Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 97

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Attorney
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,442
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff believes that the Even Moderner Legal Board Act is unconstitutional, as it gives a certain (albeit small) amount of executive power to the judicial branch. For this reason, the Plaintiff requests an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION preventing the bill from being actioned.

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanman, a concerned citizen
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Even Moderner Legal Board Act includes the following:
"The Courts shall permanently maintain a Public Defender Program, which an appointed court officer, known as the Director, selected by the Chief Justice shall direct."
2. The Constitution, Part 2, Section 13, says, "
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.‌"
3. The Even Moderner Legal Board Act tries to add a Public Defender Program, which is not "the District Court, Federal Court, and Supreme Court."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Even Moderner Legal Board Act attempts to give the executive power of running a Public Defender Program to the judicial branch.
2. The Even Moderner Legal Board Act attempts to add to the judicial branch something not provided in the Constitution.
3. Thus, the Even Moderner Legal Board Act is unconstitutional.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Even Moderner Legal Board Act be struck as unconstitutional.

EVIDENCE
Even Moderner Legal Board Act: Act of Congress - Even Moderner Legal Board Act

Constitution: Government - Constitution
 
The Plaintiff, realizing how this affects the rest of this Act, would also be willing to ask for a modified Prayer for Relief and Emergency Injunction, such that only the portion of the Act relating to Public Defenders is affected by this case.
 
The emergency injunction is denied, as the Constitution states that individuals are entitled to an attorney. The government has a duty to ensure that citizens are adequately represented according to their rights, and so the section of the bill must stand for the time being.
 
federal-court-png.12082


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

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dartanman v. Commonwealth [2022] FCR 97.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. No where in the Constitution does it state that any branch of government is charged with running a "Public Defenders Program," and it certainly does not charge the executive with it. The executive is the branch charged with the execution and enforcement of the law. The executive branch prosecutes individuals in an effort to uphold this constitutional duty, and having them simultaneously be charged with ensuring adequate defense to those they are prosecuting poses major conflicts of interests and would simply be irresponsible to the rights citizens are afforded in this Commonwealth.
2. Every citizen's IV Right states "All accused are entitled to appeal a charge made against them by the state." It is imperative that the entity prosecuting an individual is independent and separate from the entity entrusted with the criminal defense of that same individual, and placing the administration of a program designed to aid those being criminally prosecuted on the same administration criminally prosecuting that individual would be to deny citizens their right to a fair trial.
3. Every citizen's IX Right states "Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed 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 defense." The assistance of counsel for their defense will, under this act, be ensured by the aforementioned impartial Judge in that same right. This bill only corrects and further aims to protect the rights of citizens to receive a counsel that is unbias to the prosecution, as the only impartial individual in a court room is the Judge or other Presiding Officer. Both the defense and prosecution in a court case have an objective - to win. The Judge has no objective other than upholding the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, they have no bias and are bound to impartiality in order to carry out their constitutional duties.
4. The Judiciary is charged with ensuring citizens receive a fair and speedy trial, and are the determining factor in situations where a citizen's right may have been violated. The Judiciary has a duty to uphold the constitution in its entirety, and part of that is ensuring that individuals in court have adequate representation. This makes it not only sensible but also in-line with the Constitution to charge the Judiciary with some role in a program with the sole purpose of this, like the simple appointment of a Director to oversee and maintain the program

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 13th day of December 2022
 
Last edited:
Your honor,

May the Plaintiff respond to the Motion to Dismiss?
 
Yes, you may.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

First of all, I apologize for the delay. I had two final exams on Wednesday, plus an essay I forgot about and had to write in four hours. I know I should've mentioned this beforehand and asked for an extension. Again, my deepest apologies and I assure you it will not happen again.

REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Each point will be a response to the Defendant's points, each corresponding to the same number.

1. The Defendant provides a defense, claiming that the Constitution does not "state that any branch of government is charged with running a 'Public Defenders Program.'" While this is true, it is a) not a sufficient defense, for reasons I will explain in my Opening Statement, and b) a defense, meaning it does not belong in a Motion to Dismiss.

2. The Defense seems to claim there would be a conflict of interest if the executive were to run a Public Defender program. This is a) not a sufficient defense, for reasons I will explain in my Opening Statement, and b) a defense, meaning it does not belong in a Motion to Dismiss.

3. The Defense explains that the Constitution gives the right to an attorney, and argues that this right requires a Public Defender program to exist. This is a) not a sufficient defense, for reasons I will explain in my Opening Statement, and b) a defense, meaning it does not belong in a Motion to Dismiss.

4. The Defense argues that because the Judiciary are in charge of giving a fair and speedy trial, it makes sense and is in-line with the Constitution that the courts run a Public Defender program. This is a) not a sufficient defense, for reasons I will explain in my Opening Statement, and b) a defense, meaning it does not belong in a Motion to Dismiss.



So there you have it. This Motion to Dismiss is essentially an Answer to Complaint, where the Defense has literally only provided defenses and merely labeled it as a Motion to Dismiss. It points out no frivolity, lack of jurisdiction, improper procedures such as wrong parties named, or invalid claims for relief.

Thank you, your honor.

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 16th day of December 2022
 
Additionally, your honor, I would like to make it known that I would like to participate in an in-game trial.
 
The Motion to Dismiss is denied, as it does not provide any claim to frivolity in the case, or any reason it cannot be heard.

Does the Defendant also wish to have an in-game trial?
 
i would like to apologize to both the Court and the Plaintiff for my tardiness in giving a response, I’m away Christmas shopping irl at the moment. The Commonwealth thanks the court for their timely response.

The Department of Legal Affairs is not in a position at the moment to accept an in-game trial. This time of the year is far too busy to conduct an in-game trial unfortunately.
 
Thank you. The Plaintiff may now present their opening statements.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, opposing counsel,

Introduction
I want to be very clear. I am not against the idea of the courts running a Public Defender Program. I am trying to protect the integrity of both the courts and the State itself. The entire Government, including the Judicial Branch, must abide by the law, and particularly what is laid out by the Constitution. The PD Program being run by the courts is actually a good idea, but it needs to be done through a Constitutional Amendment.

Argument
The Even Moderner Legal Board Act gave a new responsibility to the Judicial Branch, specifically to "permanently maintain a Public Defender Program."

Part II of the Constitution gives vast powers and responsibilities to the courts, however none of them entail maintaining a Public Defender Program. To allow the Legislature to give a Government branch new responsibilities without a Constitutional amendment would set the precedent that Congress has near-tyrannical control over the entire Government.

Such precedent would allow, for example, Congress to pass simple bills requiring that the Executive Departments be able to write new laws. Imagine if the people in charge of enforcing the laws were also in charge of creating the laws. It does not make sense.

Returning to the core of this argument: Congress cannot add responsibilities to Government Branches without a Constitutional amendment, as each branch of the Government gains both its powers and responsibilities from the Constitution itself.

That is all.

Thank you to the court and Commonwealth/its counsel for their time.

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 20th day of December 2022
 
The Defense may now present their opening statements.
 
I would also like to apologize in advance to both parties, due to my family having COVID I may be slightly delayed on my response times, although I will try my best to answer in a timely manner.
 
Your Honor, the state is requesting an extension of 24 hours. I’ve been away irl and will not be home in time to file the Commonwealth’s opening statement before the deadline. I apologize for the inconvenience this might be to the court.
 
Your honor, it is well beyond the time given and even beyond the extension requested by the Commonwealth...

but I am asking you, your honor, to let it slide and let the Commonwealth have another extension.

I know this is an extremely weird situation, I mean, how often does the Plaintiff ask for an extension for the Defendant? But I do wish to have an entire case as this case is about Constitutional law, and believe it is of utmost importance to have the entire case argued.

Thank you.
 
The extension is granted. The Commonwealth has 24 hours from this post to present their opening statements.
 
Your honor,

It seems the Attorney General has not logged into the forums in nearly a week. Can the DLA appoint someone else to represent the Commonwealth in this case?

Thank you.
 
The Commonwealth has 24 hours to appoint someone to represent them in this case, or they will receive a charge of contempt of court for failing to respond.
 
Your honour,

I wish to inform the Court that hereinafter I will act as the Commonwealth's primary counsel and representation. I also wish to inform the Court I have familiarised myself with the case.
 
Your honour,

Since my predecessors/lack thereof did not deliver opening statements, I request the Court for a new 48-hour deadline to deliver them.
Happy New Year.
 
The extension is granted.
 
Your honor,

I have been extremely patient and understanding, but at this point the Commonwealth has missed their fourth opportunity to post an Opening Statement.

Are we able to move on with the case at this point?
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honour, counsel of the opposing bench.

1. Answer to the Plaintiff's opening statement
The Plaintiff in this case pushes a narrative which states that the Public Defender Programme may only be introduced as a legal concept and an instrument of the Government, specifically the Judicial branch of it, through a Constitutional Amendment. The Commonwealth completely rejects this argument, because the definition of "adding further responsibilities to Government branches" does not exist, and it is overly expansive. The Commonwealth holds that this Act tries not to change any part of the Constitution, as it doesn't change the core functioning of the Judicial Branch, and does not conflict with it, since there is no part of the Constitution speaking against it, or which it may conflict. Regarding the responsibilites (and addition of them), the Commonwealth wants to point out the Miranda Warning Act, just as an example. The Act gives new responsibilities to the Department of Justice, ordering its officers to use a new instrument declaring rights to the arrested/incriminated persons. Does this also require a constitutional amendment? For this reason, the Public Defender Programme is well within Constitution and it's framework not to require a constitutional Amendment for its implementation.

2. Summary
The Plaintiff seems to think the Public Defender Programme is an executive programme which is being unconstitutionally added to the competence of the Judicial Branch (at least that is what is stated in the original filing). It would be a conflict of interest to let the executive lead and administer the PDP to Defendants who are involved with cases against the Commonwealth. Furthermore, the Constitution needs not specifically mention the PDP for it to be created, because if it did, then the now disbanded Redmont Bar Association would not have been able to operate with the full Government backing, since it could be rendered unconstitutional; it would be rendered so because the Plaintiff's logic is that the Judicial Branch cannot operate/maintain the RBA, for it is not a responsibility written down in the Constitution.

I immensely apologise for being more than late with this, in retrospective I should've notified the Court (my country is changing its currency to euro, and I am very busy with converting money/aligning my bank accounts).

The Court should choose whether to strike me with contempt (I would urge it to do so) and whether it will accept this Opening Statement (I would also urge it to accept it).

I apologise to the Plaintiff.

Thank you.

DATED: This 3rd day of January, 2023
 
Your honor,

Although I am quite disappointed with the Commonwealth's tardiness, I would like to be able to respond to those arguments in my Closing Statement later, and hope you will choose to allow the filing.
 
I will allow the opening statements to remain as no motion to strike was filed. This is the final warning for time management on the part of the Defendant, and if another deadline is not met, I will be issuing a charge of contempt of court.
 
We will now move on to witness testimony. If either party has witnesses to call, please declare so within 24 hours with a list of names. If you have no witnesses to call, you may declare such in the same time frame.
 
I have no witnesses, your honor.
 
The government has no witnesses to call to the stand, your honour.
 
Thank you to both parties, we will now move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff may now present their closing arguments.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
First of all, I want to repeat that I do believe the Courts should run the Public Defender Program. While this belief is not actually relevant to the case, I wish to make that very clear to the Defense.

That being said, I refuse to stand idly by and allow a precedent to be set that allows for near tyrannical power from Congress.

II. Response to Defense’s Opening Statement
1. The Commonwealth claims:
“The Plaintiff in this case pushes a narrative which states that the Public Defender Programme may only be introduced as a legal concept and an instrument of the Government, specifically the Judicial branch of it, through a Constitutional Amendment. The Commonwealth completely rejects this argument, because the definition of "adding further responsibilities to Government branches" does not exist, and it is overly expansive . . . Regarding the responsibilites (and addition of them), the Commonwealth wants to point out the Miranda Warning Act, just as an example. The Act gives new responsibilities to the Department of Justice, ordering its officers to use a new instrument declaring rights to the arrested/incriminated persons. Does this also require a constitutional amendment? For this reason, the Public Defender Programme is well within Constitution and it's framework not to require a constitutional Amendment for its implementation.”

First of all, yes, I am pushing the narrative that I believe to be true – the Public Defender Program, being run by the Judicial Branch, requires a Constitutional Amendment. There is no other way to legally create a Public Defender Program that is run by the Judicial Branch.

Secondly, the Constitution states:
“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 is stated plainly – the Judicial Branch consists solely of the District Court, Federal Court, and Supreme Court, and their responsibilities are strictly laid out in the Constitution.

Thus, to add any more institutions under the Judicial Branch – such as a Public Defender Program – would require a Constitutional Amendment. Additionally, adding a new responsibility to the Judicial Branch – such as running a Public Defender Program – would also require a Constitutional Amendment. It is clear, through the power of the Constitution, that no new responsibilities can be forced onto a Government branch outside of a Constitutional Amendment.

Thirdly, I wish to point out the flaw in the Defense’s argument regarding the Miranda Warning Act. According to the Constitution, the DoJ has the responsibility of “Maintaining the peace and good order of the server, through lawfully exercising its power equally to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont.” The Miranda Warning Act does not truly create a new responsibility for the Department of Justice – it only further clarifies the rights given to citizens by the Constitution.

Particularly, without being aware of the rights given to them by the Constitution, any reasonable person would reasonably believe that if they are forcibly detained by a Police Officer, then they could be required to answer any questions made by the Police Officer, unless they are made aware of their rights. Even before the Miranda Warning Act, if a Police Officer did not inform a citizen of their rights, I believe it would be unconstitutional to use anything they say in court, as by simply asking a question without informing the citizen of their rights, the Police Officer has used their authority – whether inadvertently or not – to coerce the citizen into giving an answer.

So, here we can clearly see that the Miranda Warning Act is not truly creating a new responsibility for the Executive, but clarifying what is already laid out in the Constitution.

2. The Commonwealth claims:
“The Commonwealth holds that this Act tries not to change any part of the Constitution, as it doesn't change the core functioning of the Judicial Branch, and does not conflict with it, since there is no part of the Constitution speaking against it, or which it may conflict.”

It is true that this Act does not try to change any part of the Constitution. That is precisely the problem. It needs to change the Constitution in order for it to be legal. Additionally, I believe my above arguments clearly show the conflict between this Act and the Constitution. Specifically, the creation of the Public Defender Program under the Judicial Branch is not defined by the Constitution, and it must be in order for it to be legal.

3. The Commonwealth claims:
“The Plaintiff seems to think the Public Defender Programme is an executive programme which is being unconstitutionally added to the competence of the Judicial Branch (at least that is what is stated in the original filing).”

Originally, that was true, however my position has changed throughout the course of this case from having two reasons (both of which were stated in the original filing) the Judicial Branch cannot currently run the Public Defender Program to having only one – the Constitutionality of it.

III. Final Arguments
1. While the Motion was already overruled, the Commonwealth stated in their Motion to Dismiss:
“The assistance of counsel for their defense will, under this act, be ensured by the aforementioned impartial Judge in that same right. This bill only corrects and further aims to protect the rights of citizens to receive a counsel that is unbias to the prosecution, as the only impartial individual in a court room is the Judge or other Presiding Officer. Both the defense and prosecution in a court case have an objective - to win. The Judge has no objective other than upholding the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, they have no bias and are bound to impartiality in order to carry out their constitutional duties . . . The Judiciary is charged with ensuring citizens receive a fair and speedy trial, and are the determining factor in situations where a citizen's right may have been violated. The Judiciary has a duty to uphold the constitution in its entirety, and part of that is ensuring that individuals in court have adequate representation. This makes it not only sensible but also in-line with the Constitution to charge the Judiciary with some role in a program with the sole purpose of this, like the simple appointment of a Director to oversee and maintain the program.”

I applaud the Commonwealth for seeking to uphold the law and Constitution, recognizing the potential for bias if the Public Defender Program is run by the Executive Branch, and speaking about this during this case. These paragraphs were the driving force behind changing my mind about the Executive running the program, however, it is still clear, in my opinion, that a Constitutional Amendment is required for this program to exist as part of the Judicial Branch.

IV. Conclusion
Your honor, opposing counsel,

I hope you can see through these arguments that I am in no way against the Judicial Branch running the Public Defender Program. I only want this to be done legally and without establishing a dangerous precedent that could lead to the downfall of Redmont as we know it.

I am encouraged by the Commonwealth’s desire to uphold the law in this case. Although it is labeled “Dartanman v. Commonwealth,” I believe we both want the same thing: A legal, unbiased, Public Defender Program.

I hope you understand the necessity of a Constitutional Amendment given the circumstances.

Thank you.

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 7th day of January 2023
 
Thank you. The Defense may now present their closing arguments.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

I. Recapitulation of the Trial
During the length of this trial, the Defence has seen a lot of very good lawyering/trialing from the Plaintiff, and they have been more than polite during the trial. They have accepted our missed deadlines and withstood the lack of lawyers to actually execute the Defence. This trial has, in global, been a very good experience on both sides, at least argument-wise, and I hope the Court recognises that.

II. Recapitulation of the Defence
The Defence holds, and throughout the trial stood by:

1. The Plaintiff's claim trying to push a narrative requiring a Constitutional Amendment to introduce the Public Defender Programme is based on a very broad interpretation of the Constitution, and it is implied that the Courts (conclusively, the Judicial Branch) can be bestowed with executing this programme without needing to change the Constitution. The Defence holds it would be very bureaucratically laborious to, whenever additional competences are given to certain public agencies, need to push an amendment.

2. The definition of adding new responsibilities to public agencies, what that entails, and to what extent is constitutionally-wise very unclear. The Defence recognises this is an area which could use more clarification with appropriate legislation.

3. The Defence cannot see how this Act is unconstitutional in any other possible way, since it is not altering anything else or even conflicting with the Consitution's wording.

III. Conclusion
The Defence, for all the reasons stated above, and in previous statements, wants to point to the Court that, while the Plaintiff has a noble cause of protecting the Constitution, it is doing so without any concrete legal bedrock or real necessity. The Defence hopes the Court will recognise our findings and statements as valid, and find in our favour.

Thank you

DATED: This 9th day of January, 2023
 
Your honour, the commonwealth requests the verdict to be given as soon as possible.
 
The Commonwealth's wish is noted. Please be patient.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 97

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Even Moderner Legal Board Act (hereafter Act) includes a provision which specifies that the Judiciary must maintain a public defender program.
2. The judicial branch of the government is specified in the constitution to be responsible only for interpreting laws, not executing them.
4. Anything outside of this duty must be provided for in a Constitutional amendment.
3. This means that the provision in the Act must be unconstitutional.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Act adds duties to a branch that are related to the branch’s activities, and is thus appropriate.
2. Other laws have been passed which add responsibilities to government branches and have not been found unconstitutional.
3. Adding new responsibilities to the government is something that is not clearly defined, and so cannot be outright unconstitutional.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. The Constitution states that the Judiciary has the duty to “interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive”.
2. This does not include any mention of executing laws or maintaining offices that are not specified.
3. It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”.
4. These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
4. Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.
6. The Executive branch may not interpret laws without a Constitutional amendment giving it the power to. Likewise, the Judicial branch may not enforce or execute laws without a Constitutional amendment providing it with the power to do so.
7. As this act would require the Judiciary to provide for a Public Defender Program, executing the law, it is something that would require a Constitutional amendment.
8. As there was no amendment, this section of the law is unconstitutional.

IV. VERDICT
I find in favor of the Plaintiff.
Section 6 of the Even Moderner Legal Board Act is hereby declared unconstitutional and is rendered null and void.

The court thanks both parties for their time. This case is hereby adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top