Lawsuit: Dismissed Krix v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 9

[Krix]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Krix
Plaintiff

V.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

In December 2023, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President 'xLayzur,' and on January 21, 2024, the Senate convicted him, resulting in his removal from office effective February 1st at 12 am EST. However, on January 23, 2024, Senator 'xEndeavour' moved to amend the conviction, proposing an immediate removal from office. This motion directly violates Section 32 of the constitution, which protects citizens from being tried or punished again for a single criminal act they have already been convicted or acquitted of, as it would add an extra sentence of being removed from office for 9 more days. Senator xEndeavour's motion violates xLayzur's rights by seeking to punish him again for the same offense for which he was already convicted. The motion to add an additional punishment be struck down for violating xLayzur's rights. xEndeavour and the Senate cannot amend a conviction after it has already been carried out, to put in place additional punishment. It would be the same as a prosecutor winning a case of corruption against xEndeavour, and then following xEndeavours punishment, the court deciding to add a further punishment because it decided it was not harsh enough in the first place - this is the antithesis to the idea of a fair court and the stuff of fascist nightmares where sentences are eternally extended without the possibility of justice or freedom.

I. PARTIES
1. Krix
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS

1. On the 11th of December 2023 the House of Representatives voted to impeach the President ‘xLayzur.’
2. On the 21st of January 2024, the Senate voted to convict xLayzur.
3. The convictions sentencing/punishment includes: Removal from office effective February 1st 12am EST.
4. On the 23rd of January 2024, xEndeavour motioned to amend the conviction of President xLayzur.
5. The amendment would add the following sentence/punishment: Removal from office effective immediately.
6. In section 32 of the constitution, citizens are afforded the following right: “XVI. No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offense regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law.”

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. President xLayzur was already convicted and sentenced to “Removal from office effective February 1st 12am EST.” For the same ‘criminal act’ committed by xLayzur, Senator xEndeavour has motioned to punish xLayzur again. The motion proposed by xEndeavour would violate xLayzur’s right to be protected from punishment for an offense that he already was convicted on.
2. If this motion is allowed by the court it would open the door for the Senate to just pass any motion it felt like passing in order to do anything it wanted, what would stop the Senate from voting to reduce a sentence? Or impose a sentence without a crime being committed? It would also open the door for them to amend historic impeachment convictions in order to apply punishments to individuals who are politically inconvenient to them.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. The motion to add an additional punishment should be stricken down for violating xLayzurs rights.
   
   Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit A

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We request that the courts grant an emergency injunction to temporarily freeze the motion xEndeavour posted, and any possible future motions to amend any previous impeachments or impeachment verdicts.
This not only protects the President from having his rights violated, but also prevents any possible rights violations towards any individual that have been impeached prior, that the Senate feels may be an obstacle if the rights of those individuals are respected.
The legal precedent established in The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, and the cited cases within that lawsuit, underscore that emergency injunctions are essential to safeguard against potential illegal removals of a President.

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 January 2024

 

[End]

I'd like to request to be able to file an amicus brief prior to the court ruling on the emergency injunction

 

[Dartanboy]

I'd like to request to be able to file an amicus brief prior to the court ruling on the emergency injunction

You have 72 hours to file your brief. Please be punctual.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I request to also file a brief as a concerned citizen, constitutional law expert, and to point out a key fact about the filing of this case that the Commonwealth is sure to overlook given Krix is both the plaintiff and his party solely controls the DLA at the present.

 

[End]

Your honour, I'd like to request to be added as a Defendant in this case.

This case is being petitioned by the Chief of Staff of the Executive and is the Attorney General's boss. Noting historical trends with this administration, those who cross the will of the President and his advisors quickly find themselves without a job. We cannot trust that the Commonwealth will act independently and to fight this case when it actively benefits the commonwealth to agree with the plaintiff.

I.e. This case is against removing the president early. Of course the Attorney General is not going to agree with it.

As the Senator who raised the motion I find it appropriate that I be able to defend my actions against the administration.

 

[End]

AMICUS BRIEF

I'd like to thank the court for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

What we have seen in recent weeks is attempts by the executive to delay the impeachment process. This has been carried out in a number of ways including through court cases such as this and the excessive use of emergency injunctions to delay key happenings long enough for them to be irrelevant. Additionally, we have seen the President purge their Cabinet and dissolve the House of Representatives. This, I suspect is a further attempt to slow legislative accountability mechanisms.

The issue raised here is simple:
Is this a case of double jeopardy?

XVI. No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law.

The Senate makes decisions based on bills and motions. As you can see above, a motion was proposed to convict the President starting at the commencement of caretaker period on the 1st of February.

The motion was put to vote 26 hours later. This motion passed 30 hours later.

However, there were amendment motions posted during this period which were ignored and continue to be ignored by the President of the Senate.

This amendment was proposed to the floor 22 hours before the motion to convict the president had passed. Therefore, there was an active motion which was before the Senate for consideration, meaning the President of the Senate announced the conviction prematurely.

I will leave the court to decide the nature of why it was not posted, however I will provide the following to suggest that this may not have been proposed for political purposes:

Unitymaster prematurely announced the conviction while there were motions before the Senate (now sitting idle for 24 hours) that would impact the decision of the Senate).

As you can see, he was made very aware as to the existence of the motion.

I would put it to the court that a conviction does not exist as it has not been finalised by the Senate. The Senate still has pending motions to consider on the matter and the President of the Senate has prematurely announced the conviction and ignored the motions to which he does not agree with.

The President of the Senate has clearly been selective with the motions which go to vote. The President of the Senate does not support earlier removal and has used his office to benefit his political agenda.

There is a simple legal remedy to this case. The Court may choose to issue a writ of mandamus to the President of the Senate to discharge their duties and post the motion as required by law. Once the Senate has decided on the pending motion for the punishment of the President, it will result in two scenarios:

a. The conviction will be finalised, and the president will be removed on 1 Feb 24.

a. The conviction will be finalised, and the president will be removed immediately.

Either way, the conviction will be finalised and there will be an outcome to the case.

There is no double jeopardy because there has not yet been a punishment and the Senate has not decided.

 

[Dartanboy]

I request to also file a brief as a concerned citizen, constitutional law expert, and to point out a key fact about the filing of this case that the Commonwealth is sure to overlook given Krix is both the plaintiff and his party solely controls the DLA at the present.

We are still waiting for an opinion from Drew.

 

[Matthew100x]

In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to sua sponte under Rule 5.8 (Res Judicata) and Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel) since the issues were mostly decided in [2024] SCR 8.