Lawsuit: Dismissed SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alexander P. Love

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Justice Department
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle Statesman Order of Redmont
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
Attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,369

Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Vernicia (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The election was botched. The Department of State decided to run the election using a novel system of voting rather than conducting it the legally prescribed and traditional way. This produced incalculably different outcomes in the end and does not represent the will of the people. Today, we will show how the Commonwealth disregarded the Constitution and ask the Court to right that egregious wrong.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Vernicia (Presidential Candidate)
2. Department of State (Agent of the Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Vernicia was a candidate in the most recent Presidential elections.
2. The most recent Presidential elections were conducted using a ranked choice voting model.
3. The voting model used allowed voters to score candidates in order of preference and multiple rounds of scoring were conducted automatically.
4. The traditional system of voting is a model where people voted for their favorite candidate, and a separate runoff election is held between the top two resulting candidates if no candidate achieves an outright majority.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Neither the Electoral Act nor its recent amendment address Presidential elections. The most recent amendment to Presidential elections was the Presidential Runoff Amendment Act, which provides a runoff system for the Presidential elections. That amendment has not been repealed, and is therefore operable until it is repealed or the nullification clause is triggered, which it has not yet.
2. That nullification clause specifically cites the Single Transferable Vote Amendment and is contingent on that law becoming activated, which it has not yet been. The STV Amendment Act requires explicit owner approval, which has not been expressly indicated, particularly on the bill itself. It is therefore inoperative, and the traditional voting system specified in the Constitution is to be used. The bill also clearly states that it is awaiting an STV forum plugin but voting has moved in-game.
3. The Commonwealth expressly violated how the President is elected by switching to a new system without express legal authorization to do so. This is an outrageous action under the Legal Damages Act. The same act also allows the plaintiff to collect legal fees for work done by counsel equal to the greater of $5,000 or 30% of the value of the case.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The plaintiff requests a redo of the election using the legal method of voting. The election needs to be redone entirely as the methods significantly affect voter behavior and people may vote differently. The counting processes are also drastically different. The only way to make whole the wronged plaintiff is to redo the election and see if the outcomes are the same or not. Voting should be conducted again (in-game is fine and legal, so don't go owner-veto-trigger-happy, staff) where voters choose one candidate, then a runoff election is held, if needed.
2. The plaintiff requests $100,000 in punitive damages as botching a Presidential election is perhaps one of the most outrageous things imaginable.
3. The plaintiff requests $45,000 in humiliation damages as losing an election in third place as a result of a botched election harms the plaintiff's reputation and publicly humiliates her.
4. The plaintiff requests $35,000 in emotional damages as losing an election in third place as a result of a botched election caused great and undue stress to the plaintiff, and also wasted a lot of her time and energy leaving her fatigued mentally and emotionally as a result. Having to redo an election will further strain her mental and emotional resources, so the amount requested is generously conservative.
5. The plaintiff requests $20,000 in compensatory damages to reimburse the cost of campaign staff wasted on the first botched election and to pay for the same for an election redo.
6. The plaintiff requests $60,000 in legal fees as that is 30% of the value of this case.

V. PROOF OF REPRESENTATION
1739307179791.png


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 11th day of February, 2025.

 
Last edited:
Edited to fix a copy paste error in the header
 

Writ of Summons

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Vernicia 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.

 

Motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PETITION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff requests an immediate halt to the implementation of the results of the most recent Presidential election. This urgent relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm caused by the assumption of executive authority by a President whose election may be invalid due to the erroneous use of an unauthorized voting system that violates existing constitutional and statutory provisions governing Presidential elections.

The Plaintiff further requests that the incumbent President continue to administer the departments until a lawful election result is determined in accordance with the Presidential Runoff Amendment Act.

 
The Supreme Court is granting an alternate emergency injunction. The current administration which the President is Lcn will remain in caretaker mode for the duration of this case. The department of state is ordered to begin a runoff election following the mandated process. The results of this mandated process will be determined upon the end of this case.
 
Aladeen said:
The Supreme Court is granting an alternate emergency injunction. The current administration which the President is Lcn will remain in caretaker mode for the duration of this case. The department of state is ordered to begin a runoff election following the mandated process. The results of this mandated process will be determined upon the end of this case.
Click to expand...
The plaintiff would like to clarify if you mean a reholding of the election using the mandated process?
 
The mandated process in the Presidential Runoff Act. There must be a runoff election between xEndeavour and 1950minecrafter
 
Aladeen said:
The mandated process in the Presidential Runoff Act. There must be a runoff election between xEndeavour and 1950minecrafter
Click to expand...

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

The first round must be redone as well. People vote differently, even for first preferences, in the two voting systems since the strategic incentives are different. Our client may get more votes in the first round in a system where people know their vote won't be transferred. It is either all or nothing.

 
The motion to reconsider is denied. The law is very clear and it states that the two highest voted candidates are the ones to be included in the runoff election.
 
Aladeen said:
The motion to reconsider is denied. The law is very clear and it states that the two highest voted candidates are the ones to be included in the runoff election.
Click to expand...

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

We have not lawfully determined the two highest candidates yet. Voter behavior changes in different voting systems; we may have had different highest candidates under the lawful voting system. We need to do the whole process correctly.

 

Motion


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

Aladeen said:
The Supreme Court is granting an alternate emergency injunction. The current administration which the President is Lcn will remain in caretaker mode for the duration of this case. The department of state is ordered to begin a runoff election following the mandated process. The results of this mandated process will be determined upon the end of this case.
Click to expand...

Your Honor, there has been some confusion and misunderstanding. The plaintiff claims that the Single Transferable Vote Amendment was never put into effect because it did not receive the owner's approval. However, that is not the case. As seen in D-001, End (one of the owners) certified the plugin as fully operational and stated that the elections could resume as usual. The announcement concluded with, "That's why it's called transferable voting," emphasizing that transferable voting had been implemented and was ready for use.

In D-002, we can see that Tech (also one of the owners) announced that we had officially conducted our first successful presidential election using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. That announcement speaks for itself, the amendment was approved by the owner and was already in use during the presidential elections. Tech also stated that he "couldn't be happier to now be here to see the day where this dream becomes reality." This clearly shows that he was overjoyed to see STV finally working and implemented as requested by the player base. If that doesn’t demonstrate the owner's approval, I don’t know what does.

Based on this information, I respectfully ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its judgment and deny the emergency injunction. There is absolutely no need for this injunction, and there is no foundation to support it. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) amendment received the owner's approval and was therefore active. Emergency injunctions are meant to prevent harm, not cause it, and the defense therefore urges the Court to reconsider its judgment and deny the emergency injunction.

Proof #1.png
Proof #2.png


Motion


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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

  1. Based on the information provided by the plaintiff, it is clear that the grounds for this case rest on the claim that the Single Transferable Vote Amendment did not receive the owner's approval and was therefore unlawfully used during the recent elections. However, as explained in the motion to reconsider, that is simply not the case. The amendment’s success was even announced by the owners, who were clearly overjoyed when the system was implemented, something that would not have been the case if they had not approved it. Since this was an error by the plaintiff, the case should be dismissed under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error).

  2. Since the plaintiff has no valid foundation for their case, given that the Single Transferable Vote system was active, used in previous elections, praised, and most certainly approved by the owners, there are no grounds to support their claims. The case should therefore be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

No matter how the plaintiff tries to frame this, there is nothing to suggest that the owners did not approve the amendment. Losing an election does not give the plaintiff the right to make baseless claims or attempt to support their case by falsely asserting that the Single Transferable Vote did not receive the owner's approval, especially after the owners themselves publicly announced its success. The defense urges the court to do the right thing and dismiss this case, as there is no valid basis to support the plaintiff's assertion.

 
Freeze_Line said:

Motion


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


Your Honor, there has been some confusion and misunderstanding. The plaintiff claims that the Single Transferable Vote Amendment was never put into effect because it did not receive the owner's approval. However, that is not the case. As seen in D-001, End (one of the owners) certified the plugin as fully operational and stated that the elections could resume as usual. The announcement concluded with, "That's why it's called transferable voting," emphasizing that transferable voting had been implemented and was ready for use.

In D-002, we can see that Tech (also one of the owners) announced that we had officially conducted our first successful presidential election using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. That announcement speaks for itself, the amendment was approved by the owner and was already in use during the presidential elections. Tech also stated that he "couldn't be happier to now be here to see the day where this dream becomes reality." This clearly shows that he was overjoyed to see STV finally working and implemented as requested by the player base. If that doesn’t demonstrate the owner's approval, I don’t know what does.

Based on this information, I respectfully ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its judgment and deny the emergency injunction. There is absolutely no need for this injunction, and there is no foundation to support it. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) amendment received the owner's approval and was therefore active. Emergency injunctions are meant to prevent harm, not cause it, and the defense therefore urges the Court to reconsider its judgment and deny the emergency injunction.

View attachment 51832
View attachment 51833


Motion


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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

  1. Based on the information provided by the plaintiff, it is clear that the grounds for this case rest on the claim that the Single Transferable Vote Amendment did not receive the owner's approval and was therefore unlawfully used during the recent elections. However, as explained in the motion to reconsider, that is simply not the case. The amendment’s success was even announced by the owners, who were clearly overjoyed when the system was implemented, something that would not have been the case if they had not approved it. Since this was an error by the plaintiff, the case should be dismissed under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error).

  2. Since the plaintiff has no valid foundation for their case, given that the Single Transferable Vote system was active, used in previous elections, praised, and most certainly approved by the owners, there are no grounds to support their claims. The case should therefore be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

No matter how the plaintiff tries to frame this, there is nothing to suggest that the owners did not approve the amendment. Losing an election does not give the plaintiff the right to make baseless claims or attempt to support their case by falsely asserting that the Single Transferable Vote did not receive the owner's approval, especially after the owners themselves publicly announced its success. The defense urges the court to do the right thing and dismiss this case, as there is no valid basis to support the plaintiff's assertion.

Click to expand...
Plaintiff requests response your Honor.
 
You may.
 
The motion to reconsider the Emergency Injunction from both sides is denied. The STV process is specifically laid out in the Electoral Act.

If a candidate has fewer votes than the threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes are eliminated. (see Electoral Act 8(4)(a)). When a candidate is eliminated, votes are transferred to the next preference based on the voters' ballots. (see Electoral Act 8(4)(b)). This process is repeated until all seats are filed (see Electoral Act 8(5)).

Per the Presidential Run-Off act, if no candidate receives an outright majority, then the two candidates with the highest votes go into a run off that lasts 24 hours. (see Act of Congress - Presidential Runoff Amendment Act).

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Chrisorg1 [2022] FCR 2, Lawsuit: Dismissed - AWhitePerson VS Department of Justice [2022] DCR 16, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Mask3D_WOLF v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 8).

The fact that voters did not know about the electoral system does not change the fact that this is written law. Voter ignorance in this situation is not an excuse nor justification to have a redo of the entire election. As the court sees it at this present moment, the STV voting system worked correctly, however, the mistake occured when two candidates remained. We have no reason to believe that there is an issue with the legality of the Electoral Act. Per the Presidential Runoff act, if no candidate gets an outright majority, then the two candidates with the most votes go into a, seperate, run-off election. After the application of the STV system, the two highest candidates were End and 1950. Thus, the court's decision in this EI to hold a run-off election per the Presidential run-off act is proper and will not be disturbed.
 
Your Honor, Section 4 - Nullification of the Presidential Runoff Amendment Act states: "This amendment shall be automatically repealed as soon as the Single Transferable Vote Amendment is implemented by staff."

Proof #3.png
 
Freeze_Line said:
Your Honor, Section 4 - Nullification of the Presidential Runoff Amendment Act states: "This amendment shall be automatically repealed as soon as the Single Transferable Vote Amendment is implemented by staff."

View attachment 51835
Click to expand...

Objection


Breach of Procedure and Motion to Strike

 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

I was just pointing out a part that was obviously overlooked. If my formatting is the issue, I’ll be happy to amend it to a motion to reconsider if necessary.
 

Motion


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

Aladeen said:
Per the Presidential Run-Off act, if no candidate receives an outright majority, then the two candidates with the highest votes go into a run off that lasts 24 hours. (see Act of Congress - Presidential Runoff Amendment Act).
Click to expand...

Section 4 - Nullification of the Presidential Runoff Amendment Act states: "This amendment shall be automatically repealed as soon as the Single Transferable Vote Amendment is implemented by staff."

Proof #3.png

 
While waiting on the plaintiffs answer on the motion to dismiss, the defendant has 48 hours to post their answer to complaint.
 
Freeze_Line said:

Motion


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


Section 4 - Nullification of the Presidential Runoff Amendment Act states: "This amendment shall be automatically repealed as soon as the Single Transferable Vote Amendment is implemented by staff."

View attachment 51836

Click to expand...
The motion is sustained.
 
Clarification: I’m sustaining that my comment related to the Presidential Run-Off Act is being stricken from the record. The Emergency Injunction continues into effect.
 

Motion


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

Aladeen said:
Clarification: I’m sustaining that my comment related to the Presidential Run-Off Act is being stricken from the record. The Emergency Injunction continues into effect.
Click to expand...

Your Honor, since you sustained my motion to reconsider, the only valid ground for a runoff would be if the STV amendment is in effect, which the plaintiff argues it is not. By continuing the emergency injunction, you establish the STV's validity as valid support. Since it now supports the emergency injunction, the STV is thereby considered valid, leaving the plaintiff with no valid support for their claim. This means the case should be dismissed.

If you wish to continue this court proceeding and determine whether the STV amendment is in effect, the only way to do so would be without the emergency injunction. As it stands, the STV is the only thing supporting the runoff in the emergency injunction.

 
The decision is final and the EI will remain. Please make the arguments for STV or the Presidential Run-off acts as part of the actual case. The Court has recognized that there is a valid path to the run-off in both laws. Another motion to reconsider for either party on the EI will result in a contempt of court charge.
 
Aladeen said:
While waiting on the plaintiffs answer on the motion to dismiss, the defendant has 48 hours to post their answer to complaint.
Click to expand...

The defense asks that the court sets a deadline for the response to the motion to dismiss.
 
The time is set for 24 hours from now.

@Freeze_Line reminder you have until tomorrow at 5:15pm GMT-5 to submit an answer to complaint.
 
Last edited:
Your Honors, as a 6-times Representative, 2-times Speaker of the House, and an individual who has been involved in election reform efforts in Redmont, may I please file an amicus brief regarding the Department of State and election systems?
 
CaseyLeFaye said:
Your Honors, as a 6-times Representative, 2-times Speaker of the House, and an individual who has been involved in election reform efforts in Redmont, may I please file an amicus brief regarding the Department of State and election systems?
Click to expand...
You may.
 
End said:
Can I please request to file an amicus brief on the matters before the court?
Click to expand...
Your honor, I would have to oppose this as he is biased due to being a candidate in the election against my client.
 
Your honors, as a former Chief Justice, I wish to provide an Amicus Curiae Brief, one which poses only a set of legal questions which I perceive to be relevant to this case.

This filing would be strictly impartial.
 
Aladeen said:
The time is set for 24 hours from now.

@Freeze_Line reminder you have until tomorrow at 5:15pm GMT-5 to submit an answer to complaint.
Click to expand...
I apologize your honor, I was traveling and missed this in all the amicus brief confusion. I will get this in the next four hours if I could ask the court for a tiny bit more patience
 

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

1. Addressing the Cited Court Cases
[2023] FCR 8 simply states that “ignorance of the law is not a crime. While it is also not a valid reason to break the law, there can be no legal action taken against someone for not knowing a law if they haven't broken the law.” This is not the same as the claim that “ignorance of the law is not a defense,” and it is ultimately irrelevant to this ongoing case.

[2022] FCR 2 and [2022] DCR 16 were situations where an individual has broken the law without outside influence. Meanwhile, the ongoing court case is a situation where the Department of State (DOS) has allegedly broken the law. The fault originated with the DOS (a highly respected institution, where there is a process of vetting from multiple elected officials to become Secretary, which a reasonable person would trust to conduct elections lawfully), not the voters. By saying that the people should’ve known better, the court is essentially telling the people that they should not trust the DOS.

So, it is worth questioning why blame is being directed toward the voters. When someone or some entity commits fraud (defined in the Commercial Standards Act as “An intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission,” the omission here being the election system), should the focus really be on the victim’s possible oversight?

2. Potential Consequences of This Precedent
The decision the court has made would set a very dangerous precedent. Consider a hypothetical situation:

The DOS (knowing of their error or not) holds a special election for a single seat in the House of Representatives with STV rather than the legally-required first-past-the-post (FPTP). Their mistake is brought to light, so they tabulate the results under FPTP rather than STV, which would be the right thing to do under this precedent.

What’s the issue with that situation? Well, voter behavior changes between FPTP and STV. Under STV, voters are more likely to vote for a candidate who they believe has a low chance of winning, because they know that their vote will not be wasted. However, under FPTP, their vote would be wasted. Had this voter known that the voting system was FPTP, that voter would’ve been more likely to vote for their next preference candidate.

This is just one example of how voting behavior can change between different systems (i.e. strategic voting), and thus how simply tabulating results differently is not a proper solution.

3. In Conclusion,
The election was either done correctly, or it wasn’t. Any “in-between” option would be further defrauding the voters.

 
Alexander P. Love said:
I apologize your honor, I was traveling and missed this in all the amicus brief confusion. I will get this in the next four hours if I could ask the court for a tiny bit more patience
Click to expand...
Granted, please try to be as quick as possible.
 
Freeze_Line said:

Motion


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


Your Honor, there has been some confusion and misunderstanding. The plaintiff claims that the Single Transferable Vote Amendment was never put into effect because it did not receive the owner's approval. However, that is not the case. As seen in D-001, End (one of the owners) certified the plugin as fully operational and stated that the elections could resume as usual. The announcement concluded with, "That's why it's called transferable voting," emphasizing that transferable voting had been implemented and was ready for use.

In D-002, we can see that Tech (also one of the owners) announced that we had officially conducted our first successful presidential election using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. That announcement speaks for itself, the amendment was approved by the owner and was already in use during the presidential elections. Tech also stated that he "couldn't be happier to now be here to see the day where this dream becomes reality." This clearly shows that he was overjoyed to see STV finally working and implemented as requested by the player base. If that doesn’t demonstrate the owner's approval, I don’t know what does.

Based on this information, I respectfully ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its judgment and deny the emergency injunction. There is absolutely no need for this injunction, and there is no foundation to support it. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) amendment received the owner's approval and was therefore active. Emergency injunctions are meant to prevent harm, not cause it, and the defense therefore urges the Court to reconsider its judgment and deny the emergency injunction.

View attachment 51832
View attachment 51833


Motion


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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

  1. Based on the information provided by the plaintiff, it is clear that the grounds for this case rest on the claim that the Single Transferable Vote Amendment did not receive the owner's approval and was therefore unlawfully used during the recent elections. However, as explained in the motion to reconsider, that is simply not the case. The amendment’s success was even announced by the owners, who were clearly overjoyed when the system was implemented, something that would not have been the case if they had not approved it. Since this was an error by the plaintiff, the case should be dismissed under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error).

  2. Since the plaintiff has no valid foundation for their case, given that the Single Transferable Vote system was active, used in previous elections, praised, and most certainly approved by the owners, there are no grounds to support their claims. The case should therefore be dismissed under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

No matter how the plaintiff tries to frame this, there is nothing to suggest that the owners did not approve the amendment. Losing an election does not give the plaintiff the right to make baseless claims or attempt to support their case by falsely asserting that the Single Transferable Vote did not receive the owner's approval, especially after the owners themselves publicly announced its success. The defense urges the court to do the right thing and dismiss this case, as there is no valid basis to support the plaintiff's assertion.

Click to expand...

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

Your honour,

The Defence’s Motion to Dismiss rests on a flimsy foundation: the idea that illegality can be excused by enthusiasm and that past mistakes should be allowed to continue unchallenged.


On Factual Error
Celebration from the Owners is not official owner approval. The STV Amendment Act explicitly requires owner approval, and there is no evidence that this ever occurred. Liking something is not the same as approving it in a legal sense. A president can support a bill, but it does not become law until they officially sign it. The same principle applies here.

The Owners and the Defence can celebrate all they want, but the fact remains: the STV system was never legally approved. Legal approval is a formal act, not an assumption based on enthusiasm. No official documentation of approval exists, meaning STV was not legally in effect.

Even setting that aside, the bill specifically requires a forum plugin for activation, not an in-game system; the election was not done on the forums, so the Defence’s point is moot. The STV system was never legally active because its own bill conditions its implementation on a forum plugin, which was never introduced, since voting has moved in-game. Additionally, the President's own signature specifies that "this will not be implemented until the appropriate forums plugin is found", and the appropriate forums plugin has never been found.

Without meeting this requirement, the amendment is legally inoperative. The Defense cannot retroactively justify an unlawful election process by pointing to informal endorsements or celebrations.


On Lack of Claim
This Court has already recognized that past lack of enforcement does not justify continued failure to enforce the law.

In Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 70, the Court held that “regardless of when the mistake is realized, the deed can still be corrected.” Similarly, in Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 97, murder charges placed illegally were overturned, even though the flawed system had been previously used. This shows that legal mistakes can—and must—be corrected: prior acceptance of an unlawful system does not protect it from future legal scrutiny.

Legal mistakes remain invalid regardless of when they are challenged. The law does not permit the enforcement of an illegal system simply because no one noticed sooner. The claim is valid, and the case must proceed.


The Defence’s argument is nothing more than an attempt to dress illegality in the illusion of legitimacy. The STV system was never properly approved, never legally implemented, and never met the conditions of its own bill. Past elections may have proceeded under an illegal system, but mistakes do not become lawful through repetition.

The law was broken, the election was invalid, and the Defence’s Motion to Dismiss must be denied.

Thank you.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Vernicia
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

  1. The Defense AFFIRMS that Vernicia was a candidate in the most recent Presidential elections.

  2. The Defense AFFIRMS that the most recent Presidential elections were conducted using a ranked choice voting model.

  3. The Defense AFFIRMS that the voting model used allowed voters to score candidates in order of preference and multiple rounds of scoring were conducted automatically.

  4. The Defense AFFIRMS that the traditional system of voting is a model where people voted for their favorite candidate, and a separate runoff election is held between the top two resulting candidates if no candidate achieves an outright majority.

II. DEFENCES
  1. Nothing to say here, Vernicia was a candidate in the most recent Presidential elections.

  2. Correct, the most recent Presidential elections were conducted using a ranked-choice voting model (Instant runoff Single Transferable Vote).

  3. Yes, the voters had the opportunity to select multiple candidates in order of preference.

  4. The traditional method was indeed a system in which people voted for their favorite candidate. It was used before the STV amendment received the owner's approval and was formally written into the constitution as the process for presidential elections.

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 14 day of February 2025

 

Verdict


I, Matthew100x, am writing and posting the motion to dismiss. This has been agreed upon by the Supreme Court. This writing has been approved by all of us to explain the situation, rule on the motion to dismiss, serve as a lesson in legal writing, and note the application of the law to prior elections.

The Supreme Court’s Error in this Case:
The court begins by taking the time to explain some of the older laws. Under our law, we have what is called the “original constitution” meaning it existed from the beginning, and since has been amended (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Snowy_Heart v Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76). The cout was reviewing the language of all bills at play and could not figure out where the language had come from or where it was in the constitution. So the court concluded that these bills were Constitutional Amendments not included in the Constitution like the ESA, JSA, and LSA. When we took a look at both bills, we saw that the language was identical.

Single Transferable Vote Amendment:
“If no candidate receives an outright majority in the Presidential election, a runoff election shall be held at the soonest time possible in which only the two highest voted candidates shall be listed on the ballot.
Act of Congress - Single Transferable Vote Amendment

Presidential Run-off Act:
“"If no candidate receives an outright majority in any Presidential election, a 24-hour runoff election shall be held at the soonest time possible in which only the two highest voted candidates shall be listed on the ballot.”
Act of Congress - Presidential Runoff Amendment Act

The court acted in this situation with blinders on because all it was reviewing what the law was based on the sentences above.

When bills are changed now, the LSA dictates that changes to the bill must highlight in red what is being deleted and highlight in green what is being amended or added. This change came down in April of 2021. Both of the above bills passed before that time and thus do not contain that feature. As such, the Supreme Court did not see that the language it was reviewing was not actually law, but what was being deleted in the law and changed.

This revelation has completely changed our thinking of the case, because I, and by extension we, were under the impression that both acts lead to a run-off election. That is not the case. The Single Transferable Vote Amendment changes “The Presidential Election shall be conducted through a process of instant runoff Single Transferable Vote.” Thus the court’s thinking of the case has been wrong, and as such, erroneously began moving to fix an error that came from a lack of run-off.

The Supreme Court’s Understanding of the Situation:
The court wants to take the time to absolutely stress the importance of legal writing in this situation. The court can and will make mistakes when reviewing the law. If the court appears to be making a strange assumption of the law, it is because the court may have a different interpretation or misunderstanding of the case than the lawyers do. As lawyers and advocates for a client’s position, it is essential to clearly explain the situation and law as you see it.

There are several techniques to do this, with the most prominent ones being IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion) and CREAC (Conclusion, Rule, explanation (minor rule), Application, Conclusion). The court will go through IRAC as an example. For example, the issue is whether or not XMasters521 has accepted a contract. The rule begins at the Contracts Act and potential applicable court cases explaining your position. The application is explaining how the rules apply to the issue. The conclusion is XMasters521 has or has not accepted the contract based on the position application of the rules to the issue. This explains the position well enough for a court to understand the problem, even if it may not necessarily understand what a legal acceptance typically looks like for a contract (perhaps the judge is new).

When the Court first reviewed this case, it reviewed the issue presented by the plaintiff. It did take note of the unique argument. For the plaintiff, the Presidential Run-Off act had to apply. This is because if it did not apply, the Single Transferable Vote Amendment does and the Single Transferable Vote Amendment did not allow for a run-off. The Court did not fully understand this position but accepted the argument because it saw a potential valid issue. There was a presidential election, there was no run-off, the law appears to call for a run-off. Thus, the Supreme Court had to act.

The Supreme Court then got a motion to dismiss and a motion to reconsider (and several thereafter) the EI from the defense. The Defense’s position was not entirely clear to the Court, as obviously seen from our erroneous application of the law. We did not understand the significance of the Single Transferable Vote Amendment and thought that both laws required a presidential run-off. The defense argued that acceptance of the single transferable vote system had taken place because it had owner acceptance and therefore the law was nullified. There was no full-loop or explanation to how the Single Transferable Vote Amendment changes the language to not require a run-off, which is why the motion to reconsider was dismissed out-of-hand. We have now come to a full realization of what the defense is arguing by taking the time to review the law and have thus come to a better understanding of the case.

Regarding the Motion to Dismiss:
Thus we arrive at the crux of this decision. The court will take the time to do a write-up of the situation. Not only to explain the court’s position on the issue, but to show our thinking, serve as a helpful guide for future legal writers.

The issue is whether or not the Single Transferable Vote Amendment or the Presidential Run-off Act applies to this case. The sub-issues are whether or not Owner Consent was given,

The rule is as follows: As previously explained, the Single Transferable Vote Amendment changes how presidential elections are conducted. The Presidential Run-Off Act was an act that came out a month later clarifying the same text that the Single Transferable Vote Amendment deletes. The Presidential Run-Off Act contained a nullification clause that self-deleted the act when the single transferable vote system became active. The single transferable vote system required owner consent to begin. It should be noted that the original text of both constitutional amendments stand-alone, meaning they are separated from the constitution as amendments to the law. It is also important to note that the Election Foundation Act did attempt to change the language of the Presidential Run-Off Act, though the Election Foundation act failed to meet referendum and thus is not law. (See Vetoed - Election Foundations Act). Presently in that section of the constitution, the language is not from the Presidential Run-Off Act, but instead utilizes the changed language that the Single Transferable Vote Amendment has. (See second to bottom paragraph of Section 25. Election Government - Constitution).

Regarding Owner Consent
We will begin with a review of the sub-issue first, since its application will help us apply the law to the main issue. Under typical legal writing, the sub-issue can be applied forward using the rules stated in the initial IRAC, or can be its own sub or mini IRAC. We will do a mini-IRAC here to demonstrate the point.

As the memes in the #legal section of the discord humorously points out, the issue is that the Supreme Court has ended up in a position where it is determining whether the Owners have consented to the plugin changes. The rule is that there is a separation of staff and government. (See Preamble Government - Constitution). Network Staff and the Server Manager act as a bridge between the Government and Staff. (see Section 35. Staff & Government, Id.). Complex Changes to the constitution need to be discussed with the owner before signing. (See Section 40. Complex Change, Id.). Complex Changes are plugin-related changes. Id.

The current iteration of the Electoral Act stems mainly from the “In Game Elections Omnibus Act” which was written by End in his capacity as a politician. (see Act of Congress - Electoral Act). This act created in-game voting, which would be done by either Single Transferable Voting or by single non-transferable voting (see Section 3 - Constitutional Changes, Id.). Within the constitution, the Owner has the right via Owner Override to override any Government Decision. (See Section 36. Owner Override, Government - Constitution). An owner override was used to specifically override the veto made by then President xLayzur (see Act of Congress - Electoral Act).

To apply the above rules, we begin by discussing the chain of events. In January of 2021, the Single Transferable Vote Amendment was made and eventually put into law but was inoperative at that time. In February of 2021, the Presidential Run-Off act was created to clarify the language of Section 25. Election within the constitution regarding the usage of run-offs. The Presidential Run-Off act was then the law of the land for the next several years. Then, in 2024, the In Game Elections Omnibus Act came down from staff. When President xLayzur moved to veto this bill, the owner’s moved to overturn that decision and accept the bill via Owner Override.

It is not for the Supreme Court to be deciding what is or is not a staff decision, especially not that of network staff nor ownership when it comes to the operation of the server and its impact on the government. While the Supreme Court reserves the right to comment on and review the impact of the staff’s decisions on the government as outlined by our constitution, we also understand that our decision also can be reversed by an Owner Override. Thus we give deference to the ownership team on the matters at hand.

Given that the Electoral Act was specifically amended by an ownership override in addition to evidence laid out by the defense, it is clear that the owners wanted this bill. In conclusion, we believe that the Owner’s gave consent to the changes to the voting system.

Regarding the Single Transferable Vote Amendment and Presidential Run-Off Nullification Clause:
Returning to our exercise of practicing legal writing, we have finished our mini-IRAC. We’ve come to the conclusion that the Owners gave assent to the changes to the voting system. Moving forward, we will begin to apply the main issue utilizing the mini-IRAC mixed with the rules made above.

Now that we have determined that owner’s gave assent to the voting system, this raises the very obvious question on whether or not this relates to the Single Transferable Vote Amendment. When a complex change is put down, they have to be discussed with the owners. A complex change being a plugin-related change, the ownership team provides assent simply by not owner vetoing the complex change.

Given the wide-deference to Network Staff and Owners, we will discuss the purpose of the Single Transferable Vote Amendment and Presidential Run-Off Act. The Presidential Run-Off act applied to the previous voting system that existed prior to the in-game system. At that time, voting was done on the forums. Electoral Officers would painstakingly go through the ballots casted to see whether or not each vote casted actually qualified (E.G. met playtime requirements). The conception for voting was the forums and thus the Single Transferable Vote Amendment reflected the convention at that time.

The changes that were made to the voting system showed a clear shift to Single Transferable Vote. The Presidential Run-Off Act’s nullification clause says that the act shall be repealed “as soon as the Single Transferable Vote Amendment act is implemented by staff.” The Single Transferable Vote Amendment signifies in its short title and enactment that it “requires a significant forums plugin.” The basis of the plaintiff’s argument is above, that the nullification did not occur because a forums plugin has not been implemented.

The problem with that argument is that the spirit and purpose of the text shows that intention was to shift from the system of the time to single transferable votes. Even applied textually, the law is only one step removed from the implementation of the single transferable vote system. It is in-game rather than on the forums. This is helpful for the staff team as well as the DOS, because the plugin can access various APIs and other sources to help elections proceed faster since the ingame-plugin validates votes for the election. For our purposes, we need not be strictly hyper-textualist such that any Single Transferable Vote plugin fulfilling the nullification clause has to be in-game. The short-title “requirement” that “it requires a significant forums plugin” was an assumption of the time that this system would be on the forums. Single transferable voting happening on the server does not stop the nullification clause from tripping, thus the Presidential Run-Off act no longer applies and thus the election was done correctly. In conclusion, the Single Transferable Vote Amendment does apply to this case and as such, the election was done correctly.

Thus in the full conclusion of our IRAC, In a 3-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to accept the Motion to Dismiss as well as end the Emergency Injunction for the run-off election and removing LCN's caretaker government. Full note below in Conclusion.

A Side Note on Potential Errors from Previous Elections:
One interesting quandary that the court is seeing is that of the Electoral Foundation Act. This bill was rejected by the citizens of this great nation in a referendum. The bill was posted on December 27th, 2024, which was only a month and a half ago. It directly changed the Electoral Act and provided new terms within the constitution on how to run elections, which included the language from the Presidential Run-Off Act. This seems to suggest that the change to the language of Section 25. Elections were recent. The Supreme Court is not going to take the angle that this change means that the previous elections were done incorrectly given the conclusion of the main case.

Additionally, any prior presidential candidate who may have had a case waived their right to challenge their elections. The statute of limitations for civil cases is four months. (see 4(7)(a), Act of Congress - Standardized Criminal Code Act).

Conclusion
In a 3-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to accept the Motion to Dismiss as well as end the Emergency Injunction for the run-off election and removing LCN's caretaker government. The process is to continue as normal. Given that the Presidential Run-Off Act does not apply, there is no need for a run-off election. As such the EI is rescinded and this run-off election is not legally required. 1950minecrafter has the full democratic mandate. He has fairly, democratically, and legally won this Presidential Election. The Supreme Court has full confidence in this decision that the election was done as required by the constitution.

I Matthew100x, as an associate Justice, take responsibility for the Supreme Court’s error in understanding the law and in creating the emergency injunction. It was my writing on the ruling that both the Single Transferable Vote Amendment and the Presidential Run-Off act required a run-off election. Given my experience, I should have been able to see the issue more clearly. Thank you for taking the time to read this verdict.

The Supreme Court is dismissed in this matter.

​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top