Lawsuit: In Session AlexanderLove v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 7

[juniperberries]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AlexanderLove (represented by juniperfig)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

AlexanderLove was unfairly denied his rightful nomination as Secretary of the DCT. Acting President lcn ignored the proper constitutional process and refused to move the nomination forward, solely due to political bias. This decision violated AlexanderLove’s right to equal treatment under the law and set an unfair, baseless standard.

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

II. FACTS
1. President UnityMaster informed AlexanderLove that he would be nominated as Secretary of the Department of Construction and Transportation (DCT). (P-001)

2. UnityMaster also informed Vice President lcn of this decision. (P-002)

3. Vice President lcn assumed the role of Acting President during UnityMaster’s deportation. (P-003)

4. Acting President lcn did not follow his obligation to honor UnityMaster’s nomination of AlexanderLove as Secretary of the DCT. (P-004)

5. Acting President lcn dismissed President UnityMaster’s explicit nomination of AlexanderLove, claiming it was “not valid” through arbitrary, invented requirements for nomination validity. (P-004)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Redmont’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every citizen the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination, including on the basis of political belief (Section XIII).

By refusing to honor AlexanderLove’s nomination to Secretary of the DCT, Acting President lcn denied AlexanderLove equal benefit of the Constitutional nomination process and subjected AlexanderLove to unfair discrimination based on political belief.


2. Nomination of a Secretary, as outlined in the constitution, is a two-step process. First, the President nominates an individual for a role. Second, the Senate approves (or disapproves) the nomination.

President UnityMaster fulfilled the first step by explicitly stating his intent to nominate AlexanderLove. This created a legitimate expectation that AlexanderLove’s nomination would proceed to Senate approval, as per the constitution.

lcn arbitrarily bypassed this Constitutional process. There is nothing in the Constitution stating nominations must be announced publicly- AlexanderLove was unfairly subjected to a standard that does not exist.

Acting President lcn’s decision to disregard President UnityMaster’s nomination was rooted solely in a political shift in power and not in any legitimate or constitutional basis.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $15,717 in compensatory damages for lost wages for the period of time between January 7, 2025 and February 15, 2025. January 7, 2025 was the day AlexanderLove’s nomination was meant to be announced according to P-002. February 15, 2025 would be the commencement of the next administration, when AlexanderLove would likely leave office. $15,717 was calculated by the following formula: ($260/hour * 1.55 hours/day * 39 days).
Secretaries are paid at a rate of $65 per 15 minutes of being active in-game. AlexanderLove is active in-game for an average of 1.55 hours per day (P-005). 39 days is the timespan specified above.

2. $30,000 in punitive damages. Violating a citizen’s constitutional right to equal treatment should be the dictionary definition of “outrageous conduct”, doubly so when these actions are done by the Acting President.

3. $25,000 in emotional damages. lcn’s dismissal of Alex’s nomination created a sense of betrayal, insecurity, and stress due to the unexpected and unjust nature of the decision. It also undermined AlexanderLove’s trust in the fairness of the government, causing ongoing anxiety about his standing in the community.

4. $35,000 in damages for Loss of Enjoyment. The arbitrary denial of this role deprived AlexanderLove of the fulfillment, satisfaction, and pride he would have gained from serving his community in this capacity. Alex furthermore began preparing policies and plans at this point for the Department that went to waste due to lcn’s decision to not honour legal process.

5. $31,715 in legal fees, 30% of the value of this case, to cover the costs the plaintiff incurred hiring juniperfig as his legal counsel in this case.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

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 18th day of January, 2025.

Proof of Representation:

 

[End]

Requesting to file an amicus brief

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Requesting to file an amicus brief

Your honor, respectfully, we don’t need an amicus brief from every single person and their two cents who wish to act as secondary defendants. This is also the federal court. I ask the court deny this request.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Requesting to file an amicus brief

For the interest of the court, what matters do you wish to discuss and what are your relevant qualifications?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of AlexanderLove 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.

 

[End]

For the interest of the court, what matters do you wish to discuss and what are your relevant qualifications?

Constitutional law expert to discuss Executive Discretion and considerations for political questions in court

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Constitutional law expert to discuss Executive Discretion and considerations for political questions in court

Thank you. Please proceed with your brief.

 

[Dartanboy]

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of AlexanderLove 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.

Good morning, your honor. I will be representing the Commonwealth in this case.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Good morning, your honor. I will be representing the Commonwealth in this case.

Thank you prosecutor.

Discovery is hereby set for a period of 72 hours, and may be cut short upon mutual agreement by both plaintiff and defense.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defense submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: D-001

Note that my timezone is Central Time.

Spoiler: D-002

 

[juniperberries]

The Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-006

Note that my timezone is Pacific Time.

Spoiler: P-007

 

[Dartanboy]

The Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-006

Note that my timezone is Pacific Time.

Spoiler: P-007

 OBJECTION
Relevance

These Executive Orders have nothing to do with the situation at hand.

 

[juniperberries]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honour, the timing of the executive orders, combined with lcn's subsequent repealing of them, strongly support the legitimacy of a deported President’s actions. If the defence intends to rely on the time of deportation to challenge Former President Unity’s authority, then my evidence demonstrating the continued use and recognition of his Presidential powers during his deportation is both relevant and necessary to provide full context.

 

[juniperberries]

The Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-008

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

 OBJECTION
Relevance

These Executive Orders have nothing to do with the situation at hand.

Overruled.

The Plaintiff has provided reasonable justification for the submission of the evidence.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defense submits the following:

Spoiler: D-003

 

[juniperberries]

The Defense submits the following:

Spoiler: D-003

View attachment 51150

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honour, the statement made by President lcn is not relevant to this case. It was issued only after I submitted evidence showing that their actions- repealing President Unity’s orders- implicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of those orders. The timing of this announcement, as well as the Defense’s immediate submission of it into evidence, shows this statement is not a contemporaneous record of events, but rather an attempt to cast his own actions in a new light.

Additionally, the legality of Former President Unity’s actions is not a matter of fact. There are no rules, laws, or precedent on whether a deported President is able to take official actions. The President’s current interpretation of the law is not of importance to this case- only the Court’s interpretation is.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honour, the statement made by President lcn is not relevant to this case. It was issued only after I submitted evidence showing that their actions- repealing President Unity’s orders- implicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of those orders. The timing of this announcement, as well as the Defense’s immediate submission of it into evidence, shows this statement is not a contemporaneous record of events, but rather an attempt to cast his own actions in a new light.

Additionally, the legality of Former President Unity’s actions is not a matter of fact. There are no rules, laws, or precedent on whether a deported President is able to take official actions. The President’s current interpretation of the law is not of importance to this case- only the Court’s interpretation is.

Your honor, President lcn issued an apology for mistakenly allowing an illegitimate Executive Order to sit as though it were real.

This mistake is exactly that - a mistake - which the Plaintiff is already trying to use to give legitimacy to these orders.

Nonetheless, they were all illegitimate and the Commonwealth will prove this in our Opening Statements.

 

[juniperberries]

Your honor, President lcn issued an apology for mistakenly allowing an illegitimate Executive Order to sit as though it were real.

This mistake is exactly that - a mistake - which the Plaintiff is already trying to use to give legitimacy to these orders.

Nonetheless, they were all illegitimate and the Commonwealth will prove this in our Opening Statements.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honour, this response does not address my objection. The defence is permitted a response to the objection, but instead, he has used the opportunity to make an counterargument unrelated to the issue of relevance. The Defense’s argument about the validity of the Executive Orders is a matter for opening statements, not a response to this specific objection.

I motion for this response to be struck.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honour, this response does not address my objection. The defence is permitted a response to the objection, but instead, he has used the opportunity to make an counterargument unrelated to the issue of relevance. The Defense’s argument about the validity of the Executive Orders is a matter for opening statements, not a response to this specific objection.

I motion for this response to be struck.

Your honor, everything I said corresponded to something in the Objection. If the response is a counterargument, then the Objection itself is not valid.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honour, the statement made by President lcn is not relevant to this case. It was issued only after I submitted evidence showing that their actions- repealing President Unity’s orders- implicitly acknowledged the legitimacy of those orders. The timing of this announcement, as well as the Defense’s immediate submission of it into evidence, shows this statement is not a contemporaneous record of events, but rather an attempt to cast his own actions in a new light.

Additionally, the legality of Former President Unity’s actions is not a matter of fact. There are no rules, laws, or precedent on whether a deported President is able to take official actions. The President’s current interpretation of the law is not of importance to this case- only the Court’s interpretation is.

Overruled.
Should the evidence be nothing but an attempt to cast the defendant’s actions in a new light, the plaintiff should be able to disprove this with evidence and facts, not conjecture from coincidence. The Defense has asserted that the evidence is to assist their opening argument, and without proof as to the defendant’s state of mind, the evidence cannot be judged as ‘a cover-up’ or ‘an apology for a mistake’.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honour, this response does not address my objection. The defence is permitted a response to the objection, but instead, he has used the opportunity to make an counterargument unrelated to the issue of relevance. The Defense’s argument about the validity of the Executive Orders is a matter for opening statements, not a response to this specific objection.

I motion for this response to be struck.

Overruled.
The defense’s submission sufficiently justifies the relevance of the evidence in debate. The response stands.

 

[End]

Brief

Amicus Curiae

The purpose of this amicus brief is to provide additional legal and constitutional considerations regarding executive discretion and the limits of judicial intervention in matters that are inherently political. The intent of advising the court through this brief is to is submission is intended to assist the Court in balancing the principles of separation of powers and judicial restraint.

This case presents a tension between executive discretion and the procedural requirements of the appointment process. It also raises the question of whether the court should intervene in a matter that is arguably a political question. The amicus seeks to address two key considerations:

1. Scope of executive discretion in appointments.
2. Appropriateness of judicial intervention in disputes arising from inherently political decisions.

Executive Discretion

The Constitution explicitly grants the President the authority to nominate Secretaries and Executive Officers. Secretaries serve at the pleasure of the President where significant discretion is afforded to the executive branch in matters of appointments and dismissals.

Limits to Executive Discretion

While the President’s discretion is broad, it still must be exercised within the bounds of the constitution.
Discriminatory actions that violate constitutional rights, such as those based on political belief, may justify judicial review.

However, political discourse is naturally discriminative in the sense that political actors are expected to make decisions informed by policy priorities, ideological alignment, and other factors inherent to governance. These considerations are typically viewed as valid exercises of discretion rather than as arbitrary or unconstitutional discrimination. The judiciary must therefore carefully distinguish between political considerations that are legitimate and those that cross the line into unconstitutional behavior, such as overtly discriminatory acts that violate explicit constitutional protections.

Considerations for Acting Presidents

The constitutional authority of an Acting President to override or dismiss the decisions of an elected President requires clarity. The Court may need to consider whether Acting Presidents possess identical discretion or whether their role carries inherent limitations, particularly in honouring decisions already made by an elected President.

Political Question Doctrine and Judicial Restraint

A political question arises when an issue is more appropriately resolved by another branch of government due to the lack of judicial standards or because it is inherently tied to political discretion.

Judicial Intervention in Appointment Disputes

Courts should be cautious when adjudicating disputes involving political discretion, particularly where the Constitution provides a clear separation of powers.

The Court must balance this restraint against its duty to uphold constitutional rights when they are clearly violated.

Precedent and the Role of the Court

The Court should consider whether its intervention would set a precedent that limits future executive discretion or disrupts the balance of power between branches of government.

Considerations
The amicus curiae recommends that the Court consider the following:

1. The Constitution’s allocation of discretion to the President in appointments, tempered by the requirement to honour constitutional rights (if they apply).

2. The importance of judicial restraint in matters that lack clear constitutional violations or involve inherently political questions.

3. Whether Acting President lcn’s decision was made within the bounds of executive discretion or whether it constituted an arbitrary action infringing on constitutional rights.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, I believe Discovery should have ended. Shall the Commonwealth proceed with an Answer to Complaint?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your honor, I believe Discovery should have ended. Shall the Commonwealth proceed with an Answer to Complaint?

You may, apologies for my absence. Please file your answer to complaint within the next 48 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Based on the evidence provided, AFFIRM that former President UnityMaster informed AlexanderLove that he would be nominated to the position of Secretary of the DCT, however NOTE that this is not a legal nomination, only providing intent to nominate.
2. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that former President UnityMaster informed lcn of this. The evidence provided only shows that the former President told Mr. Love that this occurred.
3. AFFIRM that lcn assumed the position of President in an Acting capacity during UnityMaster’s deportation, however NOTING this occurred at the moment of the former President’s deportation, not at the moment of public announcement.
4. DENY that lcn did not follow his obligation to honor UnityMaster’s nomination of AlexanderLove as Secretary of the DCT, as lcn did not have any obligation to honor UnityMaster’s wishes; also NOTING that the Commonwealth believes there was no legal nomination.
5. DENY that lcn dismissed President UnityMaster’s explicit nomination of AlexanderLove, claiming it was “not valid” through arbitrary, invented requirements for nomination validity, as once again the Commonwealth believes the alleged nomination was not valid, and that the requirements for a nomination to be valid are not arbitrary, and are in-fact provided by the Constitution.

II. DEFENSES
1. UnityMaster was not the President at the time of the alleged nomination [D-001, D-002, Constitution Part 3 Section 27].
2. Even if the so-called “nomination” were somehow considered valid, there is no evidence that AlexanderLove would have passed the approval process in the Senate. Given this, no damages relating to his potential appointment can be granted.
3. Even if the so-called “nomination” were somehow considered valid, the Secretary serves at the pleasure of the President – seeing as lcn refused to nominate Mr. Love, he could not be considered to be serving at the President’s pleasure, and would thus no longer be the Secretary at the precise moment he became Secretary, thus nullifying any and all damages [P-004, Constitution Part 3 Section 29).

III. MOTION TO DISMISS
The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 – Lack of Claim
a. On the following Claim: “Redmont’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every citizen the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination, including on the basis of political belief (Section XIII).

By refusing to honor AlexanderLove’s nomination to Secretary of the DCT, Acting President lcn denied AlexanderLove equal benefit of the Constitutional nomination process and subjected AlexanderLove to unfair discrimination based on political belief.”

If it were a legitimate nomination, it would fall on the Senate to initiate confirmation hearings, not on lcn to initiate a second nomination. Not only does this show that the Plaintiff believes that the initial nomination was not valid, but it nullifies the Claim for Relief that “lcn denied AlexanderLove equal benefit.”

Thus, the Plaintiff has readily admitted in a roundabout way that the initial nomination was invalid, and furthermore argues that by refusing to nominate AlexanderLove, the President is somehow violating an allegedly pre-existing nomination.

b. On the following Claim: “Nomination of a Secretary, as outlined in the constitution, is a two-step process. First, the President nominates an individual for a role. Second, the Senate approves (or disapproves) the nomination.

President UnityMaster fulfilled the first step by explicitly stating his intent to nominate AlexanderLove. This created a legitimate expectation that AlexanderLove’s nomination would proceed to Senate approval, as per the constitution.

lcn arbitrarily bypassed this Constitutional process. There is nothing in the Constitution stating nominations must be announced publicly- AlexanderLove was unfairly subjected to a standard that does not exist.

Acting President lcn’s decision to disregard President UnityMaster’s nomination was rooted solely in a political shift in power and not in any legitimate or constitutional basis.”

This Claim very clearly recognizes that former President UnityMaster “explictly [stated] his intent to nominate AlexanderLove.” The Commonwealth refuses to agree that intending to do something is the same as doing something.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff is once again arguing that lcn somehow bypassed the Constitutional process of nomination by the President and approval by the Senate, by refusing to nominate the Plaintiff for the position of Secretary.

c. In summary, the Plaintiff claims that the initial so-called “nomination” was valid, and because of its validity, he somehow requires a second nomination. This is grossly incorrect, as while the Commonwealth holds that the original so-called “nomination” was not valid, even if we didn’t, his Claims for Relief seek to hold the President responsible for not offering a second nomination, rather than the Senate for failing to hold approval hearings and/or votes.

2. Rule 5.11 – Immunity Protection
The Constitution establishes that Secretaries serve at the pleasure of the President, and furthermore it has been established through multiple Supreme Court cases (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1) that the President has the indisputable power to fire Secretaries. It is through this same power that an appointment may be withdrawn (as the Plaintiff alleges happened, even though in actuality the original “nomination” was not a legal nomination), as a Secretary cannot serve at all if they are not serving at the President’s pleasure.

Thus, this lawsuit fails as the President, and the Commonwealth at-large, is immune to legal action being taken against the withdrawal of Secretary nominations.



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 28th day of January 2025

 

[juniperberries]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Based on the evidence provided, AFFIRM that former President UnityMaster informed AlexanderLove that he would be nominated to the position of Secretary of the DCT, however NOTE that this is not a legal nomination, only providing intent to nominate.
2. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that former President UnityMaster informed lcn of this. The evidence provided only shows that the former President told Mr. Love that this occurred.
3. AFFIRM that lcn assumed the position of President in an Acting capacity during UnityMaster’s deportation, however NOTING this occurred at the moment of the former President’s deportation, not at the moment of public announcement.
4. DENY that lcn did not follow his obligation to honor UnityMaster’s nomination of AlexanderLove as Secretary of the DCT, as lcn did not have any obligation to honor UnityMaster’s wishes; also NOTING that the Commonwealth believes there was no legal nomination.
5. DENY that lcn dismissed President UnityMaster’s explicit nomination of AlexanderLove, claiming it was “not valid” through arbitrary, invented requirements for nomination validity, as once again the Commonwealth believes the alleged nomination was not valid, and that the requirements for a nomination to be valid are not arbitrary, and are in-fact provided by the Constitution.

II. DEFENSES
1. UnityMaster was not the President at the time of the alleged nomination [D-001, D-002, Constitution Part 3 Section 27].
2. Even if the so-called “nomination” were somehow considered valid, there is no evidence that AlexanderLove would have passed the approval process in the Senate. Given this, no damages relating to his potential appointment can be granted.
3. Even if the so-called “nomination” were somehow considered valid, the Secretary serves at the pleasure of the President – seeing as lcn refused to nominate Mr. Love, he could not be considered to be serving at the President’s pleasure, and would thus no longer be the Secretary at the precise moment he became Secretary, thus nullifying any and all damages [P-004, Constitution Part 3 Section 29).

III. MOTION TO DISMISS
The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 – Lack of Claim
a. On the following Claim: “Redmont’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees every citizen the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination, including on the basis of political belief (Section XIII).

By refusing to honor AlexanderLove’s nomination to Secretary of the DCT, Acting President lcn denied AlexanderLove equal benefit of the Constitutional nomination process and subjected AlexanderLove to unfair discrimination based on political belief.”

If it were a legitimate nomination, it would fall on the Senate to initiate confirmation hearings, not on lcn to initiate a second nomination. Not only does this show that the Plaintiff believes that the initial nomination was not valid, but it nullifies the Claim for Relief that “lcn denied AlexanderLove equal benefit.”

Thus, the Plaintiff has readily admitted in a roundabout way that the initial nomination was invalid, and furthermore argues that by refusing to nominate AlexanderLove, the President is somehow violating an allegedly pre-existing nomination.

b. On the following Claim: “Nomination of a Secretary, as outlined in the constitution, is a two-step process. First, the President nominates an individual for a role. Second, the Senate approves (or disapproves) the nomination.

President UnityMaster fulfilled the first step by explicitly stating his intent to nominate AlexanderLove. This created a legitimate expectation that AlexanderLove’s nomination would proceed to Senate approval, as per the constitution.

lcn arbitrarily bypassed this Constitutional process. There is nothing in the Constitution stating nominations must be announced publicly- AlexanderLove was unfairly subjected to a standard that does not exist.

Acting President lcn’s decision to disregard President UnityMaster’s nomination was rooted solely in a political shift in power and not in any legitimate or constitutional basis.”

This Claim very clearly recognizes that former President UnityMaster “explictly [stated] his intent to nominate AlexanderLove.” The Commonwealth refuses to agree that intending to do something is the same as doing something.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff is once again arguing that lcn somehow bypassed the Constitutional process of nomination by the President and approval by the Senate, by refusing to nominate the Plaintiff for the position of Secretary.

c. In summary, the Plaintiff claims that the initial so-called “nomination” was valid, and because of its validity, he somehow requires a second nomination. This is grossly incorrect, as while the Commonwealth holds that the original so-called “nomination” was not valid, even if we didn’t, his Claims for Relief seek to hold the President responsible for not offering a second nomination, rather than the Senate for failing to hold approval hearings and/or votes.

2. Rule 5.11 – Immunity Protection
The Constitution establishes that Secretaries serve at the pleasure of the President, and furthermore it has been established through multiple Supreme Court cases (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1) that the President has the indisputable power to fire Secretaries. It is through this same power that an appointment may be withdrawn (as the Plaintiff alleges happened, even though in actuality the original “nomination” was not a legal nomination), as a Secretary cannot serve at all if they are not serving at the President’s pleasure.

Thus, this lawsuit fails as the President, and the Commonwealth at-large, is immune to legal action being taken against the withdrawal of Secretary nominations.



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 28th day of January 2025

Your honour, the Plaintiff requests a response to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your honour, the Plaintiff requests a response to the Motion to Dismiss.

You may. Please file your response within 48 hours.

 

[juniperberries]

Thank you, your honour.

RESPONSE TO MOTION

The Defence’s Motion to Dismiss attempts to sidestep a critical constitutional question that only this Court—not the President—has the authority to decide. I have alleged a specific violation of constitutional process: President UnityMaster did nominate AlexanderLove, as proven in D-003, yet Acting President lcn blocked the Senate from exercising its constitutional duty of confirmation.

The Defence’s argument that this was merely an “intent” to nominate is directly contradicted by the Defence’s own submitted evidence, which confirms the nomination occurred. The Defence is not asking for dismissal based on a lack of claim but rather on their own interpretation of the law, which remains undecided. Whether a nomination outlives a change in Executive power is a constitutional question, not a decided fact, and must be resolved through trial, not dismissal.

The Defence also misapplies Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24 and Commonwealth of Redmont v. xLayzur [2024] SCR 1, both of which address the removal of already-confirmed Secretaries—not the refusal to allow a valid nomination to proceed to Senate review. Their argument is an improper extension of precedent that does not apply here.

By seeking dismissal, the Defence is effectively asking this Court to allow the Executive branch to unilaterally redefine the nomination process without judicial oversight. That is an abuse of power, not an immune executive action. Because I have raised a legitimate and unresolved constitutional question, this case must proceed to trial, and the Motion to Dismiss should be denied in full.