Lawsuit: Adjourned Milkcrack v. The commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 42

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you summon a staff member you will get a response from that member in a staff capacity.

If you would like a staff member to respond in anything other than a staff capacity, you need to summon them in any way but a staff member.

This is me drawing the line in the sand between staff and government.
 
Ok @xEndeavour (The government official) is hereby summoned as a witness and must answer HugeBobs 2nd question. Failure to do so within 24 hours will result in a contempt of court charge.
 
2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?
Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:
  • 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.
Click to expand...
Not according to the constitution.
 
Thank you. MilkCrack my now cross-examine any of Hugebobs witnesses however may not question his own witness. He has 48 hours to post all of his questions for HugeBobs witnesses.
 
Objection Breach of Procedure

Having, xEndeavour testify without me being able to cross-examine him violates a fundamental right granted in almost all democracies. The reason I called the owner of the server was to ask if Westray had approached the owner's team about the best ballot as the constitution would mandate Westray to do for a complex change.

However, Hugebob asked the witness a question about his job as a representative, it is no longer my witness. Hereby Hugebob introduced a new witness so either I should be able to cross-examine him or end's testimony should be stricken from the record.
 
I will be denying this objection as End is the same person. He is not 2 separate people. You already has the opportunity to question End, and it would be a breach of procedure if you had another opportunity. The summons I filed was not in an official format for a reason nor was there a discord summons. This is because End had already been summoned and it was what he wanted me to do before he answered any questions. You have 48 hours from now to cross-examin Hugebobs witnesses. (End is not one of them).
 
Your honour, I requested an official summons. I retract all of my statements.

The court purposely made a misrepresentation that i was legally compelled to respond.
 
Your statements have already been posted and they will stay because you were previously summoned. No where in my first summons did I summon you as xEndeavor the owner. I summoned you as xEndeavor.
 
I would also like to formally note that at no point did I request to summon either xEndeavour the Owner nor xEndeavour the Representative. They are not my witness.
 
Hugebob please don’t talk out of turn.
 
A__C only
The defence is trying to argue that because the bill went to referendum, that me and the president both agreed that it was a complex change.
1. During your time as deputy speaker do recall me ever saying that the best ballot act was a complex change?

Both
2. Given the following evidence:
1655990692737.png

If president Westray believed the Best Ballot Act was a complex change would he have violated the following section of the constitution?
SECTION VII - DEFINING KEY TERMS
Complex Change
A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President:

Both
3. Are you familiar with the following text of the constitution. Which was later on "amended" by the socialism amendment?
(1) “Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change or a rights and freedoms change:

  • A Representative must pose a referendum on forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment.
  • A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
  • A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
  • Presidential Assent”

Both
4a. According to the text above, Is it clear if a referendum is required for all types of constitutional changes or just complex changes?
4b. Would you say that all bills before the socialism amendment took into effect and that have been put up for referendum but not got a supermajority are seen as rejected bills?

A__C only:
5. To clarify the socialism amendment changes the process of when a referendum is required. As speaker of the house, would you put the socialist amendment itself up for referendum?

Both
6. The socialism amendment has not been put up for referendum, although there is no time frame of when a bill must be put up for referendum after it is signed. Would you say that a bill that is supposed to have gone to a referendum does not take into effect until the referendum has passed?

Both
7. If the socialism amendment had been taken into effect would you say that the amendment has been properly amended in the constitution.
(1) “Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change or a rights and freedoms change:

  • A Representative must pose a referendum on forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment.
  • A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
  • A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
  • Presidential Assent”

Changes to:

“Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:

  • 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.
  • A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
  • Presidential Assent or Veto Override”
Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:

  • 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.
  • A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
  • A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
  • Presidential Assent or Veto Override.
Depending on answers there might be follow up questions
 
I will be taking over this case from this point on. Witnesses have 24 hours to respond to these questions or be found in contempt of court.
 
Sorry I am a bit late, I was out all day yesterday and the day before. I also didn't get a notification and did not see there were additional questions.

1. During your time as deputy speaker do recall me ever saying that the best ballot act was a complex change?
Don't recall.

2. Given the following evidence:
If president Westray believed the Best Ballot Act was a complex change would he have violated the following section of the constitution?
Yeah

3. Are you familiar with the following text of the constitution. Which was later on "amended" by the socialism amendment?
Yes. I have not seen it before but I have read it just now.

4a. According to the text above, Is it clear if a referendum is required for all types of constitutional changes or just complex changes?
As I said before a referendum is only required for complex changes, as according to the Constitution.

4b. Would you say that all bills before the socialism amendment took into effect and that have been put up for referendum but not got a supermajority are seen as rejected bills?
No since laws usually do not apply to things that happened prior to it passing.

5. To clarify the socialism amendment changes the process of when a referendum is required. As speaker of the house, would you put the socialist amendment itself up for referendum?
Prior to the passage of the Socialist Amendment: "A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change or a rights and freedoms change" - If it is considered a complex change then it would have needed a referendum.

6. The socialism amendment has not been put up for referendum, although there is no time frame of when a bill must be put up for referendum after it is signed. Would you say that a bill that is supposed to have gone to a referendum does not take into effect until the referendum has passed?
If it was supposed to go to referendum then yes.

7. If the socialism amendment had been taken into effect would you say that the amendment has been properly amended in the constitution.
No because they left the extra line "A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change." - However this was also already listed as "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." so it doesn't make much difference in meaning.
 
Thank you. I would also like to clear up xEndeavour's role here. He was summoned as an Owner by the Plaintiff, who was then not permitted to ask questions as a result of being late. The Defense did not request either xEndeavour as an owner or as a representative, and he was not the Defense's witness. Furthermore, the question asked of xEndeavour was answered from his original capacity, that being as an Owner, that staff cannot speak to whether something is a complex change.

After reviewing the court thread, I have come to the following conclusion: xEndeavour was summoned by a party who was not permitted to ask questions for procedural reasons. Thus it does not matter what capacity he was summoned in, as the fact that there was no examination in the first place negates any need for cross-examination. Therefore, I am striking from the record any questions and answers not made to or by A__C, Milqy, or huney69. xEndeavour is hereby dismissed from this case and will not answer any more questions.

As this is the cross-examination the Plaintiff may ask questions to witnesses who have testified for the Defense. If the Plaintiff has any follow-up questions for those witnesses already named as the Defense's witnesses, not xEndeavour, they may ask them.
 
Sorry, your honour I'm still waiting for the testimony of Huney.
 
To the best of my understanding, the only witnesses that were asked questions in that post were A__C (who answered) and "both", or two people. As "both" was not clarified to mean anyone in particular, I assumed it meant xEndeavour, who had just testified, and A__C. Would the Plaintiff explain who was meant by "both"?
 
Sorry, your honour I forgot milqy was a witness too xd. I meant Huney and A__C.
 
Okay. Because of the confusion, Huney69 will have 24 hours to answer the questions. I would like to apologize for the misunderstanding and I request that all references to people be specified in the future to avoid a similar situation.
 
2. Yes Id say he did violate it as he did not discuss it with the owners. He saw it as a complex change to as he put it to referendum, but did not discuss it with owner end.

4a. It seems to be just for complex changes
4b. Im not sure if I fully understand the question but yes? I think because they still wouldve needed supermajority to pass and if they didnt meet it then they fail.

6. Yes

7. No
 
Does the Plaintiff have any further questions?
 
No, further questions your honour.
 
In that case, the questioning is concluded. The Plaintiff may now present their closing statement.
 
Closing Statement
The Facts are indisputable, the issue has already been to court and ruled on. The only question today really is if the court is going to uphold that precedent or throw it out and that is the only thing that should be in dispute here today.

Let me first go over what is not in dispute, the aye's to nay's ratio in congress was more than 2/3. As per past precedent, the law and the constitution, this constitutes a supermajority. I already have gone over this point more extensively in my objection to the MTD.

The Bill was granted presidential Assent it is as clear as day. Westray who was the president at the time signed the bill and stated it "may go to referendum". It is my understanding that I and the former president at the time believed that a constitutional amendment may still go to a referendum even if it is not a complex change and does not require a supermajority but only a regular one.
Why would the president claim it was a complex change and not discuss it with the owners?
Which would be a violation of the constitution and an impeachable offence.

Now I still believe that a constitutional amendment requires, a referendum with majority approval. This is because the Socialism amendment was an amendment that was supposed to "Clarify" the constitution. The debate was over whether or not a constitutional amendment required a referendum if it was not a complex change. Hugebob claimed it didn't and that is why the bill says nothing changes however the actual wording of the constitution around complex changes did change. It is my understanding that before the Socialism Amendment had passed there was a referendum requirement for a non-complex constitutional amendment.
The Socialism amendment itself never went to referendum and therefore I do not believe it is enacted yet and the constitution should be amended to not include socialism amened until it passes a referendum. Right now the constitution partially includes the amendment and partially doesn't which leads to the confusion we have here today.

Now, this is the disputed fact in the case, the defence is claiming that the Best Ballot Act was a complex change even tho this issue has been ruled on already. The Supreme Court stated in Hugebob v. commonwealth SCR2 that the Allegiancy act was not a complex change. Even though it barred people that we're serving in a foreign government from running.

The Best Ballot Act bared people that had no prior experience in the role of the following: "Representative, Senator, President, Vice President, Secretary, Deputy-Secretary, Chief of Staff, Mayor, Attorney General, Ambassador, Solicitor General, Town-Council, Judge, Justice, Chief-Justice or any other role that requires senate approval." This is quite an extensive list with one of the roles that fulfil this clause being "Town-council" experience which is not an unknown prerequisite for holding electoral office as it is a practice which has been put as a requirement in town elections already.
So I'd argue that this act would be less impactful to any rights or freedoms than the Allegiancy act and should be put under such "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." As it did have supermajority support in congress, presidential assent and 62% of the people who voted in the referendum to support the law.

I would implore the judge to read my response to the motion to dismiss as this is where I explain most of my legal arguments in more detail.

In conclusion, to decide against this bill would be overturning a supreme court verdict and directly against the will of the people. I ask that the Best Ballot Act will go into effect immediately. I would also like to add that if the courts chose to overturn the Allegiancy Act precedent that the bill will be put up for referendum again as the result of the poll was live as there surely have been people who support the bill and did not bother to vote because they believed it would pass with flying colours, as it did. Thank you reading my long statement.
 
Thank you, the Defense may now present their closing statement.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


MilkCrack
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

Your honour, the Plaintiff's admission that the President did not seek Owner approval for this Complex Change is in itself enough to render the Amendment null and void, even if it had received a supermajority through referendum (which it did not). But that is not the core issue of this case. The core issue is whether or not it is a restriction of your right to participate in and run for elected office to ban you from running for elected office.

If banning you from running for elected office is a restriction upon your right to run for office, then this Amendment is a Rights and Freedoms Change. If it is a Rights and Freedoms Change, then this is a Complex Change. If it is a Complex Change, then the President must have discussed it with the Owner and the Amendment must have been put to a public Referendum and receive more than 2/3 support in favor of the Amendment. Neither did the President seek Owner approval, nor did the Referendum pass by 2/3 support at Referendum. The Plaintiff also mentions that the Rights and Freedoms may be subject to limitations that are reasonable in a free and fair democracy. I agree. That's how we have playtime requirements to vote and to run for office.

But just because the change is reasonable does not mean that it is not a change. For example, it would be entirely unlawful for an Amendment to ban anyone with numbers in their username from seeking public office, even if it received unanimous consent of Congress, the President, the Owner, and at public referendum. However, a restriction requiring that Senate candidates have experience in another Government position is completely reasonable. That is why it would be allowed to have become law in the event that it met the appropriate requirements.

But, it did not. And it would be a radical and dangerous precedent to establish that banning people from running for office does not infringe on their right to run for office. In the event that a precedent like that were established, do YOU trust the Congress not to abuse that? I can tell you right now, if me, Krix, and Dusty were still in power with a precedent like that, we would just ban the other parties. I'm not even kidding is the funny part.

Thank you.

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 7th day of July 2022
 
Last edited:
Thank you, this court is in recess.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Milkcrack v. Commonwealth [2022] FCR 42

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Best Ballot Act does not constitute a complex change, as the Allegiance Act was declared to not be a complex change.
2. It received at least 2/3 of votes that were cast in the House and the Senate, meeting the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendments.
3. The bill was also put up for public referendum, which it passed.
4. The bill thus met all of the requirements for a standard constitutional amendment, and should have been included in the Constitution from that point on.
5. The bill was not included in the Constitution and marked, incorrectly, as rejected.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Best Ballot Act is indeed a complex change, as it restricts the constitutional right to run for public office.
2. The bill received only 5 ayes in the House of Representatives, meaning it did not pass the required supermajority.
3. The bill then went on to receive only 18/29 ayes in the public referendum, meaning it also did not pass the public referendum supermajority mandated by the Constitution.
4. By these virtues the bill was correctly marked rejected.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. The bill in question was a rights and freedoms change. I will elaborate on this further:
- According to the opinion of then-Chief Justice xEndeavour in the ruling on hugebob23456 v. Commonwealth [2022] SCR 2, “I am of the opinion that this was not a complex change as it did not change the nature of the status quo. There bill did not make a change to rights and freedoms, it made a reasonable limitation that is justified in a free and democratic society.”
- The opinion was that the Allegiance Act did not alter dramatically the nature of the status quo. The Best Ballot Act, however, would greatly alter the current state of affairs.
- The Allegiance Act and the Best Ballot Act both seek to establish a higher standard of government, but they go about this in very different ways. The Allegiance Act uses a minor limitation that is solely temporary in nature in order to prevent a direct conflict. The temporality is the important part of this that separates the two Acts. The limitations imposed by the Allegiance Act expire once the individual is no longer holding the office elsewhere. A candidate could be a farmer in Redmont the whole time and then run for President as soon as they are no longer holding said office, since the limit is temporary.
- The Best Ballot Act, by contrast, relies on establishing prerequisite positions to hold before running for certain public office. This is not temporary like the Allegiance Act, and could permanently prevent many individuals from ever running for these public offices. The pool of people who have held or are holding the listed positions that meet the prerequisites is fairly small, compared to the total number of people in Redmont. This by extension drastically limits the number of people who can ever run for the proposed restricted offices.
- By this standard, this bill is a major rights and freedoms change, and thus a complex change.
2. The bill did pass the supermajority in the House of Representatives, as the Legislative Standards Act declares that the quorum will be dynamic to compensate for abstentions. The bill received 5 ayes out of 7 votes cast, meeting the standard for a supermajority.
3. While the bill passed with the required supermajority in the Senate, it failed in the public referendum, with only 18 ayes out of 29 votes cast total. This falls clearly short of the 2/3 supermajority required given that the bill is a complex rights and freedoms change.

IV. VERDICT
I hereby find in favor of the Defendant that the bill was rejected by the standards of the Constitution. The bill will not go into effect.

The Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top