Lawsuit: Dismissed Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 10

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Krix (‘The Dream Team’ Representing: The_Donuticus [Lead Attorney], Dusty_3, xLayzur, poemhunter, and Matthew100x)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Constitution is the highest document in the land, it states: “Any impeached official or ex-official will be subject to a trial that will be conducted by the Senate.” this means that an impeached individual must have a trial. Furthermore under citizens rights: “IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, 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 counsel for their defense.” and “XIII. 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.” this further solidifies the right to have a trial.

The ‘Impeachment Procedure Act’, a simple Act of Congress, which is overridden by the Constitution, “If these people are unable to come to an agreement or if the agreement is violated, then the senators may vote by supermajority to skip the trial and instead proceed to the final vote on the impeachment.”, this would allow the Senate to violate the right to a trial by a Supermajority. This is a violation of the constitution and must be ruled as unconstitutional.

I. PARTIES
1. Krix
2. The Senate of the Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Constitution States: “Any impeached official or ex-official will be subject to a trial that will be conducted by the Senate.”
2. Under the Rights and Freedoms the Constitution States: “IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, 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 counsel for their defense.”
3. Under the Rights and Freedoms the Constitution States: “XIII. 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.”
4. The Impeachment Procedure Act states: “the senators may vote by supermajority to skip the trial and instead proceed to the final vote on the impeachment.”
5. The Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act lists Corruption as: “The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves.”

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Section of the Impeachment Procedure Act which states: “the senators may vote by supermajority to skip the trial and instead proceed to the final vote on the impeachment.” is unconstitutional as it violates the section of the constitution which states “Any impeached official or ex-official will be subject to a trial that will be conducted by the Senate.”.
2. The Section of the Impeachment Procedure Act which states: “the senators may vote by supermajority to skip the trial and instead proceed to the final vote on the impeachment.” is unconstitutional as it violates the right to a “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them”
3. The Section of the Impeachment Procedure Act which states: “the senators may vote by supermajority to skip the trial and instead proceed to the final vote on the impeachment.” is unconstitutional as it violates the right to a “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”
4. Use of a government position to violate someone's rights in an unconstitutional way for someone else's benefit is Corruption as per the ‘Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act’. Therefore denying an impeached official their right to a trial via a vote in the Senate would be corruption by all members of the Senate who vote for it.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The section of the Impeachment Procedure Act which states: “the senators may vote by supermajority to skip the trial and instead proceed to the final vote on the impeachment.” is ruled as unconstitutional and not allowed to be utilized by the Senate.
2. Use of the section of the Impeachment Procedure Act which states: “the senators may vote by supermajority to skip the trial and instead proceed to the final vote on the impeachment.” is to be deemed as grounds for a Corruption charge.

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.

Spoiler: RETAINER

DATED: This 11th day of January 2023

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Due to the reasons listed above the Plaintiff asks that the court grant an immediate injunction blocking any use of the section of the Impeachment Procedure Act which states: “the senators may vote by supermajority to skip the trial and instead proceed to the final vote on the impeachment.”

 

[dygyee]

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

The Attorney General, or another member of the DLA, is required to appear before the court in the case of the Krix v. the Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 10. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[dygyee]

I hereby accept the emergency injunction and will not allow the senate of the Commonwealth of Redmont to vote on skipping the impeachment trial until this case is adjourned or dismissed.

 

[End]

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

Krix (Representing: The_Donuticus [Lead Attorney], Dusty_3, xLayzur, poemhunter, and Matthew100x)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Good Evening your honour,

I'm pleased to be here today as a delegate representing the Senate of the Commonwealth of Redmont in this case. This representation has been approved by the Attorney General and I have been appointed as a Special Prosecutor to facilitate this representation on behalf of the Commonwealth Government.

MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defence files a motion to dismiss this case on the following grounds:

1. The complainant has not provided sufficient evidence or reasoning to support their claims for relief for what is a legal process, as outlined in the constitution.

2. The Defence recognises and supports the individual's right to a fair trial. Due to the nature of impeachment being for inactive members of government, or disgraced members of government who may abuse the process, refuse to participate, or leave the server, there is an implicit need for the Senate to be able to skip the trial stage if it deems necessary via supermajority. Without this power, the Senate may be unable to complete impeachment proceedings in the cases outlined above. Therefore, the Defence argues that this is a reasonable limitation of individual rights, as permitted by the Constitution. The Senate is deeply aware of its responsibilities to ensure a fair trial in what is a serious and consequential power in its stewardship.

3. Impeachment is a political process that serves to protect the government. In allowing an emergency injunction to paralyse the Senate during an impeachment trial that is being abused, the Court has interfered with the Senate's constitutional responsibilities and the separation of powers in effectively carrying out a trial.

4. The notion that the impeached individual does not know why they are being removed from office is a gross misrepresentation of how the impeachment process works. The impeachment process involves the House of Representatives filing articles of impeachment outlining the reasons for impeachment. Following any impeachment, the Senate then decides if those impeached actions were so egregious that the impeached individual should be removed from office. Again - the Senate is voting on whether the impeachment warrants removal from office. Therefore, the individual is well aware of the reasons behind their impeachment and the potential for them to then be removed from office for those reasons.

The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.

4. The complainant has used the emergency injunction granted by this court to aid it in abusing the agreed rules of the impeachment trial to the point where the Senate had to suspend parts of the agreement to ensure a fair trial. Soon after the injunction was issued on January 12, the complainant proceeded to make an objection for a linguist to translate the case into another language for the individual on trial. In doing so, they proceeded to filibuster in a sidebar discussion to delay the case.

Following the rejection of the motion after the complainant finally ended their remarks 5 hours later, the complainant filed another objection 2 minutes after forcing another sidebar discussion. It is clear to the Defence that the complainant is attempting to use the protection of the injunction to abuse the process and delay the trial, knowing the Senate cannot use the powers granted to it to mitigate behaviour which is not in good faith.

 

[End]

Senate Supermajority Blessing

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

MOTION TO STRIKE

it is not the place of the Senate to decide who represents the Commonwealth, it is the Attorney General. We move to strike everything that has been submitted by xEndeavour and charge him with contempt of court.

Spoiler: CONSTITUTION

c. Department of Legal Affairs (DLA):
(1) The Department of Legal Affairs is charged with the following primary responsibilities:
(a) Defending the national legal interest.
(b) Investigating and prosecuting on behalf of the Federal Government.
(c) Acting ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction.
(d) Managing Freedom of Information requests.
(3) Leadership:
(a) Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs (Attorney General)
(b) Deputy Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs (Solicitor General)
(4) Management: Nil.
(5) Occupations:
(a) Special Prosecutor
(b) State Prosecutor

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

If the motion to strike is not accepted the Plaintiff would like the chance to respond.

 

[End]

I'd like to just clarify that I am a Special Prosecutor assigned to this case and acting on behalf of the Senate and the Government, as noted in my opening, and as approved by the Attorney General and the Senate.

 

[dygyee]

I'd like to just clarify that I am a Special Prosecutor assigned to this case and acting on behalf of the Senate and the Government, as noted in my opening, and as approved by the Attorney General and the Senate.

You have 24 hours to provide proof that you were in fact given permission by the Attorney General to represent the commonwealth in this case. After proof is provided or 24 hours is up, I will rule on the Plaintiff's motion to strike. If it is denied, I will allow the Plaintiff 48 hours to post a rebuttal to the motion to dismiss.

 

[End]

This is a rather unusual and uncommon request your honour, my credentials are listed under my profile picture as a member of the DLA.

 

[dygyee]

I apologize End, I didn’t realize that you were apart of the DLA. That is my mistake.

Due to the fact that xEndeavour works for the DLA, and has approval from the acting AG to take this case, I will be denying the motion to strike the motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their rebuttal to the motion to dismiss, or state that they would not like to post a rebuttal.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

RESPONSE

Spoiler: 1.

The complainant has not provided sufficient evidence or reasoning to support their claims for relief for what is a legal process, as outlined in the constitution.

1) While a lack of evidence is no a reason to dismiss as outlined by the court procedure. We truly say this with sincerity when we say we have absolutely no idea what on earth the Defense is saying here. "support their claims for relief for what is a legal process, as outlined in the constitution" - What does that even mean? At no point in our Claim for Relief did we use the words 'legal process'. The evidence of this case is the words of the act which directly contradicts three clauses of the Constitution, what other evidence could there be?

Spoiler: 2.

2. The Defence recognises and supports the individual's right to a fair trial. Due to the nature of impeachment being for inactive members of government, or disgraced members of government who may abuse the process, refuse to participate, or leave the server, there is an implicit need for the Senate to be able to skip the trial stage if it deems necessary via supermajority. Without this power, the Senate may be unable to complete impeachment proceedings in the cases outlined above. Therefore, the Defence argues that this is a reasonable limitation of individual rights, as permitted by the Constitution. The Senate is deeply aware of its responsibilities to ensure a fair trial in what is a serious and consequential power in its stewardship.

2) We would nearly go so far as to allege perjury on the statement that the "Defence recognises and supports the individual's right to a fair trial", this could not be further from the truth. This is clearly demonstrated as the Defence then tries to justify giving the Senate the power to ignore a trial all together. It's like say "I support free speech but..." everyone knows the inclusion of a 'but...' negates anything that was said before it.

Completely skipping a trial is not a reasonable limitation of individual rights. Compound this with the facts we have outlined in 'Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 14' & 'Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 11' show that granting the Senate this power contrary to the Constitution, a Senate which has bias political elements on it would be a deeply, deeply unfair infringement of not just rights but constitutional provisions - because lets not forget, as we have outlined on top of violating rights the act also contradicts the Constitutional provision that “Any impeached official or ex-official will be subject to a trial that will be conducted by the Senate.”.

Spoiler: 3.

Impeachment is a political process that serves to protect the government. In allowing an emergency injunction to paralyse the Senate during an impeachment trial that is being abused, the Court has interfered with the Senate's constitutional responsibilities and the separation of powers in effectively carrying out a trial.

3) I don't even feel I need to refute this, I'm sure the court can see it for what it is. The Defence is saying 'Rights and Freedoms just get in the way of us doing what we want to do'. They have no respect for the rule of law, no respect for the court, and no respect for the people they are meant to serve. They want to see Krix impeached no matter the cost, and they are willing to violate the law, the Constitution, and the court to do so.

Spoiler: 4.

The complainant has used the emergency injunction granted by this court to aid it in abusing the agreed rules of the impeachment trial to the point where the Senate had to suspend parts of the agreement to ensure a fair trial. Soon after the injunction was issued on January 12, the complainant proceeded to make an objection for a linguist to translate the case into another language for the individual on trial. In doing so, they proceeded to filibuster in a sidebar discussion to delay the case.

Following the rejection of the motion after the complainant finally ended their remarks 5 hours later, the complainant filed another objection 2 minutes after forcing another sidebar discussion. It is clear to the Defence that the complainant is attempting to use the protection of the injunction to abuse the process and delay the trial, knowing the Senate cannot use the powers granted to it to mitigate behaviour which is not in good faith.

4) This is factually incorrect and purely speculative. In reality the objections made were part of a legal exercise of which we are happy to elaborate on in private with the Judge, however as I'm sure you can understand as this is part of our trial strategy we would not like to make it public as it would further impend our ability to conduct a fair trial.

But let us look to the claim that the fact that the rules were abused to the point that the Senate HAD to break the law and change the agreement. The trial had not even been going on for 24 hours when the Senate decided to step in, we had made two objections - two. They must have a crystal ball in the Senate predicting the future because they decided to break the law after less than a day.

Let us look to the real reason behind the sidebar rule in the impeachment rules, not that it is relevant AT ALL to this case about the legality of the Impeachment Procedure Act, but the reason we wanted the sidebar rule is because both the Presiding Officer & Prosecution are not lawyers. They have little to no legal experience and thus have to be walked through legal processes & theories. The intention for these sidebars was never to 'filibuster' as the Defence seems to believe, but instead - as always, to ensure a fair trial. But not only that, but also act as an opportunity for us to gather evidence we could not have gathered any other way. For example in this line of questioning:

Spoiler: Evidence

Sidebar Disucssion:

Articles of Impeachment:
Impeachment Articles Krix

In this line of questioning we attempt to find out the author of the Articles of Impeachment, to which the Prosecution had been avoiding saying - why? It is simple, it is because xEndeavour had authored them - either knowingly or unknowingly, this is demonstrably provable by comparing the Articles of Impeachment, provided in evidence above, to the objections made by xEndeavour in 'Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21' - often there are perfect matches. Had the Senate not illegally changed the rules of the Impeachment we could have continued on this line of questioning and either gotten an admission of this fact or a denial, the former providing an argument for 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' and the latter being provable perjury. However the refusal of Prosecution to answer the question, and the fact that the Senate rushed through the illegal change to the rules when that line of questioning began proves that we hit a nerve.

We used the tools available to use to try and expose a corrupt Impeachment for what it was, this was part of a greater strategy to form the only possible defence to try and prove the innocent of Krix to an already biased Senate. If the court dismisses this case now what message are you sending? What precedent are you setting? Do you really want to be responsible for the legal precedent that the law can be ignored because it displeases End?

 

[dygyee]

Krix, you have 48 hours to find someone else to represent you, or you may represent yourself, however if this court hasn't heard of someone other than Lord_Donuticus representing you within those 48 hours, your case will be dismissed.

 

[dygyee]

This case is hereby dismissed as Krix has failed to inform the court of a new representative.