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

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

I. PARTIES
1. The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont
2. Soundi83 (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.

 

[lcn]

Your Honors, may I file an amicus brief?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honors, may I file an amicus brief?

You may. Please file your brief promptly.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

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.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

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.

The Supreme Court is currently debating this injunction. Patience would be appreciated.

 

[lcn]

You may. Please file your brief promptly.

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.

 

[End]

May I please file an amicus brief prior to your decision on the EI?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

There were 148 votes for the Senate, not 173.

I apologize for the error, I will amend the filing should the Honorable Justices let me.

 

[Aladeen]

You may, please file it as soon as possible.

May I please file an amicus brief prior to your decision on the EI?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

I apologize for the error, I will amend the filing should the Honorable Justices let me.

You may do so.

 

[End]

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.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your Honors, may I file an amicus brief?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The plaintiff tenders the following evidence onto the record:

Spoiler: P-001

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honors, may I file an amicus brief?

You may. Please post your brief within the next 48 hours

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honors,

I just want to point out a few statistics from previous elections. In recent history with this system of voting, there are always discrepancies between the number of voters in the House and in the Senate. NEVER under the current system of voting has there been an election in the House and Senate that were ran at the same time, that had the exact same number of votes in both chambers. Below are some statistics from the 3 most recent elections, not accounting for special elections that ran at different times from each other.

December special election - House 35 votes, Senate 39 votes : 10.2% discrepancy.
November General Election - House 43 votes, Senate 50 votes : 14% discrepancy.
September General Election - House 58 votes, Senate 81 votes : 28.3 % discrepancy.

The election in question : House had 100 votes, Senate 148 : 32.4% discrepancy.

This could be due to a myriad of factors that other amicus briefs have explored, such as the difficulty of voting in the House versus the ease of voting for the Senate or the perceived additional importance that the Senate has over the House. The popularity of candidates in either election has also considerably swung vote counts in previous elections.

I just wanted to point out that these discrepancies are NOT uncommon, IF there is an issue it has NOT been proven to only be localized to the House of Representatives and could be an issue with the Senate election therefore any action if deemed necessary by this Supreme Court should apply to both chambers, or neither chamber.

Thank you for the opportunity to share this information for your consideration.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Supreme Court is currently debating this injunction. Patience would be appreciated.

Your honor, as this is an emergency, the plaintiff requests a ruling be made as soon as it can.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

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. Soundi83 (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.

Court Order

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Upon review of the merits of the case and the amicus briefs presented to the court, the Supreme Court will be rejecting this emergency injunction in a 2-0 decision.

Following the submission of several amicus briefs regarding the functionality of the plugin, the conduct of the elections as well as the glaring lack of analytical or physical evidence suggesting malfunction or foul play regarding this election, the court finds that granting the injunction at this stage would cause more harm to the stability of the government.

 

[Freeze_Line]

The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Thank you.

Discovery is set for a maximum of 3 days.

Make use of the time to submit all relevant evidence and witnesses. Late submissions may not be tolerated.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

2. Soundi83 (Witness)
3. Goldendude15 (Witness)
4. .Lucky_waq (Witness)

The plaintiff would like to reiterate these witness submissions for the record.

Spoiler: P-002

Copy of Untitled spreadsheet

docs.google.com

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Discovery has already ended, so the plaintiff cannot submit any more evidence.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Discovery has already ended, so the plaintiff cannot submit any more evidence.

The plaintiff just obtained this evidence from a FOIA request today and we were unable to submit it earlier. We have not moved on yet in the trial either. The question is this: does the Court value the truth or does it value adherence to schedules more?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

The plaintiff just obtained this evidence from a FOIA request today and we were unable to submit it earlier. We have not moved on yet in the trial either. The question is this: does the Court value the truth or does it value adherence to schedules more?

Given that the court did not move past discovery, and the circumstances relating to the acquisition of the evidence did not permit it to be submitted during discovery, the court will be allowing the late submission. The Defendant has 24 hours to evaluate and consider the new evidence.

Objection

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Discovery has already ended, so the plaintiff cannot submit any more evidence.

Overruled.
See above.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Given that the court did not move past discovery, and the circumstances relating to the acquisition of the evidence did not permit it to be submitted during discovery, the court will be allowing the late submission. The Defendant has 24 hours to evaluate and consider the new evidence.

Overruled.
See above.

Due to the urgency of this case, the plaintiff wishes to move forward.

Motion

Petition for Emergency Injunction

In light of the new evidence obtained, there is definitive proof that Twiscet received one less vote than allocated and CaseyLeFaye received one more, if you count up the first choice votes using the spreadsheet. There is therefore proof that the election was, at the very least, miscounted. We reiterate our original request to place the Congress into caretaker mode, and to do so retroactively. We request all bills passed under this Congress be re-examined to ensure that said bills would have passed under caretaker mode, and to have Congress revote on those that would not have.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honors,
I ask permission to file a Brief to the Court. Does the Court allow this?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honors,
I ask permission to file a Brief to the Court. Does the Court allow this?

What do you wish to share, and what is your relevant expertise?

 

[Freeze_Line]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-002

Your Honor, the evidence provided by the plaintiff has been altered and does not match the real results.

Specifically, Voter 2 is a copy of another voter below (Voter 20). The formatting is different "Voter 2, " versus the standard "Voter 2", used in every other vote. Additionally, the timestamp is missing at the end of the entry, and this is the only entry where that occurs.

This is also the exact voter the plaintiff is using to propose their emergency injunction.

Spoiler: Proof

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

By Order of the Supreme Court, both Plaintiff and Defense are to make themselves present in the Judiciary discord. A closed court hearing will take place regarding the validity of the evidence.

Please make yourselves present within 72 hours.

 

[Babysoga4real]

What do you wish to share, and what is your relevant expertise?

Your Honors,
I wish to say why Congress needn't be placed in Caretaker or other inactive makements.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honors,
I wish to say why Congress needn't be placed in Caretaker or other inactive makements.

That is not necessary at this point in time. Your request is denied.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Court Order

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Upon close review and discussion regarding the evidence called into question, the (former) Secretary of State @Real42 is hereby ordered to make themselves present within the judiciary discord and provide version history and edit access to the court for the document in debate.

Treat this as a subpoena. Please comply within 72 hours.

 

[Matthew100x]

I am going to be recusing from this case.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Due to the urgency of this case, the plaintiff wishes to move forward.

Motion

Petition for Emergency Injunction

In light of the new evidence obtained, there is definitive proof that Twiscet received one less vote than allocated and CaseyLeFaye received one more, if you count up the first choice votes using the spreadsheet. There is therefore proof that the election was, at the very least, miscounted. We reiterate our original request to place the Congress into caretaker mode, and to do so retroactively. We request all bills passed under this Congress be re-examined to ensure that said bills would have passed under caretaker mode, and to have Congress revote on those that would not have.

Denied.

The Supreme Court has ruled, 2-0.

The court has determined that the voter in question (Voter 2) was misnoted. True record of the voter can be found in later entries of the document. Election results were not miscounted as a result of this faulty notation, and thus there exists no reason to grant this injunction.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor, the evidence provided by the plaintiff has been altered and does not match the real results.

Specifically, Voter 2 is a copy of another voter below (Voter 20). The formatting is different "Voter 2, " versus the standard "Voter 2", used in every other vote. Additionally, the timestamp is missing at the end of the entry, and this is the only entry where that occurs.

This is also the exact voter the plaintiff is using to propose their emergency injunction.

Spoiler: Proof

View attachment 51369

Sustained.

The court has determined that the evidence was modified (by a third party) after submission to reflect the change in Voter 2. As previously established, Voter 2 was recorded correctly further on in the document. However, considering the evidence has been modified to reflect 'untruth', the evidence is hereby removed from court record.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

With the matter out of the way, the court will be resuming.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement. Request an extension if necessary.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Your Honor, we have missed the Answer to Complaint after Discovery.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Denied.

The Supreme Court has ruled, 2-0.

The court has determined that the voter in question (Voter 2) was misnoted. True record of the voter can be found in later entries of the document. Election results were not miscounted as a result of this faulty notation, and thus there exists no reason to grant this injunction.



Sustained.

The court has determined that the evidence was modified (by a third party) after submission to reflect the change in Voter 2. As previously established, Voter 2 was recorded correctly further on in the document. However, considering the evidence has been modified to reflect 'untruth', the evidence is hereby removed from court record.

Are you striking the entire sheet or just voter 2?

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honor, we have missed the Answer to Complaint after Discovery.

Apologies, previous order is rescinded.
Defendant has 48 hours to file an answer to complaint.

Are you striking the entire sheet or just voter 2?

The entire sheet.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Apologies, previous order is rescinded.
Defendant has 48 hours to file an answer to complaint.



The entire sheet.

You literally have edit history… why are you striking key evidence

 

[Freeze_Line]

Your Honor, we are still investigating the voting issue and therefore request a 48-hour extension to determine whether there was any issue on a larger scale.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor, we are still investigating the voting issue and therefore request a 48-hour extension to determine whether there was any issue on a larger scale.

I would like to request another 48 hour period of discovery as it is clear both sides need more time to investigate the issue further.

 

[Aladeen]

Extension Granted.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

With the extended time for Discovery having elapsed, court will be moving forward to the entering of the Plea. The Defense has 72 hours to file their answer to complaint.

 

[Freeze_Line]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS that the elections ended on January 10th, 2025.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS that the house election results came out with exactly 100 votes compared to the the Senate's 148 votes.
3. The Defense DISPUTES that three people who voted for themselves were reported to have zero votes.

II. DEFENCES

1. Based on the current information in this case, there is no evidence that individuals who voted for themselves received zero votes despite doing so. This claim has not been proven in any way. We cannot rely on mere statements when the system indicates otherwise.

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 11 day of February 2025

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Based on recently discovered information, we have determined that there was indeed a miscount in the House election

The elected winners, Ryland and zLost, should not have been declared the winners. Instead, McBrittle and bigpappa should have been elected.

If the plaintiff concurs, the defense would like to proceed directly to summary judgment and either authorize the rightful winners or re-run the election. The defense asks the judges to determine which option is more appropriate and proceed accordingly.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS that the elections ended on January 10th, 2025.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS that the house election results came out with exactly 100 votes compared to the the Senate's 148 votes.
3. The Defense DISPUTES that three people who voted for themselves were reported to have zero votes.

II. DEFENCES

1. Based on the current information in this case, there is no evidence that individuals who voted for themselves received zero votes despite doing so. This claim has not been proven in any way. We cannot rely on mere statements when the system indicates otherwise.

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 11 day of February 2025

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Based on recently discovered information, we have determined that there was indeed a miscount in the House election

The elected winners, Ryland and zLost, should not have been declared the winners. Instead, McBrittle and bigpappa should have been elected.

If the plaintiff concurs, the defense would like to proceed directly to summary judgment and either authorize the rightful winners or re-run the election. The defense asks the judges to determine which option is more appropriate and proceed accordingly.

The plaintiff concurs and would like the election reheld to certify accuracy.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honors, I'd like to file an Amicus Brief.

 

[Aladeen]

Your Honors, I'd like to file an Amicus Brief.

What are your qualifications and under what capacity?

 

[Freeze_Line]

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

The defense moves to amend the Motion for Summary Judgement as follows:

Based on recently discovered information, we have determined that there was indeed a miscount in the House election

The elected winners, Ryland and zLost, should not have been declared the winners. Instead, McBrittle and bigpappa should have been elected.

If the plaintiff concurs, the defense would like to proceed directly to summary judgment and either authorize the rightful winners or re-run the election. The defense asks the judges to determine which option is more appropriate and proceed accordingly.

The defense would also like to point out that reholding the elections will take 10 days, and afterward, there will be just 5 days until caretaker, if started now.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Apologies to all parties involved for the delay. I have a rather busy and unforgiving last couple of weeks, but am in relatively better health now.

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

The defense moves to amend the Motion for Summary Judgement as follows:

Based on recently discovered information, we have determined that there was indeed a miscount in the House election

The elected winners, Ryland and zLost, should not have been declared the winners. Instead, McBrittle and bigpappa should have been elected.

If the plaintiff concurs, the defense would like to proceed directly to summary judgment and either authorize the rightful winners or re-run the election. The defense asks the judges to determine which option is more appropriate and proceed accordingly.

The defense would also like to point out that reholding the elections will take 10 days, and afterward, there will be just 5 days until caretaker, if started now.

This is Granted.

Answer to Complaint

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS that the elections ended on January 10th, 2025.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS that the house election results came out with exactly 100 votes compared to the the Senate's 148 votes.
3. The Defense DISPUTES that three people who voted for themselves were reported to have zero votes.

II. DEFENCES

1. Based on the current information in this case, there is no evidence that individuals who voted for themselves received zero votes despite doing so. This claim has not been proven in any way. We cannot rely on mere statements when the system indicates otherwise.

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 11 day of February 2025

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Based on recently discovered information, we have determined that there was indeed a miscount in the House election

The elected winners, Ryland and zLost, should not have been declared the winners. Instead, McBrittle and bigpappa should have been elected.

If the plaintiff concurs, the defense would like to proceed directly to summary judgment and either authorize the rightful winners or re-run the election. The defense asks the judges to determine which option is more appropriate and proceed accordingly.

As the Plaintiff has agreed, this is Granted.
Court is in recess pending verdict.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont V. The Commonwealth of Redmont SCR 1 [2025]

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The January House of Representatives Election was miscounted or otherwise tampered with.
2. Several people who voted for themselves did not have their votes counted.
3. This resulted in a potential loss of votes for the PCR.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The January House of Representatives Election was in fact miscounted.
2. Contrary to the Plaintiff's claim, the miscount should've installed McBrittle147 and bigpappa140, in place of RylandW and zLost.
3. The claim that 3 votes were miscounted are unproven.

III. THE COURT OPINION
As the Defendant has admitted that a miscount had in fact taken place, involving the candidates McBrittle147, bigpappa140, RylandW, & zLost, the court finds the matter of the validity of the election to be easily resolved.
The election was miscounted, and hereby deemed inaccurate.

Regarding the matter of the 3 citizens who claim their vote was not counted, the Plaintiff has failed to submit sufficient evidence on this matter, and thus the court finds that this claim remains unproven.


IV. DECISION
1. In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court hereby rules on favor of the Defense.

The following are to be executed:
1. The Representatives, zLost and RylandW, are henceforth to be removed from their positions as Representatives in Congress. They are to be replaced by their legitimate counterparts, McBrittle147 and bigpappa140.
2. Any bills passed or in contention proposed by Representatives zLost and RylandW during this term are hereby nullified and deemed void. Congress may seek to repropose the bills if they wish for them to remain in contention. Furthermore, any votes made by these Representatives are to be discounted from total counts. zLost is no longer to be Speaker of the House. Congress may resolve their vacation of the seat however they choose, within legal limits.
3. The Department of State is fined $100,000 for improper conduct during the January House of Representatives Election. They are to publicly announce and explain the reasonings for the removal of the (former) Representatives and the actions that led to this action being taken.
4. The Department of Justice and/or Congress is recommended to investigate this matter further.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
The Patriotic Coalition of Redmont V. The Commonwealth of Redmont SCR 1 [2025]

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The January House of Representatives Election was miscounted or otherwise tampered with.
2. Several people who voted for themselves did not have their votes counted.
3. This resulted in a potential loss of votes for the PCR.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The January House of Representatives Election was in fact miscounted.
2. Contrary to the Plaintiff's claim, the miscount should've installed McBrittle147 and bigpappa140, in place of RylandW and zLost.
3. The claim that 3 votes were miscounted are unproven.

III. THE COURT OPINION
As the Defendant has admitted that a miscount had in fact taken place, involving the candidates McBrittle147, bigpappa140, RylandW, & zLost, the court finds the matter of the validity of the election to be easily resolved.
The election was miscounted, and hereby deemed inaccurate.

Regarding the matter of the 3 citizens who claim their vote was not counted, the Plaintiff has failed to submit sufficient evidence on this matter, and thus the court finds that this claim remains unproven.


IV. DECISION
1. In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court hereby rules on favor of the Defense.

The following are to be executed:
1. The Representatives, zLost and RylandW, are henceforth to be removed from their positions as Representatives in Congress. They are to be replaced by their legitimate counterparts, McBrittle147 and bigpappa140.
2. Any bills passed or in contention proposed by Representatives zLost and RylandW during this term are hereby nullified and deemed void. Congress may seek to repropose the bills if they wish for them to remain in contention. Furthermore, any votes made by these Representatives are to be discounted from total counts. zLost is no longer to be Speaker of the House. Congress may resolve their vacation of the seat however they choose, within legal limits.
3. The Department of State is fined $100,000 for improper conduct during the January House of Representatives Election. They are to publicly announce and explain the reasonings for the removal of the (former) Representatives and the actions that led to this action being taken.
4. The Department of Justice and/or Congress is recommended to investigate this matter further.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.

what about my legal fees. Also why does it say rule in favor of the defense when I basically won.