Lawsuit: Dismissed Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 87

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matthew100x

Citizen
Justice
Education Department
Supporter
4th Anniversary 3rd Anniversary 1st Anniversary Change Maker
Matthew100x
Matthew100x
Justice
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
633
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x & xLayzur
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Hello, your honor, my name is Matthew100x from Prodigium | Attorneys at Law and I’m joined by xLayzur from Prodigium | Attorneys at Law. I am here to launch a lawsuit against a constitutional amendment that failed to satisfy all requirements to become a constitutional amendment. The Department Reform Act is a constitutionally complex change that did not have a referendum attached to them. According to the s.V of the constitution "A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:" with one of the requirements being "The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass." The Department Reform Act is a complex change because it brings Changes to the System of Government. However, because there was no referendum attached to these bills, they did not satisfy that requirement. Therefore the amendment should be considered unconstitutional and be removed from the constitution.

I. PARTIES
1. Matthew100x, as a citizen aggrieved by an illegal constitutional amendment
2. xLayzur, as a citizen aggrieved by an illegal constitutional amendment
3. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Legislative Branch created the Department Reform Act. The bill received a supermajority and was passed.
2. The Executive Branch gave Presidential Assent to both bills.
3. The Amendment was not posted to the referendum page and the people were not given 3 days to assent to the amendment.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the constitution, "A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:"
2. One of the requirements is “The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.”
3. A referendum was never made.
4. According to Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1 “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.”
5. In Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7, an unconstitutional action is reversed, even if the plaintiff was not returned to the presidency because of inactivity.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Department Reform Act should be declared unconstitutional.
2. All changes to the constitution caused by the Department Reform Act should be undone and rolled back.
3. The Department of Commerce and The Department of Education should be abolished and replaced with the Department of Education and Commerce.

DATED: This 21st day of October, 2022.

Evidence:
Act of Congress - Department Reform Act - Posted on October 14th.
https://www.democracycraft.net/forums/petitions-referendums.85/ - Notice the lack of referendum for the complex change.

Government - Constitution

We the citizens, of The Commonwealth of Redmont, in order to form a more perfect country, establish this Constitution to guarantee the preservation and protection of Justice, promote the general welfare of our citizens, and secure the liberty of our participation in the governance of this...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net
 
Additionally I am requesting an emergency injunction to block and reverse the constitutional amendment, granting the IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF until this court case is completed due to the enormous amount of changes created by the Department Reform Act.
 
I will be denying this emergency injunction as it has not been proven that this bill was passed unconstitutionally yet, and if it is proved later in the case, then the prayers for relief can be granted then.

Summons will be filed shortly.
 
Note before I file summons. It appears that the speaker of the house has posted this as a referendum already. Would the Plaintiffs still like me to file summons or would they like me to dismiss the case without prejudice?
 
Yes, we would like the summons filed.
 
xEndeavour you may file an amicus brief, you have 48 hours to do so.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Matthew100x & xLayzur
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

AMICUS BRIEF
As provided in the Constitution, it is the duty of the Speaker to post the referendum on bills which are considered 'complex changes.'

I failed to recognise that this bill was a complex change, therefore, while this case is against the Government, it is specifically a result of my decision making.

The spirit of a complex change referendum is to allow the people to have a say in how their government is structured and how it changes. Now that it has been flagged as a complex change, we are acting to ensure that the public have a say through the public referendum.

It would be counterintuitive for the court to block the referendum from taking place when:
a. the premise of this case is built on the absence of a referendum
b. the Defendant is working diligently to right the wrong which it has made.

The mischief in this case is whether the public get their constitutional say. The mischief is already being corrected. Everything outside of this mischief is an attempt at using the courts to reverse an Act of Congress which is against the political wishes of the Plaintiff.

Previously, when an amendment has been flagged as complex after being implemented, the amendment is promptly reversed and it is put to referendum. Noting that this is a significant change involving hours of staff work, it was not possible to request that it be reversed. Rather, a most pragmatic change would be to disallow the progress of the Department by putting an injunction on the nomination of the Education Secretary until after the referendum has concluded. This will in effect, 'reverse' the major department changes to this act.

I'd also like to remind the court that it can sever parts from an act and deem them unconstitutional, without deeming the entire act unconstitutional. Not all of the changes within the Department Reform Act (i.e. Job title changes and new jobs) are changes to the structure of the executive departments.

Evidence of political objectives:
1666413546591.png
 
Last edited:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The plaintiff moves that an emergency injunction in this case be granted, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. It is entirely clear that the process for the constitution was not followed, as illustrated by the referendum posted ex post facto: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/department-reform-act-referendum.14930.
2. As sworn by the Speaker of the House @xEndeavour, the constitutional amendment was a complex change and therefore passed unconstitutionally.
3. In conclusion, per constitutional law, the current referendum should be placed on hold and the IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF should be granted until this court case is completed due to the enormous amount of changes created by the Department Reform Act.

DATED: This 22nd day of October 2022
 
I am still denying the emergency injunction as a referendum has been posted, and as speaker xEndeavour said, since there is no Secretary for the dew department, they have no power as of right now anyway.
 
I would like to withdraw this case from the Federal Court. I will be reposting to the Supreme Court with jurisdiction.
 
I will be dismissing this case without prejudice at the request of the Plaintiff. They may refile this case whenever they would like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top