Lawsuit: In Session JuliaMC_ v. Town of Aventura [2026] FCR 35

[Julia_]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Julia Tempest (JuliaMC_)
Plaintiff

v.

The Town of Aventura
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Constitution of Aventura states that the Standing Orders of Aventura have the force of law. The Constitution of Aventura states that a supermajority is required for the passage of constitutional amendment. Speaker Musrodent refused to follow this and set an illegal precedent redefining the constitutional requirement of a constitutional amendment.

I. PARTIES
1. JuliaMC_ (Plaintiff)
2. Town of Aventura (Defendant)
3. Budgiebud (Mayor of Aventura; Witness)
4. Musrodent (Speaker of the Council; Witness)

II. FACTS
1. On or around May 1 on 7:12 PM, Defendant submitted the Recalls Act.
2. The Recalls Act was a constitutional amendment.
3. Yesterday, on or around the 2nd of May, 5:54 PM, Speaker Musrodent put the Recalls Act for a vote.
4. Defendant voted in favour of the Recalls Act. (P-001)
5. Musrodent voted against the Recalls Act. (P-001)
6. Drkmode voted in favour of the Recalls Act. (P-002)
7. The Standing Order of the Town of Aventura, which have the force of law within the jurisdiction of the Town of Aventura as stated in Article II, Section II, state that upon meeting the required quorum and majority (in this case a supermajority), a bill would automatically pass.
8. The Recalls Act met the required quorum and supermajority, as pointed out by Defendant. (P-003)
9. Speaker Musrodent refused this interpretation and refused to declare the passage of the Recalls Act.
10. rotcepsnI and Budgiebud later issued votes against the Recalls Act. (P-004)
11. As the Recalls Act had legally passed under the Standing Orders, these votes are null and void.
12. Later on, Speaker Musrodent backed down on his original claim and instead stated that the bill had not met the required majority and proceeded to state a claim in contradiction with the Constitution. (P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. STANDING ORDERS AND CONSTITUTION ARE CLEAR IN REGARDS TO THE PASSAGE OF A BILL
The Standing Orders of Aventura state:
"(d) After 24 hours, or if the required majority and quorum have been reached:
(i) If passed, the Bill shall be presented to the Mayor for Assent or Veto. If assented to, it shall be moved to the Acts of Council forum and tagged “Act of Council”.

The Constitution of Aventura states that a constitutional amendment only requires a supermajority vote within the Council of Aventura. Further, the Constitution of Aventura defines quorum as "50% of the statutory number of seats within the Council."

As shown in P-001 and P-002, three (3) votes were cast. Two (2) in favour and one (1) against. The Council of Aventura currently has five (5) statutory seats. 50% of five (5) is 2.5, rounded up to three.

Further, the Constitution of Aventura defines a supermajority as "two-thirds supermajority of votes cast." As stated earlier, three (3) votes were cast. Two-thirds of three (3) is two (2). And as two (2) votes were cast in favour, the constitutional amendment met the required supermajority.

Speaker Musrodent stated:
"It is the ruling of the presiding officer that, given there are 5 statutory seats on the Council of Aventura, the required majority is an absolute majority of 3 out of 5. At no point did the 2-1 result in favour constitute a passing majority, as a simple numerical lead does not satisfy this threshold." (P-003)

As clearly stated earlier, the required majority in accordance with the Constitution is a supermajority rather than an absolute majority. Further, the Constitution is clear that a 2/3rds supermajority constitutes the amount of votes cast rather than the amount of statutory seats.

Therefore, the constitutional amendment passed when Drkmode formally voted in favour.

2. STANDING ORDERS HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW
Article II, Section II of the Constitution of Aventura states:
"[...] (1) The Council shall have the powers to: [...] Create and pass Standing Orders that shall have the force of law to govern themselves through internal rules and procedures." [Emphasis Mine]

As the Standing Orders of Aventura have the force of law, the Speaker is obligated to follow them.

3. VOTES AFTER PASSAGE WERE INVALID
Following the required passage under the Standing Orders of Aventura, Budgiebud and rotcepsnI both submitted votes against the Recalls Act. As the bill automatically passed upon meeting the required quorum and majority in accordance with the Standing Orders, the voting period was concluded by operation of law. Any votes cast following the passage have no legal effect and are null and void.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff seeks the following from Defendant:
1. A writ of mandamus commanding Speaker Musrodent to comply with the Constitution and the Standing Orders and to declare the Recalls Act as passed.

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 third day of May 2026

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

The Town of Aventura (CC: Mayor @Budgiebud, Deputy Mayor @rotcepsni, Head of Legal Affairs @Anthony_Org) is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of JuliaMC_ v. Town of Aventura [2026] FCR 35.

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.

 

[Julia_]

Your Honour,
Due to an error with the forums, the evidence did not attach. I respectfully request the leave of the Court to rectify that error by attempting to attach the evidence again.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour,
Due to an error with the forums, the evidence did not attach. I respectfully request the leave of the Court to rectify that error by attempting to attach the evidence again.

Granted.

Seeing as the summons has not yet been responded to, the Court sees no prejudice in permitting Plaintiff to attach the evidence referenced by number in the original complaint. Any submission of other evidence by the Plaintiff (if any) should occur during discovery.

Please re-attach P-001, P-002, P-003, and P-004 to the complaint within the next 48 hours.

 

[Anthony_Org]

Your honor, the town of Aventura is present. I will be assigning @Johnes as co-counsel for this case.

 

[Julia_]

Granted.

Seeing as the summons has not yet been responded to, the Court sees no prejudice in permitting Plaintiff to attach the evidence referenced by number in the original complaint. Any submission of other evidence by the Plaintiff (if any) should occur during discovery.

Please re-attach P-001, P-002, P-003, and P-004 to the complaint within the next 48 hours.

Your Honour,
I've re-attached P-001, P-002, P-003, and P-004. Thank you.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honor, the town of Aventura is present. I will be assigning @Johnes as co-counsel for this case.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT

The Court understands that the Aventura Office of Legal Affairs is responsible for the "Legal Defence of the Town of Aventura" (Av. Const., Section IV(3)), but is concerned that the Town Constitution on that page may not have been updated to reflect prior amendments not at issue in this case. Upon reviewing Acts of Council, the Court read the Counsel of Aventura Act, which appears to amend Article I, Section V of the Constitution of Aventura to allow the Mayor to appoint a "Counsel of Aventura" to "represent[] the Town of Aventura in legal matters" (Counsel of Aventura Act, Section 3(2)). That insertion does not appear to have been removed by subsequent Acts of Counsel, but the Constitution of Aventura does not appear to have been updated.

The Court, for the purpose of ensuring that the record is adequately developed and consistent with Regulation of the Federal Court 10 et seq., orders the Town of Aventura to provide a response as to the following question:

1. In the view of the Town, to what extent are the constitutional amendments from the Counsel of Aventura Act actually part of the Constitution of the Town of Aventura?
2. Did the Mayor appoint Anthony_Org as Counsel of Aventura prior to Anthony_Org's presence in this Court thread?

Answers to this Order to Show Cause are due in 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS OF ANTHONY_ORG

The Modern Legal Reform Act states as follows:

4 - Legal Ranks and Practice Rights

(1) The legal profession shall be organized into three ranks:
(a) Solicitor
(b) Barrister
(c) Attorney

(2) The Solicitor rank shall:
(a) Be the entry-level legal qualification
(b) Grant the holder the right to practice law in District Courts
(c) Permit the holder to:
(i) Represent clients in any kind of District Court proceedings.
(ii) File any kind of cases on behalf of clients in District Court.
(iii) Provide legal advice within District Court jurisdiction.
(iv) Officiate marriage and divorce proceedings.

(3) The Barrister rank shall:
(a) Be awarded upon passing any one specialization examination, where a barrister may collect as many specializations as they are qualified for to gain the perks of said specialization.
(b) Include all powers and rights granted to Solicitors.
(c) Grant additional rights to practice in Federal Courts within their specialization(s).
(d) Permit the holder to:
(i) Represent clients in Federal Court proceedings within their specialization(s).
(ii) File cases in Federal Court within their specialization(s).
(iii) Provide legal advice for matters within Federal Court jurisdiction.

(4) The Attorney rank shall:
(a) Include all powers and rights granted to Solicitors and Barristers.
(b) Require completion of all current specialization exams.
(i) Lawyers who achieve the Attorney rank will not have to take any novel specialization exam if a new test is added after they attain the Attorney rank.
(c) Grant the right to practice in all courts without any restrictions or exceptions, including the Supreme Court.
(d) Permit the holder to:
(i) Represent clients in any court of the Commonwealth
(ii) File cases in any court of the Commonwealth
(iii) Provide legal advice for all matters within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction

5 - Department of Education Powers

(1) The Department of Education shall have the authority to:
(a) Develop, maintain, and update all legal examinations
(b) Establish examination procedures and requirements
(c) Set reasonable passing criteria for each rank
(d) Create or remove specializations, which are legal exams focusing on a particular topic, within the Barrister rank.

(2) The Department of Education must:
(a) Consult with the Department of Justice before implementing changes to the legal exams.
(b) Provide public notice of any changes to exams or examination requirements
(c) Ensure examination standards remain consistent with legal practice needs.
(d) Maintain records of all qualified legal practitioners.

6 - Examination Administration

(1) All legal examinations shall be conducted through the Minecraft Exam-sign system, unless otherwise specified or directed by the Department of Education.

(2) The Department of Education shall:
(a) Ensure examination security
(b) Maintain examination records
(c) Issue appropriate rank designations upon successful completion
(d) Provide reasonable accommodations for technical issues

7 - Supervised Practice and Government Legal Work

(1) Supervised Private Practice
(a) A licensed legal practitioner of any rank may practice in any court when:
(i) They are employed by or contracted to a law firm;
(ii) They are under the direct supervision of an Attorney-ranked practitioner; and
(iii) The supervising Attorney assumes responsibility for their work.
(b) A licensed legal practitioner of any rank may give legal advice without restriction, and is immune from Legal Fraud or Legal Malpractice when:
(i) They are employed by or contracted to a law firm;
(ii) They are under the direct supervision of an Attorney-ranked practitioner; and
(iii) The supervising Attorney assumes responsibility for their work.
(c) The supervising Attorney must:
(i) Review and approve all court filings
(ii) Be present for in-game court appearances and oversee forums posts
(iii) Maintain ultimate responsibility for the case

(2) Government Legal Practice
(a) Licensed legal practitioners employed by the Department of Justice may practice in any court when they are:
(i) Acting in their official capacity;
(ii) Appointed to the case; and
(iii) Supervised by a Department superior who possesses the Attorney rank.
(b) Licensed legal practitioners serving as Public Defenders may practice in any court when they are:
(i) Acting in their official capacity;
(ii) Appointed to the case; and
(iii) Overseen by a Department superior who possesses the Attorney rank.

The Court notes Anthony_Org's present lack of qualifications to practice administrative law and/or constitutional law:

Spoiler: Anthony_Org qualifications

At the same time, Anthony_Org has represented that Johnes, a qualified attorney, is co-counsel on this case.

Spoiler: Johnes Qualifications

The Court would not be concerned regarding appearance to a summons provided that Anthony_Org is employed or otherwise authorized to do so by Aventura's Office of Legal Affairs. However, the Court is concerned that Anthony_Org may lack qualifications to file an answer to complaint in this case.

The Court orders counselor Anthony_Org to represent the following on his own behalf:

1. To what extent do your qualifications allow you to represent Aventura in this case?
2. To what extent have you secured additional qualifications between the time this Order to Show Cause was issued and the moment of your answer to this Order to Show Cause?

Answers to this Order to Show Cause are due in 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Anthony_Org]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT

The Court understands that the Aventura Office of Legal Affairs is responsible for the "Legal Defence of the Town of Aventura" (Av. Const., Section IV(3)), but is concerned that the Town Constitution on that page may not have been updated to reflect prior amendments not at issue in this case. Upon reviewing Acts of Council, the Court read the Counsel of Aventura Act, which appears to amend Article I, Section V of the Constitution of Aventura to allow the Mayor to appoint a "Counsel of Aventura" to "represent[] the Town of Aventura in legal matters" (Counsel of Aventura Act, Section 3(2)). That insertion does not appear to have been removed by subsequent Acts of Counsel, but the Constitution of Aventura does not appear to have been updated.

The Court, for the purpose of ensuring that the record is adequately developed and consistent with Regulation of the Federal Court 10 et seq., orders the Town of Aventura to provide a response as to the following question:

1. In the view of the Town, to what extent are the constitutional amendments from the Counsel of Aventura Act actually part of the Constitution of the Town of Aventura?
2. Did the Mayor appoint Anthony_Org as Counsel of Aventura prior to Anthony_Org's presence in this Court thread?

Answers to this Order to Show Cause are due in 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS OF ANTHONY_ORG

The Modern Legal Reform Act states as follows:


The Court notes Anthony_Org's present lack of qualifications to practice administrative law and/or constitutional law:

Spoiler: Anthony_Org qualifications

View attachment 81375

At the same time, Anthony_Org has represented that Johnes, a qualified attorney, is co-counsel on this case.

Spoiler: Johnes Qualifications

View attachment 81377

The Court would not be concerned regarding appearance to a summons provided that Anthony_Org is employed or otherwise authorized to do so by Aventura's Office of Legal Affairs. However, the Court is concerned that Anthony_Org may lack qualifications to file an answer to complaint in this case.

The Court orders counselor Anthony_Org to represent the following on his own behalf:

1. To what extent do your qualifications allow you to represent Aventura in this case?
2. To what extent have you secured additional qualifications between the time this Order to Show Cause was issued and the moment of your answer to this Order to Show Cause?

Answers to this Order to Show Cause are due in 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Order to show cause

1. When I appointed Johnes as Co-Counsel the intent was for him to lead the case, I recognize the courts concern and should've worded it better and directly stated I was appointing him as Counsel for this case.

2. I have secured the additional qualifications which can be seen in the attached screenshot.

 

[Anthony_Org]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT

The Court understands that the Aventura Office of Legal Affairs is responsible for the "Legal Defence of the Town of Aventura" (Av. Const., Section IV(3)), but is concerned that the Town Constitution on that page may not have been updated to reflect prior amendments not at issue in this case. Upon reviewing Acts of Council, the Court read the Counsel of Aventura Act, which appears to amend Article I, Section V of the Constitution of Aventura to allow the Mayor to appoint a "Counsel of Aventura" to "represent[] the Town of Aventura in legal matters" (Counsel of Aventura Act, Section 3(2)). That insertion does not appear to have been removed by subsequent Acts of Counsel, but the Constitution of Aventura does not appear to have been updated.

The Court, for the purpose of ensuring that the record is adequately developed and consistent with Regulation of the Federal Court 10 et seq., orders the Town of Aventura to provide a response as to the following question:

1. In the view of the Town, to what extent are the constitutional amendments from the Counsel of Aventura Act actually part of the Constitution of the Town of Aventura?
2. Did the Mayor appoint Anthony_Org as Counsel of Aventura prior to Anthony_Org's presence in this Court thread?

Answers to this Order to Show Cause are due in 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS OF ANTHONY_ORG

The Modern Legal Reform Act states as follows:


The Court notes Anthony_Org's present lack of qualifications to practice administrative law and/or constitutional law:

Spoiler: Anthony_Org qualifications

View attachment 81375

At the same time, Anthony_Org has represented that Johnes, a qualified attorney, is co-counsel on this case.

Spoiler: Johnes Qualifications

View attachment 81377

The Court would not be concerned regarding appearance to a summons provided that Anthony_Org is employed or otherwise authorized to do so by Aventura's Office of Legal Affairs. However, the Court is concerned that Anthony_Org may lack qualifications to file an answer to complaint in this case.

The Court orders counselor Anthony_Org to represent the following on his own behalf:

1. To what extent do your qualifications allow you to represent Aventura in this case?
2. To what extent have you secured additional qualifications between the time this Order to Show Cause was issued and the moment of your answer to this Order to Show Cause?

Answers to this Order to Show Cause are due in 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Order to show cause
1. It is the view of the Town that, once approved by the Speaker of the Council, a constitutional amendment is immediately in effect.

2. Mayor Budgiebud appointed me as Counsel of Aventura on 4/22/2026 as seen in the attached screenshot.

 

[Franciscus]

Having received satisfactory responses to the Order to Show Cause, the Court shall give the Defendant (cc: @Johnes and @Anthony_Org) 48 hours to file an answer to Complaint.

 

[Johnes]

Motion

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

Your Honour,
the Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules & Procedures and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Plaintiff has not exhausted all available remedies prior to filing a suit
Part II § (2) of the Standing Orders of the Council of Aventura state the following:

(2) Authority Over Procedure:
(a) The Speaker may enforce parliamentary procedure impartially, including issuing warnings, issuing warrants to compel attendance, directing the Sergeant-at-Arms, and maintaining order in hearings or sessions.
(b) Where there is ambiguity within these Standing Orders, the Speaker’s interpretation shall prevail.
(c) The Speaker may set certain precedents to govern the Council of Aventura.
(i) All Councillors will be required to follow these precedents.
(ii) The Council may, through a simple majority vote, override a precedent set by the Speaker.
(iii) Future Speakers may override precedents set by prior Speakers.

By this interpretation, the Speaker has a final say on all ambiguity within the Standing Orders, and if the Council disagrees with the Speaker's interpretation, it has a clearly defined mechanism to dispute and resolve that issue.

The Plaintiff, by ignoring the well-defined procedure to contest the Speaker's decision and instead opting to immediately raise the issue to the Courts has not exhausted all available remedies before filing a suit.

In xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. DOJ [2021] SCR 16 the Supreme Court has upheld this legal doctrine, stating:

It is the opinion of the court that the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs should have been shared with the Department of Justice via a departmental ticket. As established in nnmc v. DoJ, the Plaintiffs should have utilized all exhaustive measures, including reporting the crime via a departmental ticket, before filing a lawsuit.

While the facts of the matter of the case cited do not align in full with those of this case, the legal doctrine of exhausting all available remedies prior to filing a suit was still upheld.

II. The Political Question Doctrine applies here
In [2025] FCR 117, the Court has stated:

The Court is dismissing this case on the following grounds:
[...]
2. Political Question - The Court believes this to be political in nature to be resolved through the mechanisms that Congress has available to them (further legislation, oversight, or impeachment).

In the aforementioned case, Anthony_Org petitioned the Court to declare Executive Order 37/25 unconstitutional due to stepping outside the bounds of the executive's power.

The Court has dismissed that claim sua sponte for three reasons, one of them being the application of the Political Question Doctrine. The reason for that decision is that the Plaintiff had the mechanisms to resolve the dispute through political means.

On appeal, the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Federal Court, stating:

[...] In the instant case, we refuse to discuss the issue of the political question doctrine. We hold that because we have already upheld the trial court’s decision in part, it is not necessary to comment on this immature and undeveloped area of law at the current moment.

With the Plaintiff having similiar means to resolve the dispute, the Political Question Doctrine would therefore apply to this case, the Court should dismiss the complaint in full.

Wherefore, the Defendant moves that the Court dismisses the complaint.

 

[Johnes]

Your Honour,
we'd also like for the deadline to post our answer to the complaint to be tolled pending the Court's decision on our MtD.

 

[Franciscus]

Deadline to present an answer is tolled pending ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours from the time of this post to respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[Julia_]

Plaintiff respectfully requests a 12 hour extension due to real life responsibilities.

 

[Franciscus]

Defendant respectfully requests a 12 hour extension due to real life responsibilities.

The Court grants a 36-hour extension. I'm likely not going to be able to review thoroughly until the weekend, so I'll just give you the time.

 

[Julia_]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully submits this brief as a response to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant.

1. PLAINTIFF HAS CONTINUOUSLY PURSUED AVAILABLE REMEDIES
Defendant is arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available remedies prior to filing suit. This argument is incorrect.

Plaintiff has continuously pursued reasonable internal remedies and is continuing to do so while this case is ongoing. Before the filing of this suit, Plaintiff pursued multiple remedies within the Council of Aventura in an attempt to resolve this issue internally.

Plaintiff moved for a motion withdrawing confidence in Speaker Musrodent. Further, Plaintiff recently moved to appeal the ruling of the Chair relating to a similar, but different constitutional matter, and finally, Plaintiff has recently moved to appeal the ruling of the Chair in regards to the issue before this Court today. All three motions have, under the Standing Orders, failed to achieve passage, although the Speaker has not yet formally declared them as such.

These actions show that Plaintiff has continuously attempted to use the internal processes available within the Council of Aventura.

Further, the issue before the Court concerns whether Speaker Musrodent acted in accordance with the Constitution of Aventura in applying constitutional definitions for constitutional amendments. Plaintiff maintains that Speaker Musrodent exceeded his authority granted by the Standing Orders and the Constitution of Aventura by creating precedent inconsistent with the Constitution itself.

2. THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY
Defendant states that this matter is a political question. This is incorrect. The issue before the Court is not a political controversy. It is a question of constitutionality.

Section 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont grants the following jurisdiction to the Federal Court:

(a) Questions of constitutionality,

Further, Article V(2) of the Constitution of the Town of Aventura states:

(2) Subject to subsection (1), this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the Town of Aventura. Any by-law, Mayoral Decree, administrative act, or Standing Order that is inconsistent with this Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, void and of no force or effect.

This Court has express jurisdiction to preside over questions of constitutionality. And as Plaintiff has repeatedly argued, this matter is a question of constitutionality as Plaintiff alleges that Speaker Musrodent violated Article V(2) of the Constitution of the Town of Aventura by setting precedent (an administrative act) that is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Town of Aventura.

Further, the Supreme Court in [2025] FCR 117 - Appeal declined to develop the political question doctrine and described it as an immature area of law. It therefore provides limited support for dismissal.

Dismissing this cause because of a lack of jurisdiction would allow unconstitutional conduct within a Chamber to go unreviewed. This would go against the principle of constitutional supremacy.

3. PLAINTIFF STATES A VALID CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff has stated that the Constitution defines the threshold for passage of a constitutional amendment, that the required quorum and supermajority were met, and that the Standing Orders provide for automatic passage upon meeting those requirements. Plaintiff further states that the Speaker refused to recognise passage by creating a precedent in violation of the Constitution and Standing Orders.

These facts, taken as true at this stage, establish that the Recalls Act passed by operation of law and that the Speaker failed to perform their duties. Therefore, mandamus is necessary and proper.

4. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss relies on the basis that Plaintiff failed to reasonably exhaust all remedies and the political question doctrine. Neither applies. Plaintiff has continuously pursued reasonable internal remedies within the Council, and the issue presented is constitutional rather than political.

Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny the Motion to Dismiss in full and to allow the case to proceed.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honour,
the Defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules & Procedures and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Plaintiff has not exhausted all available remedies prior to filing a suit
Part II § (2) of the Standing Orders of the Council of Aventura state the following:

By this interpretation, the Speaker has a final say on all ambiguity within the Standing Orders, and if the Council disagrees with the Speaker's interpretation, it has a clearly defined mechanism to dispute and resolve that issue.

The Plaintiff, by ignoring the well-defined procedure to contest the Speaker's decision and instead opting to immediately raise the issue to the Courts has not exhausted all available remedies before filing a suit.

In xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. DOJ [2021] SCR 16 the Supreme Court has upheld this legal doctrine, stating:

While the facts of the matter of the case cited do not align in full with those of this case, the legal doctrine of exhausting all available remedies prior to filing a suit was still upheld.

II. The Political Question Doctrine applies here
In [2025] FCR 117, the Court has stated:

In the aforementioned case, Anthony_Org petitioned the Court to declare Executive Order 37/25 unconstitutional due to stepping outside the bounds of the executive's power.

The Court has dismissed that claim sua sponte for three reasons, one of them being the application of the Political Question Doctrine. The reason for that decision is that the Plaintiff had the mechanisms to resolve the dispute through political means.

On appeal, the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Federal Court, stating:

With the Plaintiff having similiar means to resolve the dispute, the Political Question Doctrine would therefore apply to this case, the Court should dismiss the complaint in full.

Wherefore, the Defendant moves that the Court dismisses the complaint.

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully submits this brief as a response to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant.

1. PLAINTIFF HAS CONTINUOUSLY PURSUED AVAILABLE REMEDIES
Defendant is arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available remedies prior to filing suit. This argument is incorrect.

Plaintiff has continuously pursued reasonable internal remedies and is continuing to do so while this case is ongoing. Before the filing of this suit, Plaintiff pursued multiple remedies within the Council of Aventura in an attempt to resolve this issue internally.

Plaintiff moved for a motion withdrawing confidence in Speaker Musrodent. Further, Plaintiff recently moved to appeal the ruling of the Chair relating to a similar, but different constitutional matter, and finally, Plaintiff has recently moved to appeal the ruling of the Chair in regards to the issue before this Court today. All three motions have, under the Standing Orders, failed to achieve passage, although the Speaker has not yet formally declared them as such.

These actions show that Plaintiff has continuously attempted to use the internal processes available within the Council of Aventura.

Further, the issue before the Court concerns whether Speaker Musrodent acted in accordance with the Constitution of Aventura in applying constitutional definitions for constitutional amendments. Plaintiff maintains that Speaker Musrodent exceeded his authority granted by the Standing Orders and the Constitution of Aventura by creating precedent inconsistent with the Constitution itself.

2. THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY
Defendant states that this matter is a political question. This is incorrect. The issue before the Court is not a political controversy. It is a question of constitutionality.

Section 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont grants the following jurisdiction to the Federal Court:


Further, Article V(2) of the Constitution of the Town of Aventura states:


This Court has express jurisdiction to preside over questions of constitutionality. And as Plaintiff has repeatedly argued, this matter is a question of constitutionality as Plaintiff alleges that Speaker Musrodent violated Article V(2) of the Constitution of the Town of Aventura by setting precedent (an administrative act) that is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Town of Aventura.

Further, the Supreme Court in [2025] FCR 117 - Appeal declined to develop the political question doctrine and described it as an immature area of law. It therefore provides limited support for dismissal.

Dismissing this cause because of a lack of jurisdiction would allow unconstitutional conduct within a Chamber to go unreviewed. This would go against the principle of constitutional supremacy.

3. PLAINTIFF STATES A VALID CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff has stated that the Constitution defines the threshold for passage of a constitutional amendment, that the required quorum and supermajority were met, and that the Standing Orders provide for automatic passage upon meeting those requirements. Plaintiff further states that the Speaker refused to recognise passage by creating a precedent in violation of the Constitution and Standing Orders.

These facts, taken as true at this stage, establish that the Recalls Act passed by operation of law and that the Speaker failed to perform their duties. Therefore, mandamus is necessary and proper.

4. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss relies on the basis that Plaintiff failed to reasonably exhaust all remedies and the political question doctrine. Neither applies. Plaintiff has continuously pursued reasonable internal remedies within the Council, and the issue presented is constitutional rather than political.

Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny the Motion to Dismiss in full and to allow the case to proceed.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - MOTION TO DISMISS (Post No. 11)

Defendant, the Town of Aventura, moves to dismiss this case for Lack of Claim under Court Rule 5.5. That rule states:

A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief on two independent grounds: (1) that the Defendant allegedly did not exhaust all available remedies before seeking the Court's intervention; and (2) that this case is asking this Court to rule on a kind of political question that, per Defendant's view of the Common law, is the proper thing for (Aventura's) legislature to decide rather than the Courts.

Plaintiff contests dismissal, representing that Plaintiff has pursued available remedies through the Plaintiff's role on Aventura's council. Plaintiff represents that Plaintiff attempted to address the issue internally on Aventura's council before coming to Court, has recently moved to appeal the ruling of the chair in Aventura, and that the outcome did not resolve the Plaintiff's issues. Plaintiff also argues that the Supreme Court did not endorse the Political Question doctrine on appeal, but (as alluded by the Plaintiff) considered it an "immature and underdeveloped area of law" ([2025] FCR 117 - Appeal, Verdict, Section III, Par. 3). Finally, Plaintiff argues that their claim, plainly separated from the affirmative reasons for dismissal alleged by the Defense, because it alleges that the Speaker of the Council of Aventura acted ultra vires and require mandamus to Aventura to remedy this.

The Court analyzes each of these arguments, as would be applicable at dismissal stage, below. We conclude that we cannot dismiss for lack of claim at this time and the motion to dismiss is thusly denied.

I. On the application of the Plaintiff's alleged failure to seek non-Court remedies​

The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff has failed to exhaust all remedies before filing suit and that the Supreme Court precedent set in xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16 bars the instant suit. The Federal Court here is not so persuaded.

The Federal Court's interpretation of xxTigOlBittiesxx is inconsistent with that which the Defendant has proffered. In End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31, at Post No. 21, the Federal Court examined a case where "[t]he Plaintiff has alleged a failure to comply with a mandatory constitutional obligation" and declined dismissal. On reconsideration, the Federal Court re-affirmed their denial of dismissal, writing as follows:

In [2021] SCR 16, the Supreme Court looked at a situation where the Department of Justice was sued for not acting on a crime that hadn’t been reported to them. The Court found that because the department wasn’t made aware of the situation and had no chance to act on it, it couldn’t fairly be held responsible. They weren’t aware of the crime being committed, so they couldn’t do anything about it.

That ruling was based on the idea that departments need to know about a problem before they can be expected to respond, especially when their role involves investigation or enforcement.

...


This case isn’t about a department failing to enforce something. It’s about whether the President followed the procedure laid out in the Constitution—specifically, Section 25(3), which says the President has 14 days to assent to or veto a bill before it’s automatically considered passed.

That timeline starts once Parliament passes the bill. There’s no requirement in the Constitution for someone to notify the President or open a ticket for the process to begin. It’s not a matter of discretion or awareness—it’s a fixed rule based on time.

So while [2021] SCR 16 applies to cases where the government needs to be told something before it can act, it doesn’t apply here. The issue in this case comes down to a constitutional deadline, not a lack of information or internal communication.

...


If the Court applied [2021] SCR 16 to this kind of case, it would mean that constitutional deadlines and obligations could be ignored unless someone specifically reminded the government to follow them. That would defeat the purpose of having fixed rules in the Constitution.

Allowing executive officials to avoid constitutional requirements by claiming they weren’t told something happened would risk making those rules meaningless. It would shift responsibility away from government officials and place the burden to enforce the Constitution on individual citizens, which is not how constitutional compliance is meant to work.

(End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31, Post No. 37).

An examination of each Justice's opinion is dispositive in support of this reading:

"You cannot expect the Department of Justice to be the seeing eye of all, and to instantaneously have an awareness of all criminal situations. The Plaintiffs effectively withheld evidence from the Department of Justice, and then used it to sue them. It would be an unreasonable burden and restrain the operability of the Department of Justice if instead of reporting a crime, players just sued the Department for not being aware of it."

(xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16, Opinion of Chief Justice Westray).

"The Hon. Judge Matt_SO dismissed the case because the plaintiff did not take any steps in reporting the crime. They then charged that the DoJ failed to uphold their constitutional duties. That was simply not a fair accusation because the DoJ did not have any report or ticket to go after the person who murdered the plaintiff. Much of that case holds over here where the plaintiff here is charging the DoJ in not doing anything when they themselves have not given the information to the DoJ in order to allow the department to handle their claims. It's simply not a fair accusation to make, therefore I vote in favor of the defendant in this case."

(xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16, Opinion of Justice Matthew100x).

In short, the Federal Court in End read xxTigOlBittiesxx to bar suit when a department had to be made aware of some material non-law fact to take action on its constitutional obligations, but not when the constitutional obligation is self-stated. That reading of the SCR precedent is eminently reasonable, correct, and is shared by the Federal Court here today.

Now we turn to applying this distinction here.

"Towns are autonomous local governments of the Commonwealth," (Const. 32), and a town's constitution "establishes its basic representative and democratic system of local government. Executive authority may be assigned to a Mayor or another local office as determined by the Town’s Constitution. Legislative authority over local matters rests with the Town’s legislature" (Const. 32(2)). A Town's Constitution applies to (among other items) "town governance" and "matters predominantly internal to the Town’s jurisdiction" (Const. 32(3)). It is thus, unquestionable, that the Aventura Constitution applies as binding law to this case's subject.

The Plaintiff in this case has alleged that the Speaker of Aventura, and the Town, have failed to perform their Town Constitutional obligations. Specifically, the Plaintiff points to Aventuran constitutional language that the "Standing Orders... shall have the force of law" (Av. Const., Artice II, Section II(1)) and alludes to language in that Constitution "[t]he Council of Aventura may vote to amend this Constitution with a supermajority vote. Mayoral assent shall not be required for a constitutional amendment" (Av. Const. Article II, Section IV) The Court also notes that the Aventura Constitution requires that the Speaker of Aventura "Preside over the Council of Aventura and enforce parliamentary procedure" (id., Section III(1)).

In light of this, the Court finds this case to be substantially more like that in End than that in xxTigOlBittiesxx. The Town Constitution's requirements do not need notification for the Speaker to be aware of them. And, even notification were required, the alleged failure to adhere to Aventura's constitution is not obviously caused out of mere lack-of-knowledge necessary to take action; the Plaintiff has already provided evidence (Exhibit P-002) that they contacted Musrodent, whom the Plaintiff alleges to be the Speaker of Aventura, regarding the alleged passage of the bill. At a time prior to the conclusion of discovery, where the Plaintiff has time to better cement facts regarding the membership of the Council of Aventura and any other means by which the Plaintiff sought to ameliorate the situation, this would be sufficient to avoid dismissal.

Thus, dismissal for lack of claim is denied at this time.

II. On the application of a so-called "Political Question Doctrine"​

Plaintiff alleges that a "Political Question Doctrine" exists at Common Law, following from Order of Dismissal in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117 and from the Supreme Court's review of a related appeal. The Court in the instant case is not so convinced.

In its review of the Federal Court's Order of Dismissal in Anthony_Org v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117, the Supreme Court stated that assessing a so-called "Political Question Doctrine" would be akin to "casting a line into the great void of jurisprudence with little precedent, fact patterns, or caselaw to guide us. We do not feel comfortable with this. The court will delay answering this issue to another day, when we have a full case with sufficient facts and record to deliberate on" ([2025] FCR 117 - Appeal, Verdict, Part III, Par. 4). That is not a sterling endorsement of the alleged doctrine, nor can it be read as a binding affirmation thereof.

The doctrine explained by the Federal Court in Anthony_Org was sua sponte, very brief, and cite neither Court Rules nor prior precedents in support of its dismissal order. As for applying such a doctrine here, the Federal Court quotes the Supreme Court in concluding that, with respect to political questions, "[t]he arguments relevant to this case do not appear to be fully litigated or discussed in any real detail" ([2025] FCR 117 - Appeal, Verdict, Part III, Par. 3).

The Court in the instant case is thus neither horizontally nor vertically bound by the decision in Anthony_Org, and will not grant dismissal on the basis a semi-novel affirmative defense that relies upon the asserted doctrine. If this Court is to affirm such a doctrine, we require a firm basis articulated from principles of law or other persuasive precedent. This Court's deciding on the guidelines and boundaries of a "Political Question Doctrine", if it were to hold one to exist, is unlikely to come without substantial argument and briefing in the Course of a full trial.

Dismissal for lack of claim on the basis of the asserted "Political Question Doctrine" at common law is denied.

---

The Defendant (CC: @Anthony_Org and @Johnes) shall have 24 hours to submit their Answer to Complaint.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Anthony_Org]

The Defense respectfully asks for a 24-hour extension due to tomorrow being the Lord's Day.

 

[Franciscus]

The Defense respectfully asks for a 24-hour extension due to tomorrow being the Lord's Day.

Sure.

 

[Johnes]

We'd like a short 4 hour extension, I focused on the campaign yesterday and today I need to focus on school. This should be the last extension. Thank you

 

[Franciscus]

We'd like a short 4 hour extension, I focused on the campaign yesterday and today I need to focus on school. This should be the last extension. Thank you

Granted.