Matthew100x
Citizen
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2020
- Messages
- 547
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
RoryyyMC (Represented by Prodigium | Attorneys at Law Managing Partner Matthew100x)
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT:
The Executive Officer Freedom Act is a constitutional amendment that failed to satisfy all requirements to become a constitutional amendment. The Executive Officer Freedom Act is a constitutionally complex change that did not have a referendum attached to it. According to Section V of the constitution, when an amendment to the constitution is a complex change, the Speaker of the House must request the DOS to hold a referendum for 48 hours to allow citizens to vote on the bill. The referendum must pass a simple majority vote. The Executive Officer Freedom Act is a complex change because it allows for an unlimited number of executive officers, thus it is a change to the system of government. However, because there was no referendum attached to the bill, it did not satisfy the requirements necessary for it to be implemented. Therefore, the amendment should be considered unconstitutional and removed from the constitution.
I. PARTIES
1. RoryyyMC, as a citizen aggrieved by an illegal constitutional amendment
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. CaseyLeFaye, as Speaker of the House of Represenatives
II. FACTS
1. On 11/24/2024, the House created the Executive Officer Freedom Act (see Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games).
2. When the bill was created, a discussion was raised about how it would change the executive officer position to allow for an unlimited number of advisors, press secretaries, and chiefs of staff. Additionally, it was noted that this bill would allow the president to create new executive officer positions. (See Above).
3. The Legislative Branch passed the bill. (See Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act).
4. The Executive Branch gave Presidential Assent to the bill. (See above).
5. The Amendment still has not had a referendum posted and citizens have not been given 48 hours to give their assent to the amendment (see https://www.democracycraft.net/forums/referendums.85/).
6. Standing exists because the plaintiff, as a citizen, was unable to exercise their right to vote on a referendum for the alleged complex change. Standing requires a showing that the plaintiff is injured by an application of law. By assenting and enacting the Executive Officer Freedom Act, the plaintiff was injured. The cause of the alleged injury was against the law under Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1. (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1). Said injury can be remedied under law. (See above).
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By allowing the president to appoint an unlimited number of executive officers, the bill sufficiently changes the system of government enough that the Executive Officer Freedom Act is a Complex Change under Section 40 of the Constitution. (see Government - Constitution)
2. By allowing the president to create new executive officer positions by fiat, the bill sufficiently changes the system of government enough that the Executive Officer Freedom Act is a Complex Change under Section 40 of the Constitution. (see Government - Constitution)
3. That by failing to post a referendum for the Executive Officer Freedom Act, the government has deprived its citizens their right to vote on a Complex Change.
4. Because the government has not properly passed a Complex Change, it is therefore unconstitutional.
5. 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.” (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1).
6. 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. (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7).
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Executive Officer Freedom Act should be declared unconstitutional.
2. All changes to the constitution caused by The Executive Officer Freedom Act should be undone and rolled back.
3. Any appointments made under The Executive Officer Freedom Act should be undone.
4. $5,000 dollars in legal fees. (See Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.).
5. $4,000 dollars of nominal damages. (See above).
V. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
An emergency injunction should be granted to prevent the appointment to block implementation of the constitutional amendment until the resolution of this case. Emergency injunctions are made with the goal of preventing harm (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23). Per the Act of Congress - Judiciary Act, "(b) Emergency - Injunctions that are issued before the court has tried a case to prevent harm. If the applicant fails to file a lawsuit within 4 hours of requesting an emergency injunction the order will be null and void." In Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33, the Court failed to address the constitutional issues. (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33). The court found favor in the plaintiff’s argument but did not implement an injunction against the unconstitutional acts, urging Congress to make changes. (See above). As a result, those bills are still enacted. (see Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act, Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act, Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act, Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act, and Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act).
The court can act quickly to prevent misuse of the alleged improperly passed constitutional amendment. Granting this injunction will allow the court time to review and prevent harm from happening to the citizens who have not been able to vote in a referendum for this act. Further, the court should act because urging Congress to do something does not result in action. A emergency injunction will prevent the harm from occurring but failing to act can result in issues pending this case’s litigation. Thus, the plaintiff pleads that an emergency injunction to block implementation of the constitutional amendment until the resolution of this case should be granted.
DATED: This 6th day of December, 2024.
