defense claims:

Notably, they're right that the Commonwealth cannot be presumed guilty without evidence, however the evidence in this case is very persuasive, thorough, and the law clearly is on the side of justice, which in this case is the side of the Plaintiff.

However, they are wrong regarding rights. The Government does not have rights. The Constitution establishes rights for players, citizens of the Commonwealth. Not the Government. Since we're talking about rights again, I encourage the Court to re-read Part IV of the Opening Statement, regarding the Penumbral Right to Due Process, which was clearly broken in the actions of the Congress.

Part V - The Burden of Proof

The Defense claims:


We believe we have met the burden of proof required for a civil action (see the entire Case Filing and Opening Statement).

Part VI - The Burden of Proof (Again)

The Defense claims:


Let's pretend we didn't meet the burden of proof required for a civil case. The Plaintiff contends that while this case is labeled as a civil action, it is fundamentally an appeal of a criminal charge. There is no appeal form for the District Court, and as such it is impossible to fill out the appeal. As such, the burden of proof lies on the Commonwealth to prove that xEndeavour actually committed the crimes alleged.

This interpretation of the burden of proof has been upheld for years (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 40, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72).


Conclusion

Nearly every single claim by the Defense has been thoroughly disproven, debunked, or otherwise shown irrelevant, with only very few exceptions that have actually been shown to favor the Plaintiff.

We ask the Court to consider the facts and evidence of this case, and uphold justice for my client, rather than uphold the tyrannical overreach of Congress.

Thank you. the Defense now has 72 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Dogeington]

Your honor,
The commonwealth humbly requests a 24 hour extension to our closing statement.

 

[dearev]

Your honor,
The commonwealth humbly requests a 24 hour extension to our closing statement.

Granted.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth asks for Your Honor to recuse himself because of prior involvement. In this case, Your Honor was summonsed and answered the Summons on behalf of the Commonwealth whilst acting as Attorney General; in doing so Your Honor acted as counsel to one of the parties in this case.

What’s more, the Commonwealth asks for Your Honor to withdraw any and all rulings on motions in this case—including in the motion to dismiss (which was denied without a stated reason)—as the prior involvement pre-dated any rulings in this case.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth asks for Your Honor to recuse himself because of prior involvement. In this case, Your Honor was summonsed and answered the Summons on behalf of the Commonwealth whilst acting as Attorney General; in doing so Your Honor acted as counsel to one of the parties in this case.

What’s more, the Commonwealth asks for Your Honor to withdraw any and all rulings on motions in this case—including in the motion to dismiss (which was denied without a stated reason)—as the prior involvement pre-dated any rulings in this case.

I will be Granting. This motion to recuse.
Altough i personally belive I can provide an unbiased verdict to the case, I can’t in good conscience deny a motion to recuse.
Therefore i hereaby recuse myself from this case and withdraw my ruling on the motion.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor:

The Commonwealth asks for Your Honor to recuse himself because of prior involvement. In this case, Your Honor was summonsed and answered the Summons on behalf of the Commonwealth whilst acting as Attorney General; in doing so Your Honor acted as counsel to one of the parties in this case.

What’s more, the Commonwealth asks for Your Honor to withdraw any and all rulings on motions in this case—including in the motion to dismiss (which was denied without a stated reason)—as the prior involvement pre-dated any rulings in this case.

Your honor, we believe a response is necessary due to the nature of the additional requests beyond recusal.

 

[Dogeington]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing by the Commonwealth. Instead, they have submited two public announcements. Using these announcements, the Plaintiff has made baseless assertions regarding the conduct of the Commonwealth. As far as this court should be concerned, all that is known about the actions of the Commonwealth is that Speaker Omegabiebel made announcements stating that xEndeavor had been held in contempt of Congress.

The Plaintiff speculates that, merely because the announcements outlined the penalties for contempt of Congress, Congress itself must have carried out the enforcement action. The Plaintiff has submitted no evidence showing who carried out this fine, nor did they seek this information from the Commonwealth in discovery. The Plaintiff did not submit any evidence showing that this penalty had even been deducted from xEndeavor’s in-game balance. As much as the Plaintiff wishes it were so, the Commonwealth is not claiming that Omegabiebel was lying in those announcements. Rather, the Commonwealth argues that an announcement made by a Congress member on the outcome and reasoning of a Congressional vote does not contain enough information to know that it was Congress, and not the lawfully designated parties, that carried out this fine, or that the announcement marked the time at which the fine was levied.

The Plaintiff asserts in their closing statement that their “core arguments” are facts of this case, however, the Defense is very surprised by this assertion. Very few of the core arguments presented by the Plaintiff are actually disputed facts of this case, or even stated in the facts of the case.
The facts of this case are as follows:
Two assertions on the date, time, and individual who posted an announcement (Facts 1-2);
Five quotations that assert that various acts and the Constitution do, in fact, say what the Plaintiff is quoting them as (Facts 3-7);
And finally, the two actual accusations in the filing, that xEndeavor was not presented with ANY evidence when he was allegedly charged in those aforementioned announcements, and the assertion that proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls on the Commonwealth when charging a citizen with a crime (Facts 8-9).

The Plaintiff does not claim that Congress lacks the authority to find an individual guilty of a crime. The Plaintiff does not claim that Congress improperly exercised this authority by failing to follow procedure by allegedly not recommending that these charges be handled by the DHS. The Plaintiff does not claim that the LSA and CCA are in conflict. The only two “core arguments” at issue in this case, as defined by the facts of the case in their own filing, are that Congress did not present xEndeavor with ANY evidence in those announcements, and that proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to criminal acts and that burden is on the Commonwealth.

Keeping that in mind, most of the Plaintiff's closing statements are not relevant to the case at hand. The only fact in dispute is that xEndeavor was not presented with ANY evidence in the two Congressional announcements. As the Defense has already stated, within those two announcements the reasoning behind the charges were included, and contained links to where the messages by xEndeavor were sent:

Congress has given the following reasons for this charge:

After being instructed to only speak when asked questions, he stated "If I want to make representations to the hearing I will, regardless of whether I'm asked" - directly challenging the House's authority.
Despite Representative ToadKing clearly stating "You will not speak unless spoken to," the Secretary continued making unsolicited statements.
Repeatedly attempted to control document production after being told multiple times that "the handling of the subpoena is outside your purview."
When directed on how to answer questions, he responded "Sorry don't really care for how you think I should answer your question. I'll answer it how I see fit" - showing blatant disrespect for the hearing process.

...

Congress has given the following reasons for this charge:

He has sent an unrelated gif in the hearing thread disrupting the proceedings once again. After being warned by Representative RealImza he has sent another gif. RealImza's warning is the 4th warning he has received on the same bad behaviour.

He has been warned and held in Contempt before yet he does not stop disrespecting Congress in the hearing.

The LSA reads that contempt of Congress is:

To refuse to testify, won't provide information requested by the House or the Senate, or obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee.

The evidence provided does defend the charges announced by Congress, especially considering that it was not in question that xEndeavor had sent those messages, and that the messages were easily accesable by anyone reading the annoucment. Contempt of Congress is a highly subjective charge that is broadly at the discretion of Congress itself, but the actions of xEndeavor outlined in these announcements fit within the LSA definition of this summary offense.

It should be taking into account that the disputed fact in this instance is not that the Commonwealth did not provide sufficient evidence or evidence not in compliance with the JSA, but rather that the Commonwealth did not confront xEndeavour with any evidence when charging him in #government-announcements. This is clearly untrue, evidence was provided, reasonings were given, and infringing messages and conduct were linked and quoted.

The defense has now addressed the only disputed fact in this closing statement. Everything else that the Plaintiff states in their closing statement is not relevant to the case at hand. Nevertheless, the defense seeks to dismantle these baseless claims, regardless of their actual relevance.

The Plaintiff claims that the two submitted pieces of evidence are satisfactory to support the claim that Congress did not recommend these charges to the DHS. The Plaintiff clearly does not understand the Congressional process in which contempt of Congress charges are brought. As defined in the LSA:

17 - Contempt of Congress

(1) The House of Representatives, Senate, or any committee may vote to hold a person "in contempt" by a majority vote. The Speaker will then report the incident to the Department of Justice to be actioned.

The announcement that these motions had passed and that Congress had held xEndeavor in contempt does not establish that these charges were not passed on. The Plaintiff could have easily proved this in a multitude of ways: through interrogatory questions, through FOI request, through any discovery request, through any submitted evidence of conversations held by Congress following the motion being passed, anything. And yet, the Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support that claim. Furthermore, the Plaintiff does not claim in the facts of the case that Congress failed to recommend the charges to the appropriate department, making this whole line of argumentation immaterial to the case at hand.

As shown in the rights violations alleged by the plaintiff, they do not understand the process surrounding summary charges. It is a right of the Plaintiff to dispute these charges in court after the fact for summary offenses like contempt of Congress. This is how summary offenses work definitionally in the CCA:

(2) Summary Offence means an offence that may be dealt with by immediate penalty, without the need for formal trial. This can be contested before a judicial officer after issue.

The defense and recourse that the Plaintiff is seeking are not prescribed under the law. Should, as was reasonably assumed by the Defense, the Plaintiff been barred from contesting these charges in court after the fact, then this claim would have merit. Although as we are currently in the civil case where the Plaintiff is disputing an aspect of these charges, that is clearly not true. The violation of the Plaintiff’s rights in this regard is also not a disputed fact of this case, once again showing that the whole argument is immaterial to this trial.

The assertion by the Plaintiff that this case is, in fact, a criminal action and an appeal of a criminal charge is laughable. Nowhere in this case, not in the facts, not in the claims for relief, not in the opening or closing statements, has the Plaintiff ever once claimed that xEndeavor did not commit contempt of Congress. There is no basis in the record to treat this matter as a criminal action or as a civil appeal. The Defense does not deny that in criminal proceedings the burden of proof rests with the Commonwealth. The Defense, in fact, affirmed that fact of the case. However, the Plaintiff is not claiming that xEndeavor did not commit the crime, but is instead claiming that he was not presented with evidence in the two announcements where Congress stated that he had been held in contempt. That is the only disputed fact. This is a civil case, the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to show wrongdoing.

Finally, on the subject of damages: As the court has been presented with no evidence that xEndeavor was charged with the two counts of contempt of Congress, the 8000 requested as a fine refund is without basis. The LDA clearly states in §4.2.a that:

(a) Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.

The defense hopes that it has expressed the true scope of the case in a clear enough manner for any presiding officer or citizen to understand the problems within. This case is simple, but not in the way most would think. The only fact in dispute is that the Commonwealth allegedly did not confront xEndeavor with any evidence when announcing that he had been held in contempt in #government-announcements. The defense asks that the court take into consideration the evidence at hand and the actual disputed facts and make a judgment on what this case is truly about, instead of the irrelevant arguments raised by the Plaintiff.

The Commonwealth thanks all involved for their time.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Plaintiff speculates that, merely because the announcements outlined the penalties for contempt of Congress, Congress itself must have carried out the enforcement action.

Objection

PERJURY

The Defense is making up statements and claiming the Plaintiff made them. While at first I had believed this to be an honest mistake, they have continued to say this lie even after being corrected.

See:

This claim is misunderstood by the Defense. Only Judicial Officers and Government Departments can impose any punishments. By imposing a punishment, even if said punishment was handed off to a Government Department, Congress disobeyed the Criminal Code Act (not to mention the blatant Constitutional violations).

 

[Dogeington]

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – PERJURY

Your Honor,
The plaintiff's objection to the statement made in the defense’s closing statements is without merit. The defense is not directly quoting the plaintiff in this sentence. Other statements made directly by the plaintiff, such as:

The Defense claims "They have not provided evidence to support the claim that Congress did not recommend these charges to the DOJ."

• This is clearly false, as Exhibits P-001 and P-002 distinctly explain "xEndeavour is hereby held in contempt of Congress ... according to [a Motion passed by Congress]." This explains in no uncertain terms that a Motion by Congress was the single factor which found xEndeavour guilty -- not a charge by the DoJ.

and

Nonetheless, P-001 and P-002 are announcement of charges and enforcement actions - and by virtue of the enforcement actions, guilt is presumed.

Note that the announcements both clearly stated: "xEndeavour is hereby fined 40 penalty points ($4,000) in accordance with Part III Section 6 of the Criminal Code Act."

Clearly imply that the announcement made by the Speaker of the House is sufficient evidence to conclude that Congress carried out the enforcement action. Therefore, the defense’s statement that:

The Plaintiff speculates that, merely because the announcements outlined the penalties for contempt of Congress, Congress itself must have carried out the enforcement action.

It is not a lie about the position that the defense believes the plaintiff holds, and it is not a misrepresentation of any fact of the case. I would again remind the court that the assertion that Congress charged xEndeavour or that Congress enforced the charge on xEndeavour are not facts of this case.

Therefore, the defense respectfully submits that you deny this objection.