Lawsuit: Adjourned Krix v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Krix
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Members of this esteemed court, fellow onlookers, politicians, and the people of Redmont. I am here to announce the return of the duly-elected President of Redmont, Krix. Krix was declared incapacitated on March 31st, 2021 (Eastern Standard Time) and subsequently was removed from office. As you know, as of the May 2021 elections Krix was re-elected to Congress, a place where he once called home. However, we reach a crossroads after this election. How can Krix be incapacitated while at the same time holding public office? He was never impeached from his position. He still is technically the rightful President of this country. This is a paradox. He cannot be a representative and an incapacitated President at the same time.

Therefore it is within logic to ask that this court please restore Krix to the President's office as he is no longer incapacitated.



I. PARTIES
1. Krix
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. Krix was declared incapacitated and was removed from office.
2. Krix has since won a public election and now has become a representative.
3. There now exists a paradox where the currently incapacitated President is now serving as a member of the House of Representatives.
4. Krix was declared incapacitated without a clear constitutional process on this. The 25th constitutional amendment was vetoed prior to Krix being incapacitated and held the guidelines on how to do this process. Thus this was done in violation of the constitution.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Krix cannot be simultaneously incapacitated but also still fit to be a House of Representative member.
2. Since Krix is holding public office, he can no longer be considered unfit to be the president and must be returned to the Presidency.
3. The process used to declare Krix incapacitated was unconstitutional at the time of the incident.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Krix be restored to his elected office, the Presidency of Redmont.

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 11th day of May, 2021.

 

[Westray]

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

We understand and recognize any concern and the severity of the situation given. We're in a tough situation as to whom can preside with very little option. As a Supreme Court, I will be chairing this trial as Chief Justice, however reminding that the constitution mandates each Judge will give their own verdict on the case, then decided the by unanimous or majority. Due to the nature of this case, the Hon. Matt_S0 has indicated he wishes to recuse himself from issuing any verdict and any involvement in the final decisions.​

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor,

The Plaintiff argues that they are not incapacitated as evident by their election to the House and are therefore eligible to return to the office of President. Their election to the House does not hold any relevance to their capacity to serve. The House of Representatives does not require that players be of stable mind to be elected to the chamber, therefore Krix can be both incapacitated and serving in the House. Furthermore, no where is it codified that a former President should return to the Presidency if they are no longer incapacitated after being removed for being incapacitated. It is only codified that, in the event that the President is deemed incapacitated, they are removed from office.

The process used to declare Krix incapacitated was not yet codified, this is correct. While the Constitution at the time did clearly establish that a President could be removed in the event that they are incapacitated, it failed to address how such could be invoked. The fairest solution we reached was to use the same thresholds that are used for impeachment, which are a simple majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. Since these thresholds are already sufficient to remove a President from office through impeachment, it was agreed this was the most logical approach to invoking the incapacitation clause. First, the Cabinet, by supermajority, notified the Congress of our concerns of incapacitation. Then, the House held a vote on whether to remove the former President for incapacitation, which passed with a supermajority of support. The motion was then sent to the Senate, where it passed with a supermajority of support. Polling at the time had the former President's approval ratings around 25%, meaning the former President's removal had a supermajority of support from the Cabinet, the Senate, the House, and the public.

I would like my final point to be such: The Plaintiff agrees that he is no longer the President and has been officially removed from office. This is evident by their recent election to the House of Representatives. Due to the clause "No person shall hold the position of President, Vice President, Secretary, or any other Principal Officer position simultaneously with a position as Representative or Senator", the Plaintiff would not have been eligible to become a Representative if they were also the President. Therefore, either the Plaintiff no longer held the title of President at the time of his election, or the Plaintiff has voluntarily resigned the title of President to enter the House of Representatives. Either way, the Plaintiff agrees that he is not the President.

Thank you.

 

[Westray]

Thank you.

The court would ask that the Plaintiff please provides their opening statement.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you, your honors,

I appreciate the recognition of the work that we ahead of us in unveiling the proper ruler of Redmont. I will start by rebutting the Defendant's argument and then follow with our arguments.

Rebuttal:

Paragraph One:
The defendant alleges in their first paragraph that: "Their (Krix's) election to the House does not hold any relevance to their capacity to serve" and that " The House of Representatives does not require that players be of stable mind to be elected to the chamber, therefore Krix can be both incapacitated and serving in the House". However, I draw an issue with this statement. Running for government, being elected, and holding office portrays a certain level of competence and mental acuity that would otherwise be not present in an incapacitated person. Further, I find it rather dangerous that you believe that an incapacitated person should be able to hold an office in the House of Representatives. While It's true that incapacitation is only codified in reference to the President's position, I would argue that an incapacitated Representative would face some sort of consequence or expulsion for being incapacitated. Is Krix's incapacitation so strong that it affects his ability to be a representative? No. He was duly elected by the people of Redmont in an election confirmed by the DoS.

Paragraph Two:
In the next paragraph, the defendant makes the argument that despite there not being a constitutional process for incapacitation, Congress tried its best in creating a process and that it should be followed. Your honors, I flatly reject this argument on its premises. Even if Congress respectfully follows all the steps that would be needed for impeachment, what Congress did was not impeachment. Krix was incapacitated, not impeached. He was not been charged with a crime but his mental acuity and ability to do the job had been questioned. The fairest solution would've been to create a constitutional amendment and/or veto overturn the veto on the United Government Amendment Act. Instead, the Legislative branch decided to go against the separation of powers clause of the constitution, "Congress cannot give themselves power over other branches of Government nor can they take power away from them".

Congress took it upon themselves to create a process that ultimately allows them to expel any President that they want with Cabinet's help. They did not do this through the proper methods such as creating a constitutional amendment or taking it to the Courts. Congress took it upon themselves to act and remove President Krix from his elected office, denying the people their albeit very unpopular president.

I have a lot of experience fighting constitutional cases in my legal career on the server. Recently one of the verdicts of a constitutional case I created was brought up to the Supreme Court to be overturned and was defended as Constitutional Case Law. The case was xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth [Case No. 04-2021-21-02] and the case I brought to the court was Prodigium & Partners at Law vs the Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 01-2021-16]. The constitution has provided clear guidelines in every action that we do and the protections that we derive from it as both positive and negative rights. We maintain a right to freedom when the constitution does not proscribe a method of handling a situation and the government cannot simply encroach itself and claim absolute authority and power like Congress did on 3/31/21. In the case https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/prodigium-partners-at-law-vs-the-commonwealth-of-redmont-case-no-01-2021-22.3158/ I successfully argued that two amendments that had not been properly passed did not quantify as being part of the constitution. In the Verdict, former judge Nacho and current Judge Matt_SO made similar statements:

Nacho: " It is the purpose of the Judiciary to ensure the law is being properly enforced, even when the ones who are writing the law are breaking it. Within the case, the Legislative has been found to be performing an unconstitutional act by not following the proper procedure of applying changes to the constitution."

Matt_SO: "The facts of this case should not arise again, least not in such a way that could have as significant consequences. I would hope that lessons have been learned by all that the procedure laid out in the Constitution must be followed and regularly confirmed that all necessary steps have been performed."

Because the Amendments had not been properly passed, they were not ratified as being part of the constitution. Though the error was fixed during the course of the lawsuit, it is recognized that, for a time, the amendments were unconstitutional.

This is key because the process is extremely important to creating a fair government for all. Just because Congress "replicated" the process does not mean that they have followed the proper process and procedures of the government. They tried to create a scenario where this could happen with proper procedure in the form of the United Government Amendment Act. When that failed the legislative took matters into its own hands. It is the Judiciary's duty to rectify overreaches of power by both the executive AND the Legislative branch. In this case, the Legislative Branch is clearly overstepping its boundaries and creating a process where they can expel the President in blatant disregard to the constitution.

Paragraph 3:
The defendant makes the argument that the plaintiff cannot be both an incapacitated President and a House of Representative Member at the same time. We agree. However, The Plaintiff is not the President at the moment, he is incapacitated and is being withheld from the office and its responsibilities. Therefore he was eligible to run for the House of Representatives. Were he to be restored to the Office of the Presidency and no longer declared incapacitated by the Supreme Court, he would immediately stop being a representative and return to his duties as President of Redmont.


The Argument:
Krix was declared incapacitated by a process undefined in the constitution. Case law dictates that Constitutional processes should be followed, not replicated. Because the process was replicated, Krix should not be declared incapacitated. Therefore Krix should be the President of Redmont.

This is a simple deductive argument that adds to the additional argument that we made during the opening statements of the case. Krix cannot be incapacitated when he is currently holding public office. The argument does not stand that he is incapacitated. As stated in the rebuttal to paragraph one; running for government, being elected, and holding office portrays a certain level of competence and mental acuity that would otherwise be not present in an incapacitated person. Because of that, Krix should no longer be incapacitated even if the incapacitation was legal in the first place and should be able to return to the office of Presidency.

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The court would like to thank both parties for the arguments they have presented here thus far.

Was there any witness testimony or evidence that either party wished to present before we proceed to closing statements?

Given the serious constitutional implications of this case, I would advise both parties ensure they take the appropriate time to consider such, albeit still in a reasonable timeframe of course.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor, I would like to present the following evidence to the Courts for consideration (get your reading glasses):

Exhibit A:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YqEjY7-w5IfQjMbpKEt_bT5kfvq16hVsbFGuUNnk0Lk/edit?usp=sharing
The above document is the full letter which was sent from the Cabinet to the Congress. It contains the testimony of 6 of the 7 Secretaries at the time, plus the Vice President, outlining their frustration with the Plaintiff's incapacitation. While it is not expressly codified who can deem the President incapacitated, a supermajority of his closest advisors, hand picked by the Plaintiff himself, and each confirmed by a majority of the Senate, speaks volumes to the dysfunctional nature of the previous Government.

Exhibit B:
https://discord.com/channels/673612908868927498/686158870435201035/826979695022440458
The above announcement was issued from the Plaintiff just moments before he was forcibly removed from office. He knew his fate, and took swift action to abuse his powers to the benefit of his friends and political allies. The Plaintiff was removed from office almost immediately afterwards in the interest of ensuring the safety of the public. The defense claims the Plaintiff broke no laws, I believe any half decent lawyer would agree that pardoning a personal friend of impeachment qualifies as Corruption, and the Congress was right to fear for what might come next from the Plaintiff's office.

Exhibit C:
https://discord.com/channels/673612908868927498/686158870435201035/841471810906095627
The above announcement comes from the Owner, xEndeavour, notifying the public that Electoral Fraud is serious and that it has occurred in our most recent Congressional elections. The Plaintiff did not commit Electoral Fraud, however a close political ally of his did, and how did the Plaintiff respond? Plaintiff went on an unhinged, public rant on Discord attacking the institutions that protect our democracy from undue influence. He could have easily condemned the actions of his fellow party member and moved on, but he chose to advocate for Election Fraud conducted by political allies, and accuse the Staff and this Government of a conspiracy against himself and his allies, despite him winning a seat in the House, without evidence. Plaintiff clearly remains incapacitated.

It is the belief of the Government that reinstating the Plaintiff as President of the Commonwealth of Redmont will endanger the general public and erode our institutions, as well as establish a precedent that the Congress holds no authority over a clearly deranged Executive, even with overwhelming support for removal.

Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Hello your Honors, I apologize for my delay. I have been busy working on IRL stuff and Ingame obligations.

I want to spend some time rebutting the Defendant’s points and elaborate on them with my own evidence.

Exhibit A Rebuttal:
I have been informed by an anonymous source that the Secretaries were not fully aware of the significance of the letter that they sent out to the House of Representatives. While I do not wish to reveal their identity I do wish to take their advice. I wish to call upon the entire cabinet of the Krix administration as witnesses to this case. I would like them to answer the question: “Were you aware, at the time of signing the letter, that you were signing a letter to Congress with the intent to declare the President incapacitated and have him removed from office”. I want to know if the Cabinet understood what it was doing that day when it embarked on this unconstitutional process and whether or not everyone who was on board knew what the outcome could have been.

Exhibit B Rebuttal:
I agree with the Defendant on this point. Not to make the Judge a witness, I will not be asking you to recuse Westray, but I am submitting evidence of me pleading with a then-Representative Westray to impeach Krix for Corruption. I make the argument to West of the common law concept nullum crimen sine lege, no crime without law, and that Krix should be impeached for his actions rather than creating something out of thin air to remove him from office. Your honors, the argument still applies here. This process was entirely unconstitutional and represents a breach of the separation of powers act. If the crime was so severe that it qualified impeaching the president then Krix should have been impeached, not declared incapacitated. Is Krix a criminal or is he mentally unfit to be in office?

Exhibit C:

This is entirely irrelevant to this discussion and should be treated as such. I object to this exhibit being used as evidence against my client as it does not pertain to facts of the current case at large.

 

[Westray]

Thank you.

After discussing with the rest of the court, the objection to Exhibit C has been sustained. The evidence in Exhibit C presented by the Plaintiff is not directly related to Krix, and therefore does not pertain to the facts of this case.

As for the evidence presented in the Plaintiff's Exhibit B Rebuttal - although the Plaintiff noted they are fine with me presiding; I'd like to note that, ultimately, while recognizing the beliefs that I had as a Representative, I am no longer a Representative. I serve the law first and foremost, and judicial integrity is a very important concept I believe in. In this case, I still intend to perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially, and diligently, regardless of such past opinions months ago. Ultimately we're in a situation where we do in fact need a Supreme Court to preside, so while this decision was not made easily, it was made in order to have this case heard.

We will now continue to the witnesses summoned by the Plaintiff.

 

[Westray]

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

The Cabinet of Krix will now be called to the court as requested by the Plaintiff.

@Austin27, @_Zab_, @Milkcrack, @JoanM999, @Muffins29, @Sicspoti, and @Vanqsquish, are hereby summoned to the court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 05-2021-11 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.

The witnesses will be called in the following order:
Austin27 (DoS)
_Zab_ (DEC)
MilkCrack (DCT)
JoanM999 (DoJ)
Muffins29 (DPA)
Sicspoti (DoH)
Vanquish_ap (DER)

I would ask that the plaintiff provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. When the plaintiff is ready, they may post questions to the first plaintiff witness.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses of the plaintiff have been questioned, the defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine.
​

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you, your honors.

Here are the questions I have for the Witnesses:

1. Were you aware, at the time of signing the letter, that you were signing a letter to Congress with the intent to declare the President incapacitated and have him removed from office?

2. If you were not aware of the letter's purpose at the time of signing the letter, what did you thought was the purpose of the letter?

3. Who told you about the letter and what were you told about it?

4. Were you allowed to read the letter before signing it?

 

[Austin27]

PRESENT

Question 1 -
I, Austin27, Acting Vice President and Secretary of State, was not aware that in the end Krix would be removed. I did, however, sign the letter with the intent to declare former President Krix incapacitated and my reasons are clearly listed there. However, I will list some here for the court.

The former President failed to effectively communicate to his cabinet.
The former President failed as a leader and chief executive of this branch, his inability to lead was his ultimate downfall. Instead of putting resources into one department - he should have put them into all departments. He left us hanging.
The former President failed to allow his cabinet to have input on major decisions, the cabinet proposals channel was used once during his tenure and it was by me to get more information from him on a decision he had made days prior.
The former President ran to win, he never thought about what it would be like when he was actually President.

Question 2 -
I was aware of the purpose of this letter therefore this question is irrelevant. As I stated before, however, there was no way I would have been able to know what congress was going to do with the letter but I knew the intentions behind it.

Question 3 -
Myself and the current President of the Commonwealth of Redmont, hugebob23456 had discussed the letter. I was told that we could send it to congress and simply see what they had to say in return.

Question 4 -
I was allowed to read the letter, I finalized it before sending it to Bob who sent it to congress.

 

[Vanquish69]

here bitches

1. Were you aware, at the time of signing the letter, that you were signing a letter to Congress with the intent to declare the President incapacitated and have him removed from office?

Was I aware that I was signing a letter to congress calling the president unfit for office? Yes. Was I aware that he would be removed from office because of the letter? No. That fell under congress’s jurisdiction after the letter was sent.

2. If you were not aware of the letter's purpose at the time of signing the letter, what did you thought was the purpose of the letter?

The purpose of the letter was to show the struggles within the Executive branch of the government as well was the lacking leadership that was being withheld. Six secretaries chosen by President Krix himself and confirmed by the senate took a step of faith to show what was happening behind closed doors of the government. The Executive called upon congress for help as we as secretaries felt the executive could no longer function. All secretary’s had tried to approach krix about the issues and for months nothing was ever resolved.

3. Who told you about the letter and what were you told about it?

Austin27 the Secretary Of State had brought the signing of the letter upon me and had disclosed the letter was to unlock the closed doors to congress and show the executive was struggling.

4. Were you allowed to read the letter before signing it?

Yes. I was allowed to read the letter before signing it as well as speak to other secretaries about signing the letter before I signed it myself. I was made very sure that If I did not want to sign the letter I was not forced to and would not be looked negatively upon by cabinet if I chose not to sign the letter.

 

[Sicspoti]

PRESENT

Question 1 -
I, Sicspoti, Secretary of Health, was unaware that the result of the letter would remove Krix from office, as I am not completely knowledgeable about the process IRL. Regardless, I was fully aware of the intent to declare him incapacitated.

Question 2 -
The question does not pertain to me, but I believed that the purpose of the letter was to inform Congress of the Cabinet’s thoughts on the former President.

Question 3 -
Austin told me about it initially and asked that I read the letter in it’s entirety before doing anything.

Question 4 -
Yes, I asked the other secretaries their opinions, as well as their responses in the letter. I was told that I was free to decline signing the letter, and that not signing it would have no effect on my status in Cabinet. I never felt pressured to sign it, I did so of my volition.

 

[Milkcrack]

Present

1. Were you aware, at the time of signing the letter, that you were signing a letter to Congress with the intent to declare the President incapacitated and have him removed from office?

I did not sign the letter because the details of the letter were made unclear to me as I was not allowed to read it.

2. If you were not aware of the letter's purpose at the time of signing the letter, what did you thought was the purpose of the letter?

I thought the purpose of the letter was to force Krix to let the cabinet make more decisions.

3. Who told you about the letter and what were you told about it?

Austin asked me into a call. It started off as a regular Secretary of State meeting just like I would have with Consumer. Then I was asked about a hypothetical letter to ask congress to force Krix to give the cabinet more power and information and if I would sign it or not. After that, it became clear to me that an undisclosed number of secretaries have already signed the letter I wasn't allowed to read.
I was asked to keep that conversation private untill the letter was given to congress and I did.

4. Were you allowed to read the letter before signing it?
I didn't sign it but I wasn't allowed to read it either way.

 

[Muffins29]

Present

Question 1 -
We were aware that we were declaring the President incapacitated and the implications that came with it, however, we had no intention to remove him from office. There was little to no communication regarding major decisions and after several instances where we asked Krix to tell us what was happening, we felt that the letter was our only option.

Question 2 -
I believed that the purpose of the letter was to voice our discontent with President Krix; the Executive was struggling and we needed support from Congress.

Question 3 -
Austin27, the Secretary of State, brought me into a VC and informed me of his plans to send the letter to Congress.

Question 4 -
Austin screen shared it with me and told me to carefully read it before making a decision. He also reiterated the fact that my standing in Cabinet would not be affected if I chose not to sign.

 

[JoanM999]

Present (Taking a Siesta)

Question 1 -
I Secretary of Justice JoanM999 i was not aware that in the end Krix would be removed from the Presidency. but i was aware of letting my concerns as secretary to declare him incapacitated.



Question 2 -

I believe that the purpose of the letter was to let the president all our concerns. and to let know the congress that the executive was in a really bad position.



Question 3 -

Austin27 told me about the letter i sent to him my concerns before he talked to me about the letter and then the letter was sent to congress



Question 4 -

Of Course I saw the Opinions of the other secretaries. I saw all their concerns also I was told that I was free to decline signing the letter, and i was not going to look bad to the rest of the cabinet just for not sign that.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor,

Zab will be unavailable to testify before the Courts until the 27th of this month due to irl obligations. We could either patiently await his testimony or proceed without it, either works for me.

 

[Westray]

Thank you for informing me in regards to Zab's abscence.

Did the Plaintiff wish to continue the case irrespective of Zab's testimony, or shall we wait until he can testify?

 

[Matthew100x]

We wish to continue on with the case.

 

[Westray]

Alright. Just to clarify, did the Plaintiff have any additional questions for the witnesses, before we proceed to cross-examination?

 

[Matthew100x]

Yes, your honors. I have one more question for everyone.

Had the incapacitation letter failed to go anywhere, did you plan on resigning and for what reason?

 

[HugeBob]

OBJECTION

Plaintiff had their chance to question witnesses, to add on additional questioning out of turn is a break from the norm and only serves to delay these proceedings.

 

[Westray]

OBJECTION

Plaintiff had their chance to question witnesses, to add on additional questioning out of turn is a break from the norm and only serves to delay these proceedings.

Objection overruled, as stated before, if some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. The witnesses may answer the question.

I do however recognize the sentiment expressed by the Defence. It is imperative that these proceedings are not prolonged too excessively, while also recognizing the importance of hearing all facts. As such, I'd encourage the Plaintiff to ensure they are providing a prompt response to the case accordingly.

 

[Austin27]

My response your honor,

Had the incapacitation letter failed to go anywhere, did you plan on resigning and for what reason?
Yes. I had begun preparing plans for my resignation and I had also begun preparing plans for my possible firing in case Krix was going to do so as we expressed our concerns to congress. My reasons for resigning would have been failure on the former President's part to communicate to us properly, failure on the former President's part to properly run the Executive Branch and failure on the former President's part to listen to his most chief advisors, the entirety of cabinet.

 

[Vanquish69]

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyy queenz

Had the incapacitation letter failed to go anywhere, did you plan on resigning and for what reason?

Resignation was definitely something I believe all secretaries had spoke about even before the letter was even talked about. It’s hard to run a department when you feel you have no support from the president. Cabinet was not cabinet. It was basically me asking the former vice president HugeBob about decisions within my department krix had popped in here and there to tell me what landscaping projects need done and that was about it. Making cabinet decisions such as plot prices or who “ cabinet “ should nominate to the courts was all made by former president krix himself. I was leading a department somewhat shunned of inner cabinet workings. To sum everything up however I was considering to resign as I had felt my position was insanely stressful without support and the absolute zero communication from krix even if we had spoke about issues with him, it was never resolved. A secretary chosen by krix himself was not cared for and opinions were useless.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honors, can you please summon Joan, Milkcrack, Muffins, and Sic?

 

[Westray]

Thank you for bringing this concern. They have already been summoned to testify, this includes in all questions they are asked to answer to. I have already reached out to them earlier this morning as a reminder to ensure a prompt response.

 

[Muffins29]

Apologies for the delay, I had to take a final this morning.

Had the incapacitation letter failed to go anywhere, did you plan on resigning and for what reason?

As Vanq has already said, we had been discussing resignation well before the letter. We felt that we had no support from the President, which made it very difficult to get anything done. I can not speak for the other secretaries on this, but, personally, I would have resigned if Congress did not do anything with the letter. As mentioned earlier, my hope for the letter was to voice to express Cabinet's indignation about not being able to get anything done. I would have been satisfied and kept my position as long as Congress provided some form of a response, such as another censure or even just talking to Krix.

 

[JoanM999]

Had the incapacitation letter failed to go anywhere, did you plan on resigning and for what reason?

Yes. I Was Preparing Everything for my resignation a cabinet cant work without the president support so its really hard to get anything done. i was nominated for secretary 1 week before the cabinet sent that letter to congress. I was talking to elainathomas29 (my deputy secretary) about a resignation from the doj.

 

[Sicspoti]

Had the incapacitation letter failed to go anywhere, did you plan on resigning and for what reason?

I simply would've resigned if it had failed, due to the President's lack of communication with cabinet as multiple secretaries have stated.

 

[Milkcrack]

Had the incapacitation letter failed to go anywhere, did you plan on resigning and for what reason?
I wasn't planning on resigning if the letter failed.

 

[Matthew100x]

That is all the questions that I wanted to ask. Thank you everyone for responding in a timely fashion and cooperating.

Your honors, we're ready for the next phase of the trial.

 

[Westray]

Thank you.

Does the defence wish to cross-examine any of the witnesses?

 

[HugeBob]

The defense does not believe it is necessary to further prolong these proceedings and distract the Secretaries from their duties. I have no further questions, may we proceed to closing statements?

 

[Westray]

Provided that no party has additional evidence or witnesses to present, we can proceed to closing statements.

I will ask that the Plaintiff provides their closing statement, followed by the Defendant, as per the court process.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you, your honors,

I want to begin my closing arguments by stating the premises of my argument once more. There are two separate but simultaneous arguments being made.

====Our Argument====

The first is that my client, Krix, as a sitting representative, cannot be considered incapacitated anymore because he is a public office holder.

The second is that the process used to remove Krix from the Presidency was completely undefined and therefore unconstitutional.

Both arguments lead to the same conclusion, that Krix should be restored to the office of the Presidency by this court.

I want to review both the evidence thus far and the arguments made against my client’s return to the Presidency.

====Counter-Argument Review====

The current President has correctly assessed that the constitution was indeed not followed. The definition of incapacitation had not formally been created. We both agreed on this point. Our difference is in the opinion of whether or not mimicking constitutional processes can codify changes in the constitution. I am here to say that as of that day, the answer is an unequivocal no. Congress with a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate simply cannot just create processes in the Constitution; as that would be a constitutional amendment. Removing Krix was an overstep of constitutional boundaries, which I have identified as breaking the separation of powers clause, “Congress cannot give themselves power over other branches of Government nor can they take power away from them”.

Additionally, the current President has made the argument that Krix can no longer be the President because he is now a representative. He hinges this argument on a clause in the constitution that states, “No person shall hold the position of President, Vice President, Secretary, or any other Principal Officer position simultaneously with a position as Representative or Senator”. I call this argument into question. In the last term, BubbaRC managed to be both a representative and the AG before the term ended. Even now, Trentrick_Lamar is the current serving Secretary in the DEC. While he may not have been confirmed by Congress, he has been acting now for at least a week in an official capacity as the Secretary of the DEC. It can therefore be concluded that there exists a technicality that allows for one to serve and wield the powers of both the Executive and the Legislative at the same time. Your honors, my client is different from the examples I’ve provided. Krix currently possesses no powers, responsibilities, nor honors and titles of the office of the Presidency. We know, however, that he is incapacitated. No one will say that he is the current sitting President because President Hugebob currently holds that position. Even I thus far acknowledge that, I only seek that he be restored to his position. Therefore, Krix cannot be barred from returning to the Presidency because of this clause. If Krix were to become the president again, he would resign from being a Representative.

The Current President may argue that the process of incapacitation is now constitutional. While that is true, it is Ex Post Facto. At the time there were no standing constitutional processes for declaring the President incapacitated.

====Evidence Review====

President Hugebob shared two pieces of evidence. The letter sent to Congress by Cabinet and the Pardon announcement of Former Judge Nacho. (The third exhibit was objected to).

We shared two pieces of Evidence, an anonymous tip that not every secretary did not know its intended purpose and a personal conversation with then-Representative Westray on potentially impeaching the President. We also called to the stand five of the six secretaries under the Krix administration to answer 5 questions.

From my review of the evidence at hand. The Letter sent to Congress by Cabinet is a very powerful example of the failures of the President at the time. In addition, the Pardon announcement of Former Judge Nacho can be seen as an act of corruption. However, that does not help the case of President Hugebob.

I am concerned with how the presentation of the letter went down to Cabinet Secretaries. From the questions, I have discovered a pattern where Austin would reach out to secretaries and feed on frustrations while motioning a letter for incapacitation. While there is nothing particularly wrong with this, the process in which this was carried out was, in my opinion, questionable. I myself was in the Krix administration and received no notice of this letter, nor did xlayzur, nor Nacho. This was done because I was not trusted to keep the information secret. Austin understandably tapped into the frustrations of the secretaries. However, from the arguments made, I believe that he led the conversation in such a way until he felt comfortable with the secretary he was talking to.

This could be seen in Milkcrack’s conversation with Austin. Austin attempted to lead a conversation with Milkcrack to see if he would sign the letter. When it was apparent that Milkcrack would not support Austin’s cause, he refused to let him read the letter or see what the purpose of the letter was for. Conduct like this is neither illegal nor betrays the very real frustration that Krix’s cabinet was feeling, however, I think it’s important to understand the context in which the signatures were obtained. It should be noted that all of the secretaries that signed the letter were ready to resign while the one secretary that did not sign the letter was not going to resign.

Despite the effort, the Letter sent to Congress does not constitute the beginnings of a constitutional process. The correct decision that the Cabinet could have made in regards to the Krix administration was to resign, as they stated they would in my questions to them. Krix was a duly elected president, the Secretaries were top civil servants. It’s not the place of the civil servants to overthrow their boss. The constitution states that “The Cabinet is a group of advisers to the President known as secretaries, who collectively administer and guide government decision making and policy. The body holds no power outside of department policy, instead, it derives its power through advising the President.” and “Secretaries are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate, continuing to serve at the pleasure of the President”. If the Cabinet has lost faith in the President then likewise the President has lost faith in the Cabinet. The Cabinet does not have the power to fire their boss.

The pardon of Judge Nacho on the other hand would be legitimate grounds for impeachment to remove Krix from office. Congress had legitimate grounds to do this but decided against it in favor of a then uncodified process in the constitution.

====The Conclusion====

Krix because he was declared incapacitated by a then unconstitutional process should be restored to the Presidency. If the court sees that the process of incapacitation as constitutional, then he should be restored to the Presidency because of the paradox of being a duly elected officeholder while being the incapacitated officeholder of the Presidency.

Thank you, Your Honors, I rest my case.

 

[Westray]

Thank you.

The Defendant may proceed with their closing statement.

 

[Westray]

The court would like to remind the defence to please provide their closing statement within a reasonable timeframe. Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honors, it's been 72 hours, can we get a timelimit on how much more time the defendant can receive before they forfeit their chance to make a closing statement?

 

[Westray]

I believe a fair point has been raised. The defence has 48 hours from now to provide their closing statement, or we will proceed to deliberating a verdict without taking a closing statement from the defence into consideration.

 

[HugeBob]

Your honor,

I have already made clear the legal perspective of the defense in my opening statement and will not waste your time by reiterating the same points over again. Instead, allow me to take a moment to outline what ruling in favor of the plaintiff would really entail:

1. The process to remove him is deemed, at the time it was invoked, unconstitutional. This means he was never removed from office and BOY does that have a lot of implications.
2. Plaintiff returns to the Presidency. I resigned as VP when I nominated Zab (which would now be void since the VP cannot make nominations) therefore there would be no VP. Every remaining member of Cabinet took part in signing the letter sent to Congress and it is very likely that their jobs, and the stability of their departments, would be at risk should the plaintiff be reinstated.
3. Remember how the VP nomination would have been invalid? So would Judicial nominations. The only Judges presiding over this case would not only cease to be Judges, but it also creates a circular logic issue for this case. If both the Judges presiding over this case were not legally Judges, how could a verdict be reached? I don't even know how that disaster might be solved.
4. All bills that I have signed in the time since the transition of power, what of them? I believe the most logical outcome is that they would have never been lawfully signed, therefore would have reached the 3 day time limit for sitting on the President's desk and would be automatically vetoed. Every bill signed in this time, removed from law.
5. In the absence of a VP, there is no one to again claim that the Plaintiff is incapacitated. I will say now that we are prepared to seek impeachment on the grounds of corruption and abuse of power immediately after the plaintiff is reinstated should the Courts choose that route, but in the mean time the Government would be tremendously and irreversibly destabilized.
6. And for what? The dangers this individual's reinstatement would pose to the very existence of our Government far outweigh anything else. Especially considering Congress Can Remove A President By Simple Majority In The House And Supermajority In The Senate. Those thresholds were respected and they were met.

Refer to our Opening Statement for more detail as to why this action was lawful and proper, and MUST be honored.

Thank you.

 

[Westray]

Thank you.

The Supreme Court of Redmont will now review the arguments presented in this case. Deliberations may take some time so please express patience with the court.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 05-2021-11

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, Krix, claims that his removal was unconstitutional at the time of the incident, since there was no process for declaring a President incapacitated.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that they can also no longer be considered unfit for office, given that they are currently holding public office as a Representative.
3. The Plaintiff additionally argues that the cabinet was not fully aware of the intention to remove them.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Government of Redmont, claims that the removal of the Plaintiff met the same voter thresholds as impeachment, and thus it was a logical approach to declaring the Plaintiff unfit as President.
2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has recognized the are no longer President by running and being elected to a position in the House of Representatives.
3. The Defendant additionally argues that the vast majority of cabinet's remarks showed the mental incapacity of the Plaintiff.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the process used to remove the Plaintiff that occurred on March 31, 2021, was in fact, unconstitutional. While acknowledging the voter thresholds were replicated, the codified procedure of an impeachment trial was not followed.
2. It is the opinion of the court that the Plaintiff has foregone the office of the President. As specified in the constitution, if the President is inactive for more than 7 days unannounced, the title of President shall pass. The Plaintiff was absent from their duties for more than 7 days, and failed to legally and formally challenge the removal in a court of law. Even if the courts only consisted of the Hon. Matt_S0, to file a lawsuit within the reasonable timeframe would have shown dispute and an intent for the Plaintiff to continue his duties. Instead, a lawsuit has been filed over a month later, clearly with the Plaintiff recognizing that during such time, he has not been President.
3. It is the opinion of the court that serving as a Representative does not show mental capacity, as there is no constitutional requirement or specification in regards to "incapacitation" of a Representative.
4. It is the opinion of the court that the legislative branch should seek to clarify and properly codify any process of removal, prior to removing such an official.

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

While there is no doubt in my mind that many felt that the Plaintiff was unfit for office, as presented in the countless claims by the then-President's closest advisors, I do not believe that it was within the scope of the legislative's power to remove the Plaintiff on a process that did not exist. Fully reviewing and analyzing the events that occurred on March 31 as presented in these arguments, I do believe an unconstitutional act occurred. Congress took it upon themselves to create a new process within the constitution to remove a President.

With this in mind, I believe the timing of this case is truly a crucial detail of this matter. While understanding the situation with the Hon. Matt_S0 in regards to this matter, the principle of the act of legally challenging this would be sufficient. After the removal, the Plaintiff made no formal effort in a court of law to challenge and or reclaim the office. We have applied the clause of 7 days inactive in the line of succession as such, in recognizing the Plaintiff had made no formal attempt to fulfill the duties of the office.

Then-Vice President Hugebob23456 has assumed the duties of the office of the President due to the line of succession and therefore his actions taken as President from thereon are under his constitutional mandate as now-President.

As for the argument presented in regards to the mental capacity of the Plaintiff being proven as a Representative, there is no constitutional requirement or specification of "incapacitated" as a Representative. The past has actually proven that the line of succession requirements of the President clearly do not apply to Representatives. This is evident with Representatives in previous legislatures that have been inactive for over 7 days, or have, arguably, not had the mental capacity to fulfill their duties effectively.

While Congress has since clarified and codified a process of incapacitation, it is my wish that Congress will hereinafter always ensure they have properly codified a process of removal before removing an official. It is a grave injustice to the Plaintiff and former President Krix, that should serve as a lesson learned to the legislative.

- Chief Justice Westray

Remarks from the Hon. Eleray:

First and foremost, although this case may have been politicized due to the nature of the letter of incapacitation and many secretaries supporting such letter, this must not infiltrate the independence of the courts from politics. As a Justice, I have looked at the constitutionality, and what remedies may or may not be appropriate, not the political drama.

In this case, the Plaintiff has a clear position. That being, of course, that the process by which former President Krix was declared incapacitated was unconstitutional and that he should be reinstated into the office. The Defense also has a clear argument in this case: that impeachment thresholds were followed and that the former President recognized that they were no longer President, invalidating their claim. After reviewing all the evidence, witness testimony, and arguments presented, it is my opinion that the process indeed was unconstitutional, however the former President must not be reinstated.

The reason that this process must be considered unconstitutional is simple - although listed in the Constitution as a reason for being removed from office, there was no set process of declaring an official incapacitated. Although Congress did fix this mistake quickly after declaring the former President incapacitated, Ex-Post Facto must apply. This would say that although the process was unconstitutional when conducted, it would be constitutional now. However, since when conducted it was unconstitutional, this application of the incapacitation clause must be seen as unconstitutional. The argument that the same thresholds of impeachment were met has no legal standing, for being impeached and convicted is codified separately than being incapacitated.

However, the former President cannot be returned to his office due to not contesting this action by Congress within a reasonable timeframe of 7 days. Since the Constitution states that if a President is inactive for more than 7 days unannounced they would be removed from office, the former President's inactivity means that it would be impossible for him to be reinstated. This, compounded with the fact that a large hole in legality may occur should the President be reinstated, strictly prohibits the court from even considering whether it is within the Court's power to reinstate an elected official.

- Judge Eleray

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby majority adjourns this case in favour of the Plaintiff, while not granting the prayer for relief due to the reasons specified above, under the court's opinion.

Matt_S0 has abstained from a verdict in this case, thus having a majority of the Supreme Court, the Hon. Westray and the Hon. Eleray, to affirm this ruling.

Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.