Lawsuit: Adjourned dodrio3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 4

[Alexander P. Love]

You might've missed this, or it might just be your incompetence, but I am not a party to this case nor a witness. I have spoken out of turn, and you can't pick and choose which of my statements can be used in court.
I have not been sworn in, therefore I could just be lying, which I probably am. As a result my statements cannot be used in a court of law, unless you call me as a witness. You should know this but frankly, since you don't understand the difference the burden of proof and standard of proof, im not surprised you also don't understand how evidence and testimony works.

Your motion has been denied.

Motion to strike and charge with contempt of court, your honor.

 

[Nacho]

Idk mate, I know the vote count myself and Wetc was wronged massively on this.
I'd just like to point out one of the weird arguments you made in this passage: that "the DOS does NOT have the authority to overturn an election result after the results are already made official."

The first announcement of the results by the DOS was to announce Wetc had won the seat.

They then overturned that announcement to wrongfully declare Dodrio as the winner. Then the DOS had a leadership change, they found votes had been wrongfully removed, and they discovered the DOS had been doing this for a long time. It was pure incompetency, and no one in the DOS thought to try fix it until "rookie" Crobi.

The opposition to Krix is full of incompetent individuals, who have very poor understanding of the law, yet are the ones who sit upon high horses, acting as though they are the authority on right and wrong in a video game.

You ethical and high horse individuals with the know-all on what is right or wrong saw fit to remove Wetc from his rightfully elected position, based on the legal actions of the DOS. He was removed for an entire term...
That is loss of enjoyment on the server if i've ever seen it. I'd never do that to an individual on here.

The response is struck in full as the individual is not a party to the case, and neither side requested the comment.

Dusty_3 is also held in contempt for speaking within a case in which he is not a party.

 

[Nacho]

You might've missed this, or it might just be your incompetence, but I am not a party to this case nor a witness. I have spoken out of turn, and you can't pick and choose which of my statements can be used in court.
I have not been sworn in, therefore I could just be lying, which I probably am. As a result my statements cannot be used in a court of law, unless you call me as a witness. You should know this but frankly, since you don't understand the difference the burden of proof and standard of proof, im not surprised you also don't understand how evidence and testimony works.

Your motion has been denied.

The response is struck in full as the individual is not a party to the case, and neither side requested the comment.

Dusty_3 is also held in contempt for speaking within a case in which he is not a party. This is the second offense by the individual, and they are attempting to make a mockery within the court; the court will be charging them as a serial criminal offender per the standardized criminal code.

 

[Nacho]

The Defense is held in contempt for failing to respond on time adequately.

The court will not proceed into recess to begin discussing the case and draft a verdict.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,

It seems with the comotion of a non party user speaking in the court I missed your call for a closing statement.

My appologies I humbly request 12 hours to post my closing arguments as this will give me time.to get home from work and post them.

Thank you, Your Honor.

 

[Nacho]

I will tentatively agree to allow you to publish your closing statement with the 12-hour extension.

However, if the other justices do not wish to hear the remarks, they will be struck, and we will continue with the recess and verdict drafting.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Closing Statement

Your Honor,

It is imperative to reiterate that in legal proceedings, the burden of proof rests squarely on the plaintiff's shoulders. In this case, the plaintiff has failed to meet this burden, as their claim that dodrio3 was illegally denied a seat in the House of Representatives lacks substantive evidence and relies primarily on assumptions and speculation.

Throughout their presentation, the plaintiff has attempted to construct a narrative of corruption and wrongdoing without providing concrete evidence to support these allegations. Instead of presenting verifiable facts, they have resorted to broad claims and conjecture, failing to offer justifiable backing to their prayers of relief.

Moreover, it is crucial to recognize that the plaintiff's case is heavily reliant on the notion of conspiracy. However, mere speculation and assumptions cannot serve as a basis for legal arguments or conclusions. The courts must remain steadfast in their commitment to evidence-based decision-making, rather than entertaining unfounded theories.

In essence, Your Honor, the plaintiff's case lacks the substance and credibility necessary to withstand scrutiny. Their reliance on assumptions and conspiracy theories does not meet the standard of proof required in this court. Therefore, I respectfully urge the court to see past the plaintiff's theatrics and evaluate this case based on the facts and evidence presented, which unequivocally demonstrate the absence of any wrongdoing or illegal denial of a seat in the House of Representatives.

Thank your
Your Honor.

 

[Nacho]

The court thanks you for your swift response in filing the closing statement.

The court will accept the defense's closing statement. However, because the defendant failed to meet the timeframe provided by the court, the contempt charge will remain and will not be removed.

The court will now resume its recess and continue drafting its verdict.

 

[Nacho]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dordio v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 4

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Dodrio3 was announced that they won the Representative Election.
2. Dodrio3 was later removed from this position after 48 hours by Crobi268.
3. Wetc was declared the winner of the Representative Election.
4. The Department of State does not have the power to remove Representatives from their seats.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. There was an error that unfairly declared Dodrio3 the winner of the Representative seat.
2. There was a lack of proof by the Plaintiff.
3. The error was corrected before Dodrio3 was given their roles; thus, the removal is justified.

III. THE COURT OPINION
Chief Justice Nacholebraa wrote the opinion of the court, to which Associate Justice RelaxedGV and Associate Justice Neemfy signed:

The court has been presented with various questions that will need to be addressed and clarified. I have broke the question down into 3 segments to properly clarify the issues rooted within this case.

1) What does it mean when an election is certified?
2) Does the Department of State have the authority to retrack a certified seat?
3) What is the proper course of action to challenge election results?

1) What does it mean when an election is certified?

While Congress has not defined the exact definition of the certification of an election, the court has to use the implied definition based on the wording of the ‘Electoral Act’ and the Constitution.

Certified elections are the result of a completed election following the announcement by the Department of State to the public publishing the certified results of a Federal or subsequent election. The announcement is intended to be displayed publicly and in the manner of informing members of the public of the outcome of an election.

2) Does the Department of State have the authority to retrack a certified seat?

In short it has been made clear is various locations within the Electoral Act Section 5 subsection 1 as defined as ‘The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns.’ meaning the Supreme Court is the place to challange election results. As by extension the Constitution within Section 19 subsection a(i) states that ‘Removal of officials from Public Office (Judicial Officers, Members of Congress, Members of Cabinet)’ meaning; only the Supreme Court has the authority to remove an individual from public office. The Department of State is not awarded this authority within any written legislation.

3) What is the proper course of action to challenge election results?

As defined within the ‘Electoral Act’ Section 5 subsection 1 - ‘The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns’ meaning that should a party wish to challenge the results of a certified election they can do so and present their case to the court.

As a result of clarifying the above questions it boils the case down to the time and actions outlined before the court.

Dordio3 was the declared winner by the Department of State when they issued the certified results making him an automatic member of the House of Representatives. Wetc was not a named winner by the original certified results issued by the Department of State.

Wetc did not challenge the election results and the court did not overturn the election.
The Department of State did act outside of it’s constitutional authority in removing a sitting member of Congress by failing to follow the defined process within the ‘Electoral Act’.

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff.

For points 1-5, the court will not award these damages due to the nature in which they are being asked. As the individuals act within their official capacity.
For point 6 - it is different from the place of the court to direct the Department of Legal Affairs on who to investigate.
For point 7 - The Court will be awarding a modified legal fee of $7,000 to the plaintiff.


The Supreme Court thanks all involved.