Lawsuit: Dismissed xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 1

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Today I am making the case that a significant error of law was made in a decision by the court to find the Plaintiff guilty of Contempt of Court on fifty counts in SCR20. To be clear, I am not appealing the case or the final verdict of SCR20, rather I am mounting a new case which is challenging the legality of the Supreme Court specifically charging the Plaintiff with Contempt of Court in SCR20.

---

If the Court does see this as an appeal to the entire case of SCR 20, then It too, is legal.

As per the JSA, a party can appeal a Supreme Court decision based on an error of law or an error of such significance that the decision should be overturned.

(1) A party can appeal based on a point of law. The appeal must convince the Court that the Justices that heard the original case made an error of law and that the error was of such significance that the decision should be overturned.
(a) Some examples of significant errors of law are that the Judge that heard the original case:

• applied an incorrect principle of law; or
• made a finding of fact or facts on an important issue which could not be supported by the evidence.

As per the Redress Act, there is no limitation on when a case can be challenged based on an error of law. As per the JSA, the limitations placed on appeals are only relevant to lower courts, noting that Supreme Court decisions cannot be challenged under that appeals framework.

18 - Appeals
(1) Once a court case is adjourned, either party may request to appeal the decision by filing an appeal in the court of the next tier. Once a case has been decided by the Supreme Court, it cannot be appealed.
(2) Requirements:--
- Less than one month has elapsed since the court’s decision;

---

I understand that there was a lot of political rhetoric in this case. The Supreme Court should note that while there were public facing comments made, there was a lot of behind the scenes attempts to resolve the issue which were rejected. Therefore, I'd encourage the Supreme Court to observe the case from a legal standpoint and the legal principles which it contravenes, rather than the political rhetoric of the time.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Supreme Court charged the plaintiff with 50 counts of Contempt of Court in SCR 20
(7 - Speaking without being called upon to do so, 43 - hours having failed to follow the Court authorised injunction and Order to provide screenshots of voters to the SCR.)
2. The Court wrongly denied the plaintiff their ability to represent themselves, as noted by the Court in SCR20.
3. The Court charged the plaintiff every hour on the hour with contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order.
4. The plaintiff was not able to comply with the court order due to a lack of access to the information requested.
5. The plaintiff informed the Chief Justice that they were unable to comply with the court order due to a lack of access to the information requested.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Court noted that:

The Supreme Court agrees with the defense that Speaker xEndeavour should indeed be afforded the opportunity to choose his own representation or represent himself in court as the constitution outlines in XI.

In this case we saw the plaintiff being put on trial for Treason without representation. The court insisted that the plaintiff's representation was the Government against their will. It is incredibly inappropriate for the court to reinforce such an egregious decision through contempt of court charges, particularly when it later found that its decision to do so was unlawful. It is a significant error of both the plaintiff's Constitutional rights and legal principle to deny the plaintiff the right to speak during the trial, therefore it is inappropriate for the charges to stand when the plaintiff was fighting for their right to speak in the trial by providing the court with amicus briefs, objections, and requests to speak and be represented in the trial.

The Supreme Court needs to recognise that a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case by charging someone for fighting for their constitutional rights in a case they were party to, a case which they were on trail for treason in, and also a case which they were not adequately represented.

2. The court made an order to 'pause' a public referendum to the plaintiff while they were the returning officer as Speaker of the House. The issue with this order was that it was not possible for the Speaker to carry it out. In a side bar discussion, the Chief Justice detailed how they wanted the plaintiff to execute the order, noting that it is not possible to pause a referendum and restart it. In this discussion the Chief Justice told the plaintiff to provide the vote data to the Court and then to stop the referendum, with the intent being to make a new referendum later and to cross check the new voters against the old and remove any new votes which had already voted.

I informed the Chief Justice that I, as speaker, or ANY other roles that I held at the time, could not retrieve the vote data. I was told by the Chief Justice to 'turn it on' - which I hadn't thought of, but unfortunately I did not have that power or authority as Speaker of the House. The only institution which can see vote data is the DOS, for the purposes of verifying votes. If the Court wanted the data, is should have summonsed the appropriate authority instead of charging the Speaker for failing to comply.

I provided the Chief Justice with an alternative in this discussion whereby the referendum would not be sent to the DOS for verification until the injunction was lifted, which was a pragmatic and legal alternative which I was able to do in my capacity as Speaker. The Chief Justice dismissed this alternative and the Court continued charging me every hour on the hour until the referendum was complete for failing to provide something that I was not able to provide.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. 7 counts of 'Speaking without being called upon to do so' are struck
2. 43 counts of 'hours having failed to follow the Court authorised injunction and Order to provide screenshots of voters to the SCR' are struck
3. $122,000 in fines are returned to the plaintiff
4. $3,000 ex gratia payment for time served in jail as per JSA $50/minute for 60 minutes served
5. $10,000 in lost investment potential after having been fined $122,000
6. $2,000 in legal fees

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

I would request to file an amicus brief on this lawsuit having studied the legality of this exact scenario in great detail while I served as Attorney General.

 

[End]

I'd like to request that the Court does not prolong this case as seen in SCR21 but hearing amicus briefs from individuals who do not have any relevance to the case other than having been another Defendant in SCR20. The individual requesting to file an amicus brief did not have access to the side bar discussions nor represented me in SCR20.

Noting this, the individual does not have relevance as an expert and simply wants to provide a personal opinion.

 

[End]

Anyone home?

 

[JoeGamer]

The Supreme Court of Redmont has decided to not hear this case due to the claims for relief being insufficient to grant any relief.

In the plaintiff’s first claim for relief, it is claimed that the Supreme Court put the plaintiff on trial without his own representation in [2022] SCR 20. The problem is the treason charges were never litigated in [2022] SCR 20; the court asked the plaintiff, in this case, to split the case up as they dealt with two separate issues that could not be argued in the same suit. To say the Supreme Court denied representation is a gross misinterpretation of the situation.

In the second claim for relief, the plaintiff claims that there was an error in law when the Supreme Court issued its pause. However, in this statement, the plaintiff has only stated what he believes to be an error in law and has shown no relevant laws to back up his claim.

This case is dismissed.​

 

[End]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honour, you have chosen not to hear the case on the following basis:

The problem is the treason charges were never litigated in [2022] SCR 20

I challenge the notion that the charges of treason were not litigated. A case which contained the prayer for relief '4. End to be fined $25,000 dollars and be removed from office for 2 months for treason' went through to opening statements. I was denied the ability to formally respond to a case to which I was party and to which I had claims for relief against. If I am not being litigated against when the case is in session and I am listed in the parties and claims for relief, then at what stage of the case do I become litigated against?

At any stage during the trial the defence or plaintiff could have asked for a summary verdict which would have considered the allegations against me without any representation from me. As you can see, the claim that I was not litigated against is is incorrect.

the court asked the plaintiff, in this case, to split the case up as they dealt with two separate issues that could not be argued in the same suit. To say the Supreme Court denied representation is a gross misinterpretation of the situation.

The case was only dismissed and split after heavy protest from both myself and the Government. The court, at several points throughout the trial, told me that my representation was the Government. The Court later reneged and said that I did have a right to representation. Up until that point, I was without representation in a trial which I was party to and to which I was in the claims for relief. To protest the illegal actions by the court, I was charged with contempt of court. The Court was acting illegally, which it conceded to in its acknowledgement that I had a right to representation. There is no question here - the court was acting illegally and it said it plainly when it acknowledged my rights to representation.

In the second claim for relief, the plaintiff claims that there was an error in law when the Supreme Court issued its pause. However, in this statement, the plaintiff has only stated what he believes to be an error in law and has shown no relevant laws to back up his claim.

I have not provided a law because there is no law which allows the court to charge someone for failing to provide information they don't have access to. Does the Supreme Court consider it lawful to charge people for not providing information that they do not have access to?

I have a strong case and wish for it to be heard before the court, therefore I request that you reconsider.

 

[JoeGamer]

xEndeavour, you are out of order. This case has been dismissed and the thread was locked prior to your motion. The Supreme Court holds you in direct contempt of court.

Since this is xEndeavour 3+ offense according to records held by the Department of Justice, the maximum penalty will be levied pursuant to Section 17 of the Judicial Standard Act.