Lawsuit: In Session Office of Attorney General vs MegaMinerM

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CRIMINAL ACTION
Date: 20/06/2025

The Office of Attorney General
Nightmare98765 – Attorney General

v.

MegaMinerM

I. Description of Case
The Office of Attorney General charges the Defendant with Treason under Paragraph 4.1 of the High Crimes Act for wilfully undermining the constitutional order. Despite repeated advice from the Attorney General and clear constitutional mandates as well as a clear court order, the Defendant:

• refused to host the overdue elections for the Council of Ministers
• proposed declaring martial law and stripping the courts of power to avoid elections (as can be seen in the evidence provided)
• continued to obstruct lawful directives after court deadlines, expressly stating “Who needs elections” and similar remarks
• pursued these actions with the sole intent of retaining executive authority unlawfully under the premise of “national security”.

These acts constitute a deliberate betrayal of the Republic’s democratic framework and therefore fulfill the “The act of betraying one's country” element of Treason.

II. Parties
1. Nightmare98765
2. MegaMinerM

III. Sequence of Events
1. May 2nd 2025 elections for a new Council should have begun since the constitution states the following: “election of the Council of Ministers shall take place every 2 months and shall be held 12 days before the end of the incumbent Council’s term.” (Section 3.2(a))

2. May 12th 2025. At this date the new council should have been in office. Yet up to this point no elections where made.

3. 12th of June. Bharatj asked why there were no elections in May. Gets no response from the officials that are responsible.

4. 13th of June. MegaMinerM responds but only gives “dismissive” and doesn’t show any attempt to host elections.

5. 14th of June. Bharatj sues the government regarding the break of the constitution to host elections.

6. 16th of June. The Government asked for an extension for the case which they got for 2 days.

7. 18th of June. MegaMinerM asks “can we not hold elections” and “can we declare martial law” & “It’s more efficient without elections”, “If we do martial law we can strip the courts of their power for the time being and not hold elections in the name of national security” When asked by the Attorney general if he understood it correctly, that by declaring martial law and stripping the courts of their power, MegaMinerM wants to stay in power, he answered with yes in the name of national security and to not hold elections.

8. 18th of June. At the same day the Attorney general convinces MegaMinerM to accept the fault of not holding elections and thus accepting having to hold elections. Once the response was posted the courts ordered MegaMinerM to host elections in the next 48 hours.

9. 19th of June. MegaMinerM tries to declare the courts judgment unconstitutional by arguing that under paragraph 2.3(j) of the constitution they judgment was unconstitutional because there is a vacancy in the court and thus the case should be put on hold. While the Attorney General continues to tell MegaMinerM that it won’t work, MegaMinerM insisted to do everything to not having to hold elections.

2.3(j) W When the Supreme Court hears a case involving a Council Member or Judicial Officer, they may not deliberate if there is a vacancy on the court, nor can the court remove a person from those positions without unanimous agreement.​

10. 20th of June. This was then brought up to the Judge who not short after posted an explanation as to why this isn’t going to work in this case. Once this was posted by the Judge, MegaMinerM was asked once again by the Ag if he now will hold election to which MegaMinerM answered: “We’ll see”, “It depends on if I have time”


IV. Charges
1. Treason: - Paragraph 4.1 of the High Crimes Act (“The act of betraying one's country”).
By intentionally not holding the mandatory elections, ingoring lawful orders and attempting to declare martial law and through this removing judicial oversight, MegaMinerM has betrayed Strathman itself and the Constitution.

V. Sentencing

Following sentences under Paragraph 4.1 of the High Crimes Act:
1. Fine of 15 000kr
2. Jailtime of 60 minutes
3. Barred from running for office permanently with the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court after 4 months have passed.

4. Removed from current office and any government jobs.

5. Relieving MegaMinerM of his duty to hold elections and give said duty to someone who will hold the elections in a timely manner.


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/high-crimes-act.19305/ (High Crimes act)

https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/bharatj-v-government-of-stratham.21013/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d0dyrpzg7w8XLqkTIdWP7zESccdzmFppESt1YKH9ulE/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you,
Nightmare98765

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.

 

[Cherub54321]

@MegaMinerM is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @MegaMinerM , 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 Cherub54321 Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

The defence has requested a 48 hour extension for their response. They now have until 2:32pm BST on the 24th of June in which to respond with either a motion to dismiss or an answer to complaint.

 

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 06/24/25

Office of the Attorney General
Nightmare98765

v.

MegaMinerM


I. Motion To Dismiss

The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:

1. The Plaintiff (the Office of the Attorney General with Attorney General Nightmare98765 representing), is breaching Attorney-Client Privilege in order to get evidence to charge the Defendant in this lawsuit. The Protection of Legal Proceedings Act in Section 5 states:

Section 5. Attorney-Client Privilege



(1) Attorney-client privilege is the right of the client and their Attorney to keep all conversations, documents, and anything else shared as a part of their relationship as Attorney-Client, a secret to all other person(s).



(2) Attorney-Client Privilege must be established through the employment of the Attorney by the Client, subsequent consultation outreaches are not protected by Attorney-Client Privilege unless established through a contract.



(3) Release of Attorney-Client communications that are protected under Attorney-Client Privilege is strictly prohibited unless the court orders to do so under serious circumstances.



(4) The Punishment for Breaching Attorney-Client Privilege is as follows:

1. First Offense: K2000 fine, 20 minutes jail time, removal of lawyer license for 30 days
2. Second Offense: K5000 fine, 30 minutes jail time, removal of lawyer license for 90 days
3. Third Offense: K10000 fine, 50 minutes jail time, removal of lawyer license permanently

(5) Attorneys are expected to inform any citizen consulting with them that Attorney-Client Privilege is currently established between them, if applicable.



(6) Breaches of Information protected under the Attorney-Client Privilege is inadmissible in a court of law and in any other legal proceeding.



Section 1.5 of the Constitution outlines the Office of the Attorney General and includes:



1.5(a) The Office of the Attorney General shall hereby be established as an independent office of government under the executive branch. It shall be headed by an Attorney General who is subject to the direct authority and control of the Chairman.

1.5(b) The Attorney General shall be responsible for representing the national interests of the Republic of Stratham in all cases in which the government holds interest. The Attorney General shall provide legal counsel to the Council of Ministers when requested.



In this lawsuit the Plaintiff is using private conversations in which the defendant in their official capacity of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Plaintiff in their official capacity of the Attorney General are discussing legal matters including the lawsuit bharatj v. Government of Stratham. It is therefore safe to assume that the Attorney General (as outlined in 1.5(b)) is providing legal advice to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. This legal advice is therefore protected under Attorney-Client Privilege and is therefore inadmissible in a court of law and any other legal proceedings. Since the Attorney General is using these inadmissible and confidential information and evidence in order to charge the Defendant with their crimes, them being inadmissible makes all charges void due to a lack of evidence and foundation.



Due to this blatant disregard for the Protection of Legal Proceedings Act, the Defense asks the Honorable Justice to charge the Plaintiff for breaching Attorney-Client Privilege.


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.

 

[Nightmare98765]

Your honour,

May i respond to the Motion to dismiss?

 

[Cherub54321]

You may

 

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 24/06/25

Office of the Attorney General
Nightmare98765 - Attorney General

v.

MegaMinerM

I. Response to Motion to Dismiss

The Office of the Attorney General respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant. The Defense’s motion misapplies the concept of Attorney-Client Privilege and fails to meet the legal threshold established in the Protection of Legal Proceedings Act.

II. Rebuttal of Privilege Claim

1. No Attorney-Client Relationship Was Ever Established

Section 5(2) of the Protection of Legal Proceedings Act clearly states:

"Attorney-Client Privilege must be established through the employment of the Attorney by the Client. Subsequent consultation outreaches are not protected by Attorney-Client Privilege unless established through a contract."

No employment, no contract, and no legal or private representation agreement exists between the Defendant and the Plaintiff.

2. No Payment or Contract Has Ever Been Issued

To this date, the Plaintiff has not received any payment or compensation for legal services from the Defendant during this term. This fully eliminates any claim that the Defendant “employed” the Plaintiff in a private legal capacity.

The absence of both payment and contract confirms that no attorney-client relationship exists. The AG acted entirely in their official capacity as a public legal officer.


3. Clarification Regarding the BharatJ Case

The Defendant references the Plaintiff’s participation in BharatJ v. Government of Stratham as evidence of an attorney-client relationship. However, that case directly supports the Plaintiff's position:

• In that case, the Attorney General acted solely on behalf of the Republic of Stratham, not any individual.
• The matter was titled and prosecuted as bharatj v. Government of Stratham, not v. MegaMinerM.
• All communications and filings were made publicly, and the Attorney General submitted an open apology and legal response on behalf of the state, not the Defendant.
• No private legal advice was given; no payment or contract existed; and no claim of privilege was raised at the time.

Therefore, the BharatJ case demonstrates a precedent of open, official legal representation by the AG — further disproving the existence of any personal or privileged relationship with the Defendant.


4. The Attorney General Acts in the Public Interest, Not as Private Counsel

As defined by Section 1.5(b) of the Constitution:

“The Attorney General shall be responsible for representing the national interests of the Republic of Stratham…”

The AG’s duty is to the Republic, not to individual officials. Legal discussions held within official channels are part of government operations and are not protected by privilege.

5. The AG’s Subordination to the Chairman Does Not Establish Privilege​

While the Constitution (§1.5(a)) states that the Attorney General is subject to the authority of the Chairman, this does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. Hierarchical oversight is not equivalent to legal representation. The Attorney General serves the interests of the Republic of Stratham, not any individual officeholder. Furthermore, as defined in the Protection of Legal Proceedings Act §5(2), privilege only arises through employment or contract, neither of which exists here. Therefore, the AG’s obligation to follow executive instructions does not override their duty to uphold the Constitution or permit confidential protection of misconduct.

6. Governmental Communications Are Not Privileged

The communications cited as evidence were:

• Conducted in official government Discord channels,
• Related to electoral responsibilities and court rulings,
• In the context of governmental crisis management and constitutional violations.

These were clearly not private legal conversations, but actions carried out in the Defendant’s public capacity, and responded to by the Plaintiff in the same role.

7. Attorney-Client Privilege Cannot Shield Misconduct

Even if privilege had existed (which it did not), it cannot be used to conceal unlawful conduct. The Defendant’s refusal to comply with court orders, obstruct constitutional elections, and propose martial law as a workaround are not protected actions, and any communications revealing those efforts are admissible as evidence of misconduct.

III. Conclusion

The Motion to Dismiss is procedurally and legally without merit. The following facts stand:

• No payment or contract was ever exchanged,
• No attorney-client relationship was formed,
• The BharatJ case confirms the AG acted solely on behalf of the state,
• The cited communications occurred in public governance contexts,
• Privilege cannot be used to conceal government wrongdoing.

Accordingly, the Office of the Attorney General respectfully requests that the Motion to Dismiss be denied in full, and the Court allow the case to proceed to trial on its merits.

Respectfully submitted,
Nightmare98765

 

[MegaMinerM]

Your Honor, the Defense believes that the statements of the Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss are misleading in nature, and while the Defense is unaware whether or not these Statements are purposeful perjury or if the Plaintiff is simply unaware of their actions (which as the Attorney General would be disturbing), we request to respond to the Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss as to adhere to the Defense’s right to a fair trial.

 

[Cherub54321]

You may respond