Lawsuit: Adjourned Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 14

[ko531]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ko531
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On March 29th, the election for the Chair of the Judicial Oversight Committee started. Unseatedduke and myself were in the running for the Chair. The election was slated to end either when a majority was reach or when 24 hours has elapsed. I reached out to End to try and get his vote for chair, he told me under one condidtion and that was to vote for his bill. I declined the offer (Exhibit A). After the 24 hours the vote was 2-1 in my favor (Exhibit B and Exhibit C) meaning I had won the chair election. Nearly 69 hours after the voting period had closed Endeavor placed his vote which made it 2-2 and delcared we had a tie (Exhibit D). I expressed to 42 as the Speaker of the House that the vote was placed after the 24 hour limit and I was declared the winner (Exhibit E). Afterwards a motion was put up and passed making BeezerGezzer a new member of the Judicial Oversight Committee (Exhibit F), he placed a vote in the election 129 hours after the voting had closed which made the vote 3-2 for Unseatedduke, Unseatedduke was then declared the winner of the Chair even though 2 of the votes were placed after the voting period. (Exhibit G and H)


I. PARTIES
1. ko531
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On March 29th a 24 hour election was started for the Chair of the Judicial Oversight Committee.
2. I declined the offer for Endeavour to vote for me if I Aye the Department Modernisation Act.
2. After 24 hours the vote was 2-1 in favor of myself (ko531)
3. Endeavor placed his vote after the 24 hour period making it 2-2
4. I (ko531) was declared the winner as end's vote was placed too late
5. A Motion was placed by Endeavor and passed making BezzerGeezer a member of the Judicial Oversight Committee
6. BezzerGeezer placed a vote for Unseatedduke making the vote 3-2 in Unseateddukes favor after the voting period had concluded.
7. Unseatedduke was then declared the winner of the Chair.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the outline rules of the election set by The Speaker of the House, the Election concluded after 24 hours. This means that no votes can be placed after the 24 hour period. By allowing the 2 votes placed after the 24 hours, the results have changed.
2. xEndeavour possibly committed electoral fraud by attempting to bribe me with his vote for chair in exchange for voting on one of his bills, after I declined he voted against me, declared the election a tie himself and then motioned for a new member of the committee for the sole reason of breaking the tie in his favor.
3. Loss of enjoyment in redmont as one of the reason I ran for House as a practicing lawyer and former Judiciary member is to be apart of and chair of the Judicial Oversight Committee.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Unseatedduke be removed as Chair of the Judicial Oversight Committee
2. I (ko531) be reinstated as Chair of the Judicial Oversight Committee
If this lawsuit is concluded with less then a month before the term is finished or after the term is finished:
3. $30,000 in loss of enjoyment in redmont

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Exhibit E

Spoiler: Exhibit F

Spoiler: Exhibit G

Spoiler: Exhibit H

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 April, 2024.

 

[End]

I request to make a submission to the court noting that I have been implicated as a party in this case and had claims made against me.

I believe that the plaintiff has misrepresented the facts of the matter to his benefit and purposefully excluded evidence disproving his argument.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

Endeavor is not listed as a party in this case. He is only mentioned but nothing in this case implicates him of a crime as this isnt a prosecution. xEndeavour can not be found guilty or innocent of any crime and nothing in this case could affect him, no matter how it would plays out. He was nearly mentions for accuracy of facts and events. I urge the court to deny his submission as this case is against the Commonwealth and the AG/DLA are the ones who are responsible with representing the Commonwealth not Endeavour.

 

[Nacho]

I request to make a submission to the court noting that I have been implicated as a party in this case and had claims made against me.

I believe that the plaintiff has misrepresented the facts of the matter to his benefit and purposefully excluded evidence disproving his argument.

Before the court makes a ruling on the request we have a clarifying question(s) to ask.

Representative End,

If I understand your request properly you wish to file an amicus brief to the court or are you requesting to submit evidence to the court?

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 14. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd 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.​

 

[End]

Before the court makes a ruling on the request we have a clarifying question(s) to ask.

Representative End,

If I understand your request properly you wish to file an amicus brief to the court or are you requesting to submit evidence to the court?

I believe the information I'd like to present is more in my defence as someone who has been implicated in this matter rather than in the form of informing the court.

If the court wishes to deny my request to make a submission as someone who has been implicated in this case and referenced throughout this case, then I will request an amicus brief.

I believe my evidence is best presented as a third party submission.

 

[ko531]

Your honor,

End does not a need or have a right to a defense. Nothing in this case would affect end and this isnt a prosecution. End can not be found innocent or guilty of any crime so there is nothing for End to defend. He also has not legal grounds to defend on behalf of the Commonwealth in which this case is truely against. So I ask the court to deny end's request as he is not entitled to a defense or representation as no charges are being brought against him.


I would also ask you to not allow an amicus brief as they are supposed to be an unbias party trying to help the court. End is involved with the actions surrounding this case and it is clear by looking at the facts and complaint he is not unbias.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor,

End does not a need or have a right to a defense. Nothing in this case would affect end and this isnt a prosecution. End can not be found innocent or guilty of any crime so there is nothing for End to defend. He also has not legal grounds to defend on behalf of the Commonwealth in which this case is truely against. So I ask the court to deny end's request as he is not entitled to a defense or representation as no charges are being brought against him.


I would also ask you to not allow an amicus brief as they are supposed to be an unbias party trying to help the court. End is involved with the actions surrounding this case and it is clear by looking at the facts and complaint he is not unbias.

Councilor if I intended to ask you a question I would have done so. I further did not permit you to present a rebuttal to the court's question to this inquiry. Please keep quiet while I discuss directly with Representative xEndeavour.

 

[Nacho]

I believe the information I'd like to present is more in my defence as someone who has been implicated in this matter rather than in the form of informing the court.

If the court wishes to deny my request to make a submission as someone who has been implicated in this case and referenced throughout this case, then I will request an amicus brief.

I believe my evidence is best presented as a third party submission.

While I understand you have been implicated in the lawsuit, you are not a named party in the case. Further, the case discusses violations of the Constitution overall, not the illegal actions of a specific individual.

While the motives for the filing are clearly presented to be on the side of the defense and not as an unbiased party, the court would not be able to permit you the ability to file an amicus brief to the court in this context. Should you intend to further wish to provide details of alleged improper filings, I would have to direct you to contact the defense directly.

For the above-mentioned reasons, the court will be denying the request to file an amicus brief and submission of evidence to the court.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
May I request a 24 hour extension on filing my answer to complaint due to technical difficulties.

 

[Nacho]

24-hour extension granted.

 

[End]

Noting that the Commonwealth has failed to provide a defence, I'd like to request to provide evidence against the plaintiff's claims on behalf of the committee and myself which have been implicated.

Particularly in relation to how the evidence is potentially fabricated.

The court cannot make an informed decision if the Commonwealth has failed to provide the courts with evidence which I have provided them.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
ko531
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont

I. Answer the the complaint

1. The defense affirms that on march 29th at 12:41pm a 24 hour election was started for the judicial oversight committee.
2. The defense disputes that after 24 hours the vote was 2-1 in favor of the plaintiff.
3. The defense disputes that end put in his vote after the 24 hour deadline.
4. The defense affirms that unseatedduke was declared the winner.

II. Defenses

1. Based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, it is evident that the vote for the chair of the judicial oversight committee was initiated on March 29th at 12:41 PM, with the election scheduled to span a 24-hour period. As per Exhibit A, Representative End cast their vote in the election no later than 1:12 AM on March 30th. Consequently, the committee election resulted in a tie. Notably, the vote by Representative End occurred within the designated 24-hour timeframe allotted for representatives to cast their votes.

Spoiler: Exhibit A

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 9th day of april 2024

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Noting that the Commonwealth has failed to provide a defence, I'd like to request to provide evidence against the plaintiff's claims on behalf of the committee and myself which have been implicated.

Particularly in relation to how the evidence is potentially fabricated.

The court cannot make an informed decision if the Commonwealth has failed to provide the courts with evidence which I have provided them.

Objection
Breach of procedure​

your Honor, Although end is mentioned in the lawsuit he was not permited by the courts to speak and as such has broken court procedure by speaking out of turn and without being called upon by a judge.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION to STRIKE​

As representative ends remarks have no relevance to the case, nor was he called upon to speak on such matters through court procedures or by a judge i request that his remarks be struck from the record.

DATED: This 9th day of april 2024

 

[Nacho]

Objection
Breach of procedure​

your Honor, Although end is mentioned in the lawsuit he was not permited by the courts to speak and as such has broken court procedure by speaking out of turn and without being called upon by a judge.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION to STRIKE​

As representative ends remarks have no relevance to the case, nor was he called upon to speak on such matters through court procedures or by a judge i request that his remarks be struck from the record.

DATED: This 9th day of april 2024

The Objection is Sustained.

Representative End, please respect that this case is between the plaintiff and the Defense. You are not a member of this case. Should you continue to speak out of turn, I will be forced to hold you in contempt.

The Motion to strike is also granted.

We will now transition into a 7-day discovery period. Should either party wish to end discovery early, please note that both parties will need to consent.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honors, the defense wishes to call the folowing people as witnesses:

xendevour- as he made the vote in question.

Thereal42person- speaker of the house opened and oversaw the election in question.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, I would like to call:

1950Minecrafter - a member of the JOC and someone who watched and voted in the election in querstion

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

Discovery ended almost 4 days ago and I would like to move on with this case

 

[Nacho]

With the conclusion of the discovery period, we will move into the plaintiff's opening statements. Please submit your opening statements within 48 hours.

 

[ko531]

OPENING STATEMENT

When first looking at this case it seems that this case only fringes on one thing. Did end vote within the 24 hour period? To answer this question simply look at Exhibit B and C. Exhibit B is a screenshot after the 24 hour time frame and Exhibit C is the date at which the screenshot was taken. But this case needs to be examined a different way first before ever touching on End's Vote.

In Section 5 subsection 1 of the Electoral Act it states "The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns." meaning that if there were disputes about the results the election it must have been brought forth to the supreme court but instead other members of the JOC and the Speaker decided to fix the problems themselves.

This is later confirmed and gone into more depth in the case dodrio3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 4 in which the Supreme Court stated that once the winner is announced the results can only be changed by the Supreme Court and that the election results are certified when the results are announced. As seen in Exhibit E I was the first to be announced the winner by the Speaker meaning I was certified as the winner. In order to have the results changed after this point it must have gone to the Supreme Court as they are the dispute of returns. Instead members of the JOC decided to add a new member to break the tie. But both the tie setting and tie breaking votes came after the 24 hour period of the election proven by the evidence I have provided to the court. As the original results were not brought to the Supreme court (as they should have), I must now bring these new illegal results to the Supreme court to be disputed along with the illegal nature in which the results were changed.

As it seems this case will go last long after this term is over, Prayer of relief 1 and 2 will no longer be possible to grant. With this I must default to prayer 3 which is $30,000. Even though $30,000 is a decent amount of money I am not happy about it. I would have much rather had the JOC chair position but that doesnt seem possible. I am asking for this money because of Loss of Enjoyment. One of the reasons I ran for house was because I wanted to be apart of the Judicial Oversight process as a Former Judiciary member and practing lawyer. Looking at the 11 original members of the 24th house you will see only 4 which have practiced law before and only 2 of which are former judiciary members. I saw this as an opportunity to step up and lead the house in judiciary oversight and I was very excited to do that. After this botched election and having the chair stolen from me I felt that I was robbed out of leading this Judicial oversight process which made me loss enjoyment and motivation. As It seems I can no longer be compensated in being returned the chair, I ask for the only other form of compensation possible, Monetary.

 

[Nacho]

The defense may now present their opening statements. Please have them submitted within 48 hours.

 

[Nacho]

The defense is found in contempt for failure to respond within the designated time frame.

We will be moving onto witness testimony, summons will be issued shortly.

 

[Nacho]

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

@End @Real42 @1950Minecrafter is required to appear before the court as a witness in the case of Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 14. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court Charge.​

 

[1950Minecrafter]

Your Honor, I, 1950minecrafter, declare myself present in the Courts and familiarized with the case

 

[End]

Present

 

[Real42]

I am present.

 

[Nacho]

As all witnesses are presented before the court.

The plaintiff may begin their direct examination of their witness (1950minecrafter). Please submit all your questions for the witness within the next 24 hours. Should questions have multiple parts please indicate it accordingly, and additional time may be given.

 

[ko531]

Questions for @1950Minecrafter

1. Did you see the vote for the Judicial Oversight Committee chair after the 24 hour period?

2. If you did see the vote, What did it look like?



Im reserving the right to ask follow up questions

 

[1950Minecrafter]

1. I checked every now and then the results to see how they went, and I recall the last couple of times to be somewhen after 24 hours had passed.

2. 2 votes for ko531 and 1 for unseatedduke1

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to Chief Justice Nacholebraa's resignation last night, this case is in recess pending another available Justice.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to Justice SumoMC's nomination passing earlier this morning, we will be moving forward.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present anymore questions they have or declare they have none.
After every question is answered the Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond with more questions or we will be moving forward.

 

[ko531]

Sorry for the late response but no more questions

 

[RelaxedGV]

Very well, the Defense has 48 hours to pose any questions they have for cross examination or declare they have none.

After every answered set of questions per witness, the Plaintiff shall have another 48 hours to pose anymore or declare they have none.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Given the Defense has not asked any questions, I will take that as they do not wish to.

We will now be moving onto Closing Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[ko531]

CLOSING STATEMENTS

This is an open and shut case. I have both evidence and witness testimony to show that within the rules of the election, I (ko531) should have won. After the 24 hour period to place votes the results were 2-1 in my favor. Senator End took it upon himself to vote late and declare that it was a tie himself.

The Speaker 42 even announced me (ko531) as the winner and then reversed his decision which was an overreach of power as the ‘Electoral Act’ Section 5 subsection 1 - ‘The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns which was later held up by the Supreme court in Dodrio3 v. Commonwealth. In order to dispute those results they had to come to the Supreme Court instead of having the speaker reverse them himself.

As said in my openning statements being chair of the Judicial oversight committee was one of the reason I ran for house. After every member of house was elected I saw only 3 members who have practiced law in the last calendar year. Along with that only 2 members including myself who has been apart of the Judiciary. With the lack of lawyers in house I took this a a sign to step up as one of the more experienced house members when it comes to the legal field and lead the JOC. Because of the illegal actions by the Speaker I have lost this.

Originally I wanted the easiest solution which was removed Unseated and appoint me as JOC Chair but as this case has gone one for much too long that is no longer possible so I ask for $30,000. I got this number from the case Snowy_Heart vs. Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76 as Snowy was granted $50,000 for not being able to run in an election for house. Now JOC chair is not as much of a lose as being a member of house which is why I asked for less but I should have won this election. There was no guarrentee that Snowy would have won if allowed which is why is may seem a bit elevated even though it is less then what was granted in the Snowy Case.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, the Defense now has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I apologize for this but may I request a 24 hour extension? School recently started for me and it has been difficult for me to adjust to a new schedule.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, I apologize for this but may I request a 24 hour extension? School recently started for me and it has been difficult for me to adjust to a new schedule.

You may have an additional 24 hours added to the original deadline.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor, Our counsel on the case has left the DOJ; may we get 24 more hours to file?

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, Our counsel on the case has left the DOJ; may we get 24 more hours to file?

I am disappointed in the Commonwealth however I will allow a final 24. No more will be given and we will move forward should this deadline be missed.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

CLOSING STATEMENTS

While the Plaintiff makes a compelling argument, there are critical exclusions and pitfalls to their claims.

Firstly, the Plaintiff claims that the reversal of their selection as HOJC Chair was in violation of the Electoral Act. However, nowhere in the Electoral Act does it specify that internal elections within Congress are to follow these rules and regulations. The Dodrio3 case applied to removal as a Representative as a whole, not a position in an internal committee. As such, the reversal of results fails to violate any written law mentioned by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff's failure to properly evidence their right to the position can be easily countered with the assertion that it is within the Speaker's rights to select Chairs and members of Committees as stated in the Standing Orders that applied to that House of Representatives. Therefore, it was well within the speaker's rights to repeal the position and continue the election as they wished as it was a courtesy and not a hard requirement.

With these critical facts, the Plaintiff lacks any claims whatsoever as the Speaker acted well within their rights that were approved by the House, and thus the Defense recommends the Court to reject all claims for relief.

Thank you for your time.

 

[RelaxedGV]

CLOSING STATEMENTS

While the Plaintiff makes a compelling argument, there are critical exclusions and pitfalls to their claims.

Firstly, the Plaintiff claims that the reversal of their selection as HOJC Chair was in violation of the Electoral Act. However, nowhere in the Electoral Act does it specify that internal elections within Congress are to follow these rules and regulations. The Dodrio3 case applied to removal as a Representative as a whole, not a position in an internal committee. As such, the reversal of results fails to violate any written law mentioned by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff's failure to properly evidence their right to the position can be easily countered with the assertion that it is within the Speaker's rights to select Chairs and members of Committees as stated in the Standing Orders that applied to that House of Representatives. Therefore, it was well within the speaker's rights to repeal the position and continue the election as they wished as it was a courtesy and not a hard requirement.

With these critical facts, the Plaintiff lacks any claims whatsoever as the Speaker acted well within their rights that were approved by the House, and thus the Defense recommends the Court to reject all claims for relief.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, we will now be in recess pending verdict.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 14

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Unseattedduke1 was unfairly elected to the position of Chair of the Judicial Oversight Committee.
2. The Electoral Act states the the Supreme Court is to act as the Disputed Returns not the Speaker.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Chair of a committee is put in through the Speaker and not election.
2. Nowhere within the Electoral Act does it state the process of Congresses internal election for Committees.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The following opinion is provided by Justice SumoMC and is signed on by Acting Chief Justice RelaxedGV:

Spoiler: Justice SumoMC's Opinion

When it comes to this case, it is pretty simple to distinguish the facts and what can be proven, and speculation. It is very disappointing we did not get to hear Opening Statements and Witness Testimony from the Defense as this could of shed light on a lot more then what we got to see in the courtroom throughout the duration of this case.

Now when talking about this case, a few questions need to be answered:
1.) Are internal congressional elections certifiable elections?
2.) Does the Speaker have the Authority to reverse a Chairman Election Announcement?

To begin with question one, we need to look at what defines a certified election. Established in Dordio v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 4, a "Certified elections are the result of a completed election following the announcement by the Department of State to the public publishing the certified results of a Federal or subsequent election."

To break this down even further, this is not a federal or subsequent election, this is an internal election within a federal body to chose chairman's of committee's. The Department of State does not run these elections nor do they certify them. With this question being answered, we have now established that this is not a certifiable election.

Now onto question two, Does the Speaker of the House have the authority to reverse their own election announcements? Now when it comes to the Chairmanships of the Committees within the House of Representatives, the standing orders say (2) The Speaker of the House shall appoint the Committee Chair and members to committees according to the partisan make-up of the House of Representatives." There is no election process defined within the Standing Orders, only that the Speaker Appoints them and a the members based on the Partisan Make-Up of the House.

Legally, there is nothing compelling the Speaker of the House to hold elections or honor elections for the Committee. It is well established tradition, but nothing has ever been put in writing.

What this all boils down to is that the Speaker of the House held elections that he was not required to hold, and he did not honor the election results. There is nothing preventing this from happening until the Congress make it to were it cant. Ko morally is in the right, but legally has no standing.

IV. DECISION
1. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court hereby rules on favor of the Defense.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.