Lawsuit: Adjourned GoldBlooded v. The Commonwealth [2024] SCR 14

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


GoldBlooded (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The House of Representatives has passed an unlawful impeachment not alleging actual Constitutional offenses, but rather taking the role of the Court, coming to broad interpretations. In doing so, they contrived reasons to remove the President from office solely for their own political agenda to hijack the Government. These unlawful impeachments must be vacated.


I. PARTIES
1. GoldBlooded (Plaintiff)
2. House of Representatives
3. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
4. Krix (Filed the Articles of Impeachment)

II. FACTS
1. Representative Krix filed articles of impeachment on February 23rd, 2024 that passed the same day (Exhibits A and B).
2. The basis of the impeachment includes unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud and removing votes.
3. The impeachment alleges failure to build a cabinet, but he has proposed nominations that are currently pending in the Senate. The Government is functioning with acting Secretaries at the moment.
4. It also alleges that nominating acting Secretaries is an offense, however acting Secretaries are permitted by the Constitution per the Executive Standards Act (link).
5. It also alleges bribery which is not a Constitutional offense nor does it have any evidence to substantiate it.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. None of the bases for impeachment are substantiated by evidence or constitute valid Constitutional offenses that can be attributed to the Plaintiff.
2. Per precedent in Krix v. Commonwealth (link) allegations of a valid Constitutional offense are required for an impeachment to be lawful.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The impeachment of President GoldBlooded to be vacated.
2. $100,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous conduct in filing this impeachment.
3. $50,000 in consequential damages for emotional distress caused as a result of this, causing anxiety and stress while undertaking the highest office in Redmont.
4. $30,000 in legal fees, as 20% of the value of this case.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

VI. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
I move to freeze the proceedings of this impeachment and/or subsequent trials based on it for the duration of this case to allow for fair justice to be administered, and so irreparable harm to our Commonwealth and elected executive branch does not occur.


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 23rd day of February 2024.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Matthew100x]

In a 2-0 decision, The Supreme Court has decided to hear this case and grant the Emergency Injunction.

When examining the issue of the emergency injunction, the court is brought back to its basic premise, “The goal of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm” (see Guide - Court Orders Guide). When reviewing an emergency injunction, The court should do so on a prevention of harm basis of review only. There should be no indication of whether or not a defendant or party on the receiving end of an emergency injunction is actually guilty of the charges put forth. Any assumption of guilt made by a Judge in any case could be a violation of the defendant’s IX right because a Judge is supposed to be impartial when reviewing conduct (see Government - Constitution).

The charge of impeachment is laid out in Section 43. of the constitution (Government - Constitution)

Impeachment is a constitutional remedy to address serious constitutional offenses. The House will lay charges against an official or an ex-official, specifying what constitutional provisions were violated. Any impeached official or ex-official will be subject to a trial that will be conducted by the Senate. If found guilty of any alleged constitutional offense by the Senate.

In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 8, the Court held that all charges must be constitutional in order for an impeachment to viable.

The Court took a cursory review over the charges presented. We do not want to make any indications of guilt. The charges at a glance do not seem constitutional in nature.

• Count One seeks to impeach the president for his role in a government job.
• Count Two seeks to impeach the president for his role in a government job.
• Count Three seeks to impeach the President for the Legislative’s failure to confirm the President’s Cabinet.
• Count Four seeks to impeach the President for the Legislative's failure to confirm the President’s Cabinet.
• Count Five is a criminal charge, specifically an Indictable Offense. This would bring this issue before the court’s jurisdiction. (see.https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/standardized-criminal-code-act.15514/).

In Lawsuit: In Session - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, the Court asked the question of whether or not extending an emergency injunction to prevent impeachment prevent harm? The answer was yes because a court is “unlikely to remove the new administration and replace it with the previous one” (Quoting Lawsuit: In Session - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, referencing Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7). Notwithstanding the events that unfolded in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 8, the Court only acted in that situation as delays in the decision making process prevented the Court from timely delivering a verdict prior to the change in administration.

Therefore the Supreme Court grants the emergency injunction and places this impeachment on freeze as to prevent harm while this issue is under review.

 

[Matthew100x]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of GoldBlooded v. The Commonwealth [2024] SCR 14. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​

 

[SumoMC]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ASWER TO COMPLAINAT


GoldBlooded (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant



1. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS Representative Krix filed articles of impeachment on February 23rd, 2024 that passed the same day (Exhibits A and B).
2. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS The basis of the impeachment includes unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud and removing votes.
3.The Commonwealth AFFIRMS The impeachment alleges failure to build a cabinet, but he has proposed nominations that are currently pending in the Senate. The Government is functioning with acting Secretaries at the moment.
4. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS It also alleges that nominating acting Secretaries is an offense, however acting Secretaries are permitted by the Constitution per the Executive Standards Act (link).
5. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS It also alleges bribery which is not a Constitutional offense nor does it have any evidence to substantiate it.


Your Honor, the Commonwealth of Redmont does not dispute the facts of this case nor do we intent to justify the actions of the House during this Impeachment. This impeachment is not rooted in law, merely a political hit job by the leader of the opposition in cahoots with the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. This attempt to undermind the people is blantent and potentially illegal. It is every intention of the Office of the Inspector General to investigate these matters and if the need arises bring forth charges against all the guilty parties.


We ask that this court grant a modified prayer for relief to the plaintiff should the court see fit.

 

[Krix]

The DLA does not represent me, I am a listed party in this case, they are attempting to infringe upon my constitutional right to file articles of impeachment as a representative.

The ruling of this trial will not be recognised by the Legislative branch if we are not allowed to represent ourselves, Thank you

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The DLA does not represent me, I am a listed party in this case, they are attempting to infringe upon my constitutional right to file articles of impeachment as a representative.

The ruling of this trial will not be recognised by the Legislative branch if we are not allowed to represent ourselves, Thank you

Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. A person who is not the plaintiff or defendant, nor is a summoned party, has spoken out of turn. I motion to strike their statement.

 

[Matthew100x]

The DLA does not represent me, I am a listed party in this case, they are attempting to infringe upon my constitutional right to file articles of impeachment as a representative.

The ruling of this trial will not be recognised by the Legislative branch if we are not allowed to represent ourselves, Thank you

The Legislative Branch needs to write a law allowing for representation. Under the current law, the national legal interest is left entirely to the executive branch.

 

[Matthew100x]

In a 2-0 decision, due to the lack of constitutional violation for the impeachment, the Supreme Court writes a writ of mandamus requiring that Congress impeach people for constitutional violations and writes a permeant injunction ending this impeachment trial.