Lawsuit: Adjourned Kycnn1703 v. Department of State [2022] SCR 8

[Claxx77]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

I REQUEST AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE USE OF THE TOWN’S ASSETS FOR BAD PURPOSES.

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Kycnn1703; Wackjap and Deadwax ran for mayor of Oakridge, which did not comply with the new electoral law passed unanimously by the council. Although our mayoral candidate, Managerhell, met with DOS, DOS ignored this unconstitutional candidacy and allowed the Oakridge constitution and council decisions to be violated. It has also been accepted by the former mayor and vice president that this election is unconstitutional. I hereby request you to take the necessary action.


I. PARTIES
1. Kycnn1703
2. Department of State


II. FACTS
1. The council of the Oakridge passed a bill to change requirements for mayoral elections on the 2nd of June 2022 [Image 1]
2. The next day, the 3rd of June 2022, another bill passed for the deputy mayor candidates. The bill sets the same requirements for the mayor position. [Image 1]
3. The requirements state that the candidates for Mayor and Deputy Mayor position must be an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums and also states the candidate must have experience within the town of Oakridge such as being within the council or mayor's office. [Image 1& 2]
4. The candidate WackJap and DeadWax is not active member of the community and discord. [Image 3 & 4]
5. Both candidates were not in the council or mayor’s office before.
6. As we can see in facts 4 and 5, the candidate WackJap and Deadwax can not participate in this mayoral election. But they participated in this election.
7. Candidate Managerhell contacted DOS about this situation and stated that deadwax is not eligible to run for this election on the 8th of June, 2022. But DOS didn’t do any movement to prevent the violation of the town constitution. [Image 5]

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Department of State violated the town constitution in this election.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The removal of WackJap and Deadwax from their positions in the mayor’s office of Oakridge.
2. Immediate election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor positions that will take 24 hours.


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 10th day of June 2022


EVIDENCES

 

[Wuutie]

This lawsuit is moved to Supreme Court, because of the following reason: "In‌ ‌a‌ ‌case‌ ‌of‌ ‌extraordinary‌ ‌circumstance‌ ‌that‌ ‌doesn’t‌ ‌clearly‌ ‌fit‌ ‌into‌ ‌any‌ ‌established‌ ‌category,‌ ‌the‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌can‌ ‌decide‌ ‌which‌ ‌level‌ ‌of‌ ‌court‌ ‌the‌ ‌case‌ ‌can‌ ‌be‌ ‌heard‌ ‌in.‌ " We believe that this is an extraordinary circumstance because it's about an election of a mayor.

 

[Wuutie]

The Supreme Court has denied the emergency junction because no good arguments were given to support such an injunction and the reasons were too vague, please elaborate more if you want us to reconsider.

 

[Wuutie]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Attorney General is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Kycnn1703 v. Department of State

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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. (Let us see if we can make an in-game trial happen)​

 

[Claxx77]

The Supreme Court has denied the emergency junction because no good arguments were given to support such an injunction and the reasons were too vague, please elaborate more if you want us to reconsider.

Your honour, the elected candidates don’t meet the constitution’s requirements. They might use the assets of Oakridge for their personal needs. For example, they can sell plots or transfer money to their accounts. Because they know that they will lose their Mayoral rights in Oakridge if this case is verdicts against them. The plaintiff will be happy if the court reconsiders the emergency injunction request.

 

[Aladeen]

Your honor, the Commonwealth of Redmont asks for an extension until the 17th until the new government is fully established. The Defence for this case is highly dependent on the decisions needing to be made by the future Attorney General and the President.

 

[Wuutie]

We reconsidered the injunction and decided to reject it again. No good reason was given.

 

[Wuutie]

The extension is denied. The Office of the Attorney General is capable of defending this case at this moment in time. The Solicitor General or someone else can take this case on. I ask for a response within 36 hours.

 

[PiOs67]

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


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

The defence move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Your Honours,

Different inaccuracies and misinterpretations made by the plaintiff in this case should lead the Court to the dismissal. Three points can be raised there. The misinterpretation of some points of law, the irrelevance of some statements, and finally the illegality of this case considering both Commonwealth and Town Constitution.


Referring to discussions with former mayor Marty and vice president Muffin is irrelevant.

The statements presented by the plaintiff are not corroborated by former mayor Marty or vice-president Muffin, since they did not answer my questions. This argument is irrelevant since the witnesses are absent and can’t testify.


Misinterpretation is at the hearth of this case

It is crucial for a lawyer to take legal issues point after point to understand the situation. The plaintiff is using two points of law in their request:

1) Candidates must be “an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.”
2) Candidates “must have experience within the town of Oakridge such as being within the council or mayor's office”

Concerning point 1. The state would like to drive the Court’s attention on the phrasing of the disputed text. Being an active participant of the community, in-game, discord and forum is not limited to Oakridge Bay community. Yet, in this case, the plaintiff is basing his argumentation on the fact that candidates were Wackjap and Deadwax were not active members of Oakridge community, which is a clear misinterpretation of the law. Facts 3 and 4 are thus absolutely not relevant.

Now, concerning point 2, the phrasing is once again ambiguous and simply suggesting an example, illustrated by the using of “such as”. Having experience in a town is really wide and may suggest many things, not only being involved in town politics. Facts 5 and 6 thus doesn’t stand in this affair.

Moreover, no one can make a proof to himself. A statement from candidate ManagerHell — directly involved in this case — to DoS Secretary is not relevant enough to declare these elections as illegal.

That being said, the responsibility of the DoS in this affair is not existing.
ManagerHell contacted DoS secretary himself (and not DoS through a ticket procedure), who is not in position to prevent any town constitution violation, because firstly talking in private message with the secretary is not talking to the government body he is representing, and secondly because the DoS is not competent in this matter. I would like to drive the court’s intention on the Executive Order 38/21 concerning town competencies. Four points are here relevant:

• Town can legislate to create rules for elections
• Elections are run by mayor or DoS at town convenience
• Town constitution is enforced by town government in cooperation with DoJ
• Elections can be facilitated by the Department of State on behalf of the town, upon request.

Yet, if Oakridge chose to have their elections monitored by Dept of State, this body is responsible for preventing any breach of integrity in this election, but is not responsible for constitution violation. This matter is town government responsibility, who could be assisted by DoJ. The plaintiff should thus have sued the Town of Oakridge Bay, or at least Dept of Justice for inaction, not Dept of State.


This demand is against the Constitutions

Your Honours, the plaintiff is in this case trying to prevent citizens from being elected, without any tangible argument. The right to be elected is however protected by the Town Constitution and Commonwealth Constitution.

Section III article X of Oakridge Bay Constitution gives to residents “The Right to be elected member of the Town Council or Mayor of Oakridge bay”. Moreover, section IV paragraph 1 of the Commonwealth Constitution grant to all citizen “The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime”.



That being said, we can consider that this complaint has been filed by a plaintiff who have been disappointed by elections outcome. All means are good to come to power, even preventing citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.


For your consideration,


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 15th day of June 2022

 

[Wuutie]

The Plaintiff may present a rebuttal within 48 hours.

 

[Claxx77]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant


Rebuttal to “Referring to discussions with former mayor Marty and vice president Muffin is irrelevant.” section.


The former mayor Marty and the former acting mayor RelaxedGV answered my two questions. The questions and their answers are attached below. The witnesses can testify in the court after the opening statements as the court will ask for the witnesses. The defendant is calling them "absent and can't testify" without any proper reason. The witnesses don’t have to answer any questions asked in DMs. I would like to mention to the defendant that you can ask your question when they are summoned to court.


Rebuttal to “Misinterpretation is at the hearth of this case” section.


If we take a look at section 1, we can see that the law states the participants must be active members of the community and discord. If a statement like “the participants must be an active member of the community and discord of DemocracyCraft” were included in the law, the defendant would be right. But since it is written under Oakridge Town Consitution, it means that the participants must be active members of the community and discord of Oakridge. Also, the former mayor and former acting mayor confirmed that it means that the participants must be active members of the community and discord of Oakridge. The image is attached below.



Now, let’s take a look at section 2. This section is so important for this lawsuit. The law clearly states that the participants must be within Mayor’s office or Council before the elections. The defendant misunderstands the “such as” section. Marty(Former Mayor) states that that section is written to allow the further mayors to add more if they open new positions within Oakridge Politics. So the “such as” section means participants must be a part of Oakridge Political Positions before the election. Also, the former acting mayor’s statement is stating the same things as Marty’s statement. Also, two deputy mayor candidates left the elections after the new bill passed. After a few hours of the passed bill, the former acting mayor confirmed that the two deputy mayor candidates can not participate in the election. With this, we can clearly see that no one can be a participant without an experience within Mayor’s office or Council.


Plaintiff is not creating a proof. Also, the plaintiff does not emphasize the illegality of the election with the communications between the Department of State Secretary and Manager. The plaintiff enforced that it is illegal because the constitution was violated. ManagerHell informed the DOS Secretary about this situation as a citizen and fulfilled his civic duty. At this point, the DOS Secretary became aware of the situation. Unfortunately, the DOS Secretary didn't make anything about this situation. If the defendant is enforcing that DMs are not the right way to communicate, the defendant DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO call the witnesses as “absent and can’t testify” if they didn’t answer your questions in DMs. Department of Justice is enforcing the Town Constitution. But the Department of State was responsible for the elections. And Department of State must follow the constitution of the town while monitoring the elections. That’s why this lawsuit opened against the Department of State. At this point, the defendant is trying to blame someone else.




Rebuttal to “This demand is against the Constitutions” section.

The plaintiff is not trying to take away citizens’ right to elect and to be elected. The defendant is blaming someone else again. The plaintiff is not requesting the candidate have the second-highest number of votes to be the next mayor. The plaintiff is requesting a new election with the enforced town constitution. This is a heavy accusation. The right to elect and to be elected is still protected by Oakridge’s and Commonwealth of Redmont’s constitution but as the defendant mentioned, Executive Order 38/21 “Towns can create by-laws. They can edit specific areas within their jurisdiction.” this allows the towns to change and edit their constitution. And local elections are one of the areas that can be edited.

DATED: This 16th day of June 2022

 

[Wuutie]

The Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. The Supreme Court did not find any reason in the motion to dismiss that can support a dismissal of the case. The points given were insufficient to convince the Supreme Court that this case could have been frivolous or enough to get the case dismissed.

We move on to the Opening Statements of both parties. I ask the Plaintiff to present his opening statement within the 48 hours time period.

 

[Claxx77]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant


Your honour, we can clearly see that this election violated the constitution. The Department of State is responsible for the completion of elections while following the constitution. In this election, the highest position within the Department of State, which is the Secretary of Department, was aware of this violation. But failed to enforce the constitution within the election. Even if the Department of State approved the candidate WackJap and Deadwax as suitable for this election, the constitution doesn't approve them so they participated while they are not eligible for the election. If a really important department works closely with the constitution violates the constitution, why citizens should not violate the law?



Your honour, as stated in the rebuttal, the activity within the community and discord requirement means that the candidate must be an active member of the community and discord. Also, the defendant stated that “such as” means that the candidate’s experience is not limited to Oakridge politics. But it is wrong. The defendant misunderstood the law. The “such as” is written for future mayors to write new positions if they add new positions. The former mayor and acting mayor approved this by answering the questions given by the plaintiff.


There is a mistake that happened and now, it needs to be fixed.

DATED: This 19th day of June 2022

 

[Wuutie]

The Defendant has now 48 hours for their opening statement.

 

[PiOs67]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Kycnn1703
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

Your Honours,

The plaintiff is presenting you a case in black and white. If we take time to reconsider point after point the arguments of the defendant, we find that Department of State (DoS) failed in their duties and outrageously violated a town constitution in spite of being informed of the situation, that the State failed in interpreting correctly the meaning of “such as”, that former mayor is right and gave the perfect interpretation of “such as”… In conclusion, what happened is clearly a mistake.

In legal community, we are used to say “only lawyers and painters can turn white to black”. This case is a perfect example.

Two questions are here risen: Are these elections illegal? Is the DoS responsible for enforcing the town constitution?

I. The elections conducted by the Town of Oakridge bay should not be declared illegal

Your Honours, he plaintiff is here basing all his argumentation on the interpretation given by former mayor and acting mayor Marty and RelaxedGV. Both for “community” interpretation and “such as” interpretation. Two conditions have been set by the Oakridge legislator, the State already gave their interpretation in motion to dismiss.

However, if the plaintiff is able to summon any interpretation given by the legislator, they cannot present this interpretation as correct. I drive the court’s attention on a binding decision (Olisaurus123 v. WalmartCo [2022] SCR3) establishing the literal rule of interpretation of statute law. In this case, the Supreme Court chose to interprete the SLATT act word by word and gave it the sense given by its own words. Considering Oakridge town constitution, both statutes are ambiguous and unclear. Plaintiff is using this breach to dismiss an elected mayor from office.

Thus, the court is not legally bound by any interpretation given by the legislator in virtue of separation of power, and should give the correct interpretation in English grammar.

II. The DoS should not excess their duties by preventing anyone from running in town elections

Your Honours, this case is referring to Town law. This special law thus has to be substituted for general law, by the virtue of the latin proverb “specialia generalibus derogant”. Special law in this matter belongs to executive competence. Executive order 38/21 legislate on this matter. Yes towns can create their own rules for elections, yes elections can be rules by DoS at town convenience. However, elections can be facilitated by DoS on behalf of the town, and town constitution is enforced by town government in cooperation with DoJ.

“The defendant is trying to blame someone else”, says the plaintiff. But this allegation is not resolving the legal issue here. Where is DoS role in constitution enforcement? Nowhere. What would plaintiff has said if DoS tried to prevent anyone from running for elections because of the constitution? Plaintiff would have complaint for excess of power. General law do not apply there, DoS is not responsible at any time for constitution enforcement. This is town government liability, the Federal State through DoJ is only there for support and cooperation.
What did town government in this matter? Plaintiff assumed that “former acting mayor confirmed that the two deputy mayor candidates cannot participate in the election”. In fact, RelaxedGV forbade Claxx and A__C from running for Oakridge elections. He was perfectly right, he was simply exercising town government duties. What did RelaxedGV concerning Wackjap / Deadwax ticket? Nothing.

It is town governent duties to prevent candidates from running for elections if they do not fit with defined criteria.

For your consideration,

 

[Wuutie]

Thank you both, if you would like to call up any witnesses please make a list of them and post it here within 48 hours.

 

[Claxx77]

Your honour, the plaintiff would like to call Martytje1234567 (Former Mayor), RelaxedGV (Former Acting Mayor) and A__C (The deputy mayor candidate that left the elections after the bill passed).

 

[Wuutie]

The Defendant has failed to provide a list in the allocated time so we move on.

 

[Wuutie]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The following witnesses have to appear in court on request of the Plaintiff.

@Martytje1234567, @RelaxedGV and @A__C are hereby summoned to the court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case [2022] SCR 8 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.

The witnesses will be called in the following order:
Martytje1234567
RelaxedGV
A__C

I would ask that the plaintiff provide a list of all the questions they want to be answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. When the plaintiff is ready, they may post questions to the first plaintiff witness.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses of the plaintiff have been questioned, the defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine.​

 

[Wuutie]

Sorry for the inconvenience but I believe Marty has left the server?

 

[RelaxedGV]

I'm here and Marty has quit DC.

 

[A__C]

I am here as well.

 

[BlogWorldExpo]

Sorry for the inconvenience but I believe Marty has left the server?

I am here as well

 

[Wuutie]

Great, The Plaintiff may provide his questions, please do so within 36 hours.

 

[Claxx77]

Questions for Relaxed and Marty

1- Can you tell us the meaning of the “ Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.” section of the Town Constitution, Election Requirements.

2- Can you tell us the meaning of the “Must have experience within the town of Oakridge such as being within the council or mayor's office.” section of the Town Constitution, Election Requirements.


Question for A__C

1- Can you tell us the reason for leaving the deputy mayor candidateship?

 

[RelaxedGV]

1. It means that you have to be active within Oakridge.

2. It means that you have to have been in either Council or the Mayors office. The such as was put for future Mayors to amend that selected part.

 

[A__C]

1. Can you tell us the reason for leaving the deputy mayor candidateship?

This started when I noticed ManagerHell leaving the Willow Council to pursue the Oakridge Mayorship. DimpledRobin then asked if I was going to leave too, to which I asked why would I? When checking the town bylaw, it only referred to potential mayors. To make sure of this then-Mayor Marty was asked. Sometime shortly after, deputy mayors were added to the town bylaw. (On June 2, 2022, in the town's #passed-bills channel: "The council has voted to extend this to deputy mayor candidates as well.")
Since I had not been in Oakridge town council or mayor's office before, I assumed I was no longer qualified to run for the position, and told ManagerHell I was withdrawing from the election.

 

[BlogWorldExpo]

1- Can you tell us the meaning of the “ Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.” section of the Town Constitution, Election Requirements.

This meant to ensure that the mayor candidates were active both inside of Oakridge's community and in-game so that Oakridge didn't have an inactive mayor/deputy.

2- Can you tell us the meaning of the “Must have experience within the town of Oakridge such as being within the council or mayor's office.” section of the Town Constitution, Election Requirements.

The meaning of this bylaw is to ensure that the next mayor/deputy mayor had experienced within the town of Oakridge before taking up the duties of the mayor.

 

[Wuutie]

Does the Plaintiff have any follow-up questions?

 

[Claxx77]

Your honour, the plaintiff doesn't have any other questions.

 

[Wuutie]

The Defendant may question the witnesses. Sorry for late response, I had my last exam.

 

[Wuutie]

The Defendant has 24 hours to post his questions.

 

[Claxx77]

Your honour, the defendant failed to respond within 24 hours.

 

[Milkcrack]

Sorry, your honour, there was a miscommunication in the office due to the person handling this case being away. The Defence didn't have any questions.

 

[Wuutie]

Okay thank you for the response and I acknowledge the fact it was late, let’s move on.

 

[Wuutie]

The Plaintiff may present his closing statement.

 

[Claxx77]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant


Your honour, re-election is required for this election because this election was illegal. If we take a look at the witnesses’ answers to questions, we can see that they also confirmed that this election is illegal. This election shows that the Department of State was irresponsible in this case since the Department of State did not follow the constitution while monitoring the election. Also, the secretary of the Department of State didn’t make anything to enforce the constitution while the elections happening when he become aware of the situation and this was also a big mistake done by the Department of State. As mentioned before, the section of Executive Order 38/21 “Towns can create by-laws. They can edit specific areas within their jurisdiction.” allows the town to create their laws for elections. And Department of State must follow these laws while monitoring the election.


The defendant states that the Department of State is not responsible for the enforcement of the constitution. But the plaintiff did not state that the Department of State is responsible for the enforcement of the constitution. The plaintiff states that the Department of State has to follow the constitution while monitoring the election. If the defendant enforces that they don’t have to follow the constitution, then the defendant also confirms that the Department of State can do whatever they want while monitoring the elections.


The defendant blamed the plaintiff and told that the plaintiff is trying to give damage to democracy when the plaintiff was trying to enforce the constitution. But the defendant must take a look in the mirror because we can clearly see that the defendant tried to break the democracy in the attached screenshot below.

 

[JoeGamer]

Given Chief Justice Wuutie's leave of absence, I will be presiding over the remainder of the case.

The Defendant has 48 hours to provide the court with their closing statement.

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

(I will be representing the State for the closing statements as I am the Solicitor General)

Your honour, the Plaintiff in this matter's assertion that his witness' reading of the law is sufficient in itself to redefine the law is inaccurate. These witnesses do not decide how the law is read, the Courts do. How this line of questioning was even allowed is surprising seeing as the testimony is clearly being used to call for a conclusion.

As the Plaintiff's own screenshots demonstrate, the Secretary of State was notified of the situation and decided that no intervention was necessary. The Plaintiff claims that the towns can create their own election law because of an Executive Order which granted Towns the power to create their own by-laws. But they ignore the other half of that clause entirely. "They can edit specific areas within their jurisdiction." The Executive branch of the Federal Government of Redmont is given exclusive powers of the administration and facilitation of Towns. The Department of State does not have to abide by the election law established by the town. If you think this is a broad reading of the Executive's power over Towns, I would like to remind you that the Executive has in the past removed sitting mayors from office and even dissolved an entire Town. The Town cannot pass law which dictates how the Federal Executive branch conducts itself, certainly not for the purpose of election law. In practice, the DOS does respect the election law passed by the Towns, however the Executive holds the final decision making authority.

The Federal Government believes in Town Autonomy. However, we also believe that the Federal Constitution holds supremacy over Town Constitutions. The Federal Constitution gives the Federal Executive broad authority over Towns. Towns operate at the mercy of the Federal Government. In this matter, the DOS chose to allow the lawful citizens of Oakridge to elect their own leader. Let's not pretend like this was some DOS coup that obstructed democracy. WackJap received the most votes. Rather, it is the DOS that sought to defend the will of the people and it is the Plaintiff that seeks to conduct a coup in removing this lawfully elected Mayor and holding a new election in which this candidate cannot participate.

Thank you.

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 July 2022

 

[JoeGamer]

The Supreme Court will stand in recess and issue a final opinion in the coming days. Given that Associate Justice Drew_Hall has recused himself from this case, the Supreme Court will wait until after a new Speaker of the House is elected. Thank to all parties for their patience.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, given that a Speaker has been elected and one of the remaining Justices is undergoing an impeachment proceeding, I would like to bring attention to this case and the urgency of handing down a verdict sooner rather than later.

Thank you.

 

[JoeGamer]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Kycnn1703 v. Department of State [2022]SCR 8

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Department of State has failed to abide by the Constitution of Oakridge by allowing a candidate who did not meet the requirements as written in the Constitution on the mayoral ballot.
2. Wackjap and Deadwax have not been active within the Oakridge discord or community prior to the election, disqualifying them from running for mayor.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Being an active part of the community is not limited to the Oakridge community. Wackjap and Deadwax are active national members; thus, the Department of State cannot disqualify either candidate.
2. The federal Constitution gives the federal executive supreme authority over Towns, which puts towns at the mercy of the federal government.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Pursuant to Executive Order 38/21, when the Department of State is requested to assist a town in election, the Department of State is obliged to follow the election laws and requirements set forth by the applicable town Constitution.
2. The Department of State does not have the authority to bypass town election laws and requirements.
3. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an exclusive check on the powers of the federal government and towns are not bound to this check.
4. The federal government does not have supreme power over towns. The federal government holds very narrow power over towns.
5. Both WackJap and Deadwax did not meet the requirements as written in the Oakridge Constitution, and therefore should not have been on the ballot.

Acting Chief Justice JoeGamer delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Speaker of the House Mhadsher101 joined.

The Department of State has had a long connection with the towns of Redmont. They are the only department within the executive responsible for the administration and facilitation of towns. Ultimately, this case comes down to the powers given to the Department of State in the facilitation of town elections. Before addressing any future questions this case raises, we must analyze the power the Department of State has in town elections.
During the 218218Consumer administration, Executive Order 38/21 was signed into effect. In this executive order, the Consumer administration announced a massive change to the town system; this included the ability for towns to write their own election laws that are to be enforced by the town or the Department of State. This was ultimately done at the discretion of the town’s government. Now the question has come before the Court; can the Department of State change town election laws/constitution.
Prior to the most recent election, the Oakridge town council passed a new requirement to be able to run for the mayoral position. The Oakridge government then requested the Department of State assist in the mayoral election. At this point, the Department of State is obliged to follow election laws and requirements as written in the Oakridge Constitution. These cannot be changed at the will of the Department of State. The Department of State holds no power to change election requirements.
When the Department of State announced that members of Oakridge may officially declare their candidacy, they recognized the mayoral requirements as recognized in the newly passed election laws. However, it became apparent to ManagerHell that certain candidates did not meet these requirements as noted in the Constitution. As pointed out by candidate ManagerHell and further established in this case, WackJap and Deadwax were not active members of the Oakridge community or discord. And therein lies a question: Do town activity requirements only apply to the town in question?
We hold that town constitutions only apply to the district in which they reside. Town election requirements can only be held in the district where the requirements are mandated.
Oakridge Constitution provides the Supreme Court with the three tests of active participation: a mayoral candidate must be a participant within the Oakridge community in-game, must participate in Discord, and must participate on the forums. These three requirements must be met to be considered an active participant within the Oakrdige community. These requirements must be satisfied within the respective districts if applicable (eg. being active on Oakridge discord). If these requirements are not met, the Department of State is obliged to disqualify them from being on the ballot. The Department of State does not have the authority to change town constitutions.
Looking at the activity of the candidates mentioned in the suit, it appears evident that neither WackJap nor Deadwax was an active member of the Oakridge discord. In accordance with the Oakridge Constitution, the WackJap/Deadwax ticket should have been removed from the ballot by the Department of State. However, in refusing to do so even after a complaint was lodged to the Secretary of State, the Department of State has overexerted its constitutional ability.
Town constitutions only apply to the district in which the constitution holds authority. Electoral requirements are only applicable to the district that they have been written for. An active member of DemocarcyCraft discord is not an active member of the Oakridge discord. A discord requirement made in a town constitution is only applicable to the town’s discord. A town constitution is made to organize the town’s government. Different districts are held mutually exclusive from each other, and towns are held separate from the federal government.
The Constitution of Redmont does not bind towns of Redmont to the limits it has over the federal government. In six instances does the Constitution of Redmont contain any information regarding towns; from that the Constitution of Redmont lays out five powers the federal government has over towns:
1. Each town is considered a district and shall have one magistrate.
2. The Cabinet oversees government owned assets including towns.
3. The Cabinet is responsible for changes (not laws) in town systems.
4. The Department of State is responsible the administrative facilitation of towns
5. Creation of a town is a complex change
Of these five powers, not one provides the executive branch with supreme power over towns. The Constitution goes as far as to prevent the Executive Office from changing laws within town systems. No constitutional provision gives the executive branch supreme power over towns. Administrative facilitation is not a supremacy clause. Yes, the Department of State is tasked with administrative facilitation, but not total supremacy over towns. Towns are still provided free will over the government as noted in the previously noted third power over towns.
Furthermore, towns of Redmont are not bound to the Charter of Rights of Freedoms listed with the Constitution. Out of the six instances towns are mentioned within the Constitution of Redmont, zero occur within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Constitution of Redmont set up the function of the federal government while also putting limits on the power each branch of government has over one another and over the citizens of Redmont. However, the Constitution is explicitly focused on the functions of the federal government, not town governments. The Constitution of Redmont is written to set up the functions necessary for the federal government to work and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets up limits between the federal government and the citizens of Redmont. The Constitution is not the foundation of town governments and the limitation town governments have over its people. The Constitution should be read as the functions of the federal government, not the town governments. To interpret the Constitution of Redmont as such would be overstepping the language of the Constitution. The Constitution is written as the setup, function, and limitation of the federal government, and nothing more. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an exclusive check on the federal government.
This Court holds that the Constitution does not supply the federal government supreme authority over towns, and the Department of State’s failure to disqualify candidates from the Oakridge mayoral elections caused the Department of State to not comply with the Constitution of Oakridge. The Department of State is obliged to follow the Constitution of the several towns, as first instituted in Executive Order 38/21. Failure to follow the town Constitution is a failure to comply with the duties of the Department of State as written in the Constitution of Redmont and further established in Executive Order 38/21.

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby rules in favor of the plaintiff

The Supreme Court hereby orders the following:
1. The mayor of Oakridge, WackJap, and the Deputy Mayor of Oakridge, Deadwax shall be removed from their position for not meeting the mayoral requirements as written in the Oakridge Constitution.

It is so ordered.​