Lawsuit: Dismissed SomeHumanOnEarth v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 15

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alexander P. Love

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Construction & Transport Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Willow Resident
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
739
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


SomeHumanOnEarth (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The House of Representatives has passed an unlawful impeachment not alleging actual Constitutional offenses, but rather taking the role of the Court, coming to broad interpretations. In doing so, they contrived reasons to remove the Vice President from office solely for their own political agenda to hijack the Government. These unlawful impeachments must be vacated.


I. PARTIES
1. SomeHumanOnEarth (Plaintiff)
2. House of Representatives
3. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
4. Krix (Filed the Articles of Impeachment)

II. FACTS
1. Representative Krix filed articles of impeachment on February 21st, 2024 that passed the next day (Exhibit A).
2. The basis of the impeachment includes unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud and removing votes.
3. The impeachment alleges extrajudicial allegations assuming the winner of a contested seat, that is currently undetermined by the highest Court in the land. Facts that are in dispute in Court should not be used as a basis for impeachment.
4. It also alleges a lack of efficient department operations which is unsubstantiated. It also posits that it is fostering a bad "culture" in the Department which does not buttress the Constitutionality of this particular claim.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. None of the bases for impeachment are substantiated by evidence or constitute valid Constitutional offenses that can be attributed to the Plaintiff.
2. Per precedent in Krix v. Commonwealth (link) allegations of a valid Constitutional offense are required for an impeachment to be lawful.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The impeachment of Vice President SomeHumanOnEarth to be vacated.
2. $100,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous conduct in filing this impeachment.
3. $50,000 in consequential damages for emotional distress caused as a result of this, causing anxiety and stress while undertaking the second highest office in Redmont.
4. $30,000 in legal fees, as 20% of the value of this case.

V. EVIDENCE
1708724195813.png
1708724245076.png

VI. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
I move to freeze the proceedings of this impeachment and/or subsequent trials based on it for the duration of this case to allow for fair justice to be administered, and so irreparable harm to our Commonwealth and elected executive branch does not occur.


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 23rd day of February 2024.
 
In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to hear this case after the trial to conduct review. The Court took a cursory review over the charges presented. We do not want to make any indications of guilt. At least one of the charges at a glance seems constitutional in nature.

We will review once the Impeachment Trial is over.
 
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 SomeHumanOnEarth v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 15. 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.​
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


SomeHumanOnEarth (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


1. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS Representative Krix filed articles of impeachment on February 21st, 2024 that passed.
2. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS The basis of the impeachment includes unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud and removing votes.
3. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS The impeachment alleges extrajudicial allegations assuming the winner of a contested seat, that is currently undetermined by the highest Court in the land. Facts that are in dispute in Court should not be used as a basis for impeachment.
4. The Commonwealth neither AFFIRMS or DISPUTES that it also alleges a lack of efficient department operations which is unsubstantiated. It also posits that it is fostering a bad "culture" in the Department which does not buttress the Constitutionality of this particular claim.


The Commonwealth asks for a judgement in favor of the Plaintiff and asks for a modified prayer for relief should the court see it fit to grant it.
 
The DLA does not represent me, I am a listed party in this case, they are attempting to infringe upon my constitutional right to file articles of impeachment as a representative.

The ruling of this trial will not be recognised by the Legislative branch if we are not allowed to represent ourselves, Thank you.
 
Krix said:
The DLA does not represent me, I am a listed party in this case, they are attempting to infringe upon my constitutional right to file articles of impeachment as a representative.

The ruling of this trial will not be recognised by the Legislative branch if we are not allowed to represent ourselves, Thank you.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. A person who is not the plaintiff or defendant, nor is a summoned party, has spoken out of turn. I motion to strike their statement.
 
Just as a reminder, this case will be on full freeze until the resolution of the impeachment trial. The judicial review will happen after the trial is completed.
 
Pursuant to the staff veto of the Impeachment of the Vice President, the court would like confirmation from the plaintiff that they wish to continue this case.

Please provide a response within the next 24 hours indicating as such.
 
Nacho said:
Pursuant to the staff veto of the Impeachment of the Vice President, the court would like confirmation from the plaintiff that they wish to continue this case.

Please provide a response within the next 24 hours indicating as such.
Click to expand...
The plaintiff motions to nolle prosequi, your honor. The plaintiff thanks the Court for their time.
 
The court will accept the request.

The case is hereby dismissed at the request of the plaintiff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top