- Joined
- Feb 5, 2021
- Messages
- 433
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Crazy_Cryo_810
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
Complaint:
The plaintiff complains against the defendant as follows:
At this point in time, Redmont is unconstitutionally suppressing the rights and freedoms of Judges. Specifically rights number I, VI, and XII. These rights state that all citizens of Redmont have "The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime" (1). This directly conflicts with the current section on political activities of judges, which states, "Judges may not seek political office" (5). Due to the fact that possessing the job of judge is not a crime, preventing these people from running for a political office is unconstitutional. It withholds one of a Redmont citizen's inherent rights, and as of now, there are no exceptions to this section of the constitution, therefore making it unconstitutional.
As for part VI of the constitution, which states that all Redmont citizens have the right to, "Freedom of Political Communication" (6). This directly conflicts with the roles of the judge which states, "Judges should refrain from giving their opinion on a contentious political matter" (4). Freedom of political communication should allow judges to communicate their ideals freely with no fear of losing their job, but the Commonwealth of Redmont currently denies judges of this right. This is a clearly unconstitutional limit on the free speech of judges and must be fixed immediately.
Finally, part XII of the constitution says that citizens have the "Freedom of Association". This is directly conflicted by the judges conduct on politics which says, "While judges may endorse candidates for office in a personal capacity, they may not join any campaign in an official capacity nor excessively engage in political activity" (1). Not being allowed to officially join and support a political movement or group directly conflicts the freedom of association given to all citizens regardless of the crimes they have committed.
The first time something happens, it can be explained as a coincidence, a simple oversight that will be fixed once attention is called to it, but when the mistake is made three times in a row, it becomes clear that these unconstitutional political restrictions on judges were deliberate attacks on the rights and freedoms of Redmont citizens based upon the job they posses. One of the most used fallacies is the Ought Not fallacy. It states that just because something is a certain way does not mean it should be that way. I want the supreme court to think about this. Just because judges currently lack these rights and freedoms, does not mean that should be the case. Judges submitting to these restrictions does not mean they should. It simply means this has been long coming.
I. Parties:
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: (It is Wensday, April 21st, 2021. 21/4/21)
CIVIL ACTION
Crazy_Cryo_810
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
Complaint:
The plaintiff complains against the defendant as follows:
At this point in time, Redmont is unconstitutionally suppressing the rights and freedoms of Judges. Specifically rights number I, VI, and XII. These rights state that all citizens of Redmont have "The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime" (1). This directly conflicts with the current section on political activities of judges, which states, "Judges may not seek political office" (5). Due to the fact that possessing the job of judge is not a crime, preventing these people from running for a political office is unconstitutional. It withholds one of a Redmont citizen's inherent rights, and as of now, there are no exceptions to this section of the constitution, therefore making it unconstitutional.
As for part VI of the constitution, which states that all Redmont citizens have the right to, "Freedom of Political Communication" (6). This directly conflicts with the roles of the judge which states, "Judges should refrain from giving their opinion on a contentious political matter" (4). Freedom of political communication should allow judges to communicate their ideals freely with no fear of losing their job, but the Commonwealth of Redmont currently denies judges of this right. This is a clearly unconstitutional limit on the free speech of judges and must be fixed immediately.
Finally, part XII of the constitution says that citizens have the "Freedom of Association". This is directly conflicted by the judges conduct on politics which says, "While judges may endorse candidates for office in a personal capacity, they may not join any campaign in an official capacity nor excessively engage in political activity" (1). Not being allowed to officially join and support a political movement or group directly conflicts the freedom of association given to all citizens regardless of the crimes they have committed.
The first time something happens, it can be explained as a coincidence, a simple oversight that will be fixed once attention is called to it, but when the mistake is made three times in a row, it becomes clear that these unconstitutional political restrictions on judges were deliberate attacks on the rights and freedoms of Redmont citizens based upon the job they posses. One of the most used fallacies is the Ought Not fallacy. It states that just because something is a certain way does not mean it should be that way. I want the supreme court to think about this. Just because judges currently lack these rights and freedoms, does not mean that should be the case. Judges submitting to these restrictions does not mean they should. It simply means this has been long coming.
I. Parties:
- Crazy_Cryo_810
- The Commonwealth of Redmont
- The plaintiff claims that the current restrictions on a judge's political activity violates three separate constitutional amendments.
- The plaintiff claims that these actions were done knowing that they violated the constitution or was done without care care.
- The plaintiff claims that there are no loopholes in the constitution to justify these restrictions on judges.
- The constitution clearly outlines the rights and freedoms of its citizens, but the restrictions and rules placed upon judges directly refutes and ignores these rights three separate times and because of this, three separate times suppresses its population.
- These numerous conflicts within the constitution unlawfully controls how judges live their lives beyond any reasonable levels of fairness, which is unconstitutional.
- Parts 1, 2, 3, and 5 under "Political Activities" of a judge be removed and deemed unconstitutional.
- Any judges that have been removed for violating these unconstitutional restrictions be offered their job back and be reimbursed $100 for the loss of their job.
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: (It is Wensday, April 21st, 2021. 21/4/21)
