Lawsuit: Adjourned 1950minecrafter v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18

The State does not wish to cross-examine any of the witnesses
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor,

There are a number of issues with this case which should see it's dismissal:

Jurisdiction
The court simply does not have the constitutional powers to oversee this case. The Constitution states that the role of court system is to "interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌" The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives are not law, they are rules that are agreed upon by the chamber for the conduct of business in the chamber. Where these rules are breached, the chamber has powers and processes such as a vote of no confidence, which is enshrined in the constitution.

Estoppel
The plaintiff is basing their entire argument on three notions which should be estopped.

The plaintiff is arguing that the President could not draw authority from the standing orders for the Speakership election because the standing orders approved by the 8th Congress were not in effect at the time of the election of the Speaker.

Therefore, the plaintiff is arguing the legitimacy of the Speaker who facilitated the passing of the standing orders in the 9th Congress. This means that the standing orders approved by the 9th Congress would be invalid if the Speakership is ruled invalid.

Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that the Deputy Speaker was wrongly elected under the 9th Congress' standing orders, therefore asserting that they are valid standing orders.

The plaintiff has thrown together a number of accusations, in what is a politicized case against the President and Speaker, with no regard to the legal intercourse between the three notions that they are presenting. Therefore, an estoppel exists.

Standing Orders
The standing orders are like law, but are not law. They are a living document and are updated, not replaced by each congress.

Continuance
In order for this case to continue, the court needs to determine it's jurisdiction over congressional matters that are not law, the plaintiff needs to substantiate their position on whether or not each of the standing orders were in effect or valid, and congress needs to conduct a vote on whether or not they believe the standing orders were in effect during the speakership election, a process which the standing orders defines.
 
I request a response, your honor.
 
Your honor,

The Defendant seems to be confusing the terms statutes and laws. Laws encompass all governing authority in Redmont, which includes statutes, but also includes Court orders, Executive orders, and even the Congressional standing orders. The orders specifically state they are being enacted with the force of law in the document. Additionally, the Speakership is a Constitutional position and some election requirements are stipulated under there. Therefore, this matter intersects with the Constitution which is most certainly within Court jurisdiction. Also, the Attorney General fails to understand the timeline. There were times when the orders applied and others which they did not due to the time and conditions. His absolute statement of contradictions is therefore false.

Thank you.
 
The Supreme Court has convened and decided to unanimously reject the motion to dismiss at this time. The argument presented is fundamentally flawed and not grounded within the principles of the Constitution.

As directly examined in the Constitution, the‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌is‌ ‌"responsible‌ ‌for‌ ‌resolving‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌between‌ ‌Government‌ ‌Institutions".‌ ‌We have a duty and the authority to resolve this dispute.

We believe that the standing orders are quasi law, or at least a contract that bounds Representatives. To argue that the Standing Orders is a set of agreed-upon rules that can be disregarded at any time is a disregard for the law and or a contractual breach of what Representatives had agreed to.

Did the Plaintiff or Defendant have any additional evidence and or witness testimony to present before we proceed?
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION
The Defendant objects on a point of relevancy to the questions posed to Elainathomas29 and responses provided.

The plaintiff has put forward evidence outside of the bounds of the Statute of the Limitations. The accusations for electoral fraud extend beyond 2 months ago, therefore they are subject to the statute of limitations and therefore cannot be considered in this case.

2(a) Prosecution for a criminal offence must be commenced within two months of the date of the alleged offence.

Albeit a jovial executive order, the President was also formally pardoned for Electoral Fraud in Executive Order 19/21, after the date that accusations in this evidence are presented.
 
Your honor, as I have had to state multiple times for the Plaintiff to understand, we are not using the evidence in a manner against limitations. We are using it to establish propensity, which is explicitly allowed.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION OF INJUNCTION

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION
Your honor, with the inauguration pending, given the severity of the charges accused on certain parties, including Consumer, it would be an obstruction of justice if it was all erased by him pardoning himself when he takes office. Therefore, I motion the Court to place an emergency injunction on the President from pardoning 218218Consumer until the conclusion of this case. This would be the least drastic and most reasonable solution for the problem presented. Thank you.
 
JoeGamer said:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION
The Defendant objects on a point of relevancy to the questions posed to Elainathomas29 and responses provided.

The plaintiff has put forward evidence outside of the bounds of the Statute of the Limitations. The accusations for electoral fraud extend beyond 2 months ago, therefore they are subject to the statute of limitations and therefore cannot be considered in this case.

2(a) Prosecution for a criminal offence must be commenced within two months of the date of the alleged offence.

Albeit a jovial executive order, the President was also formally pardoned for Electoral Fraud in Executive Order 19/21, after the date that accusations in this evidence are presented.
Click to expand...


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

REBUTTAL

Your honour,

The Defendant is attempting to drag out this case with matters already argued in the past however to further clarify what my colleague has said I will give a statement on the objection raised by the Defendant to provide clarity on the situation, for the benefit of the court.

Firstly, the Defendant argues the following:

That we cannot sue for corruption on the matter of the President leaking votes.

Although, we mostly are including this matter to indicate the propensity of the President. We did state we also want him charged for corruption when filing the complaint and we stand by that. This is due to the Statue of Limitations explicitly stating:

(d) Corruption is not subject to this statute of limitations.

We therefore will be continuing the charges of corruption on the President for vote leaking as stated in the opening argument:

6. President Austin27 also violated Law 5.9 and 15.27 in the past which was later discovered which shows the President leaking votes in the past. As the President used his role at the time to access the votes of the Presidential election and to then spread it was using his position in power for his own personal use/interest in telling who he wishes. 15.27 was also violated as the President meddled in the election to obtain vote and then spread it, damaging the security of voting in Redmont.

The second point the Defence brought to our attention was the pardoning of President Austin for Electoral Fraud on the date June 16th.

Although we are also charging President Austin for electoral fraud in the case of the speakership election (which occurred after this pardon), the vote leaking incident which occurred before this pardon, Austin can still be prosecuted for this incident due to:

Although President Austin was pardoned for Electoral Fraud he was not pardoned for corruption at the time.

Corruption and Electoral Fraud are both matters that there could be impeachments over and hence the following law can be interpreted to mean that offences of such high crime that a government position can be removed over the matter should not be able to pardoned:

“Grant reprieves and pardons to citizens charged with breaking the law, with the exception of impeachment.”

Hence it is our belief that the courts should rule in favour of such crimes being exempted from pardons as they are impeachable offences along with offences the court can remove people over.

Since the Speakership election incident of potential electoral fraud occurred after the pardon, it does not apply to that incident, even if the pardon WAS lawful.

We request that the Defence does not try to drag out this case with matters such as the Statute of Limitations which were discussed at the start of the case.
 
The Supreme Court has decided to grant an alternative decision to the request to issue an injunction filed by the Plaintiff against preventing the President from pardoning any individual during this case. Given that there has been no claim that the President nor President-Elect has been unlawfully elected, we feel that it is not within our scope of authority to effectively remove their constitutional powers.

Therefore, the Supreme Court would like to assert that the use of pardon powers to absolve corruption shall be considered contempt and the explicit abuse of power may serve as reasoning for impeachment.

As for the objection to the testimony of ElainaThomas29, it is hereby overruled. The evidence presented in such testimony still poses relevance to the allegation of Corruption, which is not covered by the Statute of Limitations.

Additionally, we have decided that it would be within the best interest in reviewing this case and such that the Plaintiff decides on one individual to make posts as the Plaintiff's counsel. This will allow us to efficiently review this case, in order to avoid the confusion of having 2-3 different individuals commenting on this lawsuit. Hence, we ask that the Plaintiff's counsels continue work together with background arguments, but that everything is kept under a single poster.

Did the Plaintiff or Defendant have any additional evidence and or witness testimony to present before we proceed?
 
No, your honor.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ESTOPPEL

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

ESTOPPEL

Your Honor,

The court has failed to recognize that there is an estoppel -the principle which precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.

The plaintiff is arguing that the President could not draw authority from the standing orders for the Speakership election because the standing orders approved by the 8th Congress were not in effect at the time of the election of the Speaker.

Therefore, the plaintiff is arguing the legitimacy of the Speaker who facilitated the passing of the standing orders in the 9th Congress. This means that the standing orders approved by the 9th Congress would be invalid if the Speakership is ruled invalid.

Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that the Deputy Speaker was wrongly elected under the 9th Congress' standing orders, therefore asserting that they are valid standing orders.

The plaintiff has thrown together a number of accusations, in what is a politicized case against the President and Speaker, with no regard to the legal intercourse between the three notions that they are presenting. Therefore, an estoppel exists and request the Court to enforce as such.
 
Your honor, I request the Court to compel the Defendant to stop absurdly using the same rejected arguments repeatedly in an effort to delay this case.
 
The Court would like to ask that the Defendant provides more clarity on what we are being asked to estop. The Defendant needs to precisely examine what exactly they are seeking from the court. Thank you.
 
Your honor, this case is urgent and the defendant keeps making these motions, and then taking a long time to answer any clarifying questions. I request the Court to compel the Defendant to answer within the next 24 hours or sooner.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, this case is urgent and the defendant keeps making these motions, and then taking a long time to answer any clarifying questions. I request the Court to compel the Defendant to answer within the next 24 hours or sooner.
Click to expand...
I agree. The Defendant has 24 hours to respond to the Court's request, otherwise we will proceed to closing statements.
 
Your honor,

In the event that a person asserts a contradicting statement to a statement stated or implied earlier, an estoppel exists.

We request the court to estop the plaintiff from arguing that the standing orders are both in effect and not in effect. These two statements contradict each other and hurt both Austin and Consumer by manipulating the argument into contradicting statements. Both of these statements directly clash with each other.

We ask the court to estop the conflicting arguments before we head into closing arguments. The plaintiff ought to assert one statement or the other but not both.
 
Your honor, the Attorney General's argument is frivolous. I have already explained twice that I am alleging the Standing Orders are valid at one point in time and not at the other due to their reaffirmation by the next Congress.
 
Considering the facts, the Supreme Court has convened and would like to clarify that we believe the Standing Orders are considered valid. As mentioned in our rejection of the motion to dismiss, we believe that the standing orders are quasi law, or at least a contract that bounds Representatives. This law, or at least binding contract, has remained extant throughout.

Provided there is nothing else additional to present, we will be moving to closing statements. I will ask that the Plaintiff presents their closing statement first.
 
Your honor, I motion for xLayzur to not be allowed to assist in the presiding of the case (if he is) given his conflict of interest in the case.
 
Your honor, this is a case of fraudulence over fairness. Key figures in our former democracy have violated the very sanctity of the principles of a good democracy. They conducted a botched Speaker election that violated the will of the people. 1950Minecrafter won the Speakership under the terms the then-presiding officer President Austin established. Through the facts of todays case and witness testimony, we learned that the standing orders were not clearly in effect during the Speaker election. The Standing Orders of the Eighth Congress are after all of the Eighth Congress. Do they really also affect the Ninth? Several legislative experts and members, who held positions of leadership, would say no. At this time, the decision of the presiding officer is the rule. The first candidate to reach a majority in the Speaker election wins the Speakership. 1950Minecrafter should have been named Speaker. This did not however happen. Later, the new Standing Orders were indeed adopted. The Defendant claims they cannot be both adopted and non-effective but I just laid out how the timeline operated again. During this time in which the Standing Orders, which have the force of law, were in effect, a botched Deputy Speaker election occurred. xLayzur was named the Deputy Speaker before all members had voted. The evidence shows that Consumer willfully acknowledged this fact in his conversation with Congressman Aladeen and conspired to commit election fraud. If a botched Speaker and Deputy Speaker election is not enough, we know from evidence that President Austin has had a history with corruption pertaining to fair elections. He leaked votes. If he could do it when he served under a figure of authority, imagine what he would do in the highest and mightiest position in the land. The propensity buttresses the demonstrated malintent these figures possessed to rig the elections in the ICP’s favor for political gain. This is not just corruption; it is treason for it harms democracy itself. I ask that the appropriate parties are charged with corruption under the fullest extent of the law. 1950Minecrafter should be named Speaker for the rest of the term, and legal fees should be awarded. The Plaintiff is not asking for the Speakership itself and the actions completed under it to be invalidated as that would be absurd, but rather for the Court to recognize the illegitimacy of the circumstances behind the former Speaker’s election and to remedy it in a clean and proactive, not retroactive, manner. Thank you.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I motion for xLayzur to not be allowed to assist in the presiding of the case (if he is) given his conflict of interest in the case.
Click to expand...
Considering he is a key party to this case, I would agree with that notion. He will not be provided any sort of presiding oversight to this case. As for the recent vacancy of the Justice who was also presiding over this case, I will ask that both parties express patience with the courts.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

As we approach the conclusion of this case, there are several facts that the plaintiff refuses to recognize.

Continuance of Standing Orders
Standing orders are a living document. The Standing orders are updated or reaffirmed, not rewritten and reproposed. Therefore, the Standing Orders of the 8th Congress remained in effect until the 9th Congress reaffirmed the Standing Orders of the 9th Congress on the 12th of September. The Courts have affirmed this notion in response to the estoppel request.

As mentioned in our rejection of the motion to dismiss, we believe that the standing orders are quasi law, or at least a contract that bounds Representatives. This law, or at least binding contract, has remained extant throughout.

The Plaintiff continues to argue that the Standing Orders do not apply to the new Congress, suggesting that the Speakership election process outlined in the Standing Orders is redundant. The Standing Orders are what defines the process which every President to date performing the Speakership election has followed. The Plaintiff, in making this claim, suggests that the President is able to dictate whatever rules they deem fit for the election of the Speaker and that Congress is anarchical until the Standing orders are reconfirmed.

The Speaker Election was Lawful
Section 1 - Election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 8th Standing Orders (and reaffirmed in the 9th), it states under subsection 4 that “Should more than two members be nominated, all members are to vote for the Speaker. The ballot is to be conducted through instant runoff voting. The winner of the ballot is to be declared the Speaker of the Congress.” The text is plain and simple, all members of the House of Representatives are to vote. The only evidence presented to this court has been a simple majority with 1950Minecrafter winning, however, only six of the eleven representatives voting. This means that the election was not over, meaning that 1950Minecrafter was not the speaker of the house. Until all eleven members voted, no one was the rightful speaker of the house. Once all members voted, then the president declared the rightful speaker of the house, 218218Consumer.

Estoppel
In order for the plaintiff to argue that the Deputy Speakership is illegitimate, the plaintiff recognizes that the Speaker is legitimate in conducting the Deputy Speakership election. The Court has failed to recognize that the plaintiff is basing their arguments both on the Standing Orders of the 8th Congress and the 9th Congress, which has direct implications on each other. If the court finds that the speakership election was illegitimate, so too would be the standing orders that the Speaker facilitated through the House, as well as the Deputy Speakership election.

The plaintiff has continued to contradict his argument. He claims that the President should have declared 1950Minecrafter as the Speaker of the House even though all representatives had not voted, and claims that xLayzer should not have been voted in as Deputy Speaker of the House because not all votes were counted. The plaintiff continues to claim two different things, and doesn’t know which they are actually fighting for. What the plaintiff really wants is political gain. For this case, the plaintiff isn’t actually fighting for the law to be clarified, the plaintiff just wants to use this case for political gain. They haven’t strung together a clear argument towards one interpretation or the other. This case was to be used purely as a way to undermine the democratic House election; an election in which Consumer won Speaker of the House. The plaintiff could not take that fact, and came to the court with an unclear and inconsistent argument in an attempt to clear his political adversaries.

Burden of Proof
The plaintiff has the burden of proof. The plaintiff must prove beyond reasonable doubt that former President, Austin, and former Speaker of the House, Consumer, committed acts of election fraud and corruption.

No evidence has been brought forward showing Austin meddling with individual votes. President Austin conducted a fair election in accordance with the standing orders, as all of his predecessors before him have done. Following the rules set by Congress isn’t electoral fraud or corruption, rules that this court agreed were in effect. The President misspoke in his second election message, although the election was carried out how it is legally defined in the Standing Orders. While it was a mistake on the President’s part, nothing was illegal about the way in which the election was conducted.

No evidence has been produced as to where President Austin received the information about who the voter in question voted for. Either way, this is outside the statute of limitations and is not evidence of corruption or electoral fraud, merely evidence that the President knew who someone voted for and shared that information with a colleague.

Because of the contradicting statements provided, the plaintiff cannot argue that Consumer committed Election Fraud. The plaintiff moves the goalpost around to try and fit Austin and Consumer into the same Election Fraud claim. If the plaintiff argues that Austin committed election fraud, then they can’t argue that Consumer committed election fraud, and vice versa. Because the plaintiff has argued both, they are attempting to portray two opposite actions as the same, something that this court cannot allow. Furthermore, the plaintiff has failed to show how Consumer has privately, as the definition of corruption requires.

Proportionality
The President misspoke in a voting announcement, which was directly after he outlined the correct process? Does this amount to corruption or electoral fraud? Hardly. We are all human and we will all misspeak. The votation was corrected and carried out as it was legally outlined in the Standing Orders.

Is the Speaker calling the election at a simple majority considered electoral fraud and corruption? Hardly. The newly appointed Representative was not as well acquainted with the Standing Orders. Did his actions have an impact on the outcome of the Deputy Speakership? Highly unlikely. Is this something that the house could have sought to correct or censure? Most certainly.
 
Your honor, I motion for the Supreme Court to deliver a verdict on this case with the current incumbent Supreme Court justices. From the Constitution:

"If ‌a‌ ‌majority‌ ‌is‌ ‌not‌ ‌attainable‌ ‌the‌ ‌Chief‌ ‌Justice’s‌ ‌ruling‌ ‌shall‌ ‌prevail."

Additionally, nothing in the Constitution states that the Supreme Court must have a majority to make a decision. One member of the Court constitutes a unanimous and majority vote.

I am willing to be patient, however, if we wait on the party of interest in this case to appoint a Justice, it could take a while and/or create a biased outcome. The case also needs to urgently happen to convict the appropriate parties of corruption, if applicable, before the election such that they are not allowed to run for office this cycle.
 

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Case No. 09-2021-15-02

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, 1950minecrafter, represented by Pugbandit and the Lovely Law Firm, allege that Austin27 and 218218Consumer engaged in corruption and electoral fraud as the presiding officers for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker elections as they disregarded procedure for political gain.
2. The Plaintiff claims that Austin27 had deliberately meddled with the Speaker election by not announcing 1950minecrafter's win after he had met a mere majority, instead waiting for all Representatives to vote before announcing.
3. The Plaintiff claims that 218218Consumer had deliberately meddled with the Deputy Speaker election by not allowing all Representatives to vote before announcing.
4. The Plaintiff asserts that prior to the Speaker election, the Standing Orders were not in effect as they had not yet been installed by the new House. They additionally assert that upon the passage of the new Standing Orders, they were not followed during the Deputy Speaker electoin.
5. The Plaintiff suggests that the President and Disputed Speaker have a history of political corruption and fraud, presenting a claim that the President (at the time of this instance) had leaked information about a voter to another individual.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Commonwealth of Redmont, allege that the respective elections were handled with the proper procedure and that there is no evidence of political corruption.
2. The Defendant claims that Austin27 had misspoke in regards to when a winner is to be declared, and that they had enforced the Standing Orders properly, mandating that all members are to vote for the Speaker.
3. The Defendant claims that 218218Consumer acted within his authority as Speaker to conduct the Deputy Speaker elections differently, as they believe the Standing Orders are enforced by the Presiding Officer.
4. The Defendant asserts that there is no evidence to indicate that Austin27 used government information to inform an individual about a voter, and that it could have been simply based on what Austin27 had heard. Furthermore, they assert that Austin27 is protected under the Statute of Limitations due to the message being sent in June.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the Standing Orders applies to both the session it was re-passed in and the session following it. In §5.1 of the Legislative Standards Act it clearly states that it is the duty of the House to either "reconfirm" or "amend" the Standing Orders, not to re-propose, defining the Standing Orders of something that remains in effect until amended or otherwise.
2. It is additionally the opinion of the court that these Standing Orders are binding law within the Commonwealth of Redmont. We find the logic argued by the Defendant that effectively allows the Presiding Officer to interpret the Standing Orders to be fundamentally flawed within the principle of the rule and law. Just like every law that Congress proposes, the Standing Orders includes a key clause at the beginning that certifies its enactment into law.
3. Due to the existence of the Standing Orders that are applied as law, the court finds that the election of 218218Consumer as Speaker of the House was lawful due to the "all members are to vote for the Speaker" clause within the Standing Orders. It was clearly intended to ensure that all Representatives were granted an input into the election of the Speaker due to timezones and other matters. As for the remarks of Austin27 in the Speaker election, we believe that this was an honest mistake and have not been provided any evidence to indicate otherwise.
4. As a result of the Standing Orders are applied as law, the court finds that the election of xLayzur as Deputy Speaker of the House was conducted in a way that was unlawful as the result was announced prior to letting all members of the House vote. The Standing Orders is very clear in the total votes clause and has applied the same rules for Speaker and Deputy Speaker. It is incredibly inconsistent for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to be elected in different ways when the Standing Orders mandate the same rules for each.
5. The court believes that 218218Consumer had directly meddled in the election of the Deputy Speaker. We believe that 218218Consumer should have been well aware as to how to properly conduct the election, given he was elected as Speaker using the all members must vote rule. He did not apply the same rule that allowed for him to get elected, resulting in this inconsistency.
6. While expressing discontent with some of the questionable actions that have occured, the court's opinion is that the evidence presented throughout this case over the actions of 218218Consumer and Austin27 during the respective elections do not prove political corruption beyond a reasonable doubt. Not enough evidence has been presented by the Plaintiff to show any distinct benefit that either individual had received from their actions.
7. The court believes that the evidence presented of the conversation between Austin27 and ElainaThomas29 is not evidence of political corruption by the former President. There is no evidence to indicate that Austin27 used his position as President to discover this information, nor has any personal benefit from it been shown. The law on corruption clearly prohibits an individual from using their government position to benefit their own private or corporate interests.

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

Congress is a fundamental aspect of the democratic institution of the Commonwealth of Redmont. While I am saddened to see the issues that have occurred within the 9th House of Representatives, I believe that this lawsuit has allowed us to clarify and certify current and potential future disputes within Congress.

The direction of the law has lead us to to clarify the role of the Standing Orders in the Congress, and how crucial it is to how the House of Representatives operates. While both parties today argued against the authority of the Standing Orders in one way or another, we affirmed the binding element of the Standing Orders as law. The Standing Orders is key in the proper procedure in conducting the Speaker and Deputy Speaker elections, and it is something that I hope every spectator to this trial takes into account. For every single session, the beginning of the Standing Orders have clearly stated "do hereby enact the following provisions into law" just as every other bill has.

When it comes to the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, I truly do believe that the Standing Orders were designed in a way that circumvents contentious situations like this. Since any Representative can change their vote through discord reactions, it is crucial that the entire House has came to the consensus that the vote has concluded. It prevents the he-said-she-said situations over timelines and who voted for who when. The legal fact is that 218218Consumer was lawfully elected as the Speaker of the House after all Representatives had carefully considered their choices and all voted.

What I find irresponsible was the actions of 218218Consumer after the Speaker election, in which he deviated from the Standing Orders in concluding the Deputy Speaker election prior to the vote of all members. To say that he is inexperienced or it was a mere error is a stretch - the way that voting was conducted should have been clearly evident to 218218Consumer. In fact, it was the very provision he violated in the Deputy elections that got him elected as Speaker. The actions there are nothing short of hypocritical in approach.

This case also dealt with an onslaught of other allegations. This included political corruption, accusing 218218Consumer and Austin27 of abusing their authority for their own personal gains. That was clearly a key goal of this lawsuit, to potentially remove these individuals from office, however we have not found enough evidence to take such severe action.

The removal of someone from government office is an exceptionally high standard, given these individuals were elected by the people. While the Honourable Justice SumoMC and I agree that the sharing of a voter's choice is morally repugnant, we do not believe that enough evidence can link this information to being accessed through his role as President nor what kind of benefit that Austin27 would receive from revealing the choice of a voter who was severely inactive.

As for 218218Consumer's actions, while I support punishing him for the meddling of the Deputy elections, I support this decision because he failed to abide by the Standing Orders and thus the law, not because I believe that evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt any further malicious intent. No evidence presented in this case has presented more than speculation in regards to the accusations of corruption.

- Westray, Chief Justice
Click to expand...

Remarks from the Hon. SumoMC:
This was a long and drawn out case. We observed new Presidential and Speakership elections, yet the issue was still there, did the President and Speaker of the House break the law? As seen in the Court's opinion, we believe that the then Speaker of the House Consumer did indeed meddle in the Deputy Speaker Elections, and is indeed guilty of Electoral Fraud. He went against the same rules that gave him the speakership, the standing orders clearly state that all representatives must vote if there are 2 or more candidates. If we overlooked this and ruled that the same rules did not apply to the Deputy Speaker Elections then we would not only be breaking the law, but we would be hypocrites.

This case also brought up corruption when it came to the then President Austin27 talking about the way an individual voted, in my opinion this was not the right thing to do. The security of everyone's vote and privacy in that vote must and will be protected, but there was no evidence proving that the President abused his power in order to obtain this information, a point I brought up to the Chief Justice when we were deliberating this case. Morally, President Austin was in the wrong but with the evidence provided, there was not enough to prove he abused his power as the President of the Commonwealth. I stand by and fully agree with the verdict given in this case and hope that this will serve as a deterrent to any future potential acts of corruption or election meddling.

- SumoMC, Justice
Click to expand...

IV. DECISION

The Supreme Court hereby adjourns this case in favour of the Plaintiff, granting a limited prayer for relief. We find 218218Consumer guilty of one count of Electoral Fraud, ordering that he is fined $5000 for meddling in the election of the Deputy Speaker during his time as Speaker of the House.

Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.

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