Lawsuit: Pending SCR 1 [2025] The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont

Alexander P. Love

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Justice Department
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Legal Eagle Change Maker Popular in the Polls
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
Attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,236

Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont (Represented by AlexanderLove)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the 10th of January, election results were posted with discrepancies, disadvantaging the Patriotic Coalition of Redmont and the citizens of Redmont as a whole. At least three candidates who voted for themselves in the election received "zero votes" according to the Department of State when they should have received at least one. This means that the DOS lost votes due to polling booth malfunction or a miscount. We do not know who fully was actually affected, and the PCR stood to gain more seats that election. We therefore complain now to overturn the election and redo it.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont
2. Soundi_83 (Witness)
3. Goldendude15 (Witness)
4. .Lucky_waq (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. Elections ended on January 10th, 2025.
2. House election results came out with exactly 100 votes compared to the the Senate's 148 votes.
3. Three people who voted for themselves was reported to have zero votes.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Three people who can testify under oath that they voted for themselves had their vote not count. Who knows how many other votes were not counted? Per the Constitution, all citizens have "The right to vote in elections and referendums" which was infringed in at least three provable instances, plus potential countless others that shaped the elections. As a party running several candidates for the House of Representatives who lost by only a few votes, discarded votes can make or break the party's success in the chamber.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The election results to be overturned, and the House of Representatives election reconducted with 2-3 days of voting using the same candidate pool minus those no longer interested; and for the results to be separately counted and verified by at least two different Department of State members.
2. $5,000 in legal fees for AlexanderLove's time, per the Legal Damages Act. This prayer is waived if the Commonwealth does not contest this complaint.


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 16th day of January, 2025.



Motion


Petition for Emergency Injunction

The plaintiff requests the House of Representatives be frozen or placed into caretaker mode for the duration of this case until we can determine if the current House is the proper one per the real election results, and until the new House takes over after the revote.

 
Last edited:
Your Honors, may I file an amicus brief?
 

Writ of Summons



@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Patriotic Coalition of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
Alexander P. Love said:

Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont (Represented by AlexanderLove)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


I. PARTIES
1. The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont
2. Soundi_83 (Witness)
3. Goldendude15 (Witness)
4. .Lucky_waq (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. Elections ended on January 10th, 2025.
2. House election results came out with exactly 100 votes compared to the the Senate's 173 votes.
3. Three people who voted for themselves was reported to have zero votes.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Three people who can testify under oath that they voted for themselves had their vote not count. Who knows how many other votes were not counted? Per the Constitution, all citizens have "The right to vote in elections and referendums" which was infringed in at least three provable instances, plus potential countless others that shaped the elections. As a party running several candidates for the House of Representatives who lost by only a few votes, discarded votes can make or break the party's success in the chamber.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The election results to be overturned, and the House of Representatives election reconducted with 2-3 days of voting using the same candidate pool minus those no longer interested; and for the results to be separately counted and verified by at least two different Department of State members.
2. $5,000 in legal fees for AlexanderLove's time, per the Legal Damages Act. This prayer is waived if the Commonwealth does not contest this complaint.


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 16th day of January, 2025.



Motion


Petition for Emergency Injunction

The plaintiff requests the House of Representatives be frozen or placed into caretaker mode for the duration of this case until we can determine if the current House is the proper one per the real election results, and until the new House takes over after the revote.

Click to expand...
The Supreme Court is currently debating this injunction. Patience would be appreciated.
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
You may. Please file your brief promptly.
Click to expand...
Thank you, your Honor.

As a manager in these elections, I would like to note a few things:
1. There were 148 votes for the Senate, not 173.
2. While the House election having exactly 100 votes may sound suspicious at first, as if the votes stopped being counted after 100, it is just a coincidence. We can see exactly when votes were casted, and the first vote was casted right at after voting opened, and the last was within the last hour of closing.
3. The Senate elections only require voters to choose one candidate, while the House required voters to choose at least five, and at most thirty-one, to rank. This may explain why there are more votes for the Senate election, as it is much easier to simply pick one candidate. Additionally, Senate elections are more competitive, as there are only 3 seats available, versus 11 in the House election.
4. There is no way for the plugin to know you voted for yourself. Your name is not recorded with your vote. Additionally, candidates are listed, for example, as 'lcn (IND)' not 'lcn', and thus they do not match the username of the voter. The State Secretary (Real42) and I tested this with a test election, and even if we voted for ourselves, the vote was still recorded.
5. Tech has said he checked the database and found no lost votes, he counted 100 votes exactly.

That is all.
 
May I please file an amicus brief prior to your decision on the EI?
 
lcn said:
There were 148 votes for the Senate, not 173.
Click to expand...
I apologize for the error, I will amend the filing should the Honorable Justices let me.
 
You may, please file it as soon as possible.
End said:
May I please file an amicus brief prior to your decision on the EI?
Click to expand...
 

Brief


This amicus brief highlights considerations for the court before granting the Plaintiff’s request.

I will discuss potential harm, the reliability of vote counting, and the need for clear evidence to justify such a drastic step.

Emergency Injunctions Should Prevent Harm, Not Cause It

Emergency injunctions are designed to prevent harm, but in this case, without understanding the circumstances or evidence of potential missing votes, the court may impose more harm that it seeks to prevent. Here’s why:

Risky Precedent: Allowing an election to be overturned based only on testimony could encourage baseless challenges in the future, destabilising our democratic processes.

Time: This case could take weeks or months to settle. To place Congress into caretaker for such an extended time could create significant harm to the nation's ability to govern itself beyond essential functions. In particular, if there is no merit in these claims, eleven representatives have been restrained from actioning their mandate.

The Department of State’s Processes are Reliable

The Department of State has significant scrutiny emplaced on it during counting, and has several eyes on it's counting. The Plaintiff relies on three individuals who say their votes weren’t counted, but this could be due to user error or technical issues. Without more evidence, the existing process should be trusted.

Testimony Alone Is Not Enough

Placing Congress into caretaker when there are no apparent systemic issues could create considerable harm.

No Technical Proof: There’s no data showing that votes were lost or miscounted.

Unexplored Explanations: The Plaintiff hasn’t ruled out simple mistakes like not submitting a ballot correctly or technical glitches like lag.

Burden of Proof: It’s up to the Plaintiff to prove there was a problem. Without clear evidence, the court should not act on speculation.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top