Lawsuit: Dismissed hugebob23456 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SRC 6

HugeBob

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
Supporter
President Presidential Commendation
hugebob23456
hugebob23456
donator3
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
656
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Congress has unlawfully passed legislation which is in violation of the Constitution and seizes powers from the Executive through use of the Veto Override. As clearly established in law and in previous cases, this act is unlawful and it is the duty of the public to sue when such violation arises, and the duty of the Courts to intervene and settle the issue. I am NOT suing as President, but as a concerned citizen. I believe that the Congress should be the supreme legislative body in our land, however the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and this act is in violation of the Constitution on multiple accounts.

I. PARTIES
1. The Congress of Redmont
2. The Executive of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Legislature proposed a law which sought to codify how the Department of Education and Commerce should regulate a specific type of company, taking power away from the Executive in violation of case law established in Thire_ vs The State (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/thire_-vs-the-state-case-no-09-2020-16.1472/)
2. The Congress passed this bill lawfully, then the President vetoed the bill, and the Congress unlawfully overrode the veto, as evident by the clause "Congress cannot give themselves power over other branches of Government nor can they take power away from them." present in the Constitution.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Congress has passed legislation in violation of clauses of the Constitution and other Common Law.
2. The relevant legislation makes no modification to the Constitution, and therefore can be unconstitutional.
3. Precedent established by Thire_ vs The State is clear in that the Congress may not take power away from the Executive without the Executive's consent.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Pugbandit Anti Scam Act be struck as unconstitutionally passed into law immediately.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if possible)

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 10th day of May 2021
 
As the originator of the bill I'd like to ask the court if I can make a statement on the matter
 
OBJECTION

Precedent established in Thire_ v. The State has established that the President may act to defend the Government in the case that the Government is sued by a member of the public. A private citizen has sued the Government, and it should therefore be the President who defends the Government on this matter.
 
HugeBob said:
OBJECTION

Precedent established in Thire_ v. The State has established that the President may act to defend the Government in the case that the Government is sued by a member of the public. A private citizen has sued the Government, and it should therefore be the President who defends the Government on this matter.
Click to expand...
Your objection is hereby overruled. Given that the "private citizen" who sued the Government is also President - there is a clear conflict of interest in allowing the Plaintiff to effectively argue with themselves. You've brought the same point in Case No. 05-2021-10-02 and such decision has been further explained there as well.

bubbarc said:
As the originator of the bill I'd like to ask the court if I can make a statement on the matter
Click to expand...
Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the court. You can provide an amicus brief to the court after we receive a response to this case from the Speaker of the House.
 
supreme-court-seal-png.8642

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 Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours, or this summons will result in a default judgment.

Due to the nature of this case, we have decided to summon the Speaker of the House. As established in Thire v. State, where a subpoena was issued to the Speaker of the House in order to inform the court of the bill. Congress is the one who voted to override the veto on this bill, therefore it is reasonable to allow them to be able to defend their actions.​
 
Your honor,

I would like to request a 96 hour recess as we settle things outside of court. We have legislation pending currently that would address the concerns of this case and would allow for the legislative to address this issue without involvement from the Judiciary.
 
What legislation is currently pending that would address this case?

I only ask given an extension has been already requested on the other ongoing Supreme Court case. Thank you.
 
Your honor,

Here is a link to the currently proposed Legislation that is up for vote.

Bill: Rejected - Congressional Supremacy Amendment

A BILL To Amend the Constitution The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives and Senators in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Short...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net

As you can see, this amendment was penned by the Plaintiff himself in order to resolve the issues presented in this case.
 
Alright, thank you Madam Speaker.

The request for an extension of 96 hours has been granted, please keep the court updated.
 
Given it has been 96 hours since such extension was requested, I would kindly ask that Madam Speaker of the House, ElainaThomas29, provides an answer to complaint or update to the courts within a reasonable timeframe please.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Hugebob
Plaintiff

v.

The State of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: 05-2021-10-03

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The State of Redmont Denies all allegations of it being unconstitutional through precedent set in Thire_ vs. the State

II DEFENSES
1. The precedent in Thire_ vs. the State does not apply due to the constitution not defining this matter
2. The State of Redmont had the consent of, while not the president, somebody else, the DEC secretary, who this effects the most
3. The bill does not take power from another branch nor does it give Congress power over it

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 18th day of May 2021
 
Thank you.

The Plaintiff may proceed with their opening statement.
 
Your honor may I provide my amicus brief now as the defendant has responded?
 
bubbarc said:
Your honor may I provide my amicus brief now as the defendant has responded?
Click to expand...
Yes you may, thank you for reminding the court.
 
I'd like to thank the court for allowing my to post my amicus brief,

The bill I do not feel is unconstitutional due to the reasons already addressed by the speaker, she summed up most of what I was going to put here before quite well, as well as we did have the DEC secretary's approval for the bill before we posted it, in fact the reasons the president even vetoed it in the first place were approved by Zab himself with the main one, in fact, being requested by him, and the constitution doesn't say anything about laws regulating processes in departments, with several laws such as Act of Congress - Casino Regulations Amendment Act | DemocracyCraft, which was approved by the president personally through him assenting it and he took no issue with despite it defining the processes of the DEC as this bill has, I'd like the courts to consider the fact that he took issue with this specific bill, which the DEC secretary himself approved of and suggested the changes that got it vetoed in the first place yet not the Casino Regulations Amendment Act.
 
OBJECTION

The opinion of the Department of Commerce is irrelevant to the legislative process, and there is no exception listed to the clause " Congress cannot give themselves power over other branches of Government nor can they take power away from them." or the precedent established that prohibits Congress from regulating the executive which would allow the DEC Secretary to supersede the President, the Constitution, or Common Law. The generally accepted precedent is that the Congress may regulate the Executive in the event that the Executive consents to the transfer of power, and the President represents the Executive in legislative matters, and the President has vetoed this particular piece of legislation, clearly demonstrating that they oppose it.
 
In light of recent events, I would like to withdraw this lawsuit from the Courts.
 
This lawsuit is hereby dismissed at the request of the plaintiff. The court thanks both parties for their time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top