Lawsuit: Adjourned Crusaders at Law v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 110

[Aladeen]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Crusaders at Law
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Congress passed an illegal bill that is in violation of the Legislative Standards Act (LSA). The bill doesn't have a co-sponsor which clearly breaks Section 22 Subsection 1 (a). The proposer of the bill was notified of this prior to the voting however he decided to ignore it.

I. PARTIES
1. Crusaders at Law
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. Congress passed a bill that clearly broke the Legislative Standards Act.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Amend the Saviour Act bill goes against the Legislative Standards Act.
2. The LSA states ''(1) A co-sponsor is required on all bills proposed.''

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Bill to be struck down.

Spoiler: Evidence

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 15th day of November of 2021.

 

[Westray]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Crusaders At Law v. the Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I will be presiding over this in order to assist in the caseload of the Federal Court. I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[JoeGamer]

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

Crusaders at Law
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The State agrees that the bill proposed by SumoMC did not have a proper co-sponsor as required by the Legislative Standard Act
2. The DOJ will not be enforcing this law, as it is not a proper bill, and hence has no ramifications and future violators of this bill.


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 17 day of November 2021

 

[Westray]

To clarify, is the State omitting any sort of defence in this case by agreeing to the Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief?

 

[JoeGamer]

That would be correct your honor.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

Given that the Defendant has omitted any sort of defence, the court will proceed with a default judgement. I find the lack of defence to be somewhat unfortunate as I believe this case may have posed some relevance in terms of the legal extent of the Legislative Standards Act.

Nonetheless, proceeding with a default judgement based on the arguments I have heard, I find that the bill in question is in contravention of the Legislative Standards Act within regard to §22.1 on Co-Sponsors. Therefore, I have concluded:

The court hereby finds the Amend the Savior Act (October 26 2021) to be in violation of the Legislative Standards Act and unenforceable within law.

Thank you to the Plaintiff for their time.