Lawsuit: Pending UnityMaster v. lcn

[Alexander P. Love]

Case Filing

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


UnityMaster (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

lcn
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On January 16th, 2025, an incapacitation letter was illegally signed by the Acting President of Redmont lcn as well as the cabinet. This letter is now being referred to the House of Representatives, and will cause grave damage to this democracy if allowed to continue and go into effect.

I. PARTIES
1. UnityMaster (Plaintiff)
2. lcn (President)
3. Freeze_Line (Co-Conspirator)
4. kvogt2340 (Co-Conspirator)
5. HellsideBurnton (Co-Conspirator)
6. Technofied (Co-Conspirator)
7. bigpappa140 (Co-Conspirator)
8. Katto (Co-Conspirator)
9. IisForIzzy (Co-Conspirator)
10. crytiee (Co-Conspirator)
11. TheReal42Person (Co-Conspirator)

II. FACTS
1. On January 16th, 2025, the President announced and attached an illegal letter of incapacitation, stating that this letter was forwarded to the House of Representatives (exhibit P-001).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the Constitution: "The President may be considered incapacitated and unfit to fulfil the duties of the Presidency with the following process: Majority of Cabinet, through the Vice President, brings a motion to the House of Representatives, to declare that the President is unfit for office. The Congress may then vote to remove the President with simple majority in the House of Representatives and supermajority in the Senate." An incapacitation may only be brought to the House of Representatives by the Vice President. There is currently no Vice President as the former Vice President is currently the President on an acting basis. Therefore, the letter may not be legally delivered to or considered by the House of Representatives.
2. UnityMaster is not the current President as lcn is temporarily holding the office. The attempt to incapacitate a President who is not acting as the President is unconstitutional. The first word of the incapacitation clause is "the", referring to the one and only President, the current President. The letter of incapacitation has the legal effect of motioning for a removal of lcn, not UnityMaster. Once lcn becomes the Vice President again, the letter of incapacitation becomes inoperative since he will no longer be the President and UnityMaster will assume the office once more.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The letter of incapacitation be invalidated as it is against lcn and also cannot be transmitted to the House of Representatives.
2. $50,000 in punitive damages for this is an outrageous act to blatantly violate the Constitution and attack my client in a clear power grab. The Legal Damages Act provides the basis for punitive damages.
3. $50,000 in emotional damages as UnityMaster is in potential jeopardy of losing the highest office in the land if this unconstitutional act is not corrected. He is stressed and frantic as would any reasonable person be in this situation.
4. $30,000 in legal fees, 30% of the value of this case, to cover Dragon Law Firm's charge incurring the plaintiff legal fees.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

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

Due to the potential for irreversible damage, the plaintiff requests that any incapacitations are frozen before being allowed to illegally go through, and that UnityMaster maintain his position and resume his Presidency when his deportation ends as normal.

 

[End]

LMAO

Worth the fine.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The plaintiff would like to amend the complaint as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the Constitution: "The President may be considered incapacitated and unfit to fulfil the duties of the Presidency with the following process: Majority of Cabinet, through the Vice President, brings a motion to the House of Representatives, to declare that the President is unfit for office. The Congress may then vote to remove the President with simple majority in the House of Representatives and supermajority in the Senate." An incapacitation may only be brought to the House of Representatives by the Vice President. There is currently no Vice President as the former Vice President is currently the President on an acting basis. Therefore, the letter may not be legally delivered to or considered by the House of Representatives.
2. UnityMaster is not the current President as lcn is temporarily holding the office. The attempt to incapacitate a President who is not acting as the President is unconstitutional. The first word of the incapacitation clause is "the", referring to the one and only President, the current President. The letter of incapacitation has the legal effect of motioning for a removal of lcn, not UnityMaster. Once lcn becomes the Vice President again, the letter of incapacitation becomes inoperative since he will no longer be the President and UnityMaster will assume the office once more.
3. Examining the Constitution with a constructionist approach, it is clear incapacitation is intended, in spirit, to be a process a cabinet has available to remove a President that is incapable of performing their duties for the rest of term, not to simply remove a President they don't agree with on policies and process. The common definition of "incapacitation" is being unable to perform some duty. UnityMaster is able to perform his duties once he is back from deportation. Incapacitation is also not intended as a mechanism to be used to oust someone who is unavailable for only a small portion of his term, as that is what the Acting President provisions are for. To summarize, the intent of incapacitation is to remove a President who physically cannot carry out his duties for an extended period of time, not to oust political opponents who are unavailable in the short term. A similar principle is applied to impeachments: impeachments are only lawful when trying Constitutional offenses, not run-of-the-mill crimes that almost anyone can be found guilty of by some subjective interpreter. We ask the Court to bring stability to this madness.