Lawsuit: Adjourned Mask3D_WOLF v. Judiciary of Redmont [2024] SCR 13

[Mask3D_WOLF]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Mask3D_WOLF
Plaintiff

v.

Judiciary of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the 22nd of February, 2024, Acting Chief Justice Matthew100x became acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, following Chief Justice Drew_Hall's resignation. He then appointed a "temporary justice," RelaxedGV, to the Supreme Court, citing that "Judicial Officer" now includes Magistrates, Judges, and Justices, and that the supreme court now has the right to appoint justices, citing the Offices of the Court Act. The Judicial Update Act states that "Federal Court Judges,‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌Justices,‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌Chief‌ ‌Justice‌ ‌are‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌nominated‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ President‌ ‌and‌ ‌approved‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Senate.‌" While the Acting Chief Justice claims that the Offices of the Court Act gives the Supreme Court the power to appoint Justices, it was overridden by the Judicial Update Act, stating "(a) This bill takes precedence over any existing laws and sections of laws which contradict it." As the section on Supreme Court Justices needing to be nominated and approved by the Senate is contradictory to the Offices of the Courts Act stating that Judicial Officers (with the new definition of Magistrates, Judges, and Justices) are appointed by the Supreme Court, this is a contradiction and that section in the Offices of the Court Act shall have no legal binding.


I. PARTIES
1. Matthew100x - Acting Chief Justice who made this decision
2. RelaxedGV - "Temporarily appointed Justice"
3. Mask3D_WOLF - Plaintiff

II. FACTS
1. On February 22nd, 2024, Acting Chief Justice appointed RelaxedGV as a "temporary Justice"
2. This goes against the constitution, which states that "Federal Court Judges,‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌Justices,‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌Chief‌ ‌Justice‌ ‌are‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌nominated‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ President‌ ‌and‌ ‌approved‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Senate.‌"
3. RelaxedGV has not been approved by the senate

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Neither the power to nominate nor to approve Supreme Court Justices is given to the Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice, they are given to the President and Senate
2. This is contradictory to what Acting Chief Justice Matthew100x stated regarding the Supreme Court having the power to appoint Justices, and also contradictory to his actions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. RelaxedGV is removed as a "temporary Justice"
2. Any and all actions taken by the Supreme Court with Relaxed as a "temporary Justice" be declared null.

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 22nd day of February 2024

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Until the conclusion of the case, I petition the courts that RelaxedGV shall not serve as a Justice until the case is done and he is either nominated/confirmed by the president and senate or until the courts rule in favor of the defense and he is allowed to be a "temporary Justice."

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Due to being the Judicial Officer who made this decision, I hereby move to recuse Acting Chief Justice Matthew100x from this case.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Due to being the Judicial Officer who made this decision, I hereby move to recuse Acting Chief Justice Matthew100x from this case.

My apologies for the grammatical error, I meant "Due to him being the Judicial Officer who made this decision"

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Under the circumstance that RelaxedGV is allowed to preside over this case by the Judiciary of Redmont, I hereby move to recuse him as he is a party in this case.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I wish to attach the following as evidence for this case, I do apologize for not submitting it in the original post as I forgot.

Spoiler: Exhibit A

 

[Dartanboy]

I would like to file an amicus curiae brief, as a former member of the Judiciary of Redmont.

 

[Matthew100x]

I am recusing. In the event that this case is actually heard sometime in the next 6 months, I would like to file an amicus brief.

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in Mask3d_wolf v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 13. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.​

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Having previously made his opinion on this clear in the judiciary discord, along with being a party to this case, I move to recuse RelaxedGV.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Due to obvious reasons, I am of course recusing.

 

[Nacho]

Due to the defense's failure to appear before the court, we will proceed with a default judgment.

The Attorney General is hereby charged with 1 count of contempt of court, and the DOJ is ordered to fine and charge them accordingly.

The court will be in recess to draft a verdict.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
I apologize for my excessive Tardiness to the case. I would like to formally apologize to the court the defendant and the commonwealth for my absence. If at all possible, I would like to respond to this case with answer to complaint.
Thank you, Your Honors
I apologize again.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Plaintiff
Mask3D_WOLF
v.

The CommonWealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that On February 22nd, 2024, Acting Chief Justice appointed RelaxedGV as a "temporary Justice"
2. The defense DISPUTES that This goes against the constitution, which states that "Federal Court Judges,‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌Justices,‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌Chief‌ ‌Justice‌ ‌are‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌nominated‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ President‌ ‌and‌ ‌approved‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Senate.‌"
3. The defense DISPUTES that RelaxedGV has not been approved by the senate.

II. DEFENCES
1. The judicial standards act amends the constitution. in the judicial standards act it states that judicial officers are " the collective name given to Magistrates, Judges, Justices, and the Chief Justice. Judicial Officers are‌ ‌responsible‌ ‌for‌ ‌presiding‌ ‌over‌ ‌and‌ ‌delivering‌ ‌non-biased‌ ‌verdicts‌ ‌on‌ ‌all‌ ‌lawsuits.‌" It also states that "The Supreme Court may appoint an unlimited amount of judicial officers to assist in the duties of the courts."
2. Relaxedgv was appointed as a judicial officer by the senate.

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 14th day of march 2024

 

[Nacho]

Given that you responded before I had time to return and address your posting, I will charge you with one count of contempt for failing to be on time when summoned. Please don't make it a habit in our courtroom.


The court thanks you for providing the plea.

We will now transition into a 7-day discovery period. Should either party wish to end discovery early, please note that both parties will need to consent.

 

[Dartanboy]

I would like to file an amicus curiae brief, as a former member of the Judiciary of Redmont.

Your honor, this request is still pending.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, this request is still pending.

Apologies for missing this - The request has been approved.

 

[Matthew100x]

I am recusing. In the event that this case is actually heard sometime in the next 6 months, I would like to file an amicus brief.

Your honor, I would like to file an amicus brief as well.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor, I would like to file an amicus brief as well.

The request has been approved.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The plaintiff hereby moves for summary judgement on this case.

 

[Nacho]

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The plaintiff hereby moves for summary judgement on this case.

Does the defendant wish to also move to Summary Judgement?

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor, The defense is okay with summary judgment.
Thank you, Your Honor.

 

[Nacho]

The court will now move into recess to process a Summary Judgement.

 

[Dartanboy]

The court will now move into recess to process a Summary Judgement.

Your honor,

Does this nullify our requests to file Amicus briefs?

 

[Nacho]

No, you can still file your amicus brief within the time frame that was provided initially.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good evening, your honors.

First off, I want to say that I wish not to assert any moral judgements in this case. Such judgements belong to the Congress - not the Judiciary.

Nonetheless, this lawsuit seeks to
a) Remove Relaxed's status as a "temporary" Justice appointed by former Acting Chief Justice Matthew100x, and
b) Reverse any actions taken as a result of Relaxed sitting on the Supreme Court (during that time).

Of course, Relaxed is now a proper Justice, so (a) can be ignored, (b) still has merit - if the appointment is deemed illegal - which I question.

On Constitutional Amendments and the Judicial Standards Act
It has long been understand that Constitutional Amendments are, by definition, Constitutional (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 3). Additionally, the Judicial Standards Act - Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act - is a Constitutional Amendment, meaning it is by definition Constitutional.

On The Contents of the Judicial Standards Act and Constitution
Judicial Officers are defined by the Constitution as the "name given to Magistrates, Judges, Justices, and the Chief Justice." The Judicial Standards Act also says "The Supreme Court may appoint an unlimited amount of judicial officers to assist in the duties of the courts."

On The Legality of Matthew100x's Decision
Matthew100x was the only Justice on the court at the time, thus he made up the entire Supreme Court. I won't assert whether or not it was legal, but I hope to have informed you with all the information you need to make that decision yourself.

Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Good Morning your honors,

I will keep this short.

3 - Employee Protections
(1) Unfair dismissal - the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled).
(2) Deferral of Responsibility - a worker cannot be held legally accountable where there is a deficiency in training provided by the employer, where training would reasonably be required.
(2) A worker cannot be sued for their individual actions when they are in accordance with lawful organisational directions and policy.
(a) The employer assumes all legal liability where policy is followed or the policy is unlawful.

The elements of an unfair dismissal requires an unjust terminiation of an employee. Nothing that the plaintiff was fired for was unjust.

The plaintiff
1. Campaigned for a political candidate - An action that breaches judicial integrity, plays politics, seeks favortism, and ultimately was impeachable not long ago. The plaintiff was let go for choosing to actively commit to politics while acting as a Judicial Officer.

2. Sued the court as a magistrate - The plaintiff was ultimately in a position where they could make themselves known and speak within the Court. The issue at play regarded whether or not somebody could be hired as a Judicial Officer. By asking this legal question, not only did they undermine the authority of the court, they committed insubordination, and they caused a legal problem that the current Court was unable to address due to the conflict of interest. The Supreme Court of that that had decided to take an action and the plaintiff decided to make an issue of it, directly undermining their bosses, thus were fired for it.

3. Entered into an illegal investigation against the Court as a Member of the RBA Council - There's a good line of argument that the plaintiff should not have even been on the RBA Council as a magistrate in the first place. Admittedly, that was our Court's fault for not immediately remanding them. That being said, the RBA investigation powers are against lawyers only and for specific purposes. The actions of the RBA did not meet the standards setup by the, which allowed for investigations for disbarment, which could only be done under the following circumstances: "Excessively committing perjury," "Breaching Attorney-Client privilege three or more times," "Excessively filing frivolous court cases," and "Excessively committing contempt of court" (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act). The Court cannot have a member on the staff who cannot read the law, let alone interpret it.

As a Judicial Officer, the plaintiff should have known better than to do any of these things, let alone the three that they did. The plaintiff was fired justly as their lack of understanding of the law I hope that this submission helps this Court come to a decision.

Thank you.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Good Morning your honors,

I will keep this short.

3 - Employee Protections
(1) Unfair dismissal - the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled).
(2) Deferral of Responsibility - a worker cannot be held legally accountable where there is a deficiency in training provided by the employer, where training would reasonably be required.
(2) A worker cannot be sued for their individual actions when they are in accordance with lawful organisational directions and policy.
(a) The employer assumes all legal liability where policy is followed or the policy is unlawful.

The elements of an unfair dismissal requires an unjust terminiation of an employee. Nothing that the plaintiff was fired for was unjust.

The plaintiff
1. Campaigned for a political candidate - An action that breaches judicial integrity, plays politics, seeks favortism, and ultimately was impeachable not long ago. The plaintiff was let go for choosing to actively commit to politics while acting as a Judicial Officer.

2. Sued the court as a magistrate - The plaintiff was ultimately in a position where they could make themselves known and speak within the Court. The issue at play regarded whether or not somebody could be hired as a Judicial Officer. By asking this legal question, not only did they undermine the authority of the court, they committed insubordination, and they caused a legal problem that the current Court was unable to address due to the conflict of interest. The Supreme Court of that that had decided to take an action and the plaintiff decided to make an issue of it, directly undermining their bosses, thus were fired for it.

3. Entered into an illegal investigation against the Court as a Member of the RBA Council - There's a good line of argument that the plaintiff should not have even been on the RBA Council as a magistrate in the first place. Admittedly, that was our Court's fault for not immediately remanding them. That being said, the RBA investigation powers are against lawyers only and for specific purposes. The actions of the RBA did not meet the standards setup by the, which allowed for investigations for disbarment, which could only be done under the following circumstances: "Excessively committing perjury," "Breaching Attorney-Client privilege three or more times," "Excessively filing frivolous court cases," and "Excessively committing contempt of court" (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act). The Court cannot have a member on the staff who cannot read the law, let alone interpret it.

As a Judicial Officer, the plaintiff should have known better than to do any of these things, let alone the three that they did. The plaintiff was fired justly as their lack of understanding of the law I hope that this submission helps this Court come to a decision.

Thank you.

Objection - Relevance

Your Honor, this amicus brief has no bearing on the current case. Additionally, attacks like undermining the Supreme Court in filing this lawsuit are completely inappropriate for this setting. I request the person filing this brief be penalized appropriately.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Good Morning your honors,

I will keep this short.

3 - Employee Protections
(1) Unfair dismissal - the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled).
(2) Deferral of Responsibility - a worker cannot be held legally accountable where there is a deficiency in training provided by the employer, where training would reasonably be required.
(2) A worker cannot be sued for their individual actions when they are in accordance with lawful organisational directions and policy.
(a) The employer assumes all legal liability where policy is followed or the policy is unlawful.

The elements of an unfair dismissal requires an unjust terminiation of an employee. Nothing that the plaintiff was fired for was unjust.

The plaintiff
1. Campaigned for a political candidate - An action that breaches judicial integrity, plays politics, seeks favortism, and ultimately was impeachable not long ago. The plaintiff was let go for choosing to actively commit to politics while acting as a Judicial Officer.

2. Sued the court as a magistrate - The plaintiff was ultimately in a position where they could make themselves known and speak within the Court. The issue at play regarded whether or not somebody could be hired as a Judicial Officer. By asking this legal question, not only did they undermine the authority of the court, they committed insubordination, and they caused a legal problem that the current Court was unable to address due to the conflict of interest. The Supreme Court of that that had decided to take an action and the plaintiff decided to make an issue of it, directly undermining their bosses, thus were fired for it.

3. Entered into an illegal investigation against the Court as a Member of the RBA Council - There's a good line of argument that the plaintiff should not have even been on the RBA Council as a magistrate in the first place. Admittedly, that was our Court's fault for not immediately remanding them. That being said, the RBA investigation powers are against lawyers only and for specific purposes. The actions of the RBA did not meet the standards setup by the, which allowed for investigations for disbarment, which could only be done under the following circumstances: "Excessively committing perjury," "Breaching Attorney-Client privilege three or more times," "Excessively filing frivolous court cases," and "Excessively committing contempt of court" (see Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act). The Court cannot have a member on the staff who cannot read the law, let alone interpret it.

As a Judicial Officer, the plaintiff should have known better than to do any of these things, let alone the three that they did. The plaintiff was fired justly as their lack of understanding of the law I hope that this submission helps this Court come to a decision.

Thank you.

MOTION TO STRIKE

This brief is not relevant to the case at hand, while also attacking me for filing this case.

 

[Nacho]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Mask3d_wolf v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 13

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The acting Chief Justice acted outside the powers vested to the courts.
2. The decisions by the court under the interpretation applied are not valid.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defense disputed the action was unconstitutional.

III. THE COURT OPINION
Justice Neemfy delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a case of very particular wording between Constitutional Amendments and the Constitution.

The Constitution is the foundational document, it is the highest law and as such is the basis for all law. It has additionally been long since established that any Constitutional amendment is inherently Constitutional. Therefore we must look at the wording of the Constitution and its amendments to get the full picture.

The Constitution states that Judges, Justices, and the Chief Justice are to be nominated by the President and be confirmed by the Senate. This is listed multiple times in Section II of the Constitution. This was all established in the Constitutional Amendment “Judicial Standards Act.”

The Judicial Update Act, an amendment to the Judicial Standards Act and the Constitution, was passed by Congress and passed Referendum, making it a fully ratified Constitutional Amendment. However, there is one key feature of the Judicial Update Act that was overlooked. Its primary goal was to correct issues with the Judicial Standards Act, though instead of removing it entirely and doing a full rewrite, it was an amendment. It only removed some parts of the JSA, and left others standing, particularly the power in question of the Chief Justice’s ability to appoint Judicial Officers that serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court.

While it does originally state that the only position considered a Judicial Officer is the Court Clerk, it was since amended to include Magistrates, Judges, and Justices. This definition added to the JSA, and therefore the Constitution, and did not remove this particular power of the Chief Justice. Whether or not this was the original intent of the author of the Bill, it is still written that way. That power is still properly ratified within the Constitution, and therefore the Chief Justice was fully within his power to appoint RelaxedGV to the position of Justice.

IV. VERDICT
The Supreme Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant.


The Supreme Court thanks all involved.