Lawsuit: Adjourned Government of Stratham vs SlimeEmperor

[Dusty_3]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CRIMINAL ACTION
Date: 11/16/21

The Republic of Stratham
(Dusty_3 representing, co-counsel Tree60NoScope)

v.

SlimeEmperor

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:

On the 15th of November, the DoJ was made aware of information regarding corruption at the highest office. As instructed by the DoJ Minister, I have investigated a claim brought forward and have made the following discoveries. The Prime Minister and other Cabinet members were discussing Krix running for the Prime Minister election. SlimeEmperor clearly disliked the idea of a Krix Prime Minister, stating "the last thing we need is krix winning." Within minutes of posting this, SlimeEmperor crafted an edit to an existing bill whose purpose was to “subtly prevent krix from running.” However Businesscraft is a democracy, and it is not within the Prime Minister’s power to craft bills for corrupt reasons. The Sherlock Accords defines a corrupt action as one that attempts “To use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures.” By preventing Krix from entering the PM elections through a bill edit, SlimeEmperor is using his government position to benefit his private interests and the interests of his political party. For these reasons, I am using my powers as a state prosecutor to bring forth a lawsuit against SlimeEmperor for corruption under the Sherlock Accords.

Using Common Law as my basis, I would like to ask the courts to provide a Writ of Quo Warranto to SlimeEmperor. This means that SlimeEmperor will not be able to use his executive powers until he has proven in courts that he has the legal rights and authority to do so. This will benefit this case as it will prevent outside influences from having an effect on the judgement. If the Writ is not provided, I believe that SlimeEmperor could abuse his position to his benefit within this lawsuit.

II. Parties
1. SlimeEmperor
2. The Republic of Stratham

III. Sequence of Events
1. In a Cabinet chat, SlimeEmperor writes “the last thing we need is krix winning”
2. SlimeEmperor suggests an edit to the Election Meddling/Rigging Law to “subtly prevent krix from running”.
3. Four minutes later, SlimeEmperor proposes an edit to the Election Meddling/Rigging laws bill in #bill-creation

IV. Charges
1. SlimeEmperor is in violation of the Sherlock Accords for abusing his position for his private interests

V. Sentencing
1. SlimeEmperor is charged with: Removal from government positions + temporary ban from holding office.

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

@SlimeEmperor is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @SlimeEmperor , does not acknowledge the case as a reply in 2 days, the case will close in the Plaintiff's favor.

Court is in Session

This case is presided by Judge MxZxPredatorZx Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[SlimeEmperor]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Date: 11/16/2021
The Republic of Stratham

v.

SlimeEmperor

I. Pleading

I, SlimeEmperor, plead Not Guilty to the accusations brought forth by the plaintiff.

II. Arguments

Your Honor,

I, the Defendant, am committed to maintaining free and fair elections in the Republic of Stratham. After all, what is our democracy without such a standard? However, I have not done anything that will hinder Krix from running in the upcoming election if he wishes to. I will now open each of my arguments:

1. Nature of Leaked Messages and Intent

The messages leaked from Cabinet chat and presented by the Plaintiff are taken severely out of context, misrepresenting my views on this topic and my intent with the proposed bill in question.

In regards to Screenshot 1, I made a sarcastic comment – one that I should not have made, I admit. However, each citizen of our Republic is entitled to an opinion of their own, regardless of political or governmental status. This opinion I stated had no effect over the creation of the bill in question.

In regards to Screenshot 2, it was another joke I should not have made, but I corrected myself later in this discussion, which is not shown in the screenshots presented by the Plaintiff. In this discussion, Minister Gabi responded with "no need to stop him [Krix] from running in the first place", to which I responded with "lol i mean idc if he [Krix] runs but this bill needs to be updated anyway". My intentions were not to prevent Krix from running for Prime Minister.


2. Ex Post Facto

The bill presented in Screenshot 3 would not prevent nor hinder Krix from running for Prime Minister.

Ex Post Facto (https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/illegalization-of-ex-post-facto.6490/#post-42738) would protect his ability to run for Prime Minister if he wishes, which I was fully aware of when creating this bill – hence why I did not add a clause to the bill stating that Ex Post Facto would be voided. I chose not to do this and I have effectively protected Krix's ability to run for Prime Minister.


3. Sherlock Accords

The Sherlock Accords state that "It is hereby illegal to use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures.".

If, theoretically, this bill did in fact prevent any individual from running for Prime Minister, it would not benefit my private interests nor corporate ventures. I have no plans to run for re-election, which I have previously stated multiple times both publicly and privately. Furthermore, before this lawsuit existed I had plans of dissolving my political party, which I can provide evidence of if requested. Therefore, Krix not being allowed to run in the next election would not serve any purpose or benefit to me, nor would this bill prevent him from running to begin with.

Because there is nothing for me to gain from preventing someone from running for office, I have not and would not have violated the Sherlock Accords even if this bill did prevent Krix from running.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, I had no intentions to bar Krix from running for Prime Minister, the bill proposed would not do so, and even if it did I would not benefit any personal gain from it.

5. Evidence
Ex Post Facto: https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/illegalization-of-ex-post-facto.6490/#post-42738
The Sherlock Accords: https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/the-sherlock-accords.4849/#post-35285



Additional Note:
If this case were to continue, I would like to request that I am not summoned to the Court until Monday at earliest. I am currently on a planned 6-day leave from my position as Prime Minister and I will be out of town for most of this week.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Given the defendants statement at the end of their opening statement of defence, this court session is temporarily adjourned until the defendant returns from his break.

I would however ask that in the time that court is adjourned, the defendant, @SlimeEmperor can get screenshots of the messages to show that he planned to dissolve his party, and to prove that his comments about barring Krix from running were strictly a joke.

If the plaintiff and his lawyer @Dusty_3 has a statement ready to rebute the defence statement offered, I am open to hearing it, but it is preferable that such a statement is kept from being stated until court is back in session.

I thank you both

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honour,

In response to the Defendants claims:

In response to point 1

Claiming that the statement was a joke is completely ridiculous. The dialogue between the Defendant, SlimeEmperor, and his ministers in Cabinet chat is clearly serious. The seriousness of the conversation is shown when Minister LobsterRoast asks the question “is Krix technically allowed to run.” This opens the discussion to what led to the bill. The Defendant responds with “has he been in parliament.” To run for Prime Minister, candidates are required to have experience as a Member of Parliament, therefore the Defendant's comment shows he is brainstorming ways Krix would be ineligible to run for Prime Minister. This is all done with complete seriousness from the Defendant, as you can see in the timeline (evidence 1).

LobsterRoast then brings up election rigging/meddling that Krix was charged within 2018. The Defendant follows this with the idea to edit the election rigging/meddling law to include the punishment to barring a convicted individual from running in Prime Minister elections. If the defendant claims that their malicious statement “and subtly prevent krix from running” is a joke, then why was the statement followed up with action only 4 minutes after the statement was said. The bill was proposed only 4 minutes after the Defendant stated “wait, im gonna propose an edit to that bill, and subtly prevent krix from running.” There is no joke here, the defendant followed a serious conversation with a proposed bill intended to harm krix.

The Defendant has malice toward Krix. Because the Defendant doesn't respect Krix as a Political Candidate, the statement “please run stinky the last thing we need is Krix winning,” is accurate to the defendant's belief. What part of that statement is sarcastic? It is known Krix is not respected as a political candidate by the plaintiff, so how is this statement sarcastic? The truth is that the Defendant is against Krix becoming Prime Minister, therefore the defendant attempts to come up with ways to prevent Krix from winning.


It is obvious the defendant acted upon his statement about preventing Krix from running and created a bill in an attempt to achieve this. Jokes do not lead to actions.




In response to point 2:

The Defendant had a desire to harm Krix through the proposed bill edit. Krix is also not protected by Ex Post Facto in the case of this bill. The simple answer to the question “Was Krix prevented from running for Prime Minister through this bill?” is that the Defendant tried. The defendant tried and failed in his attempt to prevent Krix from running.

The defendant has clear intent to do harm to Krix, if the action failed to do harm that does not make the action and intent anymore justified.





In response to point 3:

It is known the Defendant does not support Krix for Prime Minister. He doesn't respect Krix as a political candidate. It is also known that the Defendant has joined a political party that is opposing Krix in the Prime Minister elections (evidence 2). The defendant may try to claim they are leaving politics, but the truth is the Defendant is still politically involved, and the Defendant opposes Krix as a Prime Minister.

He has a personal interest in this matter as he doesn't want Krix to be Prime Minister. It is natural for any leader to have a vested interest in their successor, regardless of their intent to run for re-election; however, it is that leader’s duty to protect the sanctity of democracy, to protect the institutions which we so deeply cherish. We can not allow this corruption to continue.

Additional Arguments:

The comment made after the bill was proposed has no relevance to the case. There is proof that the Defendant showed a desire to harm Krix and acted upon that intent. Covering up the intent after the defendant violated the Sherlock Accords provides no relevance to this case and that evidence presented should be struck from the record. (Defendants presented screenshot)

I would like to ask the courts that the Defendant be temporarily removed from his government position. This is stated within the law that “While the case is being presented in court, the person on trial will be temporarily removed from their government position.” (Evidence 3)


Conclusion:

The evidence presented shows there is clear intent to do harm to Krix, it shows action was taken upon that intent, it shows that the Defendant has malice toward Krix as a political candidate and it also shows that the Defendant has a personal interest in preventing Krix from running.

This case could not be more clear: there is intent, action upon intent, personal interest and malice. The defendant has violated the Sherlock Accords.


Evidence 1

Here is a timeline that shows the context moment by moment.


Evidence 2

The evidence that stands before you shows that the Defendant is politically affiliated, the SCP is a brand new party accepted on the 20th of November, and the Defendant is labelled as a founder. https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/t...ion-partys-political-party-application.14664/


Evidence 3

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I thank the plaintiff for their statement, and reminder of the laws. As The defendant is away I did not feel it currently necessary to state that he needed to be temporarily removed. However as it does need to be done, I summon @stinkycow to court to take note that @SlimeEmperor has been temporarily removed from his position and @stinkycow will be the acting prime minister until this case is over.


That is all for now. The court shall resume tomorrow with @SlimeEmperor defence statement.

 

[stinkycow]

Your Honor,

In acknowledgement of Slimes removal:

I will continue to serve as the APM until such a time where Slime is either permanently removed or reinstated.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

The court is now back in session. I hereby resummon @SlimeEmperor for his statement based on the above.

Thank you

 

[SlimeEmperor]

Your Honor,

Due to the Thanksgiving holiday and spending time with family I won't be available to respond over the next few days (probably until Sunday). However, here is an attached screenshot of proof that I was planning to disband my party. The message sent in the Tea Party announcement channel was used by the DoS to disband TP while I was out of town, which proves it is legal evidence that my wishes to disband the party were expressed before this lawsuit. (evidence 1 and 2)

I have also attached proof that I did not attempt at running for Chairman of the SCP, the party which the Tea Party's members joined after being disbanded. I am no more than a mere member of the SCP. (evidence 3)

I would like to point out that Dusty_3, the Prosecutor charging me with supposed corruption, is the vice-chairman of the SPA, which Krix is the chairman of. The Prosecutor effectively has a major conflict of interest, and as such should not be allowed to sue on behalf of the Government for this issue to begin with. It's clear that this lawsuit is an attempt from the Prosecutor to use his power in order to keep his closest political ally in the race for Prime Minister next election – and I would like the court to take note of this, please.

Next, I would like to address the Plaintiff's arguments regarding my intent. I have been involved in the legal and political scene of BusinessCraft for far longer than most individuals, and I was present when the Sherlock Accords were originally passed – and since then, I've taken part in several discussions regarding them (a quick search in political-discussion will prove this). I was fully aware of how they worked, and if my intent was to prevent Krix from running for PM, I would have added to the bill to specify that existing cases were not grandfathered in. However, I did not add this to the bill because I did not genuinely want to prevent Krix from running.

Lastly, the Sherlock Accords only apply if an elected official uses their power to ONLY benefit themself or their company: "Private or Corporate interest is something that solely benefits oneself or strictly their company and its employees." (evidence 4). This bill does not solely benefit myself – in fact, it does not benefit me in any way. It also does not strictly benefit my company, because I have no active company and there is no question of corporate gain in this lawsuit. Even if I was still chairman of a political party, it would not be classified as a company, therefore not even in the question. Additionally, other political parties existed when I was chairman of the Tea Party, therefore it would not only benefit the Tea Party, but would equally benefit other parties as well IF the bill did bar Krix from running. However, since the bill in question did not bar Krix from running, I had nothing to gain from it to begin with.

 

[SlimeEmperor]

Evidence 1
Evidence 2

Evidence 3

Evidence 4 https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/the-sherlock-accords.4849/ (first reply)

 

[TeddyTaps230]

The court would like to thank the defendant for their statement, but requests that, in order to stop the court from adjourning again, if it is possible, could the defendant perhaps seek a legal aid? @SlimeEmperor

I now summon the plaintiff to answer the defences statement. @Dusty_3

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor,

I'd have to agree with SlimeEmporer about having this court adjourned.
I am currently sick with COVID, and I won't be able to make a response for at least another 5 days.

If we could have this Court adjourned until I can create a response, I would be most grateful.

Thank you

 

[TeddyTaps230]

The court is now adjourned temporarily until next Thursday. That’s Thursday the 2nd of December.

In the interim period, I will revisit… again… the Sherlock accords.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honor,

I am posting this early since I have recovered from COVID. I thank the court for allowing the extended time.

Before I begin my argument, I'd like to address the claim of a conflict of interest. It is true I am the vice-chairmen of the same party as Krix, but I was made prosecutor by SlimeEmperor with this knowledge. Building upon this, I did not seek this lawsuit, in fact, it was brought to me by the whistleblower with approval from the DoJ minister. A crime was reported to me, I investigated it and followed all protocols leading to this lawsuit.

Furthermore, the defendant states “to keep his closest political ally in the race for Prime Minister next election.” This statement is ridiculous because why would krix even be at risk of being barred from the race if the defendant claims the bill had "good intentions"?

------

Response:


The defendant believes that barring Krix from running "would not only benefit the Tea Party but would equally benefit other parties as well." At the time of the bill proposal only 3 parties existed, Krix’s party, SlimeEmperors party and the Pizza Party. Despite the defendant's insistence that his party is dissolving, his evidence shows that the Tea party and Pizza party merged a day after the bill proposal (Evidence 1). This leaves two parties, the Tea-Pizza coalition and Krix's own party. By the defendant's admission, his favoured political party will be the only one that benefits from Krix's ban, therefore meaning the defendant agrees the political party he is a member of would benefit from krix’s barring.

The defendant's entire final paragraph in his most recent response hinges upon a removed Sherlock Accords section, therefore the courts cannot consider it a legal defence. The section used "Private or Corporate interest is something that solely benefits oneself or strictly their company and its employees," was removed in May of 2020. In fact, this very section was removed because “it can easily be abused by anyone since people in parliament or cabinet can claim anything produced can be said as "public interest" if it helped others not named themselves.” (Evidence 2). That is the argument the defendant is attempting to push, “This bill does not solely benefit myself.” The defendant has attempted to abuse this removed section of the law by claiming it would not only benefit the Tea Party (the defendant's party) but other parties (namely Pizza Party) as well. It's clear that the May 2020 Parliament knew this law could be abused by a corrupt government official, which is why it was removed, and the defendant claims he is “fully aware of how they worked,” but that obviously is not true because he quoted a nonexistent law.

The defendants attempt to “subtly prevent krix from running” resulted in failure due to their ignorance of the law and time spent writing the bill. As proven, the defendant has a guilty mind, they have shown they want to prevent Krix, with a bill edit, from running for Prime Minister. However, the proposal of the bill after the declaration to edit it lasted only 4 minutes. This means the defendant had 4 minutes to write an election meddling bill edit, with the intention of preventing krix from running. Furthermore, the defendant has shown the Court they do not understand the law. In his defence statement, SlimeEmperor has quoted to the courts a section of the Sherlock Accords that was removed in 2020. This misunderstanding of the law proves the defendant not only rushed his bill but did not understand that Krix would be protected by Double Jeopardy. The defendants attempt to prevent krix from running failed because of his lack of legal knowledge and because he spent only 4 minutes creating the bill.

We have proved the defendant intended to harm Krix, we have proved that the defendant has a private interest in the bill proposal and we have proved that the defendant simply failed to write an effective bill. The bill proposal does not legally harm Krix, but it was created with the intention to, and only failed to harm krix because of the defendant's failure to understand the law. As real-life law states: “A person who attempts to commit an offence is guilty of the offence of attempting to commit that offence and is punishable as if the offence attempted had been committed.” (Evidence 3) The defendant broke the Sherlock accords, a failed attempt to commit a crime is still a crime.


Evidence 1


Only 1 day apart

Evidence 2


The section of the Sherlock Accords quoted by the defendant was removed in 2020.


Evidence 3

Real-life definition.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I thank the plaintiff for their response.

@SlimeEmperor i summon you back to court to answer the above and summarise your defence.

This court will then make a decision

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor,
As the court plans to make a decision after the defendant's response, I ask the courts to call stinkycow as a witness to this case.
Thank you

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I hereby call @stinkycow to provide statement. Please remember this is in an official capacity, and you are under court rules. Everything you say must be the truth and nothing but the truth.

I would like to remind the plaintiff however that in future cases, should they wish to summon witnesses in future cases they must name the witness in the parties of the case. Not magically summon their name in my court room towards the end of the case. @Dusty_3 consider that a respect boundary for the court please. Otherwise you are potentially withholding information from the court and I would hate for that to lead to a charge for yourself.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

@SlimeEmperor I am still awaiting a statement from you. Preferably a closing summary.

@stinkycow you have been summoned to court to provide statement. You have until tomorrow at 3pm gmt before I discard your summons.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honor,
Given that the prosecution has begun forming its final statement, and this case has been going on for weeks, i'd rather dismiss the witness as they do not bring enough substantial evidence to the case. I thank the court for its patience.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I dismiss @stinkycow as requested. Please do not waste the courts time with unsubstantial witnesses unless you believe the witness to be beneficial @Dusty_3 .

I ask the defence for one last time. Please post your statement/closing summary. This case has been going on for long enough

I ask that the prosecution lets me know when their statement is prepared and ready to be filed here.

That is all.