Lawsuit: Adjourned Prodigium & Partners at Law v. the Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 3

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION


Prodigium & Partners at Law

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont

COMPLAINT
Hello, your honor,

Today I, Matthew100x, head of the constitutional division of Prodigium at Law, is here to ask the court for relief against constitutional infringement made by the current government. Whereas subsection III of section IV of the Constitution proclaims the right to vote a government official out of his or her office is prescribed to the people, a way of exercising this right has not been created. I, therefore, believe that the government is currently in violation of its own constitution and seek to have a remedy placed into effect giving us this right until Congress can create a more official fix. The right to vote out an elected government official is called the right to recall, and I believe that our right to recall is being infringed upon.


I. PARTIES
1. Prodigium & Partners at Law
2. The People of Redmont
3. The Government of Redmont.

II. FACTS
1. The government has created a constitution in which it has created a right for people to vote an elected official out of office, the right to recall.
2. There is no current way to go about this process
3. There are possible workarounds to make a solution for this, yet the government has not taken the necessary steps to satisfy this constitutional requirement.
4. Therefore the government is infringing on our right to recall.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The government is currently breaking its oath to the people as written in the constitution. It is breaking the social contract that it signed with its people. This must be remedied because this is a right given by the government. It is currently a non-existent positive right. We must be allowed to recall our elected officials!


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
I am asking for the Court to institute a process so that the people may do a recall election. I've already devised a way of going about this that would require little structural change in the government. This process proceeds as follows.

1. A player creates a petition against a government official and must meet the normal 15 signatures needed for a petition to be heard by the Speaker of House.

2. The Speaker of the House hears the petition and requests a Recall election against the elected official.

3. If the elected official receives more aye votes for a recall than nay votes, then they are recalled from their position and are removed from office.

4. A special election is held to elect a new official to replace the recalled one.

Thank you again you're honor for reading this case. I hope that you see our plea and take our request with the due diligence it deserves.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE COURT OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Case No. 01-2021-16

The court hereby summons Defendant, The Commonwealth of Redmont, to the court. If they do not respond within 24 hours, a default judgment will be made in favor of the plaintiff.​

 

[Matt]

Your Honour,

The State would kindly request an extension to the existing summons time by a further 60 hours. This would take the summons deadline to 23:36 GMT (18:36 EST) on 19/1/21. I am currently preoccupied this weekend and so would appreciate the extension to allow me to present a substantive case to the Court.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Nacho]

The Court hereby grants the extension of 60-hours to the state on the grounds that the state's representation is unavailable for the court session during this time.

However, this is an unprecedented amount of time Mr. Attorney General that I have ever granted to one party within a case. I expect a prompt answer for when this case resumes at 6:36 PM on Tuesday, January 19th, 2021.

The Court now goes into recess until this extension has expired.

 

[Matt]

Your Honour, I would like to swiftly thank you for the very kind extension. In the effort of reducing any delays to the Court, I have managed to proceed with a response prior to the deadline. Thank you to you, Your Honour, and the plaintiff, for your understanding and patience.

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: 01-2021-16

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The State does not disagree that the Constitution does indeed provide a crucial right for people to vote out an elected official - elections.
2. The State strongly refutes the claim that the Government is infringing on any rights. All rights decreed in the Constitution are upheld with sacrosanct importance and primacy.

II DEFENCES
1. It is presented that the clause highlighted by the plaintiff is affording citizens of DemocracyCraft the right to elections. The claim that the State is breaking the social contract with citizens is simply unfounded and fallacious.

2. The prayer for relief requested by the plaintiff is beyond the realm of this Court’s jurisdiction. Should this case be successful, the unelected judiciary will have established an entirely new way to remove an elected official from Office; amounting to nothing less than a decimation of the separation of powers.

3. After this case was brought to Court, the honourable Representative HugeBob drafted the “Recall Amendment”. It is clear that Congress wishes to decide on this matter and will be doing so imminently. It is for elected Congress to decide how elected Congressmen and Congresswomen are removed from Office.

DATED: This 19th day of January 2021​

 

[Nacho]

The Courts would like to thank the Attorney General for the speedy response to this case. The courts truly appreciate the effort and care for the Defendant and The Courts time.

After looking at both sides of the argument, the court recognizes that the state, has properly began taking steps needed to help resolve this conflict found. In an effort to continue to move the case along, the courts do not feel the need to review any witnesses and or testimony at this time.

The court herby moves to closing statements from both parties. I ask that the Plaintiff be the first to post their closing remarks followed by the Defendant. Please note no new information can be provided at this time.​

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, am I allowed to address the defendants opening argument in my closing argument?

 

[Nacho]

Yes, you may address them.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
Closing Argument

Prodigium and Partners at LAw
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: 01-2021-16

I CLOSING ARGUMENT TO COURT
Good evening your honor, tonight I will address the court with my closing argument.

I want to focus on some points raised by the defendant and talk critically about the functions of the judiciary within a constitutional democracy. We're specifically focusing on the term "Positive Right" since it's important within the context of the case and can set a strong long-term precedent.

Positive Right, as mentioned within my opening argument declaring that our lack of right to recall "currently a non-existent positive right", is the idea that someone is obliged to something. Positive Rights are only ascertained when there is something giving access to that right at all times. This is critical because the wording of our right to recall is "The right to vote a Government official out of his or her office." This right cannot currently be used because there is no mechanism to vote a government official out of office. This right can only be proscribed to us through the action of the government.

This is in contrast to negative rights. Negative rights are rights given to us through inaction and are the most common form of rights that we know of. Such an example would be our sixth right, the “Freedom of Political Communication”. In order for us to have this right, the government only has to not create laws or enact policies that would otherwise hinder us from actively using this right. While there certainly can be reasonable restrictions on this right, any step beyond reasonable can be sued and made unconstitutional. Such a right is always proscribed to us through the inaction of the government.

This argument essentially boils down to negative rights being that the government is promising not to do something and that positive rights are the government promising to do something. This is an essential justification for the court’s ability to create a process. Because this would be “within reasonable limits” of the “Democracycraft (Redmont) Charter of Rights and Freedoms (that) guarantees the rights and freedom set out in it”. Without government action, the people are deprived of this right, and therefore are being infringed upon by their government.


II RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OPENING ARGUMENT

1. “It is presented that the clause highlighted by the plaintiff is affording citizens of DemocracyCraft the right to elections. The claim that the State is breaking the social contract with citizens is simply unfounded and fallacious.”

This is simply not true. The second right within our constitution gives us the right to vote in elections. Further, the constitution has electoral guidance in it that proclaims the right for people to vote and explains to the government how to run an election. I believe that this distinction is important. The third right of the constitution separates itself from the second because it is written in a present and active tense. “The right to vote a government official out of his or her office.” It is clear that the constitution is proscribing a right in which people have the ability to vote someone else out of office, not the right to vote someone out of office during an election.

1. “The prayer for relief requested by the plaintiff is beyond the realm of this Court’s jurisdiction. Should this case be successful, the unelected judiciary will have established an entirely new way to remove an elected official from Office; amounting to nothing less than a decimation of the separation of powers.”

Since the Courts have control over the jurisdiction and interpretation of the constitution, I disagree with this statement. In order for people to have the right to recall, the right must be given by the government because it is a positive right. Government action is needed to secure the ability of the people to request an election to vote an elected official out of office. Therefore, I believe that this is entirely within the court’s jurisdiction and that the court is upholding the constitution. Such a decision would not be the “decimation of the separation of powers”.

1. “After this case was brought to Court, the honourable Representative HugeBob drafted the “Recall Amendment”. It is clear that Congress wishes to decide on this matter and will be doing so imminently. It is for elected Congress to decide how elected Congressmen and Congresswomen are removed from Office.

It is clear that Congress is now acting on making sure that we have this right established, however, it has a long way to go before it is enacted into law. I request that the prayer for relief is still adjudicated and satisfied under the condition that it stays until we have a working fix created by Congress.

III CLOSING REMARKS TO THE COURT
Thank your honor for permitting me to submit this case and moving with brevity. Thank you Attorney General Matt_SO for your timely response. Your honor, I rest my case.

DATED: This 19th day of January, 2021

 

[Matt]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CLOSING ARGUMENT

Prodigium and Partners at LAw
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: 01-2021-16

I CLOSING ARGUMENT TO COURT
​

I would like to thank the plaintiff for bringing this case to the attention of the Court. I would firstly like to settle the issue of the claimed positive right. The plaintiff makes the claim that right II and right III within the Constitution are distinct creatures; the State would argue that they are under the same taxonomy of a single right, just explicitly stated separately. An election and a removal of an official do not always come hand-in-hand, one only needs to look at certain jurisdictions around the world to see such false democracy. The State presents that the distinction of these rights was to explicitly make aware to citizens that this server is called “DemocracyCraft” for a reason, and not the “DemocracticPeoplesRepublicCraft”. When this understanding is accepted, the rationale behind distinguishing these intertwined and synonymous rights is trite.

However, the State asserts that the proposed mechanism presented by the plaintiff is so erroneous that even if the Court found a substantive distinction between rights II and III in our Constitution, this case should fail. We are all esteemed lawyers in this court and therefore know that the Court interprets the Constitution and laws. The request by the plaintiff is beyond the realm of even a teleological approach to interpretation; venturing into creating laws from scratch. The plaintiff’s claim even acknowledges this, outlining an entire mechanism which would be necessary should his claim be successful; a mechanism that is notably less comprehensive and secure than the mechanism presented within the “Recall Amendment”. The State agrees with the plaintiff that this court has “control over the jurisdiction and interpretation of the [C]onstitution”. What is being asked of this Court by the plaintiff is exponentially expanding the meaning of ‘interpretation’. It is one thing to interpret right III as providing for a specific right; it is materially distinguishable for this Court to establish a detailed mechanism through which any such right should be enforced.

The procedure requested to be implemented by the plaintiff requires a simple majority of 51% (“more aye votes for a recall than nay votes”); a threshold this low is aberrant and presents a deplorable process. Were Congress to create such a mechanism, a Constitutional amendment would be required. To put this into scale, the plaintiff is asking the unelected Court to unilaterally create a new mechanism whereby elected officials are removed. Should the aforementioned elected officials wish to create the exact same mechanism, they would require a supermajority arguably alongside a public referendum.

However, Representatives do not wish to create the exact same mechanism. In fact, it has been proposed before the House that the correct mechanism requires the percentage of nays to be less than the percentage that seat represents. Presently, the difference in this threshold, when considering the House of Representatives, between the mechanism unilaterally presented before this Court (51%), and the mechanism proposed by an elected Representative (88.9%), is 37.8%. The plaintiff claims their case is to ensure democratic accountability. The State proposes this is an assault on the very foundations of democracy, destroying any hope of achieving proportionality within Congress. What would stop the proposed mechanism from repeatedly being used by the supporters of a party with 51%+ support across citizens to create a one-party system? Nothing. The plaintiff’s system allows for the annulment of 49% of the electorate, and the plaintiff is asking an unelected body to instigate such an iniquitous proposition.

I am aware that the "Recall Amendment" Bill was posted after the creation of this claim, but I urge the Court to take the Bill into consideration. Failing to do so would mean failing to represent true justice and deteriorate the boundaries placed upon the Judiciary. I do not say this lightly, nor hyperbolise, when I say that the precedent set by finding this case successful would threaten the very fabric of our democracy. The separation of powers is something we should treasure. It is not to be treated like a tank, rather, like a glass hammer. Unilaterally instigating a mechanism which is in contradiction to a similar, more secure mechanism being proposed to the elected House would be unnecessarily sacrificing the separation of powers on the altar of a rushed remedy.

 

[Nacho]

Verdict

Case No. 01-2021-16

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The government has created a constitution in which it has created a right for people to vote an elected official out of office, the right to recall.
2. There is no current way to go about this process
3. There are possible workarounds to make a solution for this, yet the government has not taken the necessary steps to satisfy this constitutional requirement.
4. Therefore the government is infringing on our right to recall.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The State does not disagree that the Constitution does indeed provide a crucial right for people to vote out an elected official - elections.
2. The State strongly refutes the claim that the Government is infringing on any rights. All rights decreed in the Constitution are upheld with sacrosanct importance and primacy.

II DEFENCES
1. It is presented that the clause highlighted by the plaintiff is affording citizens of DemocracyCraft the right to elections. The claim that the State is breaking the social contract with citizens is simply unfounded and fallacious.
2. The prayer for relief requested by the plaintiff is beyond the realm of this Court’s jurisdiction. Should this case be successful, the unelected judiciary will have established an entirely new way to remove an elected official from Office; amounting to nothing less than a decimation of the separation of powers.
3. After this case was brought to Court, the honorable Representative HugeBob drafted the “Recall Amendment”. It is clear that Congress wishes to decide on this matter and will be doing so imminently. It is for elected Congress to decide how elected Congressmen and Congresswomen are removed from Office.



III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Plaintiff, has properly exposed a potential risk to the constitution.
2. The State has admitted fault to there being no means of voting an elected official out of office. On the grounds that an amendment to the constitution has been proposed which is directly concerning this case.
3. The Government has failed to provide a system of removing a Government Official out of office. The Defendant has made an argument that this is considered to be elections, however, the 2nd right listed within the "Rights and Freedoms" section of the constitution clearly states a right for elections, thus leading the courts to believe there is another meaning behind their being another right listed for the same purpose.
4. The courts do not have the authority to implement a process within the government, as that would require changes to the constitution.


IV. DECISION
The Court hereby adjourns this case in favor of the Plaintiff. The courts however will not be granting any of the prayer of relief, on the grounds the court does not hold the authority to do such an act of implementing a means of "recall". The courts do strongly encourage the legislature to look into a means of resolving this gray area within the constitution.