Lawsuit: Adjourned RoryyyMC v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 129

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matthew100x

Citizen
Justice
Education Department
Supporter
4th Anniversary 3rd Anniversary 1st Anniversary Change Maker
Matthew100x
Matthew100x
Justice
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
633

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

RoryyyMC (Represented by Prodigium | Attorneys at Law Managing Partner Matthew100x)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT:
The Executive Officer Freedom Act is a constitutional amendment that failed to satisfy all requirements to become a constitutional amendment. The Executive Officer Freedom Act is a constitutionally complex change that did not have a referendum attached to it. According to Section V of the constitution, when an amendment to the constitution is a complex change, the Speaker of the House must request the DOS to hold a referendum for 48 hours to allow citizens to vote on the bill. The referendum must pass a simple majority vote. The Executive Officer Freedom Act is a complex change because it allows for an unlimited number of executive officers, thus it is a change to the system of government. However, because there was no referendum attached to the bill, it did not satisfy the requirements necessary for it to be implemented. Therefore, the amendment should be considered unconstitutional and removed from the constitution.

I. PARTIES
1. RoryyyMC, as a citizen aggrieved by an illegal constitutional amendment
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. CaseyLeFaye, as Speaker of the House of Represenatives


II. FACTS
1. On 11/24/2024, the House created the Executive Officer Freedom Act (see Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games).
2. When the bill was created, a discussion was raised about how it would change the executive officer position to allow for an unlimited number of advisors, press secretaries, and chiefs of staff. Additionally, it was noted that this bill would allow the president to create new executive officer positions. (See Above).
3. The Legislative Branch passed the bill. (See Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act).
4. The Executive Branch gave Presidential Assent to the bill. (See above).
5. The Amendment still has not had a referendum posted and citizens have not been given 48 hours to give their assent to the amendment (see https://www.democracycraft.net/forums/referendums.85/).
6. Standing exists because the plaintiff, as a citizen, was unable to exercise their right to vote on a referendum for the alleged complex change. Standing requires a showing that the plaintiff is injured by an application of law. By assenting and enacting the Executive Officer Freedom Act, the plaintiff was injured. The cause of the alleged injury was against the law under Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1. (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1). Said injury can be remedied under law. (See above).


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By allowing the president to appoint an unlimited number of executive officers, the bill sufficiently changes the system of government enough that the Executive Officer Freedom Act is a Complex Change under Section 40 of the Constitution. (see Government - Constitution)
2. By allowing the president to create new executive officer positions by fiat, the bill sufficiently changes the system of government enough that the Executive Officer Freedom Act is a Complex Change under Section 40 of the Constitution. (see Government - Constitution)
3. That by failing to post a referendum for the Executive Officer Freedom Act, the government has deprived its citizens their right to vote on a Complex Change.
4. Because the government has not properly passed a Complex Change, it is therefore unconstitutional.
5. According to Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1 “It is the purpose of the Judiciary to ensure the law is being properly enforced, even when the ones who are writing the law are breaking it. Within the case, the Legislative has been found to be performing an unconstitutional act by not following the proper procedure of applying changes to the constitution.” (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1).
6. In Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7, an unconstitutional action is reversed, even if the plaintiff was not returned to the presidency because of inactivity. (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7).

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Executive Officer Freedom Act should be declared unconstitutional.
2. All changes to the constitution caused by The Executive Officer Freedom Act should be undone and rolled back.
3. Any appointments made under The Executive Officer Freedom Act should be undone.
4. $5,000 dollars in legal fees. (See Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.).
5. $4,000 dollars of nominal damages. (See above).

V. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
An emergency injunction should be granted to prevent the appointment to block implementation of the constitutional amendment until the resolution of this case. Emergency injunctions are made with the goal of preventing harm (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23). Per the Act of Congress - Judiciary Act, "(b) Emergency - Injunctions that are issued before the court has tried a case to prevent harm. If the applicant fails to file a lawsuit within 4 hours of requesting an emergency injunction the order will be null and void." In Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33, the Court failed to address the constitutional issues. (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33). The court found favor in the plaintiff’s argument but did not implement an injunction against the unconstitutional acts, urging Congress to make changes. (See above). As a result, those bills are still enacted. (see Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act, Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act, Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act, Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act, and Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act).
The court can act quickly to prevent misuse of the alleged improperly passed constitutional amendment. Granting this injunction will allow the court time to review and prevent harm from happening to the citizens who have not been able to vote in a referendum for this act. Further, the court should act because urging Congress to do something does not result in action. A emergency injunction will prevent the harm from occurring but failing to act can result in issues pending this case’s litigation. Thus, the plaintiff pleads that an emergency injunction to block implementation of the constitutional amendment until the resolution of this case should be granted.

DATED: This 6th day of December, 2024.

 
1733525240374.png
 
Seal_Judiciary.png

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

@Freeze_Line (Attorney General) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RoryyyMC v. The Commonwealth of Redmont Failure to appear within 72 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.​
 
The Commonwealth of Redmont is present.
 
We will now be moving into a period of discovery for 72 Hours.
 
My apologies, I will be denying the Emergency Injunction.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The plaintiff moves that the decision for the emergency injunction be reconsidered, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Ongoing Harm: The alleged constitutional amendment is currently in effect. If the emergency injunction is not granted, it will continue to allow this harm. Presently, the president can appoint an unlimited number of executive officers as well as create new positions out of thin air. These positions would be level 3 of the government payscale and would receive $50 dollars every 15 minutes (see Act of Congress - Economic Standards Act). Additionally, it would allow the president to potential hire multiple chief of staffs, who all would have special power over the classification system per the Classification Act (see Act of Congress - Classification Act). The president can do this unilaterally at the moment and only granting an emergency injunction can prevent this.

2. Difficulty in Reversing Harm: As stated above with relation to government salaries as well as classification, failure to grant the emergency injunction will cause harm. This harm will be difficult to undo. Monetary damages to the government related to salary would be difficult to calculate. Additionally, the decisions that these new executive officers make may be difficult to undo in the future.

3. Lack of Reasoning in Initial Denial: Your honor, there is given no reasoning as to why the emergency injunction is denied. The constitutional amendment is currently suspect. Per precedent that is binding on this court, this court should grant this emergency injunction while reviewing the merits of the case (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23). Failure to grant as stated already, results in ongoing harm that is difficult to reverse.

Thus for the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff requests that this emergency injunction be reconsidered and granted.

 
Your honor,

It's been 72 hours since discovery ended and there's a pending motion to reconsider.
 
Honour @xtub12345 recused himself from the case due to IRL obstacles preventing him from continuing with the case. I shall be taking over the proceedings in his place.

I will issue the verdict on the Motion to Reconsider soon. In the meantime, I call upon the Commonwealth to deliver the Answer to Complaint within 72h.
 
Matthew100x said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The plaintiff moves that the decision for the emergency injunction be reconsidered, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Ongoing Harm: The alleged constitutional amendment is currently in effect. If the emergency injunction is not granted, it will continue to allow this harm. Presently, the president can appoint an unlimited number of executive officers as well as create new positions out of thin air. These positions would be level 3 of the government payscale and would receive $50 dollars every 15 minutes (see Act of Congress - Economic Standards Act). Additionally, it would allow the president to potential hire multiple chief of staffs, who all would have special power over the classification system per the Classification Act (see Act of Congress - Classification Act). The president can do this unilaterally at the moment and only granting an emergency injunction can prevent this.

2. Difficulty in Reversing Harm: As stated above with relation to government salaries as well as classification, failure to grant the emergency injunction will cause harm. This harm will be difficult to undo. Monetary damages to the government related to salary would be difficult to calculate. Additionally, the decisions that these new executive officers make may be difficult to undo in the future.

3. Lack of Reasoning in Initial Denial: Your honor, there is given no reasoning as to why the emergency injunction is denied. The constitutional amendment is currently suspect. Per precedent that is binding on this court, this court should grant this emergency injunction while reviewing the merits of the case (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23). Failure to grant as stated already, results in ongoing harm that is difficult to reverse.

Thus for the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff requests that this emergency injunction be reconsidered and granted.

Click to expand...
This Court stands at its original decision. Overruled.

Precedent you provide ([2021] SCR 1) renders actions of the Legislative, which failed to follow a correct pathway for achieving a constitutional amendment, unconstitutional in the verdict. The question posed here is not so much whether a wrong pathway was used (in the provided case, the Commonwealth admits wrongdoing, and both sides acknowledge an amendment is in question), but is the bill in its essence a regular Act of Congress, or a Constitutional Amendment (a Complex Change). It is the job of this Court to determine whether this was, indeed, a Complex Change or not. It lies on the Plaintiff to prove its unconstitutionality, and accepting this injunction could set a precedent by which people file lawsuits to stall legislation by claiming "that's possibly a complex change". Such a question is a vague one, and always deserving of a full trial, which could wreak havoc on the legislator's ability to legislate. Every bill could be injuncted and put on hold until the court ascertains bill's constitutionality. It would do more harm than it could ever prevent.

The other precedent ([2023] SCR 23), only the powers of the Representative were stripped for the remainder of the trial. Their decisions were not, nor was pay. This precedent can hardly be used here, as it concerns a different case (a Representative), and I cannot really draw from it a need to abide by your injunction request. I will, however, point to Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33, where the Court was presented with a similar question on constitutionality. The Court did not issue an injunction to Congress as requested by the Defendant.

My general legal conception is that branches of government shall remain separate, and not interfere unduly into one another. This injunction would do just that, without needing to prove anything beforehand. Suspending laws should be decided in the verdict, not a simple injunction.
 
Your honor, I have been assigned to take over this case on behalf of the Department of Justice. I am requesting a 48 hour extension to review strategy and enable me time to file a few necessary motions before I get to the answer to complaint.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I have been assigned to take over this case on behalf of the Department of Justice. I am requesting a 48 hour extension to review strategy and enable me time to file a few necessary motions before I get to the answer to complaint.
Click to expand...
Please provide proof.

Granted.
 
Jakovus said:
Please provide proof.

Granted.
Click to expand...
The Department of Justice confirms that AlexanderLove has been appointed as the representative of the Commonwealth in this case.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

RoryyyMC
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that "On 11/24/2024, the House created the Executive Officer Freedom Act."
2. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "When the bill was created, a discussion was raised about how it would change the executive officer position to allow for an unlimited number of advisors, press secretaries, and chiefs of staff. Additionally, it was noted that this bill would allow the president to create new executive officer positions."
3. The defense AFFIRMS that "The Legislative Branch passed the bill."
4. The defense AFFIRMS that "The Executive Branch gave Presidential Assent to the bill."
5. The defense AFFIRMS that the bill in question did not undergo a referendum.
6. The defense DISPUTES that the plaintiff has standing.

II. DEFENSES
1. The bill is not a complex change and therefore a referendum was not required. Political advisors and executive officers have nothing to do with the system of governance as they merely exist to advise the President; they don't hold any de jure power over citizens. It is simply ridiculous to claim that a leader listening to someone's opinions is a constitutional change in system of governance. This case is a cash grab.
2. The plaintiff does not have standing as they suffered no injury. Even if the bill were a complex change, which it isn't, their impact on the bill's passage is indeterminate. The defense offered no proof of the plaintiff's intent to vote on the bill, nor any demonstration that the plaintiff is invested in the issue at all. The bill itself only expands the amount of political appointees a President can have, which has no tangible impact on the plaintiff. The mere act of voting in general has no inherent value, and cannot be contested in Court. The bill's passage or lack thereof does NOT affect the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no standing.


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 22nd day of December, 2024.



Motion


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

RoryyyMC
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiff does not have standing as they suffered no injury. Even if the bill were a complex change, which it isn't, their impact on the bill's passage is indeterminate. The defense offered no proof of the plaintiff's intent to vote on the bill, nor any demonstration that the plaintiff is invested in the issue at all. The bill itself only expands the amount of political appointees a President can have, which has no tangible impact on the plaintiff. The mere act of voting in general has no inherent value, and cannot be contested in Court. The bill's passage or lack thereof does NOT affect the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no standing. Therefore, the defense moves to dismiss with prejudice under rule 2.1, standing.
2. The defense moves to dismiss with prejudice under rule 5.5, lack of claim for failure to provide evidence that there is an injury, and that that supposed injury has remedy under the law.
3. The defense moves to dismiss with prejudice under rule 5.5, lack of claim for failure to provide evidence that the bill is a complex change and that a referendum was required. Political advisors have nothing to do with the system of governance as they merely exist to advise the President; they don't hold any de jure power over citizens. I move to have it marked as frivolous case as it simply exists to extort the Commonwealth for money over a non-issue.


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 22nd day of December, 2024.

 
Alexander P. Love said:

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

RoryyyMC
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that "On 11/24/2024, the House created the Executive Officer Freedom Act."
2. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "When the bill was created, a discussion was raised about how it would change the executive officer position to allow for an unlimited number of advisors, press secretaries, and chiefs of staff. Additionally, it was noted that this bill would allow the president to create new executive officer positions."
3. The defense AFFIRMS that "The Legislative Branch passed the bill."
4. The defense AFFIRMS that "The Executive Branch gave Presidential Assent to the bill."
5. The defense AFFIRMS that the bill in question did not undergo a referendum.
6. The defense DISPUTES that the plaintiff has standing.

II. DEFENSES
1. The bill is not a complex change and therefore a referendum was not required. Political advisors and executive officers have nothing to do with the system of governance as they merely exist to advise the President; they don't hold any de jure power over citizens. It is simply ridiculous to claim that a leader listening to someone's opinions is a constitutional change in system of governance. This case is a cash grab.
2. The plaintiff does not have standing as they suffered no injury. Even if the bill were a complex change, which it isn't, their impact on the bill's passage is indeterminate. The defense offered no proof of the plaintiff's intent to vote on the bill, nor any demonstration that the plaintiff is invested in the issue at all. The bill itself only expands the amount of political appointees a President can have, which has no tangible impact on the plaintiff. The mere act of voting in general has no inherent value, and cannot be contested in Court. The bill's passage or lack thereof does NOT affect the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no standing.


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 22nd day of December, 2024.



Motion


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

RoryyyMC
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiff does not have standing as they suffered no injury. Even if the bill were a complex change, which it isn't, their impact on the bill's passage is indeterminate. The defense offered no proof of the plaintiff's intent to vote on the bill, nor any demonstration that the plaintiff is invested in the issue at all. The bill itself only expands the amount of political appointees a President can have, which has no tangible impact on the plaintiff. The mere act of voting in general has no inherent value, and cannot be contested in Court. The bill's passage or lack thereof does NOT affect the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no standing. Therefore, the defense moves to dismiss with prejudice under rule 2.1, standing.
2. The defense moves to dismiss with prejudice under rule 5.5, lack of claim for failure to provide evidence that there is an injury, and that that supposed injury has remedy under the law.
3. The defense moves to dismiss with prejudice under rule 5.5, lack of claim for failure to provide evidence that the bill is a complex change and that a referendum was required. Political advisors have nothing to do with the system of governance as they merely exist to advise the President; they don't hold any de jure power over citizens. I move to have it marked as frivolous case as it simply exists to extort the Commonwealth for money over a non-issue.


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 22nd day of December, 2024.

Click to expand...
The Plaintiff, as a sovereign citizen, has the right to vote in a referendum concerning a constitutional amendment. No matter if their vote is "indeterminate" or not, it is still their constitutional right whose denial is a grave constitutional breach. We are yet to determine whether such a referendum was/is necessary, which means there is possible harm to be found, and grave one; in other words, dismissing this case would say "Yes, perhaps this is unconstitutional, but I guess we'll never know because their impact in the referendum would be negligible". Such a precedent would make filing any constitutional claim difficult, if not almost impossible.

If the Act found to be a Complex Change, then the injury would be very tangible and very pronounced, and could be remedied under law by requiring a referendum; not something I can dismiss for being sure it lacks any injury to the Plaintiff. This presumptive injury, and the bill's status as either a regular Act or a Complex Change, will either be proven or disproven through this trial, and will be decided in the verdict. This Court remains unconvinced that at this stage this trial should be dismissed. Calling upon Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1, it clearly shows that courts at least take into account the citizens' presumptive injury, and that citizens can sue for having been denied a referendum.

Overruled.


I call on the Plaintiff to deliver their Opening Statement within 72h, and the Defendant to do the same immediately following the Plaintiff, also within 72h of the Plaintiff's Opening.
 
I see.

After both parties issue their Opening Statements, we shall stand in recess pending verdict.
 
I order a three day festive recess, starting momentarily. Any deadlines are pushed to after the 26th December.

I want both parties a merry Christmas, and spend this time in peace. There'll be time for fake Minecraft law.

🎄TUKMAS🎄
 
I am not sure of the present timing of the deadline, and thus I will be requesting a 24 hour extension for the plaintiff.
 

Opening Statement


Your honor,

This is a case where the law is clear. When a constitutional amendment that is a complex change is passed without a referendum, it is unconstitutional. The crux of this case hinges on whether this amendment is or is not a complex change.

Under our constitution, a complex change—among other things—is a change to the system of government. The definitions for a complex change are as follows, (i) Affect [the] distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state; (ii) Changes to Government Departments; and (iii) Significant changes to the system by which the state is governed in general. (see Section 41 - Defining System of Government Changes Government - Constitution).

What the plaintiff is here to argue is that the changes in question implicate the distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state and changes government departments.

Affection of the Distribution of Power:

The changes proposed in the constitutional amendment allow the president to do the following:

  1. Appoint an unlimited number of executive officers. This includes an unlimited number of Chief of Staffs, whom all would have specialized power under the Classification Act. (see Act of Congress - Classification Act).
  2. Allowing the president to create new executive officer positions by fiat.

These positions come with a salary, as executive officers are paid at government salary level 3, which is $50 dollars every 15 minutes. (see Act of Congress - Economic Standards Act). They also come with influence to the president.

With this power, the president could hypothetically begin creating government offices. Offices such as the National Welfare Office or the Redmont Sporting Commission Board. Hypothetically, these boards which could be created entirely by executive order, would be filled with an unlimited number of executive officers that this constitutional amendment allows. These offices would exist as quasi-government departments and not operate under the traditional method of governance set out by the constitution. The traditional method being that the constitution authorizes a department which is headed by a secretary that has executive power through the presidency. (see generally Act of Congress - Department Reform Act). This new method allows the president to bypass the traditional method and create hypothetical offices in which they could enact policy through executive orders. Thus fundamentally affecting the distribution of power.

My client was deprived of his right to consent to these changes via referendum. Therefore, the constitutional amendment should be declared unconstitutional and voided per the common law. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1).

Changes to the System of Government:

At this point, without retyping the above here, we would like to reiterate all points stated in “Affection of the Distribution of Power” and point that these changes also constitute changes to the system of government for essentially the same reasoning. By allowing the president to hypothetically create offices that they can fill with an unlimited number of executive officers, they bypass the need for working with a secretary and move to enact policy via executive officer. Additionally, by allowing an unlimited number of executive officers to be hired, the system of government is fundamentally changed by hiring out and paying salary for these new members of the executive branch. Finally, the system of government has been fundamentally changed because the number of executive officer positions went from 5 (five) to an unlimited number, which is an unreasonable change which should have been voted on by the citizens in a referendum.

My client was deprived of his right to consent to these changes via referendum. Therefore, the constitutional amendment should be declared unconstitutional and voided per the common law. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1).

Conclusion:

Your honor, it is clear that this situation warrants remedy. As long as this injustice stands, the citizenry much like my client will be faced with the injustice of having to pay government money to executive officers who have been unlawfully hired by the government as well as vulnerable to potential abuse by the president utilizing this new hypothetical method of creating government offices. It is clear that this is a complex change. My client was not allowed to give their consent to these changes. Therefore, the Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act should be declared unconstitutional and voided per the common law. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1).

 
Your honor, I request an 8 hour extension from the deadline. Looking at the timing, I am going to have the most time to thoughtfully finish the opening in the couple hours following the deadline.
 

Opening Statement


May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, those following this case, this is a case of efficiency without erosion. Today, the Plaintiff brings a case to the Court claiming the Constitutional process for amendments is being eroded. I claim the opposite is true: the Constitution is being strictly followed whilst creating more efficiency in the executive branch. Let us examine a three-point defense today, starting with a discussion about separation of powers and democracy:

On Separation of Powers and Democracy
It is a fundamental feature of our government to separate most powers across three branches: the executive to carry out the law, the legislative to create the law, and the judiciary to interpret the law. Whilst these boundaries are not perfect and each branch has its own ways to do all three functions by necessity, the branches are largely within their own lanes. The executive power is split between a bureaucracy composed of "government departments" and a President who oversees these departments in addition to a host of other powers. The President retains advisors to help guide his use of these powers, and the President has the choice whether or not to listen to these advisors. Regardless of any official title, the President considers advice from the people he chooses regarding carrying out the law, just as judicial officers listen to lawyers for advice in interpreting the law, just as legislators listen to private interests regarding how the law ought to be created and modified. All three branches consume advice from outside sources to help them decide how to perform the functions of their branch, as it ought to be in a healthy democracy where the voices of not one, but the many are heard.

On Executive Officers and Government Offices
With these fundamental principles holding true, the question now is how much influence the President may exert over his own branch. The Constitutional answer is that he has absolute power in the Executive branch, except where expressly limited such as the firings of lower-level bureaucrats. Regardless of whether or not the Constitution grants the ability for a President to formally hire advisors or not, the President may still consider whatever sources he likes for his information, just as Judges and legislators do in the course of their duties. Therefore, I contend that having the President's ear alone is not a power of a position that changes the government fundamentally: no change occurred. To the matter of salary and payment, the Departments unilaterally create new positions all the time without the consent of Congress, let alone the people as a whole, that receive compensation in the course of their duties. Therefore, I also contend that receiving a salary is not a significant enough to constitute a change in system of government. Finally, specialized power under the Classification Act, another statute, is also not a change in the system of government. Merely giving more people the power to do something at a statutory level is not changing a system. The Chief of Staff is given this ability in the first place as an extension to the President's power, which is merely being divided amongst more people at the President's discretion. When the DHS hires another cop who can arrest and fine people, does this trigger a change in government or affect the balance of powers in a Constitutionally-meaningful way? In other words, the Executive has power that it is free to divide amongst personnel as it pleases, within the framework of the Constitution. The system of government is that the Executive carries out the law; it is not concerned with who exactly within the Executive does the carrying out of particular laws.

As for Government Offices, these are unofficial offices created as an extension to the President's power. There is nothing stopping the President from creating these offices and staffing them with himself or other Secretaries, but these offices don't have any real influence besides exercising the existing powers assigned to the President. The President can exercise his power however he sees fit, within the confines of the Constitution, to achieve execution of the law. Delegating powers is what the President is truly meant to do, as no reasonable person can expect the President to carry every duty out himself. Efficiency is the key principle: an efficient government delegates. Whether he micromanages the Executive or he delegates his powers, it makes not one difference as the end result is the same. The law is carried out, and nothing further is done that would affect the balance of powers described in the first section of this argument. When the Plaintiff claims that "Hypothetically, these boards which could be created entirely by executive order, would be filled with an unlimited number of executive officers that this constitutional amendment allows. These offices would exist as quasi-government departments and not operate under the traditional method of governance set out by the constitution", he is absolutely correct. Executive orders are an existing power given to the President and creation of such offices would not require any new power that affects the distribution of powers. This amendment only cements something that could already be done anyways; what has changed? Absolutely nothing. No balance of powers have been shifted.

On Damages
Now that we have examined why the statute in question is not a complex change, let us shift our discussion to damages. Even if the bill were a complex change somehow, which it isn't, it could go back up for referendum. Otherwise, the plaintiff was not damaged in any way. He is entitled to no money as the advisors and the Chief of Staff have no actual impact on this citizen's life that couldn't exist without this statute. He claims the advisors and Chief of Staff received compensation, however, this compensation is likely to be negligible in comparison to this particular citizen's tax revenue. No proof was offered on the plaintiff's taxation, or how much payroll was given to these new positions. Even if he could show he lost even a dollar in his personal tax contribution to these officers, he would have been taxed this amount anyways as the tax rate is fixed. The Commonwealth would have saved that money if it didn't spend it; at least it is now recirculating the economy and allowing the Plaintiff increased economic activity as a result. If anything, the increased liquidity of tax revenues is helping the Plaintiff rather than harming him. Finally, the Plaintiff hired Matthew100x on a pro-bono basis and is therefore not entitled to any legal fees as he incurred no legal costs. The Legal Damages Act specifies that legal fees are based on the lawyer's fee structure, which in this case, is nothing. This Plaintiff and his lawyer are merely trying to grift the Commonwealth; don't enable them.


In conclusion, the statute is not a complex change as it doesn't affect the system of government. It doesn't affect the distribution of powers as it all remains within the Executive branch, and is simply an extension of the President's existing power. It doesn't affect any Government Departments as it doesn't change their duties, scope, personnel, or powers. With these three things being necessary to qualify something as a complex change, the statute is not complex. It is an administrative, "simple", change to the Constitution to allow the President more flexibility on how he wants to conduct his duties. The Plaintiff is entitled to no monetary damages as none existed. The Court requests this case be adjourned in favor of the defense and that the Plaintiff is fined for lodging a frivolous case.

 
Noting the absence of the Honourable Judge Jakovus, court is hereby in recess , pending verdict, in accordance with the motion for summary judgment.

Thank you to both parties for continuing to meet deadlines without prompt from the presiding officer.
 
Your honor,

Can we please get a timeline on when this case will be resolved? Arguments ended on December 31st, 2024, three weeks ago, and the last post on this case happened on Jan 9th, 2025, two weeks ago.
 

Verdict



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

RoryyyMC v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 129

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Executive Officer Freedom Act is a complex change that was passed without referendum.
The Plaintiff argues this is because it permits the government to appoint an unlimited amount of executive officers. It is also argued that it allows the President to create new Executive Officer Positions by fiat.

2. The Act enables the President to create unlimited government offices with unlimited officers.
The Plaintiff argues that, for example, National Welfare Office or Redmont Sporting Commission Board could have an unlimited and uncontrolled amount of executive officers appointed, that stand separate from all other executive departments and are arguably not subject to the same regulations. They further argue the same could be done for future offices.

3. The Act causes wealth imbalance and positions of influence being under sole jurisdiction of the President
The Plaintiff argues that all those 'appointed' to an executive officer position would procure government level 3 pay ($50/15min) - similar to a secretary, but without the nomination process. Additionally, they argue this allows more people to enter positions of influence without vetting by congress.

4. By changing the number of Executive Officers from 5 to infinite, it creates a significant decline in need of Secretaries.
The Plaintiff argues that the use of Secretaries will decline as it is easier to solve issues by creating government offices through executive order and appointing as many people to run the office as they need. By changing the hypothetical methods by which a President may seek to enact policy or change, they argue it is a complex constitutional change.

5. Unlimited Chief of Staffs open issues with the Classification Act.
The Plaintiff argues that unlimited 'Chief of Staffs' can lead to issues regarding the positions unique ability to control security clearances and classifications.

6. No referendum was held for this complex change
The Plaintiff argues that no referendum was held for this 'complex change' and therefore the act is illegal and should be nullified.


II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Separation of Powers in regards to Advisors
The Defendant argues that Separation of Powers is done through legislative assemblies, government departments, etc. They argue further that each branch (Legislative, Judiciary, Executive) relies on advisors or outside sources of feedback beyond their respective branches - A Representative may seek advice from a citizen, a Judge from a Lawyer, or a President from an Advisor. They argue that this is necessary for a healthy democracy.

2. The President has insurmountable influence within the Executive
The Defendant argues that, as per the Constitution, the President holds supreme influence over all members of the executive, and thus, may seek advise from those within the branch or those outside. As a result, they argue that the appointment of unlimited advisors is irrelevant based on the perspective of it being a position of presidential influence.

3. Departments create positions with their own salary levels without Congress
The Defendant argues that any department bears the power to unilaterally establish new positions with government salary without the approval of Congress, and thus bears no difference to the notion of executive officers without Congress' approval.

4. Unlimited Chief of Staffs bear no consequence on the Classification Act
The Defendant argues that unlimited Chief of Staffs will not alter how the Classification Act works, as it is the President's power being extended and divided amongst multiple Chief of Staffs rather than a singular Chief of Staff.

5. Unlimited Government Offices simply change the method of execution of the President's power.
The Defendant argues that government offices will be made through executive order, and in that case, an office would simply be an extension of the President's power regarding that specific issue. They argue that since these offices draw off the President's pre-existing powers and not create new power, there is no disruption to the balance of powers.

6. No Damages incurred
The Defendant argues that nominal damages are therefore irrelevant as the Plaintiff can suffer/has suffered no conceivable damages, as none was presented to the court. The Defendant further argues that Legal Fees are not applicable as the Lawyer was hired on a pro-bono basis.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Is it a complex change?
There is exist excellent arguments made by both sides regarding whether the Executive Officer Freedom Act is a complex change or not. The Plaintiff argues that by fundamentally changing the way the President may seek to enact policy or change, by initiating a shift away from Departments and towards potential government offices that operate separate to departments. The Defendant argues that this bears no key change as the offices operate on the power given to the President, extended to them, not taking the power from another branch or department. The Court finds that the critical point here is that these hypothetical new offices simply cannot take power outside of what is given to them by the President. And the President cannot give away power it does not have.

However, the movement away from Departments is still a legitimate concern. As such, the Court finds that the change is 'complex' in nature, as it fundamentally changes the methods of governance by the Executive by permitting the creation of offices beyond Congress' purview to manage things, enact policy or control certain parts within the Executive's sphere potentially involves a loss or decrease in the unitary power given to Secretaries over their respective focuses. As there lacks any legislation clarifying the creation of offices, the Court finds that this change is indeed complex regarding creation of new offices due to the many possibilities it may encompass; think of it as Pandora's Box. There is no true guideline to how these offices may operate.

Regarding the arguments regarding increased positions of influence, more government salary level 3 positions, and more chiefs of staffs, the Court finds that the pre-existing legislation and activities presented to the Court reasonably justify that these do not constitute a complex change. In the end, the President is in fact free to seek advice from whomever they wish, the Executive is free to create inter-departmental positions of varying salary levels and thus doing the same for executive officers is not complex, and in the end, the Chief of Staff(s) may not manage clearances without direction from the President.

Regarding the Damages claimed, the Court agrees with the Defense on the part of nominal damages being largely irrelevant. The Presidents-past have not exploited this act in any way (presented to the court) to cause any form of imbalance. The failure to host a referendum, the court finds to be a simple error in interpretation. The Legislative and Executive branches simply enacted this law based on their understandings and experience. Given the elaborate and detailed arguments given by both parties, the court cannot find any substantial fault in Congress nor Executive for failing to host the referendum.

Regardless, a referendum was required to be held in the end. The Court finds the Commonwealth, regrettably, did not do so and will be granting a modified prayer of relief regarding the matter of nominal damages.

Regarding legal fees, the Court finds that regardless of whether the Plaintiff employed the lawyer by paying them, or if it were pro-bono, the lawyer is still entitled to legal fees as their time and work is still something of value.

IV. NON BINDING DICTA
Given the detailed arguments presented by both Plaintiff and Defendant, the Court finds this dicta necessary to commend both parties for a well argued case that relied upon evidence, deeply-thought arguments and excellent analytical views. Both parties should be extremely proud of their arguments, regardless if they achieved their ideal verdict or not. Well done.

V. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 129, the Federal Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff.
The following are to be executed:

  1. The Executive Order Freedom Act is hereby repealed, and the Court orders the Department of State to commence a referendum, organized by the Department of State within a reasonable timeframe as per law and policy, to confirm whether the act may truly take effect or not.
    1. Officers hired under this act may retain their position until the referendum asserts whether the act is passed or not.
  2. The Department of Homeland Security to fine the Commonwealth of Redmont the sum of $1000 in nominal damages, paid to RoryyyMC, for failing to appropriately host the aforementioned referendum when required.
  3. The Department of Homeland Security to fine the Commonwealth of Redmont $5000 in legal fees, paid to Matthew100x.
The Federal Court stands adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top