Lawsuit: Adjourned zLost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 12

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
President of the Senate
Senator
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Aventura Resident
Dartanman
Dartanman
presidentofthesenate
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,104
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

zLost (Solid Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Congress has disobeyed the Electoral Act by making numerous illegal nominations, some of which have already passed. For the sake of brevity, evidence will only include ongoing illegal nominations and illegal nominations which have passed. We will not be including those which failed to receive a majority vote of Aye.

I. PARTIES
1. zLost (Plaintiff)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. The Electoral Act requires that upon a vacancy, the nomination made by the presiding officer must be for "the next winning candidate according to the electoral system used in the election." [Act of Congress - Electoral Act].
2. If they run out of suitable candidates, the Electoral Act dictates that “A special election will be automatically triggered” [Act of Congress - Electoral Act].
3. FakeLlama360 did not run in the January Senate Election [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/senate-election-january-2024.19932/].
4. Luke201556 did run for the January House Election, however xEndeavour and Superpacman04 both placed ahead of Luke201556 [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-january-2024.19931/].
5. Dxangel did not run in the January House Election [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-january-2024.19931/].
6. MrFluffy2u55 did not run in the January Senate Election [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/senate-election-january-2024.19932/].
7. xDestroier31X did not run in the January House Election [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-january-2024.19931/].
8. Because FakeLlama360, Dxangel, MrFluffy2u55, Dxangel, and xDestroier31X did not run in the corresponding elections, they were not suitable candidates according to the Electoral Act.
9. Because Luke20556 was not “the next winning candidate” he is not a suitable candidate according to the Electoral Act.
10. FakeLlama360 was illegally nominated and appointed to the Senate [Exhibit A].
11. Luke201556 was illegally nominated and appointed to the House [Exhibit B].
12. Dxangel was illegally nominated and appointed to the House [Exhibit C].
13. MrFluffy2u55 was illegally nominated and appointed to the Senate [Exhibit D].
14. xDestroier31X was illegally nominated to the House [Exhibit E].

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. 5 illegal nominations, 4 of which have already passed.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. FakeLlama360 be removed from their position.
2. Luke201556 be removed from their position.
3. Dxangel be removed from their position.
4. MrFluffy2u55 be removed from their position.
5. xDestroier31X be removed from their position, if they pass.
6. Congress commit to only making legal nominations in the future.
7. $2,500 * 5 = $12,500 in Nominal Damages (for each violation present in this suit).
8. $50,000 in Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, as zLost was potentially a suitable candidate in the House, but they skipped him in favor of illegal nominations.
9. $50,000 in punitive damages, as this is a gross overreach of power as the powers in Congress attempt to force like-minded individuals into power without a proper election.
10. $20,000 in legal fees, made payable to Solid Law Firm (or Dartanman).

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
We request each person in a contested seat have their powers frozen for the duration of this lawsuit. We also request xDestroier31X's nomination be frozen.

EVIDENCE
Exhibit A (FakeLlama360 Nominated To Senate and Passed):
1000006011.jpg

Links to show passage of nomination:
House: Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities
Senate: Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Exhibit B (Luke201556 Nominated To House and Passed):
1000006013.jpg

I could not find a vote in the Senate, but he has the Rep role.
1000006015.jpg

Exhibit C (Dxangel Nominated To House and Passed):
1000006017.jpg

I could not find a vote in the Senate, but they have the Rep role.
1000006019.jpg

Exhibit D (MrFluffy2u55 Nominated To Senate and Passed):
1000006021.jpg

Links to show passage of nomination:
House: Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities
Senate: Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Exhibit E (xDestroier31X Nominated To House):
1000006023.jpg

Ongoing vote in House at the time of writing: Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

CONSENT TO REPRESENT
1708555140013.png
 
I request to file an amicus brief
 
Krix said:
I request to file an amicus brief
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Krix is the Representative responsible for many of the illegal nominations in this lawsuit. His opinion is fundamentally biased and cannot be considered a "friend of the court." The request to file an Amicus Curiae Brief should be denied.
 
In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to grant the Emergency Injunction on the grounds that the Electoral Act’s requirements for a vacant seat (see 11 - Vacant Seats Act of Congress - Electoral Act) may supersede that of the Constitutional Repair Act (see Section 16 Act of Congress - Constitutional Repair Act II).

When examining the issue of the emergency injunction, the court is brought back to its basic premise, “The goal of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm” (see Guide - Court Orders Guide). When reviewing an emergency injunction, The court should do so on a prevention of harm basis of review only. There should be no indication of whether or not a defendant or party on the receiving end of an emergency injunction is actually guilty of the charges put forth. Any assumption of guilt made by a Judge in any case could be a violation of the defendant’s IX right because a Judge is supposed to be impartial when reviewing conduct (see Government - Constitution).
 
What a joke
 
Seal_Judiciary.png


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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of zLost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 12. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​
 
Dartanman said:
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Krix is the Representative responsible for many of the illegal nominations in this lawsuit. His opinion is fundamentally biased and cannot be considered a "friend of the court." The request to file an Amicus Curiae Brief should be denied.
Click to expand...
Sustained.
 
Krix said:
Overruled
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Krix is not a Justice and cannot decide to overrule something.

Furthermore, by posting this message, he is attempting to fraudulently appear as a Justice within the Supreme Court. In accordance with the precedent of DCR 58 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Jdroppert [2022] DCR 58), I ask that the Department of Legal Affairs be compelled to seriously investigate this egregious act which appears to me to be the crime of Government Impersonation.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

zLost (Solid Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

1. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS The Electoral Act requires that upon a vacancy, the nomination made by the presiding officer must be for "the next winning candidate according to the electoral system used in the election." [Act of Congress - Electoral Act].
2.The Commonwealth AFFIRMS If they run out of suitable candidates, the Electoral Act dictates that “A special election will be automatically triggered” [Act of Congress - Electoral Act].
3. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS FakeLlama360 did not run in the January Senate Election [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/senate-election-january-2024.19932/].
4. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS Luke201556 did run for the January House Election, however xEndeavour and Superpacman04 both placed ahead of Luke201556 [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-january-2024.19931/].
5. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS Dxangel did not run in the January House Election [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-january-2024.19931/].
6. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS MrFluffy2u55 did not run in the January Senate Election [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/senate-election-january-2024.19932/].
7. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS xDestroier31X did not run in the January House Election [https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-january-2024.19931/].
8. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS Because FakeLlama360, Dxangel, MrFluffy2u55, Dxangel, and xDestroier31X did not run in the corresponding elections, they were not suitable candidates according to the Electoral Act.
9. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS Because Luke20556 was not “the next winning candidate” he is not a suitable candidate according to the Electoral Act.
10. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS FakeLlama360 was illegally nominated and appointed to the Senate [Exhibit A].
11. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS Luke201556 was illegally nominated and appointed to the House [Exhibit B].
12. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS Dxangel was illegally nominated and appointed to the House [Exhibit C].
13. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS MrFluffy2u55 was illegally nominated and appointed to the Senate [Exhibit D].
14. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS xDestroier31X was illegally nominated to the House [Exhibit E].




The Commonwealth of Redmont does not dispute any of the facts that have been presented to the court in this Civil Action, it is the opinion of the Department of Legal Affairs that the House of Representatives and the Senate have violated the Constitution and their Oath of Office in their actions.


We ask that the court however in their ruling acknowledge the Rouge Legislative branch but not punish the Commonwealth of Redmont as a whole. We ask for a modify Prayer for Relief be awarded, this case should not be a payday for select individuals while the commonwealth suffers as a whole.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honors,

The House has continued to illegally nominate and pass more candidates. I ask to include them in the filing and modify the Prayer for Relief as necessary.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honors, at 10:00 AM Central Time, the Emergency Injunction freezing the illegal Senators' powers was approved. At 11:51 AM Central Time, FakeLlama360 violated this order.

We request that Congress be compelled to obey the Emergency Injunction, and FakeLlama360's vote be removed, and the passage of the nomination of supersuperking be reversed.

1708812214927.png
 
Dartanman said:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honors,

The House has continued to illegally nominate and pass more candidates. I ask to include them in the filing and modify the Prayer for Relief as necessary.
Click to expand...
Your honors,

it has been nearly 72 hours since this motion was filed. May we get a response?
 
The Supreme Court will need more time to review. We will get a response out within the next 48 hours.
 

Verdict



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
zLost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 12

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. 1. 5 illegal nominations, 4 of which have already passed due to not following the Electoral Act

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Agreed with the plaintiff and does not dispute anything.
2. Requested that damages be kept to a minimum.

III. THE COURT OPINION

In a decision written by Acting Chief Justice Matthew100x and joined by Associate Justice RelaxedGV:

The issue at hand here is whether or not the legislative branch can unilaterally appoint members to Congress. The plaintiff alleges the actions to be illegal. The Defendant, who is the Commonwealth of Redmont and is defended by the Executive Branch, opted to affirm the plaintiff’s case and not defend. “Setting aside the obvious issues stemming from the conflict of interest involved that cannot be easily remedied by this Court.” (quoting Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 8). The court must decide whether or not the decision to appoint new members of Congress was applicable under the constitution.

There are two constitutional amendments at play here which allows for actions upon the vacancy of a seat in Congress. The first is the Act of Congress - Constitutional Repair Act II which adds the following:

16) Added to “The House of Representatives”: “In the event that a vacancy arises in the House, the members of the House may vote amongst themselves to approve a new member to the chamber. Such a motion would require a supermajority to pass and does not require Senate approval or Presidential assent. The House may also motion for a Special Election in accordance with law outside the Constitution.”
Click to expand...

This law was made prior to the LSA and therefore the markup reflecting the changes made to the law as described in section 11(1)(a) of the aforementioned law does not apply (see Information - Legislative Standards Act).

The other constitutional amendment at play is the Act of Congress - Electoral Act which prescribed the following:
11 - Vacant Seats
(1) Where a seat in a chamber becomes vacant, the relevant presiding officer is obligated to do the following:
(a) Nominate the next winning candidate according to the electoral system used in the election. For the nominee to assume office, they must attain a majority approval in both chambers.
(i) Any candidate nominated to the Congress of Redmont must meet all requirements to run for their position at the time of their nomination.
(b) Congress must vote on a nomination within four days of the seat becoming vacant. A special election will be automatically triggered when there are no suitable candidates in the most recent election, four days have elapsed, and the vacancy has not been filled, or a special election has been successfully motioned.
Click to expand...

The plaintiff did not include in their original complaint the possibility that the actions could have been legal under the constitution. Made no arguments stating that the actions that the Legislative branch took could not fall underneath the provisions of the Constitutional Repair Act II. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant make any arguments regarding the Constitutional Repair Act II. Thus this Court must decide whether it applies or not.

In terms of Constitutionality, the Electoral Act states that only sections 5, 6, and 7 shall be included in the constitution. However, our legal system is not a stranger to constitutional amendments that are standalone laws that do not fall within the constitution (see Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act, Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act, and Information - Legislative Standards Act). This court does not see a good reason for only sections 5, 6, and 7 to be constitutional. Therefore the Court will work through this issue seeing that both laws are constitutional amendments.

In terms of chronological order, the Constitutional Repair Act II came first followed by the Electoral Act. This is important because it means that the Electoral Act’s sections could supersede the Constitutional Repair Act II. The Electoral Act’s language is mostly clear. If there is a vacancy, the Speaker must do one of the following: 1. Nominate the next winning candidate or 2. Vote on a nomination within four days of a vacancy. This is where things go awry for an Electoral Act only argument. Nothing within the Electoral Act or any other constitutional amendment ever voids the Constitutional Repair Act II or section 16 of that law.

The true question then becomes as follows: Does the language of section 16 of the Constitutional Repair Act II fit align with the Electoral Act? If the language does not fit, then it is logical that the steps laid out in the Electoral Act would prevent the Constitutional Repair Act II’s section 16 from functioning. This comes down to a distillation of the words nomination and approval. Remember, the Constitutional Repair Act II allows the House to “ vote amongst themselves to approve a new member to the chamber”. In order to vote amongst themselves to approve a new member, a nomination would have been needed to be made for that new member. Since a nomination was made and placed up by the Speaker of the House, it would fulfill the requirements of the Electoral Act. Therefore, reading the Constitutional Repair Act II and aligning it with the Electoral Act, the House’s actions were legal.

IV. DECISION
1. Decision

The Supreme Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant.

The emergency injunction is lifted and all House Members can resume their activities.

The Supreme Court is writing a permanent injunction informing the Public, Executive Branch, and Legislative Branch that under the current law, Congress is allowed to nominate people to fill vacant seats provided they're meeting the requirements of the Electoral Act.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.


 
Quick amendment:

This ruling also applies to the Senate as it does to the House since the Constitutional Repair Act II contains the same language/provision for the Senate as it does for the House.

The seats there should also be unfrozen. Congress is allowed to nominate people to fill vacant seats provided they're meeting the requirements of the Electoral Act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top