Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 36

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The PRT applied to register as a political party on March 23, 2023. Whilst it was never legally recognized by the Commonwealth, it is the opinion of the Plaintiff that the Department of State Policies which prevented the PRT from being recognized are unconstitutional.

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanman
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On March 23, 2023, the PRT applied to register as an official political party.
2. The Department of State’s policy says:

The party, in order to successfully become registered, needs the meet the criteria in one of the following pathways:

Automatic party registration
- Party must have at least ten supporters (who do not have to be members of the party; excluding the player requesting the registration) with at least 12h playtime each in addition to five committed members (who aren't already in a party or clearly joking - determined at leadership's discretion) with at least 12h playtime each
- The ten supporters must reply to the party application thread within ten days after the application was originally posted
- Party must have a Discord server listed with a specific role for committed members
- Approved automatically

Standard party registration
- Party must have five supporters (who do not have to be members of the party; excluding the player requesting the registration) with at least 12h playtime each in addition to three committed members (who aren't already in a party or clearly joking - determined at leadership's discretion) with at least 12h playtime each
- Approved at department leadership's discretion

3. The Constitution guarantees many rights and freedoms, among them:
“I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime.”
“VI. Freedom of Political Communication.”
“XII. Freedom of Association.”
“XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.”
4. The Courts have determined many times that department policy is legally enforceable, so long as it does not contradict higher law.
5. The Constitution is the highest law in Redmont.
6. By making requirements such as “Party must have at least ten supporters,” “Party must have five supporters”, “Approved at department leadership’s discretion,” etc, these policies are violating the rights listed in Fact 3.
7. On April 9, 2023, the PRT application was denied.
8. It was denied for lack of support and lack of comprehensive policy (neither of which are legal).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By denying the PRT’s political party registration due to not meeting the unconstitutional requirements, the Commonwealth has restricted the PRT party leader’s freedom of Political Communication.
2. By denying the PRT’s political party registration due to not meeting the unconstitutional requirements, they are restricting PRT party members’ freedom of association.
3. By denying the PRT’s political party registration due to not meeting the unconstitutional requirements, they are putting an undue burden on PRT party members who may wish to participate in and/or run for elected office, since the House of Representatives elections are “conducted through a system of Proportional Representation outlined in [the Electoral Act].”
4. By denying the PRT’s political party registration due to not meeting the unconstitutional requirements, the Government is publicly opposing a political party, which shows the Government does not consider the PRT party leader equal under the law, without unfair discrimination based on political belief.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The PRT be registered as a political party
2. $2500 in nominal damages
3. The Department of State issue a public apology
4. The Department of State change their policy to be legal

EVIDENCE
Exhibit A [The Constitution]: Government - Constitution
Exhibit B [The Electoral Act]: Act of Congress - Electoral Act
Exhibit C [DoS Policy on Party Registration]: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/
Exhibit D [PRT Application]: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/dartanman-political-party-application.16639/

 

[dygyee]

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

The Attorney General, or anyone who can legally represent the Commonwealthis required to appear before the court in the case of the Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 36. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

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.​

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont.
Defendant

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

The Department of State's policies on political party registration are not unconstitutional because they do not contradict any higher law, such as the Constitution or the Electoral Act. The policies provide reasonable criteria for parties to be recognized, including minimum support and commitment requirements, which are necessary to ensure the viability and legitimacy of political parties. The Constitution and the Electoral Act do not guarantee an unrestricted right to form a political party, but rather provide for the regulation and oversight of political parties in the interest of democratic governance.
Moreover, the plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the Department of State's policies were applied in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner, or that they were intended to suppress any particular political viewpoint. The plaintiff's claim that the denial of their party registration was due to unconstitutional requirements is also unfounded, as the Department of State's decision was based on a lack of support and comprehensive policy, which are legitimate criteria for evaluating party applications.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claims for relief, including registration of their political party, damages, apology, and policy change, are not supported by the evidence and should be dismissed by the court. The Department of State's policies on political party registration should be upheld as constitutional and necessary for the proper functioning of democratic governance in Redmont.



I would like to prove that the policies are not unconstitutional as marked by the plaintiff

“I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime.”


The Department of State's denial of the PRT's application was not an undue burden on its members' right to participate in and run for elected office, as they are still free to participate as individuals or as part of an existing party. The denial of registration does not prevent them from seeking election or participating in the electoral process.

“VI. Freedom of Political Communication.”

In the complaint, the plaintiff argues that the Commonwealth's policy on political party registration violates the freedom of political communication guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the specific argument for how the freedom of political communication is not violated is not clear from the given information.
That being said, a possible argument for how the freedom of political communication is not violated could be that the policy only regulates the registration process for political parties, and does not restrict or prohibit the PRT or its members from engaging in political communication or expressing their political beliefs in other ways. In other words, the policy does not prevent the PRT from communicating their political ideas, but rather sets certain requirements for them to become an officially recognized political party. As long as the PRT is not prevented from engaging in political communication outside of the registration process, the freedom of political communication may not be violated.


“XII. Freedom of Association.”

The Department of State's policies for registering political parties are reasonable and necessary to ensure that political parties have sufficient support and are committed to participating in the political process. The policies do not prohibit anyone from forming a political party, but rather provide a framework for doing so.
The policies are content-neutral and apply equally to all political parties. The policies are not based on the political beliefs or social status of the party members, but rather on their level of commitment and support for the party.

Furthermore, the Commonwealth could argue that the PRT's application was denied due to a lack of support and comprehensive policy, not because of their political beliefs or social status. The Department of State's decision was made based on objective criteria, which are necessary to ensure that registered political parties have a sufficient level of support and commitment to participate in the political process.
Overall, the Commonwealth could argue that the Department of State's policies for registering political parties are reasonable and necessary to ensure the integrity of the political process, and do not violate freedom of association.

“XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.”

Firstly, it should be noted that the policies outlined by the Department of State are designed to ensure that political parties are adequately supported and prepared before they are officially recognized. These policies apply equally to all political parties and do not unfairly discriminate against any party on the basis of political belief or social status. Rather, they are meant to create a level playing field for all political parties and ensure that they meet certain requirements before they are granted official recognition.
Secondly, the policies themselves do not restrict any citizen's right to equal protection under the law. They are applied equally to all citizens who wish to register a political party, regardless of their political beliefs or social status. The fact that the PRT did not meet the criteria outlined in the policies is not due to any unfair discrimination against them, but rather because they did not fulfill the requirements that are necessary for official recognition.

Finally, it is important to note that the Constitution guarantees many rights and freedoms, but it also provides for limitations on those rights in certain circumstances. For example, the right to free speech is not absolute, and it can be limited in certain situations, such as when it threatens national security or public safety. Similarly, the right to political communication and association can be limited in certain circumstances if it is necessary to protect the public interest.
In conclusion, it is the opinion of the defendant that the policies outlined by the Department of State do not violate Article XIII of the Constitution. These policies are designed to ensure that political parties are adequately supported and prepared before they are granted official recognition, and they are applied equally to all citizens who wish to register a political party. The fact that the PRT did not meet the criteria outlined in the policies is not due to any unfair discrimination, but rather because they did not fulfill the requirements that are necessary for official recognition.




Your honor, now that I have proved that these policies are not unconstitutional,
I would like to respectfully argue that the denial of the party's request does not violate the policies set forth by the Department of State (DOS), as outlined in the following points:
Firstly, as per the DOS policies, a political party must have at least ten supporters to be considered for registration. However, as evidenced by the responses on the aforementioned forum thread, only four individuals have shown support for the party. While we do not know the party affiliation of all respondents, we can only count those who have expressly shown support for the party as supporters.

Furthermore, to qualify for standard registration, a political party must have three committed members, whereas automatic registration requires five committed members. In this case, let us assume that Pios, Mask, and TeuntjeMixer have agreed to be the committed members, which would bring the total number of committed members to three. However, the party still falls short of the required number of supporters to be eligible for standard registration.
Therefore, it is clear that the party does not meet the minimum requirements for registration as outlined by the DOS policies. As such, the denial of the party's request does not violate the rights of the party members, including the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on political belief or social status, as enshrined in the Constitution.

(Also note that none of the people who responded on the tread were not committed members as they did not take the committed member pledge, which made me assume that neither of them were committed members and party supporters.)


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: 11th April 2023.

 

[dygyee]

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

First of all, bibsfi4a, ChatGPT is a powerful tool, but it doesn't have limitless potential. It is actually very bad at legal work.

Your honor, this motion to dismiss does not claim:
- lack of jurisdiction
- wrong party/parties
- invalid claims for Relief
- frivolous case

It only argues that what they did was not unconstitutional. This case is precisely about the constitutionality of these actions. It cannot be dismissed on the grounds that the Defendant thinks they didn't disobey the law.

Thus, this case should not be dismissed.

Thank you.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

First of all, bibsfi4a, ChatGPT is a powerful tool, but it doesn't have limitless potential. It is actually very bad at legal work.

Your honor, this motion to dismiss does not claim:
- lack of jurisdiction
- wrong party/parties
- invalid claims for Relief
- frivolous case

It only argues that what they did was not unconstitutional. This case is precisely about the constitutionality of these actions. It cannot be dismissed on the grounds that the Defendant thinks they didn't disobey the law.

Thus, this case should not be dismissed.

Thank you.

Good day.
True I used chatgpt , but not for my "dirty legal work" but for reframing my sentences to provide the best representation due to my bad English.
These ideas were solely on my researches while I used third party websites to reframe them.

 

[dygyee]

I hereby charge Bibsfi4a with 1 count of contempt of court for talking out of turn, and I order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.

 

[dygyee]

I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss, as there is still question as to which, if any, of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights are being violated by the DOS.

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to provide their opening statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Your honor, I the Defense is correct about one thing: the Department of State (DoS) policy, as it is currently written, does allow the PRT registration to be denied. However, the Plaintiff believes that this policy is unconstitutional, violating four different rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

In this filing, I will explain how these policies are infringing upon my rights.

II. OPENING ARGUMENTS

1. The Constitution, under the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, grants all citizens:
"VI. Freedom of Political Communication."

I was trying to register my Political Party - the PRT - giving it the same communication ability as other political parties. Without being allowed to register the PRT, the DoS is stopping any members of the PRT from politically communicating their party membership, as the party is illegitimate, according to the DoS.

2. The Constitution, under the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, grants all citizens:
"XII. Freedom of Association."

Not only did the DoS deny the PRT's registration, but they made it impossible for anyone to associate with the PRT. Any party members who wish to run for office are forced to run as independents, as non-registered political parties cannot run in elections as parties.

Thus, the DoS is directly violating not only my freedom of association, but any other PRT party members as well.

3. The Constitution, under the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, grants all citizens:
"I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime."

The House of Representatives elections are “conducted through a system of Proportional Representation outlined in [the Electoral Act].” This means that if a registered political party has 50% of the votes, that party will hold about 50% of the House's seats, regardless of who in the party received the votes. This could mean a very unpopular candidate could obtain a seat in the House, even if they received fewer votes than an independent.

This results in independents having an unfair disadvantage against members of political parties. There is a simple solution: make your own political party.... but the DoS won't allow it. That's right, the DoS is recklessly allowing more popular political parties to have an advantage over PRT members by forcing PRT members to run as independents.

This is considered an undue burden to run for elected office, directly violating the aforementioned right.

4. The Constitution, under the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, grants:
"XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

Your honor, while I believe all four of these rights are being violated, I believe this one is the most compelling argument.

EVERY CITIZEN IS EQUAL BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW ... WITHOUT UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON POLITICAL BELIEF ...

Your honor, if one person can make a political party solely because they have more popular political beliefs, but someone else who has less popular political beliefs cannot make a political party (solely because it is less popular), that is, by definition, unfair discrimination based on political belief. This is completely against the Constitution.

That's all.

Thank you.

 

[dygyee]

The defense now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Good day, Your Honour from this opening statement, I would like to prove that the DOS policies are not unconstitutional.

II. OPENING ARGUMENTS

"VI. Freedom of Political Communication."

The DOS policies do not violate the right to political communication.
The state would like to bring to the court's attention that the plaintiff's argument seems to be misinterpreting the actual context of political communication.
Freedom to Political Communication is granted by the Constitution, In fact, the player can still freely politically communicate, and the DOS policies does not take away the right of the player to politically communicate.

Plaintiff says-

Without being allowed to register the PRT, the DoS is stopping any members of the PRT from politically communicating

The DOS policies in no way affect the individual right of the party members to politically communicate.
The Constitution does not require that political parties be registered to engage in political communication.
The PRT members, while still being unregistered, can politically communicate by various means like political rallies , political events , speeches , advertisement and much more. Nowhere in the constitution is it stated that only registered political parties can politically communicate.
Hence, the state believes that the policies does not infringe upon the plaintiff's freedom of political communication or the communication of the PRT's political views and beliefs.

"XII. Freedom of Association."

It is not true that the DOS had made it impossible for anyone to associate with the PRT.
Members of PRT are free to associate with each other, and free to run for office.
The main purpose of the DOS and their policies are that political parties are legitimate , organized and have a certain support from the population before they are allowed to participate in the elections. Allowing non-registered parties to participate in elections would create chaos and confusion between voters and would undermine the integrity of the election process. Several Meme parties will also be made and the political field will lose its importance and elections will turn out to be a joke.

Party members still have freedom to associate , yes they can associate themself with the unregistered political party, but letting unregistered parties participate in elections would have a harmful impact.

"I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime."


The electoral Act system of Proportional Representation is made to ensure fair representation of all the citizens.
The requirement for political parties to register with the Department of State Makes sure that the party has a certain level of support from the citizens and some credibility, which is important for a fair and democratic election process.
The Proportional Representation gives independents and minor parties chances to get seats in the congress, which can have a positive impact and prevent a singular party from having majority seats.


"XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

Defendant says-

Your honor, while I believe all four of these rights are being violated, I believe this one is the most compelling argument.

EVERY CITIZEN IS EQUAL BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW ... WITHOUT UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON POLITICAL BELIEF ...

Your honor, if one person can make a political party solely because they have more popular political beliefs, but someone else who has less popular political beliefs cannot make a political party (solely because it is less popular), that is, by definition, unfair discrimination based on political belief. This is completely against the Constitution.


Response

True , Every citizen is equal before and under the law , without unfair discrimination. But the fact that PRT Is not unfairly discriminated and all Parties are treated equally and the same policies are applied uniformly and fairly on all political parties. PRT is not the only party to stay unregistered.
The More popular political or less popular political beliefs doesnt even concern at this point. If you can make a political party with a less popular political belief , and get a lot of support , people actually like it , then you can be a political party.

The question on discrimination on political beliefs does not arise here. The only thing that matters is the support of the particular ideology. Hence , I can conclude that every political party, according to the DOS policies, has equal rights and opportunities to show the required support.

III. Conclusion

These policies ensure that only legitimate political parties are allowed to participate in the electoral process, which guarantees that the election results accurately reflect the will of the people. Without these policies , the political field would become a joke and these policies play a vital role in preserving the political aspect of the server.
I thank the court for their time.

 

[dygyee]

We will now move on to witnesses. Both parties have 48 hours to provide their list of witnesses, or state that they have none.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Plaintiff has no witnesses to call

 

[Bibsfi4a]

The state (defendant) has no witnesses to call

 

[dygyee]

We will now move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, due to an exam tomorrow, I request an extra 24 hours, that is, a total of 72 hours instead of the usual 48.

 

[dygyee]

This extension has been granted.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
So far in this case, I’ve argued that by denying the PRT’s party registration, the Department of State violated four rights in the Constitution:
1. Freedom of Political Communication
2. Freedom of Association
3. The Right to participate in and run for elected office
4. Equality under the law, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status

Throughout this case, the Commonwealth has convinced me that the DoS policy (and their decision regarding the PRT) does not violate the Freedom of Political Communication, however, I still find that it violates the Freedom of Association, the Right to participate in and run for elected office, and the Right to equality under the law, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status. This Closing Statement will clarify how these rights and freedoms are violated, as well as point out flaws in the Defense’s Opening Statements.

II. REBUTTAL OF DEFENSE’S OPENING STATEMENTS
1. “Members of PRT are free to associate with each other, and free to run for office.”

This couldn’t be further from the truth. The PRT cannot exist without approval from the Department of State. In fact, any party not registered is considered an illegitimate party (DoS policy: “All legitimate parties need to be registered with the Department of State”). Thus, by classifying the PRT as illegitimate, they are preventing the PRT from being recognized, stopping people from associating with the PRT, and stopping any members from running for office as a member of the PRT (and forcing them to run as independents or members of another party).

2. “The requirement for political parties to register with the Department of State Makes sure that the party has a certain level of support from the citizens and some credibility, which is important for a fair and democratic election process.”

Your honor, this is again blatantly incorrect. If a political party has to have a “certain level of support from the citizens,” then it is discriminating based on social status. This is directly violating the thirteenth right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

3. “True , Every citizen is equal before and under the law , without unfair discrimination. But the fact that PRT Is not unfairly discriminated and all Parties are treated equally and the same policies are applied uniformly and fairly on all political parties. PRT is not the only party to stay unregistered.
The More popular political or less popular political beliefs doesnt even concern at this point. If you can make a political party with a less popular political belief , and get a lot of support , people actually like it , then you can be a political party.”

Once again, a blatant violation. The Defense claims “you can make a political party with a less popular political belief, and get a lot of support.” Your honor, if it has a lot of support, it is, by definition, popular. Thus, denying a political party on the basis that it does not have enough support is logically the same as denying a political party on the basis that its political beliefs are not popular enough. Using different phrasing doesn’t change the root of the problem.

III. CLOSING STATEMENTS
1. What is the Freedom of Association? I would put forth the idea that it is the freedom to associate within a group or organization in such a way as to advance your beliefs or ideas. These beliefs and ideas may be economic, religious, cultural, or even political.

Your honor, by denying the PRT’s party registration, they are declaring the PRT illegitimate (again, see DoS policy: “All legitimate parties need to be registered with the Department of State”), destroying the legitimacy of the PRT – a group in which people wish to associate to advance their beliefs and ideas.

Thus, denying the PRT’s registration is a violation of all PRT members’ Freedom of Association. The DoS policy, which allowed them to deny the PRT’s registration, is unconstitutional.

2. What is the Right to participate in and run for elected office? This one is rather straightforward – all citizens have the right to be in elected office (if they are elected), and have the right to run for elected office. The only exception to this is punishment for a crime.

Yet here we are. The Government is putting an undue burden on all members of the PRT, forcing them to run as independents. As mentioned earlier, the Proportional System of Representation gives members of registered political parties an upper hand over independents – so much so that independents sometimes receive more votes than party members, but still lose to those party members.

Thus, denying the PRT’s registration is a violation of all PRT members’ Right to participate in and run for elected office. The DoS policy, which allowed them to deny the PRT’s registration, is unconstitutional.

3. Finally, what does it mean that “Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.”

Your honor, the answer is made plain in the Constitution: If a policy, law, or regulation discriminates based on political belief or social status, it is unconstitutional.

Your honor, the PRT’s registration was denied “for not accruing the necessary amount of support and lack of comprehensive policy.” Your honor, the PRT held one policy – an ideology – “we will protest illegal actions made by the Government, sue the Government for aforementioned actions, and hold officials accountable.”

This is clearly a political motive and policy, as the courts have ruled in the past that such actions are, in fact, political by nature. So the “lack of comprehensive policy” is merely that the Department of State does not believe the PRT’s political beliefs to be robust enough, which is clearly denying the PRT’s registration based on its political belief.

The obvious other part of the denial is for “not accruing the necessary amount of support.” First of all, as stated above: if it has a lot of support, it is, by definition, popular. Thus, denying a political party on the basis that it does not have enough support is logically the same as denying a political party on the basis that its political beliefs are not popular enough. Using different phrasing doesn’t change the root of the problem.

Deeper still, popularity is interchangeable with social status, so denying the PRT based on the idea that it did not “accrue the necessary amount of support” is denying the PRT based on social status.

Thus, denying the PRT’s registration is a violation of my right to equality before and under the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.. The DoS policy, which allowed them to deny the PRT’s registration, is unconstitutional.

IV. CONCLUSION
Throughout this case, it has been unequivocally shown that the Department of State is stopping me and/or the entire membership of the PRT from associating with a legitimate political party, causing undue burden to run for elected office, denying the registration due to its political beliefs, and denying the registration due to its social status.

The PRT’s registration was denied and there are four issues of constitutionality with this decision.

Thank you.

 

[dygyee]

Thank you to the Plaintiff for their closing statement, the Defendant now has 48 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honour the state requests a 24 hour extension as I'm sick irl
Hope you can understand

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your honor, while I hope the Defense's counsel is healthy, he had 48 hours to ask for an extension, yet didn't until after the time expired. For this reason, I request the extension is denied.

EDIT: I deeply apologize, I mis-read the times. Just overrule this objection please.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

I am feeling much better now , so here is the closing statement.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing Statement

I. Rebuttal of Plaintiff's closing statement.

Plaintiff says-

1. “Members of PRT are free to associate with each other, and free to run for office.”

This couldn’t be further from the truth. The PRT cannot exist without approval from the Department of State. In fact, any party not registered is considered an illegitimate party (DoS policy: “All legitimate parties need to be registered with the Department of State”). Thus, by classifying the PRT as illegitimate, they are preventing the PRT from being recognized, stopping people from associating with the PRT, and stopping any members from running for office as a member of the PRT (and forcing them to run as independents or members of another party).

Response

1. What is the Freedom of Association? I would put forth the idea that it is the freedom to associate within a group or organization in such a way as to advance your beliefs or ideas. These beliefs and ideas may be economic, religious, cultural, or even political.

Your honor , in the above paragraph , dartanman clarified the meaning of freedom of association which the state agrees on.

Dartanman himself claimed that Freedom to associate with a group or organization in such a way as to advance your beliefs or ideas.

The DOS policies in no way prevents the members of the PRT from putting forward their beliefs or ideas. Even while staying unregistered, PRT can put forward its beliefs and ideas. No where in the DOS policy is mentioned unregistered parties cannot associate with each other For example , I make a party named “Party X” , I can associate officially by saying that I am a member of Party X , and by doing so the DOS does not interfere. You can associate with a party even if it’s unregistered and even with one another.

Furthermore , Dartanman can promote their beliefs or ideas , if they want to do it in a group or organization , by making a union or a Non-profit organization/ business.
Here organization or group does not only mean a “political party” but there are various other possible organizations.

Plaintiff also says-

2. “The requirement for political parties to register with the Department of State Makes sure that the party has a certain level of support from the citizens and some credibility, which is important for a fair and democratic election process.”

Your honor, this is again blatantly incorrect. If a political party has to have a “certain level of support from the citizens,” then it is discriminating based on social status. This is directly violating the thirteenth right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Response

Your honor, these statements from the plaintiff make no sense. We live in a democratic society. Let's take a simple example. The People of Redmont vote someone in as president and then someone comes in and states that this is a violation of the 13th charter as it discriminates based on social status, he got more votes because he is popular. The president needs to have a certain level of support from the citizens so that it reflects the will of the people.

Applying the same treatment to political parties is a good thing as it reflects the will of the people on what party they would like to stand for in elections.
Democracy is all about people's will and the fact that people stand above all.

Hence the state strongly believes that no unfair discrimination is done and the certain level of support is necessary for a fair democratic election process and is necessary to reflect the will of the people.

Plaintiff says-

3. “True , Every citizen is equal before and under the law , without unfair discrimination. But the fact that PRT Is not unfairly discriminated and all Parties are treated equally and the same policies are applied uniformly and fairly on all political parties. PRT is not the only party to stay unregistered.
The More popular political or less popular political beliefs doesnt even concern at this point. If you can make a political party with a less popular political belief , and get a lot of support , people actually like it , then you can be a political party.”

Once again, a blatant violation. The Defense claims “you can make a political party with a less popular political belief, and get a lot of support.” Your honor, if it has a lot of support, it is, by definition, popular. Thus, denying a political party on the basis that it does not have enough support is logically the same as denying a political party on the basis that its political beliefs are not popular enough. Using different phrasing doesn’t change the root of the problem.

RESPONSE

Once again, the plaintiff misunderstood the law. In the court of law, there is no popular political belief and no less popular political belief. No political ideology in the opinion of the state is popular or less popular. It is in the hands of the creator of the party to promote their ideology and make it popular, by default no political ideology is considered more popular than the other. If the creator of the political party uses the right techniques of advertising, any political ideology is capable of getting a lot of support.

Even if you have no ideology, you are free to make a political party and nowhere does it state that an ideology is needed to make a political party.


II. Closing statement

1. Hence, your honor the plaintiff can still associate as a member of the PRT even if the party is unregistered and he can make an organization such as a Non-profit organization/union and get the supporters of the party to associate with the formed organization.
2. The Proportional System of Representation as stated in the opening statement is necessary for the fair elections and preventing a singular party from having multiple seats and an influence over the congress.

3. Like I stated above , in the court of law , no ideology is popular and every ideology is the same. So what really matters is the will of the people , and the fact that people are above all.

4. Lastly , I request the honorable judge to provide a perfect definition for the rights and freedom in the lawsuit as to set a precedent.

I thank the court for their time.

 

[dygyee]

I will be overruling the objection, and a verdict will be posted in the coming days.

 

[dygyee]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 36

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The DOS has certain requirements that need to be met in order to create a political party.
2. These requirements violate multiple constitutional rights.
3. These rights include freedom of political communication, freedom of association, and every citizen is equal before and under the law.
4. The Plaintiff specifically claims that by rejecting their political party, all members of the PRT didn't have freedom of political communication, people couldn't associate with the PRT, and every citizen has the right to run for office, except that since the PRT registration was denied, the party members can't anymore.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The state didn't violate freedom of political communication because the Plaintiff and all party members can communicate freely.
2. People can still associate with the party and run as independent, so this doesn't violate freedom of association.
3. Anyone can still run and these regulations are the same for everyone and every political party. Therefore everyone is still equal under the law.
4. These policies are not to violate rights or make it hard to have a political party, but rather to ensure that only serious political parties are registered.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Firstly we need to determine if any of these restrictions that the DOS has set forth violate the constitution.
2. It doesn't violate freedom of political communication because political communication can happen both without a political party, or with an unregistered party.
3. It doesn't violate freedom of association because people can still associate with the party. The whole reason that the party wasn't accepted in the first place was because not enough people associated with the party and supported it.
4. It doesn't prevent people from running for office because they can run as an independent or for a registered political party.
5 It doesn't violate the concept of everyone being equal before and under the law because these restrictions apply to everyone.

IV. DECISION
1. Because the regulations set by the DOS do not violate any constitutional rights, I hereby rule in favor of the Defendant.
2. I would also like to acknowledge the Defendant's request for the court to provide a perfect definition to the rights and freedoms. The court is not in charge of creating a definition for any laws or constitutional rights, they are in charge of interpreting what is already written and the definitions that are given, and for those reasons I cannot give you a definition.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.