Lawsuit: Adjourned xAntho_ny v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 50

[Anthony]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xAntho_ny
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On April 7th, 2024, GoldBlooded made Executive Order 9/24, which talked about the new land of New Hamiliton. In the Executive Order, it talked about how this “Provisional Council” going to create a Constitution and implement regulations. Part 1 of the Redmont Constitution states “The Congress is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending country laws and specified rules.” This Executive Order can not declare that a certain council can create constitutions and regulations as it is the Congress’s job to do so.

I. PARTIES
1. xAntho_ny (Plantiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. GoldBlooded (President of The Commonwealth of Redmont)

II. FACTS
1. On April 7th, 2024 at 8:31pm PST GoldBlooded made Executive Order 9/24.
2. In the Executive Order it states “2.2. The New Hamilton Provisional Council shall be responsible for overseeing the initial stages of settlement and development within the territory of New Hamilton. This includes but is not limited to:
(a) Drafting a Parliamentary Constitution outlining the governing structure of New Hamilton.
(b) Writing and implementing regulations necessary for the orderly development, infrastructure, and governance of New Hamilton.” It is the congress’s job to amend, purpose new constitutions to the government, not the “Provisional Council”
3. Part 1 of the Redmont Constitution states “The Congress is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending country laws and specified rules.” In this EO, it talks about making constitutions and implementing regulations, especially seeing that this is an “extention” of land in the government making it unconstitutional.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. This EO is unconstitutional because it is the houses job to implement laws, amend constitutions and that can not be changed through an executive order.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Executive Order 9/24 struck as unconstitutional and nulled and void
2. $4,000 in Nominal Damages in accordance with Legal Damages Act
3. $5,000 in legal fees in accordance with Legal Damages Act

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 9th day of April, 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Snowy_Heart is required to appear before the court in the case of xAntho_ny v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[RelaxedGV]

Snowy_Heart (as Attorney General) is hereby held in Contempt of Court and I order the Department of Justice to jail/fine accordingly.

We will now be in recess pending a Verdict.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
xAntho_ny v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 50

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Executive Order 9/24 was illegal due to only Congress having the ability to create, amend, create, etc. to Country Laws.
2. The EO states that the provisionary council is to draft a Constitution and to implement regulations.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Failed to appear.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. So, yes. The EO was in fact illegal according to the Constitution given only Congress can amend, create, etc. Country Laws including the Constitution. The Provisionary Council is aiming to not only create a Constitution but also create regulations that are to be enforced within New Hamilton.

2. The Executive does not have the authority to create a new governing body such as this as it is the Congress' duty to create the provisionary council.

3. I want to state this as well, while the argument can be made either way, I am only ruling on what is presented to me and that is the Plaintiff's argument. If the Defendant showed, then this would be very different however, that did no occur.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff however, given President GoldBlooded has rescinded the EO, the first Prayer is no longer needed. I will also only be granting the Nominal Damages.

Thus, I order the Department of Justice to fine the Commonwealth $4,000 and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.