Appeal: Accepted [2022] SCR 20 - Appeal Request

[End]

Client Name:
xEndeavour

Counsel Name:
N/A

Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant:
I was listed as a party and was prosecuted as a Defendant, although I was not afforded the same rights as a defendant.

Reason for the Appeal:
I request that the Supreme Court declare a mistrial on what is one of the greatest miscarriages of Justice in the Court's history. As previously seen in FCR 65, I request that the case and outcomes, in their entirety, are struck and the case be reheard if the plaintiff wishes to refile.

Mistrial​

The Oxford Dictionary defines a mistrial as​

'a trial that is not considered legally valid because of a mistake in the way it has been conducted.'​

Precedent for the declaration of a mistrial​

The Commonwealth of Redmont v. d3froggy [2023] FCR 60
FCR 65- Appeal Request​

Appealing a Supreme Court Decision​

I make this appeal against the Supreme Court's decision through the provision provided in the Constitution below:​

A party can appeal a Supreme Court decision based on a point of law or if a significant amount of new evidence is made available. The appeal must convince the Court that the Justices that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned. Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:​

1. applied an incorrect principle of law; or​

2. made a finding of fact or facts on an important issue which could not be supported by the evidence.​

In this appeal, I will seek to satisfy the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court has made an egregious error of law that has adversely impacted me both legally and financially. Not only has this impacted me, it has set a precedent that accepting of such errors of law.​

​

Error of Law - Right to a Fair Trial​

The constitution sets out that:​

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial.​

As you can see, in the case I am listed as a party:​

I. PARTIES​

1. Matthew100x, as a citizen aggrieved by an illegal constitutional amendment​

2. xLayzur, as a citizen aggrieved by an illegal constitutional amendment​

3. The Commonwealth of Redmont​

4. xEndeavour as Speaker of House​

As you can see, I was specifically listed in the Claims for Relief and Prayers for Relief of the case, to which the plaintiff sought to prosecute me for alleged criminal offences:​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

6. End, by failing to post a referendum for a complex change of a constitutional amendment, maliciously undermined the government through incompetence. By shuffling the government positions around and creating two new departments and creating headaches for all members involved through improper procedure; End damaged the stability of the government.​

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

4. End to be fined $25,000 dollars and be removed from office for 2 months for treason.​

As you can see, the Chief Justice, on various occasions, denied me the fairness of being able to represent myself or even make a statement in court. I made a number of submissions to the court which fell on deaf ears. I would like to invite the Supreme Court to review the case for evidence of these occurrences due to the significant amount of them.​

​

As you can see, the Supreme Court later agreed with the Defence that my constitutional rights were violated, but continued to issue contempt of court charges related to me fighting for representation. The court knew it was wrong in violated my constitutional rights in case to which I was being prosecuted. It knowingly broke the law and court procedure, yet fined me for the same in fighting for a voice in a case which I was being represented in against my wishes.​

​

Error of Law - Citizens are not able to Prosecute​

A citizen is not legally able to prosecute another citizen in court. Prosecution is reserved for the appropriate Government Departments and this was highlighted by the Supreme Court.​

​

This was a frivolous case filed in the Supreme Court which had no legal grounds to be filed in the Court. Therefore, the court cannot make judgement on it.​

​

Error of Law - Contempt of Court Charges​

The Chief Justice ordered the Speaker of the House of Representatives to pause the referendum and provide the names of the voters and their vote.​

The Referendum will be halted by the Speaker and voting on the amendment will be suspended until the conclusion of this case.

The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont hereby orders Speaker @xEndeavour to provide screenshots of all votes cast within the Public Referendum of the Department Reform Act, in line with the Court-authorised emergency injunction as stated above. This is to be done within the next 30 minutes, Failure to comply will result in further contempt of court charges. The Screenshots should be provided within the #speaker channel in the "Judiciary of Redmont" discord. All further communication between Speaker @xEndeavour and the Supreme Court is to happen there.​

There were a number of issues with this order, which the Chief Justice was made aware of:​

​

1. The Chief Justice ordered the Speaker of the House to send the referendum results to the Chief Justice. The Speaker of the House does not have the power to view voting results. This power, at the time, was only afforded to the Department of State by staff for the purposes of verification. Today, no one can view the results due to advancements in forums features that support our nation's historical adherence to the principles of a secret ballot.​

​

Either way, I made the Chief Justice aware that I could not provide that information because I was unable to. In good faith, I offered an alternative of withholding the results from the Department of State until the injunction was over and was awarded a contempt of court charge as a result.​

​

2. The Supreme Court did not have the power to halt a referendum. The Supreme Court has the following original jurisdiction in the constitution:​

(1) The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns.​

Disputed returns in the context of elections/referendums refers to disputes over the validity of votes, results, or the conduct of the election/referendum itself. The returns cannot be disputed in court during the election/referendum itself. The result itself had not been returned, therefore, the case and the Supreme Court were premature in responding. The Court was therefore ordering the Speaker, who had the constitutional power to run a referendum, to halt the referendum without the constitutional authority to do so.​

​

3. Referendums cannot be 'halted' or paused. If a returning officer needs to halt a referendum mid-referendum, they have to set it to close in 1 hour. This would have placed the Speaker in Contempt again.​

​

Error of Law - Not a mistrial before opening statements.​

​

I reject the notion that a mistrial cannot be declared before opening statements. From the moment that a case is filed with your name in the prayers for relief, you have the right to defend your actions and have your day in court.​

​

The court had already made adverse decisions against the Speaker and a party to the case by way of emergency injunction and refused to hear any objections to that injunction.​

​

In any case where someone is issued with 50 Contempt of Court Violations, $122,000 in fines, 1 hour of jail time, had a variety of their constitutional rights broken, and where there has been 28 submissions to the court, there must be grounds to declare a mistrial regardless of whether an opening statement had been put forward.​

​

If the Supreme Court rejects the necessity for the case be declared a mistrial, then it must consider the continued precedent that it upholds in supporting a political miscarriage of Justice.​

​

Error of Law - Charged with contempt every hour, on the hour.​

The Chief Justice declared that I would be charged for every hour that I did not provide information that I did not have access to. The Chief Justice told me in court channels that I should just go get that information from the Department of State if I don't have access to it or just get staff to give me access to it. If the Chief Justice wanted that particular information, they should have issued the correct judicial instrument to subpoena it from the Department of State, not by telling someone who does not have the power to view it to go and open a DOS ticket at 8pm and wait for them to respond - all while still being charged every hour.​

​

The Court recently raised the response period to 72 hours as opposed to the 48 hours which was in force during this period as it recognises that people have lives outside the server. The Chief Justice gave me 1/48th of the time to get the information he ordered.​

​

Error of Law - Transparency​

The constitution provided at the time that each Justice was required to make ‌their‌ ‌own‌ ‌decision ‌on‌ ‌cases. The Supreme Court was unable to provide that this was a whole-of-court decision as per the constitution (at least 2/3) on request. It should be a key expectation of the court system that the verdicts/decisions of the individual justices (whether using the majority decision system or sign-on and dissent system) are provided to the public.​

A people cannot hold the courts to account, object, or know if the court is in compliance with the law if it does not make its decisions transparent. How was I to know and prove that the Chief Justice had not made a unitary or whole-of-court decision if I did not have the methods to confirm which Justice ruled what way.​

The notion that the Courts can hide this information must stop.​

​

Additional Information:
I have attached a rejected amicus brief from the case to support my appeal.

AMICUS BRIEF

Since apparently I am not part of this trial where I am being charged with treason, I will file an Amicus Brief.

A democratic system of government with a system of checks and balances is underpinned by the constitution. The constitution is the highest legal document in the country. The constitution sets out three branches of government which all play a unique role in the operation of our government, particularly in elections. This is why the Supreme Court acts as the court of disputed returns, a body which reviews the results of disputed elections and referendums.

(1) The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court also interprets the laws as per its constitutional duties.

The‌ ‌Judicial‌ ‌arm‌ ‌of‌ ‌Government,‌ ‌consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌District‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌Federal Court,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌
interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌ ‌

This establishes a very thorough body of review. The Supreme Court's recent actions have not been that of review, rather, the Supreme Court has been actively making illegal and unconstitutional court orders against the constitutional duties of other branches of Government. The Constitution provides that, in order for a complex change bill to pass into law, it must satisfy the requirements set out in the Constitution. This constitutionally charges the Speaker of the House of Representatives with being the returning officer to carry out referendums.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.

A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.

A supermajority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.

Presidential Assent or Veto Override.

The Supreme Court draws its powers from the Constitution as a body of review and as an interpreter of the law. While I acknowledge convention surrounding court orders in enabling the Supreme Court to fulfil its role, the Supreme Court has overstepped in ordering a constitutional process be 'paused' in Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and then proceeding to charge the Speaker for Contempt of Court for failing to comply.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's integrity has been brought into question through its handling of the Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 case. Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 was originally filed in the Federal Court as Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 87. When the Federal Court ruled against the plaintiff on a number of motions, the plaintiff dropped their case in the Federal Court and refiled it in the Supreme Court. In order to justify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff tacked on a charge of Treason against the Speaker of the House for failing to comply with the Court's unconstitutional orders. The Supreme Court then went on to do the complete opposite of the the Federal Court in denying parties who had been implicated in the case the ability to respond.

The Supreme Court is in breach of the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act in hearing the case, which outlines that Criminal cases are brought on by charges laid by the State or in appeal to the State.

(1) The Court of Redmont hears all non-constitutional legal matters in the first instance and is the appellate court for criminal charges and civil actions. It is presided over by a single Judge. Lawsuits are made in the Courthouse forum. Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).

Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act.

(1) Any new crimes may be cited as to whether they are to be considered a Indictable Offence or a Summary Offence. If the crime is not cited as either respective classification, it is to be automatically assumed as a Summary Offence.

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has effectively allowed the Speaker of the House to be charged with Treason in a civil case by someone other than the state.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence.

Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf.

The department is charged with legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government. The department is charged with the employment of Commonwealth Prosecutors and Legal Officers. The Department of Legal Affairs is to act in the best interests of the Government. The Department will act ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction. The Department oversees Freedom of Information requests. The Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs is the Attorney General and will be referred to in an official capacity as the Attorney General.

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections for counsel in defending themselves. The Supreme Court assumed that the person implicated sought automatically representation from the State. The reality is, the State is also a defendant in this case, and the State and the Speaker may have different views, therefore it is not in the interest of both parties to share representation.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence.

This court has been partaking in ex-parte communications. Whether about the case or not, this is evidence of a lack of judicial integrity on one way communications. Coincidentally, they both left VC together very quickly after I got online.

View attachment 29368

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence.

I have been denied a fair trial in Court.

I have been denied representation in Court on several occasions.

This lawsuit is illegal and has no legal standing as a criminal case.

The Court does not have the authority to issue court orders that prevent another branch of Government's constitutional duties.

This lawsuit does not meet the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

It's time to recognise that the notion of a fair and impartial outcome in this case is far gone.

As a former Chief Justice and long-time lawyer, I am issuing a scathing review on one of the most corrupt, unconstitutional, and politically motivated cases I have ever seen.

If anyone is to be charged with treason in any case, it is the Justices upon this bench.

 

[End]

MOTION TO RECUSE

I'd like to request that Justice Matthew be recused from participating in or contributing to the debate, decision, or discussions of the court in relation to this case. Noting that he was the plaintiff in this case, his opinion may unfairly sway the court.

 

[Matthew100x]

I will not be recusing from this case. I will breakdown the reasoning as to why I will not be recusing from the case.

a. Bias/appearance of bias.
My work in this prior case had nothing to do with the decision by the court to apply an hourly contempt of court charge. While I requested a halt on the implementation of the constitutional amendment as well as the referendum, the actions that resulted afterwards were not my choices nor had any decision/impact on this appeal request.

b. Interest.
I have no interest in whether the plaintiff receives his money back nor if the government keeps it. My only interest is the upholding of the law.

c. Ex Parte Communications.
I've had no Ex Parte Communications regarding this case.

d. Breach of Judicial Conduct.
I am not sure if this point is relevant, but I have not breached judicial conduct.

e. Prior Work as a Lawyer for either party.
The parties at the point of the appeal is the appellant, End, and the appellee, the Commonwealth of Redmont. I am uninvolved with either party and have no recent work with either of them.

 

[End]

MOTION TO RECUSE

In accordance with the established rules of the court, I appeal to the Chief Justice to recuse Justice Matthew from this case.

A formal request made to a Judge to voluntarily remove themselves from a case, and have the judge replaced by another judge. This may be motioned due to a Judge’s actual or perceived impartiality or conflict of interest.

Grounds for recusal:
● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it
● Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer
● Personal knowledge about the parties, or the facts of the case
● Ex parte communications with lawyers, or non-lawyers
● Rulings, comments, or conduct

If, at any point after a matter is allocated to a Judge, the Judge becomes aware of circumstances that she or he considers justify recusal, the Judge should recuse herself or himself and the case will be reallocated. A Motion to Recuse is decided by the presiding Judge in the first instance and the Chief Justice in the second instance.

One cannot ignore the Justice's invested interest in this case and I am disappointed to see that the Justice was not able to voluntarily identify their conflict of interest.

I'd like to outline the context of this case and how Matthew played a pivotal role in this miscarriage of justice.

1. Matthew's Federal Court Filing. Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 was originally filed in the Federal Court as Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 87.

2. Things Don't Go So Well. I put it to the Supreme Court that the Federal Court ruling against Matthew on a number of motions throughout the case was the reason behind elevating the case to a higher court which Matthew believed to be more friendly to his cause.

3. The Jurisdiction Problem. Matthew needed to get his case before the Justices that he knew would favour his cause, but the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. Hugebob told me during the conduct of the case that this was his idea to Matthew and that Matthew ran with it, despite the idea being illegal. This demonstrates how Matthew willingly acted illegally and at my expense to get his case heard in a higher court.

4. Treason is added to the prayer for relief. In order to justify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Matthew added the charge of Treason against me for failing to comply with the Court's unconstitutional and un-actionable orders to me to do something that I didn't have access to.

5. The Supreme Court takes Matthew's Side. The Supreme Court then went on to do the complete opposite of the the Federal Court in denying parties who had been implicated in the case with criminal charges (me) the ability to respond to the case.

If there is textbook conflict of interest, this is it.
We have a Justice fighting to rule on whether a case they filed and fought in court resulted in a mistrial - a mistrial which was a result of their actions and reinforced by the court of the day.

This appeal is not about whether I get my money back or not. This appeal is about overturning a stain on our legal system and what I would argue is one of the single-most poorly handled cases to have been ruled on by this court.

This appeal seeks to throw Matthew's case out and have it retried, under which circumstances, Matthew would have to relitigate.

I have fought for years to have this case heard by the court in full. I have presented new evidence and produced errors of law each time. I'm requesting that the Chief Justice remove someone who clearly has a conflict of interest over this case so that I can have a fair day in court.

 

[drew_hall]

MOTION TO RECUSE

In accordance with the established rules of the court, I appeal to the Chief Justice to recuse Justice Matthew from this case.

One cannot ignore the Justice's invested interest in this case and I am disappointed to see that the Justice was not able to voluntarily identify their conflict of interest.

I'd like to outline the context of this case and how Matthew played a pivotal role in this miscarriage of justice.

1. Matthew's Federal Court Filing. Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 was originally filed in the Federal Court as Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 87.

2. Things Don't Go So Well. I put it to the Supreme Court that the Federal Court ruling against Matthew on a number of motions throughout the case was the reason behind elevating the case to a higher court which Matthew believed to be more friendly to his cause.

View attachment 39233
View attachment 39234
View attachment 39235

3. The Jurisdiction Problem. Matthew needed to get his case before the Justices that he knew would favour his cause, but the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. Hugebob told me during the conduct of the case that this was his idea to Matthew and that Matthew ran with it, despite the idea being illegal. This demonstrates how Matthew willingly acted illegally and at my expense to get his case heard in a higher court.

View attachment 39236

4. Treason is added to the prayer for relief. In order to justify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Matthew added the charge of Treason against me for failing to comply with the Court's unconstitutional and un-actionable orders to me to do something that I didn't have access to.

5. The Supreme Court takes Matthew's Side. The Supreme Court then went on to do the complete opposite of the the Federal Court in denying parties who had been implicated in the case with criminal charges (me) the ability to respond to the case.

If there is textbook conflict of interest, this is it.
We have a Justice fighting to rule on whether a case they filed and fought in court resulted in a mistrial - a mistrial which was a result of their actions and reinforced by the court of the day.

This appeal is not about whether I get my money back or not. This appeal is about overturning a stain on our legal system and what I would argue is one of the single-most poorly handled cases to have been ruled on by this court.

This appeal seeks to throw Matthew's case out and have it retried, under which circumstances, Matthew would have to relitigate.

I have fought for years to have this case heard by the court in full. I have presented new evidence and produced errors of law each time. I'm requesting that the Chief Justice remove someone who clearly has a conflict of interest over this case so that I can have a fair day in court.

As Chief Justice, I must say I agree with counsel on this. I will be recusing Associate Justice Matthew100x from this case moving forward. While I recognize my fellow Justices' previous decision on the matter, I cannot overlook the appearance that allowing their judgment on a case they were previously a party to would have on the judicial system as a whole. As such, accompanied by other concerns raised, Associate Justice Matthew100x will be recused from all matters regarding this appeal moving forward.

I would also like to note that the Supreme Court will deliver a response on whether or not this case is accepted within the next 72 hours.

 

[End]

Thank you, your honour.

If it may please the court I'd like the court to consider additional supporting arguments in relation to the appeal.

Appeal Limitations

I know that there has been some public debate surrounding legal technicalities.

Section 20 of the Judicial Standards Act states that:

20 - Appeals
(1) Once a court case is adjourned, either party may request to appeal the decision by filing an appeal in the court of the next tier. Once a case has been decided by the Supreme Court, it cannot be appealed.
(2) Requirements:--
- Less than one month has elapsed since the court’s decision;
- the appeal follows a format laid out by the courts in a thread that will be authored upon this bill’s passage; and
- the appeal is not made just for the sake of appealing.

This section outlines the requirements for an appeal. It lists that a Supreme Court decision may not be appealed, and that there are a number of limitations that exist on appeals.

Section 23 reads that:

23 - Supreme Court Appeals
(1) A party can appeal based on a point of law. The appeal must convince the Court that the Justices that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned.
(a) Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:

• applied an incorrect principle of law; or
• made a finding of fact or facts on an important issue which could not be supported by the evidence.

This section establishes a safeguard that clearly takes precedence over section 20. It allows for an appeal under special circumstances and makes no limitation on the appeals process, beyond the appeal requirements. This is completely contrary to what Section 20 provides.

This section recognises that the Supreme Court composition may need to change in order for a case to be heard fairly where an appellant may have been wronged by the Supreme Court previously. This section recognises that the Supreme Court makes significant decisions. As such, this section does not place a limitation on appealing where there is an error of law over such a decision.

Supreme Court cases routinely take over a month to adjudicate. Supreme Court cases can sometimes take weeks of preparation to source evidence. It would be completely inappropriate to replicate the same one month appeal deadline as the District Court for the Supreme Court, and Section 23 recognises this.

If a case raises a true error of law on a decision which has been made by the Supreme Court and to which is binding on all lower courts, then it ought to be given its day in court no matter how long after the decision. The weight of the Supreme Court's decisions and the nature of the cases before the Supreme Court support the notion that the Supreme Court appeals need not be limited.

Additional Evidence

I have reviewed similar cases which I have made against this decision and found additional evidence which I believe supports this case.

Exhibit 1
Supports the claims that a conversation between the Chief Justice and I occurred in a sidebar where the Chief Justice was informed that I did not have access to the information that I was being ordered to present.

He told me to use staff powers to turn on permissions which are not provided to the Speaker.

I have filed two cases with the Court previously which are related, although not the same as this case:

[2023] SCR 1/SCR 4
These lawsuits were against the commonwealth and sought to conduct judicial review on whether the court had the authority to compel someone to provide what they did not have access to:

Today I am making the case that a significant error of law was made in a decision by the court to find the Plaintiff guilty of Contempt of Court on fifty counts in SCR20. To be clear, I am not appealing the case or the final verdict of SCR20, rather I am mounting a new case which is challenging the legality of the Supreme Court specifically charging the Plaintiff with Contempt of Court in SCR20.

Previously I asked the Court to review whether it had the power to compel someone to provide what they did not have access to and today I am asking the Court to consider whether my rights were violated in SCR 20 and that a mistrial occurred.

Thank you.

 

[drew_hall]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

The Supreme Court has decided to grant the appeal and declare that [2022] SCR 20 a mistrial.

The Supreme Court has decided to this for the following reasons:
1. xEndeavour was criminally prosecuted without representation in a civil case
2. The lawsuit seems to have been adjourned without warning, with no verdict, and with no explanation.

Any and all decisions that occurred within that case are to be reversed and struck.

If the Plaintiff(s) wish to re-file the case, they may do so within the next 2 weeks.​

 

[End]

Your honour,

Today the President openly and publicly defied a Supreme Court ruling that declared [2022] SCR 20 a mistrial and ordered the Government to revert the actions and decisions made as a result of that trial.

Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 2:

Repealed - Executive Order 29/23 - Directive of Non-Enforcement

By the power vested in me by the Redmont Constitution, I, xLayzur, President of the Commonwealth of Redmont, do declare the following under this Executive Order: DIRECTIVE OF NON ENFORCEMENT 1. By the power vested in me, xLayzur President of Redmont as the chief executive Head of Government &...

www.democracycraft.net

Exhibit 3:

I request the following:
1. That the President personally be held in Contempt of Court for each 24 hours that passes where the debt is not settled.
2. That a 5% punitive penalty be applied for each 24 hours that passes where the debt is not settled, payable to the appellant.
3. That the Court issues a Writ of Mandamus for the following:
a. Struck contempt of court punishments: $122,000
b. Time Spent in Jail: $3,000 (1 Hour)
4. That the DOJ Secretary and Attorney General are charged with Contempt of Court for not discharging their duties as provided by the court and for complying with an illegal presidential EO for each 24 hours that passes where the debt is not settled.
5. That the Presidential EO (exhibit 2) is struck as unconstitutional.

I am not satisfied that the President will be compelled to comply if he is not significantly personally punitively penalised to comply with the Court order.

 

[drew_hall]

The Supreme Court has taken much time to deliberate on the matter brought before this court, before and after Executive Order 29/23 was issued by President xlayzur, and we continue to stand with our decision, one based in law and justice. For the Supreme Court to overturn a previous decision made by this court is not one which is taken lightly, and was not done without great consideration and research into the matter. The Supreme Court is greatly disappointed in this administration's overreach and ignorance in regards to the separation of powers, of which this Commonwealth is not only based upon, but relies upon to function efficiently. To attempt to overrule an order by the highest court in the land is to show complete disregard and disrespect for this court, and frankly it will not stand. The President of the Commonwealth of Redmont is NOT the final say in court matters, and will continue to NOT be. A disagreement has never negated an order by the court, and a title in front of your name does not change this. [2022] SCR 20 was declared a mistrial by the Supreme Court, and the Defendant in that case will receive what they are owed.

I will now present the Supreme Court's rulings on the matters at hand.

1. President xlayzur has attempted to abuse his powers granted to him as President under the Constitution to issue an unconstitutional Executive Order, and as such, if he allows his administration to continue to ignore this court's order, will personally be held in contempt every 24 hours that this order is not fulfilled.

2. The Supreme Court will not be granting additional punitive damages

3. The Supreme Court issues a Writ of Mandamus requiring the Department of Justice to compensate xEndeavor for all fines and jail time associated with the stricken charges as a result of the declaration of [2022] SCR 20 as a mistrial.

4. Should the Department of Justice not comply with this lawful court order and instead continue complying with the unconstitutional Executive Order 29/23, the Supreme Court will also be holding the Justice Department in contempt every 24 hours until the completion of the order released by this court. All money will be transferred from DCGovernmentDOJ to DCGovernment.

5. The Supreme Court, exercising our power of Judicial Review, has struck down Executive Order 29/23 as unconstitutional, as the order is a far overreach in what is constitutionally allowed to be issued in an Executive Order.

The Executive branch of government is not above the Judicial branch, and lacks authority entirely to overrule a decision made by it. The decision made by this court is standing, and will be carried out.

This ruling is delivered with the concurrence of Associate Justice Dartanman.