Appeal: Denied FCR 22 - Appeal Request

[HugeBob]

- Client Name: hugebob23456

- Counsel Name: hugebob23456

- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff

- Reason for the Appeal: A fundamental misunderstanding of what the case was based on, as well as a truly dangerous reading of the letter of the law. A motion to dismiss was granted on the basis that, because there is no law that prevents people from making arbitrary amendments to the Constitution, it is therefore legal. This would be quite literally the most dangerous precedent to have ever been set by the Courts. It is essential that we can clearly point out what language is in the Constitution, and what language is not. That is a fundamental principle of any nation built around a Constitution. Even if that were a precedent that the Court chose to intentionally set, that is only one of the numerous claims made in the case in which I seek to explore who is permitted to cast votes in Supreme Court verdicts, and who is not. The precedent established by the Federal Court is that any person may cast votes in Supreme Court verdicts, which really cannot stand.

- Additional Information: Link to prior case: Lawsuit: Dismissed - hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 22

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
APPEAL DENIAL

The Supreme Court of Redmont has unanimously decided to deny this appeal on the following basis:​

1. The question before the court is whether or not the changes to the Constitution were arbitrary. The court is of the opinion that the amendment to the constitution was not based on personal whim or unrestrained power. The Judicial Standards Act clearly states in its long title that it amends the Constitution. While it may not be clear what wording is edited within the Act, it is not arbitrary if the bill has a blanket approval to edit the Constitution. While the Court does not agree that the changes are arbitrary, the Court does believe that the changes should be clearly reflected correctly in the appropriate colouring in accordance with the law.

2. Large, overarching frameworks like the Judicial Standards Act are challenging to enact as they make amendments to the constitution and regular laws in one bill. The court has taken the view that amendments made to the Constitution can be differentiated from regular laws through the following legal test:
a. A constitutional amendment in a bill containing both constitutional and regular legal amendments is one that is explicitly added to the constitution, or where a clause is in conflict with the wording of the constitution.

3. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has been a stand-in judicial figure since the Constitution's inception. Common law conventions have provided for this critical substitute throughout the nation's history. The constitution has clearly provided for and supported this convention, and even more so through the wording provided by the Judicial Standards Act. The precedent is most definitely not that anyone can deliver a verdict on the Supreme Court bench. A Justice's absence provided for a deficiency in the Court's operating capability and the Speaker was summoned to break a tie. The intent of the clause that provides for the Speaker to partake in judicial proceedings is one concerned with the efficiency of the court. The court is satisfied that it has satisfied the intent in calling upon the Speaker.