Lawsuit: In Session End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31

Apologies to @gribble19, I completely misread the witness requests. You are not required.

Plaintiff, you may present your questions to your witness. You have 48 hours.
 
You honour, in my witness testimony, I will seek witness accounts on my legal test that I established above.

Did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act meet the requirements to become law?

Commonwealth's Legal Representative:
  • As of today, has the Commonwealth acknowledged the automatic assent of the JSAA?
President:
  • What date were you notified when the JSAA was presented to you after passing both chambers?
  • Did you sign, veto, or otherwise act on the JSAA within 14 days?
  • In the absence of veto or assent, what does the Constitution dictate happens to a bill after 14 days?
What type of law was the Judicial Standards Amendment Act?

A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President:
1. Changes to the System of Government.
2. Plugin-related changes.
3. Changes involving significant staff involvement.
4. A Rights & Freedoms change.
Click to expand...
Defining System of Government Changes
Any changes that:
1. Affect the distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state.
2. Changes to Government Departments.
3. Significant changes to the system by which the state is governed in general.
Click to expand...

Commonwealth Legal Representative:
  • Does the JSAA change the system of government?
  • Does the JSAA change any rights & freedoms?
Staff:
  • Does the JSAA have any significant changes involving staff involvement?
  • Does the JSSA have any plugin related changes?
Did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act amend the Constitution?

Commonwealth's Legal Representative:
  • What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?
  • Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?
  • At any stage, did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act modify the Constitution?
President:
  • Was the JSAA intended to change the Constitution itself, or merely to update statutory law?
Was the referendum required?

President
  • Under the new and old constitutions, is a non-complex/statutory change required to pass a referendum?
  • After it was identified that the referendum was unnecessary, why did the Executive not implement the JSAA?
Is Ex-Post Facto relevant?

Commonwealth's Legal Representative
  • Where in Redmont law does ex-post facto apply outside of criminal law?

Thank you.

@Freeze_Line
@1950Minecrafter
@Technofied
 
Senator End has requested I explicitly lick the court (do not fact check this).

As such, may it arouse the court, and by extension, Your Honour, that the court has been licked.

To the questions:
End said:
  • Does the JSAA have any significant changes involving staff involvement?
Click to expand...
No.

End said:
  • Does the JSSA have any plugin related changes?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Your honor, I apologize for the late response. On Sunday afternoon and evening, the forums didn't work for me, and on Monday, we had an electric system malfunction all over Spain and Portugal from 12PM to 1AM. I will now proceed to answer the plaintiff's questions:

What date were you notified when the JSAA was presented to you after passing both chambers?
I was notified on the 28th of February 2025 in the #presiding-officers channel in the main DemocracyCraft discord server by the plaintiff, then President of the Senate, xEndeavour. I was notified again as a reminder on the 1st of March 2025 in the same channel by the same presiding officer.

Did you sign, veto, or otherwise act on the JSAA within 14 days?
I did not sign or veto, but I requested a referendum to the DOS as it was a Complex Change of the Constitution and the Constitutional Amendment process of the moment required a referendum to pass before the President signed or vetoed the bill.

In the absence of veto or assent, what does the Constitution dictate happens to a bill after 14 days?
As far as I can remember, back then, nothing happened. The bill would be on the President's desk as long as it took the President to sign or veto the bill. With the current Constitution, the bill gets automatically approved after 14 days of not having a sign or a veto issued.

Was the JSAA intended to change the Constitution itself, or merely to update statutory law?
The intention of the JSAA should be asked to the author of the bill. But the JSAA did actually want to change the Constitution, as back then, the JSA was part of the Constitution, so amending the JSA was inherently an amendment to the Constitution. Also, the bill explicitly said "A bill to amend the constitution and the Judicial Standards Act", which I would say it clearly shows that it was meant to change the Constitution.

Under the new and old constitutions, is a non-complex/statutory change required to pass a referendum?
In the old Constitution, a non-complex/statutory change didn't require a referendum to pass. In the new Constitution, every single change to the Constitution, no matter how small it is, requires a referendum.

After it was identified that the referendum was unnecessary, why did the Executive not implement the JSAA?
I have only been told by the plaintiff that the referendum was unnecessary and I stand by the argument that the referendum was, indeed, necessary as the JSAA was, indeed, a Complex Change. The referendum was held and the results were clear: The referendum on the JSAA didn't get enough support for it to be passed. The moment the referendum failed, the JSAA was basically removed of existance and so the Executive had nothing to implement from the JSAA.
 
1950Minecrafter said:
Your honor, I apologize for the late response. On Sunday afternoon and evening, the forums didn't work for me, and on Monday, we had an electric system malfunction all over Spain and Portugal from 12PM to 1AM. I will now proceed to answer the plaintiff's questions:

What date were you notified when the JSAA was presented to you after passing both chambers?
I was notified on the 28th of February 2025 in the #presiding-officers channel in the main DemocracyCraft discord server by the plaintiff, then President of the Senate, xEndeavour. I was notified again as a reminder on the 1st of March 2025 in the same channel by the same presiding officer.

Did you sign, veto, or otherwise act on the JSAA within 14 days?
I did not sign or veto, but I requested a referendum to the DOS as it was a Complex Change of the Constitution and the Constitutional Amendment process of the moment required a referendum to pass before the President signed or vetoed the bill.

In the absence of veto or assent, what does the Constitution dictate happens to a bill after 14 days?
As far as I can remember, back then, nothing happened. The bill would be on the President's desk as long as it took the President to sign or veto the bill. With the current Constitution, the bill gets automatically approved after 14 days of not having a sign or a veto issued.

Was the JSAA intended to change the Constitution itself, or merely to update statutory law?
The intention of the JSAA should be asked to the author of the bill. But the JSAA did actually want to change the Constitution, as back then, the JSA was part of the Constitution, so amending the JSA was inherently an amendment to the Constitution. Also, the bill explicitly said "A bill to amend the constitution and the Judicial Standards Act", which I would say it clearly shows that it was meant to change the Constitution.

Under the new and old constitutions, is a non-complex/statutory change required to pass a referendum?
In the old Constitution, a non-complex/statutory change didn't require a referendum to pass. In the new Constitution, every single change to the Constitution, no matter how small it is, requires a referendum.

After it was identified that the referendum was unnecessary, why did the Executive not implement the JSAA?
I have only been told by the plaintiff that the referendum was unnecessary and I stand by the argument that the referendum was, indeed, necessary as the JSAA was, indeed, a Complex Change. The referendum was held and the results were clear: The referendum on the JSAA didn't get enough support for it to be passed. The moment the referendum failed, the JSAA was basically removed of existance and so the Executive had nothing to implement from the JSAA.
Click to expand...

Follow on questions:

  • What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?

  • Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?

  • At any stage, did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act modify the Constitution?
 
Your honour, I posted my questions to the government 3 days ago.

They were pinged here and on discord.

I request that they be held in contempt for needlessly delaying the trial and failing to respond to very simple questions.

IMG_7061.png
 
End said:
Your honour, I posted my questions to the government 3 days ago.

They were pinged here and on discord.

I request that they be held in contempt for needlessly delaying the trial and failing to respond to very simple questions.

View attachment 54694
Click to expand...
The Attorney General was not summoned, Nacho was summoned. As you insisted, it was "very clear" that Nacho was the legal representative of the Commonwealth.

@Nacho, please respond to the Plaintiff's questions in 24 hours. Otherwise, you will be held in contempt.
 
juniperfig said:
The Attorney General was not summoned, Nacho was summoned. As you insisted, it was "very clear" that Nacho was the legal representative of the Commonwealth.

@Nacho, please respond to the Plaintiff's questions in 24 hours. Otherwise, you will be held in contempt.
Click to expand...

He informed me that he stepped away from the case.

So I request whoever the replacement government legal representative is responds, and if not, the Attorney General is ultimately liable for ensuring the Government responds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top