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

M

Matthew100x

Citizen
Education Department
Supporter
4th Anniversary 3rd Anniversary 1st Anniversary Change Maker
Matthew100x
Matthew100x
professor-department
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
550

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top