Lawsuit: Dismissed The_Donuticus v. The Redmont Bar Association [2022] FCR 93

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord_Donuticus

Lord_Donuticus

Citizen
Supporter
Grave Digger 3rd Anniversary Legal Eagle Change Maker 1st Anniversary Statesman Popular in the Polls
The_Donuticus
The_Donuticus
Attorney
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
248
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
I hereby ask the court to halt, or order the DoS to take over, the counting of the results of the recall referendum into myself in the RBA pending this lawsuit as the RBA does not intent to follow the Rights and Freedoms of the constitution as per Rights & Freedoms ii.

II. The right to vote in elections and referendums, provided the player has:
a. Been online within 1 month as the votes are counted.
b. Accrued 6 or more hours of playtime in the last 30 days.

Instead they intend to count the votes of those individuals who have no logged into the server in months and do not have the playtime required. As per the Modern Legal Board Act the process at hand is referred to as a recall, as per the rest of the Constitution a recall, into a Representative or a Senator, is always a referendum - if it is not a referendum then what is it?

Thus until this question can be evaluated the results must not be acted upon as they may lead to an illegal removal, or the court must order the DoS to step in to authenticate the results legally as per the Constitution. If even the RBA council cannot follow the law, who can be expected to.

Full suit to follow shortly.
 
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Following on from a now illegally counted result in which votes have been confirmed without proof that the vote was illegal, see evidence one below, I now amend by emergency injunction to overturn the result of the illegal referendum and restore my position to the RBA council pending the completion of this lawsuit, as I have now been removed, see evidence two.

1670180128812.png

1670180189567.png
 
Good day, your honor.

As Chairperson of the RBA, I am at the center of this, and wish to file an Amicus Brief regarding these Emergency Injunctions.
 
The request to file an Amicus Curiae brief is granted. Please file as soon as possible.
 
The first injunction seeks to pause a vote required by the Modern Legal Board Act, or require an unrelated party (the DoS) to take over the vote.

Additionally, the Plaintiff claims the RBA is violating the following portion of the Constitution:

II. The right to vote in elections and referendums, provided the player has:
a. Been online within 1 month as the votes are counted.
b. Accrued 6 or more hours of playtime in the last 30 days.

I wish to point out that this portion guarantees the right to vote if players meet these requirements, but does  not prohibit players from voting if they do not meet those requirements.

Additionally, this was neither an election nor a referendum, as according to the Modern Legal Board Act, "A councilor of the RBA may be recalled by the Board should at least ⅔ of all voting lawyers agree to this removal." Nowhere does it imply this is a referendum.

The Plaintiff makes another claim: "as per the rest of the Constitution a recall, into a Representative or a Senator, is always a referendum." Your honor, the RBA Council is neither the position of Representative nor Senator, so this seems irrelevant.



The second Emergency Injunction asks to overturn the results of an allegedly illegal referendum. Since this court case is primarily about whether this "referendum" was legal or not (and whether it was a referendum or not), I ask you to consider not granting this injunction.



I would also like to note that there are certainly legal matters to be settled here, as I've personally engaged in discussion that has powerful arguments on both sides of the incoming lawsuit. I wish to inform the court that when a verdict is delivered in this case, the Redmont Bar Association will uphold the verdict without incident.
 
OBJECTION

Where Dartanman says this:

"The Plaintiff makes another claim: "as per the rest of the Constitution a recall, into a Representative or a Senator, is always a referendum." Your honor, the RBA Council is neither the position of Representative nor Senator, so this seems irrelevant."

Is a misrepresentation of the original meaning which is to say that the only places the Constitution makes reference to recalls is to call them referendums as with regards to the process outlined for Representatives or Senators.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

The_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES
1. The_Donuticus
2. Dartanman

II. FACTS
1. The RBA Council started a recall referendum against The_Donuticus on the 2nd of December 2022.
2. During this vote many people voted who have not played on the server for many months.
3. The right to vote is granted under the Constitution as per article 32.:
II. The right to vote in elections and referendums, provided the player has:
a. Been online within 1 month as the votes are counted.
b. Accrued 6 or more hours of playtime in the last 30 days.
4. As per the Constitution anytime a recall is mentioned as a process it is as a Referendum.
5. The RBA is a government body and thus must follow the Constitution.
6. The RBA internally verified the results of the Recall Referendum, as seen in 'Evidence One' they clearly do not adhere to the burdens needed to verify a vote as legitimate, instead choosing to assume.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Potentially a large number of illegal votes were cast and counted in the RBA Recall Referendum into myself, as they do not meet the criteria set out in the Constitution to be able to vote.
2. The results of this Recall Referendum are thus illegal.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Court orders the DoS to verify the results of the recall referendum as it would any other referendum on the server.

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 4th day of December 2022
 
Lord_Donuticus said:
OBJECTION

Where Dartanman says this:

"The Plaintiff makes another claim: "as per the rest of the Constitution a recall, into a Representative or a Senator, is always a referendum." Your honor, the RBA Council is neither the position of Representative nor Senator, so this seems irrelevant."

Is a misrepresentation of the original meaning which is to say that the only places the Constitution makes reference to recalls is to call them referendums as with regards to the process outlined for Representatives or Senators.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
It is very odd to object to an Amicus Brief, but even so, the Plaintiff failed to provide an actual reason to Object, according to the Objections guide.
 
The objection is overruled as it relies on a difference in interpretation.

The Emergency Injunction is granted, and the Plaintiff is hereby ordered to be returned to the office of RBA Councilperson for the duration of this case, unless an election should take place in such timeframe, in which case if the Plaintiff should fail to be reelected, they will not retain their office. I would also like to remind the Plaintiff that they may not use this to act in bad faith or abuse their position through this temporary reinstatement.
 
I am also hereby charging ultrapvpnoob with one count of Contempt of Court, for speaking in a case thread to which they are not a party.
 
federal-court-png.12082


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

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The_Donuticus v. The Redmont Bar Association [2022] FCR 93.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that the RBA Council started a recall against The_Donuticus on the 2nd of December 2022.
2. AFFIRM that during this vote, many people voted who have not played on the server for many months.
3. AFFIRM that the right to vote is granted under the Constitution as per Article 32:
II. The right to vote in elections and referendums, provided the player has:
a. Been online within 1 month as the votes are counted.
b. Accrued 6 or more hours of playtime in the last 30 days.

4. AFFIRM that any time a recall is mentioned in the Constitution, it is mentioned as a Referendum, however NOTE that the Constitution only mentions recalls for Representatives and Senators, not RBA Councilpeople.
5. AFFIRM that the RBA is a government body and thus must follow the Constitution.
6. AFFIRM that the RBA internally verified the results of the Recall Referendum, and AFFIRM that the RBA assumed a vote was legitimate, however NOTE that this was due to an inability to prove it was illegitimate, according to staff.

II. DEFENSES
1. The Constitution does grant the right to vote, saying the following:
II. The right to vote in elections and referendums, provided the player has:
a. Been online within 1 month as the votes are counted.
b. Accrued 6 or more hours of playtime in the last 30 days.

However, it is extremely important to note that while the Constitution protects the right to vote for players who meet the above criteria, it does not prohibit the right to vote for players who do not meet those criteria.

2. Given that the Constitution does not prohibit players not meeting those requirements, we look to the Modern Legal Board Act for more information about who can vote inside the Redmont Bar Association.

We see the following:
Only lawyers may be allowed to vote in RBA elections. All lawyers shall be given an equal vote, and no lawyer, including members of the Judicial Branch, shall be barred from voting in an RBA election.

Most notably, the legislation says that all lawyers “shall be given an equal vote” and no lawyer “shall be barred from voting in an RBA election,” and makes no prohibition regarding playtime requirements.

III. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff and Defendant are in agreement on facts. I will file a motion for summary judgment in a few moments.

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 4th day of December 2022
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff and the Defendant are in agreement on the facts of this case. It seems that both parties do not dispute what happened, but dispute the legality of what happened. To expedite receiving a just outcome, the Defendant requests Summary Judgment.
 
Does the Plaintiff object to the motion for summary judgment?
 
Yes.
 
And would the Plaintiff elaborate on their objection?
 
Because I have not had the chance to make my argument in full or respond to the truly insane arguments the Defendant has raised.
 
Your honor,

I wish to respectfully note that there has been no response here in four days. I understand that you may be busy, but I would like to continue this lawsuit and would greatly appreciate a response from you at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.
 
Your honor,

The_Donuticus has violated the court order that he "not use this to act in bad faith or abuse their position through this temporary reinstatement."

He has filed a completely outrageous and waste-of-time motion:
Screenshot_20221210_223827_Chrome.jpg
 
Your honor,

It brings me a great deal of personal pleasure to say that as the RBA is no longer an institute I recind this lawsuit.
 
The lawsuit is hereby dismissed at the request of the Plaintiff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top