Lawsuit: Adjourned 1950minecrafter v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18

[1950Minecrafter]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION



1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant



COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF: It is integral and essential that the courts get involved in this matter, in order to stop the corruption plaguing the legislative and executive branches.

We request an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION against 218218Consumer assuming the office of Speaker and xLayzur assuming the office of Deputy Speaker until this lawsuit can be adjourned. This is to ensure that neither of them can use those positions to evade justice, such as by dissolving Congress.


I. PARTIES

1. 1950minecrafter (Plaintiff)
2. 218218Consumer (Disputed Speaker of the House)
3. xLayzur (Disputed Deputy Speaker of the House)
4. Austin27 (President of Redmont)
5. RelaxedGV (Witness)
6. pugbandit (Witness)


II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff and 218218Consumer were both candidates to be Speaker of the House for the 9th
Congress. Before the election of a Speaker, there are no standing orders that are in effect or
enforceable. Thus, the precedent is that the presiding officer sets the rules for elections of a
Speaker.

2. In the Speaker elections, the Plaintiff had obtained a simple majority (6 votes) of the House.
President Austin27, who was the presiding officer of the House at the time due to the lack of a
Speaker, had previously announced that the Speaker elections would conclude once all
representatives had voted or a majority had been reached. Since the Plaintiff had reached that
majority, the President at that time should have formally announced the Plaintiff as the new Speaker
of the House.

3. Representative pugbandit had informed the President of this by pinging the President about
1950's victory with a screenshot proving that a majority had been met and hence voting should have
been closed. However, later those messages were deleted by someone proving there was ill intent
within Congress to stop the election of 1950Minecrafter as Speaker.

4. President Austin27, despite the majority having being met, did nothing. In the meantime, Rep.
RelaxedGV was convinced by someone(s) to change his vote for the Plaintiff to a vote for
218218Consumer.

5. Only once that had happened, President Austin27 then announced that 218218Consumer was the
new Speaker of the House.

6. This deprived the Plaintiff of the Speaker position, even though the Plaintiff had been duly elected
to be Speaker with a simple majority of 6 votes.

7. At this point, a Speaker of the House had been installed. So according to House procedure, the
Standing Orders were to be adopted, either by reaffirming the previous term's Standing Orders or
revising them first. The House opted to reaffirm the same Standing Orders from the previous term.

According to those Standing Orders, the election of the Deputy Speaker of the House should begin
after the election of a Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker election does not conclude until all
Representatives have voted.

8. 218218Consumer began the Deputy Speaker election. He then announced that xLayzur had won
the Deputy Speaker election with 6 votes. However, at that time, not all Representatives had voted
which is an obvious violation of the Standing Orders.

9. Evidence was later gathered showing previous violations of Corruption and Electoral Fraud where
the President can be seen leaking votes further suggesting that this is a long growing stem of
corruption within the Commonwealth.



III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. President Austin27 has violated Law 5.9 which is about Corruption. As President, he is the
presiding officer of the House when there is no Speaker. He abused the position of presiding officer
by refusing to declare the Plaintiff's victory in the Speaker elections. He instead decided to wait until
votes changed in order to make 218218Consumer the new Speaker. The President abused his
position to benefit his private political interest of making 218218Consumer the Speaker, presumably
because 218218Consumer has closer political views with the President compared to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also should be noted was the former rival to the President in the last elections.

2. President Austin27 has also violated Law 15.27 which is about Electoral Fraud. He meddled with
the Speaker elections by deliberately not announcing the Plaintiff's win and instead waiting until
votes were changed to allow 218218Consumer to become Speaker.

3. Disputed House Speaker 218218Consumer has also violated Laws 5.9 and 15.27. He improperly
conducted the Deputy Speaker elections by not allowing all Representatives to vote. This is an
example of corruption because it benefits his private political interest of xLayzur being Deputy
Speaker, since xLayzur and 218218Consumer are both members of the same political party. It is also
an example of electoral fraud due to him interfering with the Deputy Speaker election by not
conducting it in the manner prescribed by the Standing Orders of the House.

4. Whoever removed the discord messages, which had photographic proof of 1950Minecrafter being
elected was trying to obstruct this election and may be benefiting from doing such an act and
therefore had a violation of Law 15.27 and a potential violation of Law 5.9.

5. If there was coordination between the President and other members (including the person who
deleted discord messages) to stop the plaintiff winning all would be in our view guilty- considering
there is proof of their coordination.

6. President Austin27 also violated Law 5.9 and 15.27 in the past which was later discovered which
shows the President leaking votes in the past. As the President used his role at the time to access the
votes of the Presidential election and to then spread it was using his position in power for his own
personal use/interest in telling who he wishes. 15.27 was also violated as the President meddled in
the election to obtain vote and then spread it, damaging the security of voting in Redmont.


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

1. The removal of 218218Consumer from their positions, due to his violations
of Laws 5.9 and 15.27

2. The rightful appointment of 1950minecrafter to the position of Speaker of the House

3. The removal of Austin27 from the position of President of Redmont, due to his violations of Laws
5.9 and 15.27

4. $5000 in legal fees

5. The removal of the person whom deleted the messages which informed the President of 1950's
victory for violation of 15.27- Electoral Fraud.

6. Anybody who was in communication or planning to stop the election of 1950Minecrafter to be
charged with appropriate punishments for violating Law 5.9 and 15.27.


Evidence Photos #1: This photo shows the rules that Austin27 had announced for the Speaker
elections. These rules state that the election would end once all Representatives had voted or once a
majority had been reached. This is followed by an image of proof that 1950Minecrafter won the election.

Spoiler: Evidence 1

Evidence Photo #2: This photo shows the Deputy Speaker elections. 218218Consumer announced
xLayzur had won, even though the photo shows that only 8 of 11 representatives had voted.

Spoiler: Evidence 2

Evidence Photo #3: This photo shows the President leaking votes.

Spoiler: Evidence 3

Link to Standing Orders which were established AFTER the Speakership election but BEFORE the Deputy Speaker election: Standing Orders - Standing Orders of the House of Representatives

We are still in the arduous process of gathering together all of the evidence and witnesses for this
case. We ask the court to have patience due to the highly complicated nature of this case, and to be
aware that further evidence and/or witnesses will be presented.

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.


Proof of Consent of Representation

Spoiler: Proof

DATED: This 15 day of September 2021

 

[Westray]

In accordance with the precedent established in Case No. 05-2021-11, in order for the day-to-day operations of the government to function, the Court will not be granting the full injunction. In such respective case, the legitimacy of former President Hugebob was challenged, and during the case he was not suspended from office. Recognizing such in this instance, and given the severity of this case, the Supreme Court will be granting the following alternative emergency injunction:

The Supreme Court hereby orders Representative 218218Consumer and Representative xLayzur to refrain from exercising the extensive powers of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, including the ability to dissolve the House of Representatives. The management of day-to-day operations, such as bill voting, motion voting, and otherwise, can still be facilitated by these individuals for the time being. I strongly urge them to ensure that the upholding of day-to-day operations remains in good faith, and that they are not acting with malicious nature; otherwise the Court may see fit to change this decision.

While this case will ultimately determine the legal legitimacy of these two roles, to effectively suspend them from the roles during this case and leave the House of Representatives without the ability to actually function would be vastly dangerous as well. Therefore this alternative should effectively suffice and should reaffirm a precedent that promotes basic government functionality.

 

[Westray]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the 1950minecrafter v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.​

 

[End]

Owner Veto

Before this case gets underway,

Please note that any informal comments in congressional election channels were removed by staff.

This was in-line with every other election and it is evident that this is a clean channel if you scroll up and view the previous elections. There is also a notice in the channel description that states that this will occur.

All non-formal comments were deleted and there was no discretion in this process. If the comment was not one of the following, it was considered informal and deleted, regardless of affiliation:

(i) Election Initiation Post (Presiding Officer or President)
(ii) An Electoral Nomination (Representative)
(iii) Election Voting Post (Presiding Officer or President)
(iv) An Official Outcome (Presiding Officer or President)

Therefore, there was no ill intent, and since this was a staff action external to the President in both a staffing and government capacity, any argument in relation to the removal of messages in #speaker-election will be inadmissible.

 

[Westray]

Owner Veto

Before this case gets underway,

Please note that any informal comments in congressional election channels were removed by staff.

This was in-line with every other election and it is evident that this is a clean channel if you scroll up and view the previous elections. There is also a notice in the channel description that states that this will occur.

View attachment 16686

All non-formal comments were deleted and there was no discretion in this process. If the comment was not one of the following, it was considered informal and deleted, regardless of affiliation:

(i) Election Initiation Post (Presiding Officer or President)
(ii) An Electoral Nomination (Representative)
(iii) Election Voting Post (Presiding Officer or President)
(iv) An Official Outcome (Presiding Officer or President)

Therefore, there was no ill intent, and since this was a staff action external to the President in both a staffing and government capacity, any argument in relation to the removal of messages in #speaker-election will be inadmissible.

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the court. The emergency injunction still remains extant and in effect. Pursuant of this owner action to mark certain evidence inadmissible, the court will consider that the deleted messages in #speaker-election were a result of informal comment removal in a formal channel (like how only pictures are allocated in #media) and not one of malicious intent by the Defendant.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant believes that President Austin27 did not commit corruption and election fraud
2. The Defendant believed that Representative 218218Consumer did not commit corruption and election and believe that Representative Consumer is the rightful speaker of the house.
3. The Defendant believes that the standing orders were in effect and that Speaker election was to be followed as outlined in the standing orders.

II. DEFENCES
1. Upon initiating the vote, the President misspoke stating that “Voting will be open for 24 hours or until a majority has been reached. If no majority is reached for each candidate, a runoff election will occur.” failing to paraphrase the entirety of the electoral requirements. The words of the president do not amount to procedural law, as the plaintiff believes. It is unfortunate when we misspeak, but words spoken are not laws. The Congress is responsible for establishing such procedures and it is the President’s responsibility in this particular procedure to execute the speakership election process. In Case No. 09-2021-01 the courts upheld that in an instance where the President is contrary to law, their actions are not legally binding or enforceable. The same principle should apply here. Just because the president misspoke on his second election announcement, it does not negate the standard of law.

2. According to the standing orders of the House of Representatives, “Should more than two members be nominated, all members are to vote for the Speaker.” As evident by evidence 1, 6 representatives had voted; 6 is not 11, meaning that elections were not over. The plaintiff’s case rests on the court finding that the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives were not in effect at the time of voting. This proposition is interesting, given that the Standing Orders have no date of exhaustion. Rather, the standing orders are a living set of standards and rules, not dissimilar law. This is why the Legislative Standards Act provides that the first order of business is to “amend or reconfirm” the standing orders, not re-propose them. The notion that the chamber is without rules during the speakership election and standing orders deliberation is far-fetched for an institution that relies on the processes contained in these Standing Orders to operate effectively. If the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives are not in force during the Speaker election each term, then why do we include a Speaker election process in them? Why do we have an election process for Speaker elections? To prevent disputes in the election process.

3. During the speakership election, Representatives were allowed to change their vote, provided that all 11 representatives had not voted, and the election had not been called. Representative RelaxedGV changed his vote. The president was not involved in an attempt to change representatives' votes, and no evidence has been brought forward by the plaintiff of such collusion. This claim is wrong and blasphemous against President Austin.

4. The President was absent for a majority of the voting period. The President declared the winner of the speakership at the conclusion of all votes on his return.

5. The Statute of Limitations Act states the following:

(a) Prosecution for a criminal offence must be commenced within two months of the date of the alleged offence.
(b) Civil action must be commenced within two months of the date of the alleged dispute.
(c) Evidence can be used in a case from more than two months before the opening of a case, however, said evidence will not be used to charge someone, only as an exhibit of repeated criminal behaviour.
(d) Corruption is not subject to this statute of limitations.

Therefore, the Statute of Limitation prevents any legal action against the defendant for actions committed over a period exceeding two months ago. While immoral, there is no evidence of corruption, as the defendant did not personally benefit from the information shared.

“To use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures.”

This action would be more closely aligned with breach of integrity (Classification Act) for sharing classified information, however the information shared by the defendant was not classified at the time it was shared.

Furthermore, the defendant did not have access to the Department of State voting records until after the election had concluded. The vote that the defendant mentioned was not included in the vote tally.

6. The case puts the courts in a position of investigation, whereby it encourages an inquisitorial trial rather than an adversarial one. Courts are not to be used as an investigational body, as shown in Case 07-2021-15. Prayer for relief number 6 makes no accusation as to who is suspected of committing these crimes, rather it puts the court in an investigatorial role. No evidence of any representative attempting to rig the election or use the election for their own private interest has been provided. The prayer of relief is vague and would have a detrimental impact on the political process. Politics is about decision making and influencing decisions, such as communicating or acting within the law to prevent a political counterpart’s success. The election went forth, and representatives were freely able to try and convince fellow representatives to vote for one candidate over another. This is part of the political process and always has been. Therefore, this prayer for relief should be struck from the court’s record.

7. The Standing Orders are a collection of agreed rules and carry no legal weight. Standing Orders outline chamber processes, as decided by the chamber, and are enforced by the Presiding Officer, who is decided by the chamber. If the house does not agree with the outcomes of either election, it should hold a vote of no confidence and conduct another election. There are inbuilt processes to resolve this. The question here is not whether the Standing Orders were in place, but if the President and Speaker committed electoral fraud. The court can only find one conclusion to this, and that is that the President carried out their duties in accordance with how Congress decided in its standing orders. The burden of proof should lie with the plaintiff to show that there were not 11 votes at the time the election was called.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 16 day of September 2021

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The Plaintiff is now asked to present their opening statement.

In addition to this, the court would also like to ask that a timestamp of Evidence 2 where 218218Consumer states "Congratulations to the Deputy Speaker of the 9th House of Representatives" is provided. Just a screenshot hovering over the message, and an explanation of what timezone such evidence was taken in. This can better help the Supreme Court understand a timeline.

 

[1950Minecrafter]

Your Honor, my lawyers will be providing the opening statement and timestamp shortly, but I have an urgent issue to present first. The emergency injunction granted by this court orders 218218Consumer to “refrain from exercising the extensive powers of Speaker.” However, 218218Consumer has organized an in-game swearing-in ceremony for the members of Congress. This is an extensive power/ability of the Speaker that is not necessary for the House to fulfill its constitutional obligations and continue day-to-day operations. Should the court allow this ceremony to proceed, it would be an implicit endorsement of 218218Consumer being Speaker. I request that this court formally forbid such a ceremony until the adjournment of this case, in compliance with the emergency injunction previously granted.

Proof:

Spoiler: Evidence of the Scheduled In-game Session

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION

The Clerk of the House of Representatives swears the Representatives in, the Speaker of the House of Representatives only facilitates such process by presiding over the chamber. Provided the Speaker only takes an oath to serve as a Representative, the court should not inhibit what is a traditional ceremony for the chamber.

DATED: This 18 day of September 2021

 

[Westray]

The Supreme Court has recently convened and came to a decision on this request. The court will be rejecting such request at this time.

The swearing-in of Representatives is a long held tradition within the House of Representatives, and an event codified within the Legislative Standards Act. The initial court order mandated that the Speaker of the House cannot exercise dissolution powers nor act in bad faith, in this scenario, they are doing neither of such.

The Plaintiff has not provided the justification of an immediate need as to why to freeze this event. There is only so far that we can go based off initial claims in the injunction request and case filing. We would much prefer that continued arguments are presented upon the initial claims of why the Speaker of the House was allegedly unlawfully elected along with the other aspects of the lawsuit. The court has asked for further evidence and a timestamp of the situation to be provided as soon as possible.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I will post the timeline requested before I post our opening statement:

The time is given in GMT+2

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

1950Minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, I am Alexander P. Love and I am representing, along with my co-counsel at the Lovely Law Firm joined by pugbandit, 1950Minecrafter in this case where the President and alleged Speaker of the House conducted fraudulent elections. This is a case of fraudulence over fairness. The Defendant showed that they value using fraudulent practices when administering elections over keeping the elections fair and impartial. The Plaintiff asserts the following:

1. President Austin conducted the elections in favor of 218218Consumer, as he failed to call the elections at the first majority reached, and instead called them when Consumer's supporters were able to put pressure on RelaxedGV to switch his vote, giving Consumer the majority.
2. If an election is to be called once a majority is reached, it should be called when the first majority is reached. This first majority was reached by the Plaintiff, 1950Minecrafter.
3. It is disputed whether or not the Standing Orders remain in a new Congress. It is implied that they do not stand as they must be re-adopted by every new Congress. The Standing Orders were not re-adopted at the time the Speaker election occurred. Therefore, the Presiding Officer, President Austin, had full authority to facilitate the elections in a fair manner consistent with democracy.
   

   The Standing Orders are a collection of agreed rules and carry no legal weight. Standing Orders outline chamber processes, as decided by the chamber, and are enforced by the Presiding Officer, who is decided by the chamber.

   The defendant even admits that whether or not the Standing Orders remain, they hold no legal weight and that it is up to the Presiding Officer to enforce them. This comes with the assumption that the Presiding Officer will be fair and impartial when enforcing policy, affirmed by precedent. President Austin did not enforce Congress' policies in a fair and impartial manner, as he only called the elections AFTER a second majority was reached, in favor of Consumer.
4. Since it has been established by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Presiding Officer's word goes in the chambers of Congress, the defendant's first point of rebuttal stands invalid. President Austin did not misspeak; he spoke as the Presiding Officer with the full authority to do so. Additionally, the case provided is not at all relevant. That case should not have even been offered as evidence when it shows nothing about the President's word being binding or not.
5. It does not matter whether or not the President was available at the time of the first majority. Proof of this majority was provided, and therefore, the election should have been called in favor of 1950Minecrafter, the rightful Speaker of the House since the candidate to reach a majority was supposed to win the Speakership.
6. The evidence depicting President Austin leaking votes is used to demonstrate that there is a propensity for corruption, however, the Statute of Limitations Act, Section D, does state that corruption is exempt from the Statute of Limitations. President Austin, therefore, has still committed corruption of his Office of the Secretary of State, and should be punished for this offense.
   

   (d) Corruption is not subject to this statute of limitations.

7. The Plaintiff is not expecting nor requesting the Court to become an investigative body in this case. The Plaintiff has or will obtain all necessary evidence, through material or testimonial means. The Defendant's claim that the case should be invalid on this basis is therefore wrong.
8. The re-adopted Standing Orders apply to the Deputy Speaker elections. Our evidence shows that not all eleven representatives have voted. Our evidence proves that there were only eight votes when the election ended. The election was therefore called against Standing Orders. The Defendant cannot both allege that the Standing Orders remain and apply in the Speaker election, but then allow for the Speaker to ignore them in the Deputy Speaker election. The Speaker ended the Deputy Speaker elections early in order to favor his own personal interests of having a Congress ran by the Ice Cream Party.

Given all of these facts and arguments, the Plaintiff should be granted the prayers for relief requested. 1950Minecrafter is the rightful Speaker of the House due to the way the Presiding Officer carried out the Speaker elections, and fairness in elections should be upheld.

 

[Westray]

The Court would like to thank both parties for the arguments they have presented here thus far. We will now begin the testimony proceedings in accordance with the Court Rules and Procedures.

Each party has 72 hours to indicate whether they have any additional evidence and or witness testimony that they wish to present before moving to closing statements.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

This is not necessarily an exhaustive list, however, we wish to keep the case moving while we get all witnesses and further evidence introduced.

For now, we request a Writ of Quo Warranto for Austin and Consumer. We seek to ascertain the President's extent of authority to act as the Presiding Officer in the Speaker elections, and for Consumer's extent of authority to act as the Presiding Officer in the Deputy Speaker elections. That is, we wish to question them about their activities as Presiding Officers and the decisions they made throughout the electoral process. We may also have other questions for them as narrative witnesses.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Plaintiff additionally wishes to call RelaxedGV to the stand.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION
The plaintiff’s requested Writ of Quo Warranto on two individuals is a breach of court procedure.

That is, we wish to question them about their activities as Presiding Officers and the decisions they made throughout the electoral process. We may also have other questions for them as narrative witnesses.

A Writ of Quo Warranto is to justify the authority of the government or government agency in doing something. The plaintiff intends to use questioning for narrative and decisions made, not about the authority of their actions. If the plaintiff intends to question President Austin and Speaker of the House 218218Consumer, then the witnesses should be summoned through a normal summons, not a Writ of Quo Warranto.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

In most common law systems, it is used to establish authority to do something in any context. I want them to establish their authority to manipulate Congressional Procedure and the authority to hold office.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quo_warranto#:~:text=Latin%20for%20%22by%20what%20warrant,to%20revoke%20a%20corporation's%20charter.


Additionally, pursuant to the new objections guide, the defendant's objection is invalid.

 

[Westray]

Thank you for the points raised from both parties. The Supreme Court will collectively convene over the next few days to review this and determine what witnesses to summon, in addition to whether or not to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto in relation to the respective authorities.

In the meantime, if the Defendant can please specify whether they wish to bring any of their own additional witnesses as well, the court will ask they mention so as soon as possible, as to not prolong all of these potential witness summons.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor,

We have no one further to summon to the stand.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, we wish to call ElainaThomas29 and ReinausPrinzzip to the stand as well.

 

[Westray]

The Supreme Court will be granting the Plaintiff's request for a Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued to 218218Consumer and _Austin27_. We see it pertinent to inquire what authorities they may claim to pertain, in addition I do believe that the objection presented does not have proper grounds.

From the answer to this order by both respective witnesses, we will move onto the remainder of witness summons and remarks.

 

[Westray]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

@Austin27 and @218218Consumer are hereby summoned to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 09-2021-15-02 in order to establish the extent of their authority to act as the Presiding Officer in the Speaker and respective Deputy Speaker election. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present.

I would ask that the Plaintiff presents list of all the questions they want answered by each official in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.​

 

[Austin27]

I, _Austin27_, President of the Commonwealth of Redmont - declare myself present in this case.

 

[218218Consumer]

I, 218218Consumer, declare myself present in this case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

President Austin:
1. Did you, as the Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives during the Speaker elections, have the authority to decide that the first candidate to reach a majority would assume the Speakership?
2.
Did you, as the Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives during the Speaker elections, decide that the first candidate to reach a majority would assume the Speakership?
3. Isn't it true that 1950Minecrafter reached a majority of votes in the Speaker elections?
4. Isn't it true that a Representative, RelaxedGV, changed his vote to 218218Consumer after 1950Minecrafter had already reached a majority?
5. Isn't it true this vote switch caused 218218Consumer to gain a majority over 1950Minecrafter?
6. Isn't it true you called the election once 218218Consumer had reached the majority?
7. With a yes or no answer, were you absent when 1950Minecrafter initially reached a majority?
8. Isn't it true you disregarded and ignored the evidence presented to you, after you called the elections, that proved 1950Minecrafter had initially reached a majority?
9. Describe what authority you possessed to declare 218218Consumer as Speaker of the House given the facts of the case.

Representative 218218Consumer:
1. Isn't it true that Congressional Standing Orders dictate all Representatives must vote in the Deputy Speaker elections before they are called?
2. Isn't it true you called the elections in xLayzur's favor before all Representatives had voted?
3. Isn't it true that you were aware 1950Minecrafter reached a majority before you, and you still accepted the Speakership?
4. Describe what authority you possess to hold office as Speaker of the House given the facts of the case.
5. Describe what authority you possessed to declare xLayzur as Deputy Speaker of the House given the facts of the case.


The Plaintiff would like to remind the Court of our intention to also summon RelaxedGV, ElainaThomas29, and ReinausPrinzzip to the stand.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, it has been a considerable amount of time since these questions were asked. I am requesting the Court to compel the witnesses to answer promptly.

 

[Westray]

@Austin27 and @218218Consumer you both hereby have 48 hours to respond to the questions by the Plaintiff or you may face contempt charges. Please be aware of your rights and obligations. Thank you.

 

[Austin27]

Yes your honor, my responses:

1. Did you, as the Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives during the Speaker elections, have the authority to decide that the first candidate to reach a majority would assume the Speakership?

Acting in my capacity as President of the Commonwealth of Redmont, I assumed the role of Presiding Officer over the Speakership elections. The authority for the President to do so is derived from both convention and House Standing Orders.

The President has, at every speakership election to date, performed these duties. It has become enshrined in convention that the process by which the Speaker is elected is overseen by the leader of the executive branch of Government according to the rules set by the Legislative branch. The Congressional Resources Library provides the traditional election announcements, which have been used by all Presidents in the conduct of Speakership elections. The initial announcement was made in-line with the provided wording: "A vote will take place once everyone has reacted to this message, between the nominees where each representative will have one vote for their preference of speaker. When all votes are collected, the new speaker will be sworn in and Congress may resume."

The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, as voted on by the House of Representatives, also codifies this process, providing that:

1 - Election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives
(1) The President is to assume the chair of the Congress and ask for those who wish to be elected Speaker to nominate themselves by notifying the President.
(a) The nomination period shall last for 12 hours unless all Representative inform and reply on the Nomination.
(3) Should only one member be nominated then they shall be declared Speaker of The House.
(4) Should more than two members be nominated, all members are to vote for the
Speaker. The ballot is to be conducted through instant runoff voting. The winner of
the ballot is to be declared the Speaker of the Congress.
(5) Upon certifying the election of the Speaker, the Speaker is to assume the authority to
enforce these standing orders and call the Congress to order.

The election was carried out in-line with these processes.

2. Did you, as the Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives during the Speaker elections, decide that the first candidate to reach a majority would assume the Speakership?

No, as I have previously stated, the process is clearly outlined that "a vote will take place once everyone has reacted to this message, between the nominees where each representative will have one vote for their preference of speaker. When all votes are collected, the new speaker will be sworn in and Congress may resume."

While I misspoke in my voting announcement, the election was still carried out in the traditional manner as provided by the initial announcement.

3. Isn't it true that 1950Minecrafter reached a majority of votes in the Speaker elections?

I personally didn't see 1950Minecrafter with a majority in the poll. Even if 1950Minecrafter did have a majority, not all votes were collected, so I couldn't have called the election. The process of collecting all votes in the speakership election is one that is carried out at all stages of the process. All Representatives are required to respond to nominations. All Representatives are required to respond to voting. This allows for fairness in those who live in other timezones.

4. Isn't it true that a Representative, RelaxedGV, changed his vote to 218218Consumer after 1950Minecrafter had already reached a majority?

Singling out a Representative's vote isn't something I will comment on. The Representative is free to decide who they would like to vote on during the election.

5. Isn't it true this vote switch caused 218218Consumer to gain a majority over 1950Minecrafter?

The Representative's vote was one of 6 votes for 218218Consumer. If he did change his vote, then yes.

6. Isn't it true you called the election once 218218Consumer had reached the majority?

I called the election once all votes had been submitted. At that point in time, 218218Consumer had reached a majority.

7. With a yes or no answer, were you absent when 1950Minecrafter initially reached a majority?

Yes, I was absent.

This is a leading question however, so I will make comment. I didn't see 1950Minecrafter with a majority. Even if I did see 1950Minecrafter with a majority, not all votes had been submitted at the alleged period in which 1950 had a majority. While I may not have been absent from Democracycraft platforms, I was absent from the speaker election channel until I was pinged by representatives that all votes had concluded.

8. Isn't it true you disregarded and ignored the evidence presented to you, after you called the elections, that proved 1950Minecrafter had initially reached a majority?

Even if 1950Minecrafter did have a majority, not all votes were collected, so I couldn't have called the election.

9. Describe what authority you possessed to declare 218218Consumer as Speaker of the House given the facts of the case.

Refer to question 1.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection your honor. The witness is unresponsive and failed to answer questions 1, 4, and 8. He deflected the actual questions for all of these and provided vague and ambiguous answers. Additionally, his answer to question 1 was a good answer to question 9, but it didn’t properly answer what I asked in question one. I asked him if he had the authority to declare the majority candidate Speaker, but he instead proceeded to profess the conventional process. On question 4, he quite obviously refused to answer. Representatives are accountable to the people, and hence their voting history should not be private and kept confidential. In question 8, the witness made no commentary in regards to the elements of the question, including the evidence presented to him.

 

[JoeGamer]

If it may please the court.

The President has answered the questions provided to him by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked leading questions and the president responded with legally and conventionally sound responses. This objection is based on the premise that the answers do not fit the narrative that the plaintiff is running.

 

[218218Consumer]

1. Standing orders are not law; they are a set of rules that are voted on and implemented by the chamber, for the facilitation of the chamber. Several Representatives failed to fulfill their congressional duties by deliberately sabotaging and filibustering the Deputy Speakership nomination period, neglecting their duties under the Standing Orders. Thus the chamber was behind schedule and the lack of a Deputy Speaker was inhibiting Congress's ability to fulfill its duties without a fully staffed Office of the Presiding Officers. When xlayzur received six votes, I was satisfied as presiding officer that there was sustainable majority support in the House for his election. The screenshots below strongly indicate an effort by the NPR-SPP coalition to obstruct the election. As the Presiding Officer of the chamber I made a decision in the interests of the chamber. This is not electoral fraud; this is a breach of the Standing Orders, for which the House of Representatives may act on. The House of Representative has its own internal measures which it may take in the course of correcting what the plaintiff describes as a wrong. The internal rules which congress places upon itself are not in the jurisdiction of the courts but rather the jurisdiction of the chamber that set them.

2. I called the election well after all Representatives had the opportunity to vote, which was a prerogative that several of them deliberately ceded.

3. I am aware that Rep. 1950minecrafter briefly obtained a majority, but he failed to maintain that majority by the election’s conclusion. After proper debate and discussion, which truly embody the purpose of the chamber, had occurred, I was the Representative that the House determined best fit to serve as Speaker. I accepted the position because I believed the Speaker of the House should be the Representative who can maintain a majority through discussion and deliberation, not the Representative who held a majority for fewer than two hours through skipping debate, ignoring an opposing party’s electoral mandate, influencing a new Representative, and taking advantage of the absence of a political opponent from real life circumstances.

4. My authority as Speaker stems from the will of the chamber at the time of the election.

5. Layzur’s authority as Deputy Speaker stems from the will of the chamber at the time of the election. Layzur received six votes, and the other two candidates received one each.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, your honor.

Witness not responsive. In question one, he went into a contradictory lecture about how Standing Orders are not law, then proceeded to accuse the Plaintiff of violating the Standing Orders. He never actually answered my question, which asked if Standing Orders dictate that all Representatives must vote in the Deputy Speaker Elections.

I object under the grounds of 'Speculation' in question two, as the last clause of that statement is a subjective, uncertain assertion made by the witness to claim a fact true.

Additionally, I object to the evidence under 'Improper Evidence' which forbids modified evidence. However, this evidence does provide some insight into the situation despite missing some pieces in between. In the interest of uncovering all of the facts and truth, I request the Court to issue a subpoena to 218218Consumer compelling him to produce the evidence above, without modification such as redactions or trimmed text responses (some words got cropped in that second to last image).

 

[Westray]

The Supreme Court has convened and decided to collectively overrule the objection to the testimony of Austin27. We believe that the answers provided have been adequate given the questions provided. If more questions are necessary to properly examine their points, the Plaintiff may present additional ones.

As for the matter with the testimony of 218218Consumer, we will need time to review the claims presented. In the meantime, in regards to the objection of the modified evidence, the court will offer 218218Consumer the opportunity to either explain why the evidence is modified, or to produce the complete evidence on his own volition. Otherwise we will have to consider over the course of the next day(s) whether to compel the witness or not.

Thank you for the continued patience of both parties.

 

[218218Consumer]

Your honor,

Many parts of the conversation were blacked out because they were part of a discussion on committee assignments, which I deemed irrelevant to the case.

As to why that word was cropped out, I was lazy with my screenshotting, but the cropped word is "reaction".

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I have obtained the necessary exhibits myself as the witness has decided to impede the case.

That said, may we move on given the urgency of this case due to the Presidential elections?

 

[Westray]

Thank you for presenting the necessary exhibits. My apologies for any delay as the court has been considering these testimonies and the objections presented in regards to them.

Since the Plaintiff wishes to move given the urgency of this case, the court will note the objections and move forward regardless. I will ask that the Defendant informs the court as to whether they wish to cross-examine either of the witnesses before we move forward with the other witnesses that the Plaintiff wished to call.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor,

The state does not wish to cross-examine President Austin or Speaker Consumer.

 

[Westray]

The Plaintiff would like to remind the Court of our intention to also summon RelaxedGV, ElainaThomas29, and ReinausPrinzzip to the stand.

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

@RelaxedGV, @ElainaThomas29, and @ReinausPrinzzip are hereby summoned to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 09-2021-15-02 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present.

I would ask that each party provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.
​

 

[RelaxedGV]

smh why am i here

 

[ElainaThomas29]

Your honor,
I have familiarized myself with this case and am hereby marking myself as present.

 

[ReinausPrinzzip]

Your honor,
I have familiarized myself with this case and am hereby marking myself as present.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

RelaxedGV:
1) Did you vote for 1950Minecrafter initially in the Speakership elections, causing 1950 to hold a majority?
2) Did you then switch your vote to 218218Consumer?
3) Did all Representatives vote in the Speaker election?
4) Why did you switch your vote from 1950 to Consumer?


Your honor, I will have the questions for the other witnesses shortly. Their testimony is not as straightforward.

 

[RelaxedGV]

1. I did not initially vote 1950 in the speaker elections but after voting Consumer, I did vote 1950 which got him a majority

2. Yes

3. Not when I had voted

4. Because of the fact that I liked Consumer's policies more than 1950 and I have seen what Consumer can do and so I wanted to vote for them and get the most good out of the speakership as possible

 

[Westray]

Does the Plaintiff have additional questions and or questions to pose to the other witnesses? As expressed prior it is pertinent that this case proceeds without delay. Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

ElainaThomas,

1) Did the President leak Intercepticon's Presidential vote to you in the last election?
2) Do you feel our democracy is threatened as a result of this breach?
3) To you believe, based on your observations, that Austin is not trustworthy to administer elections in a fair and impartial manner?


ReinausPrinzzip,

1) Did all the Representatives ever vote in the Speaker Election?
2) Did all the Representatives ever vote in the Deputy Speaker Election?
3) As a Congressman, was it ever clear to you whether or not the Standing Orders were active during the Speaker election?
4) Did you believe that the Standing Orders were active at that time?
5) Did the Presiding Officer (Austin) during the Speaker elections say that the first candidate to receive a majority wins?
6) Who received the majority first?
7) Did you believe that Austin had the authority to make such a declaration as stated in question 5?

 

[ReinausPrinzzip]

1) Yes, all Reps voted after RelaxedGV changed his vote.
2) No, even only 7 out of 11 Reps voted to begin with the election process.
3) No, it wasn't clear to me.
4) I believe that the Standing Orders are not active Speaker elections as they are implemented after a voting set in the House after a Speaker is elected.
5) Yes he clearly did.
6) 1950minecrafter.
7) Yes.

 

[ElainaThomas29]

1. Yes, the President leaked to me after the last election that Intercepticon had voted for 1950minecrafter.
2. This occurrence makes me feel less confidence in my voting privacy and makes me worry that my votes have been leaked in the past or have a possibility of being leaked in the future, if not by Austin, then by others in the DoS who have the ability to abuse their role. So, to summarize my answer to your question, yes.
3. Based on this event, I feel less able to trust that Austin can keep who people vote for confidential.

 

[Westray]

Were there any additional questions that the Plaintiff wished to present to any of the witnesses before providing the Defendant the opportunity for cross-examination?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

No, your honor.

 

[Westray]

Did the Defendant wish to cross-examine any of the witnesses?

 

[JoeGamer]

The State does not wish to cross-examine any of the witnesses

 

[JoeGamer]

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

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor,

There are a number of issues with this case which should see it's dismissal:

Jurisdiction
The court simply does not have the constitutional powers to oversee this case. The Constitution states that the role of court system is to "interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌" The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives are not law, they are rules that are agreed upon by the chamber for the conduct of business in the chamber. Where these rules are breached, the chamber has powers and processes such as a vote of no confidence, which is enshrined in the constitution.

Estoppel
The plaintiff is basing their entire argument on three notions which should be estopped.

The plaintiff is arguing that the President could not draw authority from the standing orders for the Speakership election because the standing orders approved by the 8th Congress were not in effect at the time of the election of the Speaker.

Therefore, the plaintiff is arguing the legitimacy of the Speaker who facilitated the passing of the standing orders in the 9th Congress. This means that the standing orders approved by the 9th Congress would be invalid if the Speakership is ruled invalid.

Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that the Deputy Speaker was wrongly elected under the 9th Congress' standing orders, therefore asserting that they are valid standing orders.

The plaintiff has thrown together a number of accusations, in what is a politicized case against the President and Speaker, with no regard to the legal intercourse between the three notions that they are presenting. Therefore, an estoppel exists.

Standing Orders
The standing orders are like law, but are not law. They are a living document and are updated, not replaced by each congress.

Continuance
In order for this case to continue, the court needs to determine it's jurisdiction over congressional matters that are not law, the plaintiff needs to substantiate their position on whether or not each of the standing orders were in effect or valid, and congress needs to conduct a vote on whether or not they believe the standing orders were in effect during the speakership election, a process which the standing orders defines.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I request a response, your honor.

 

[Westray]

I request a response, your honor.

You may provide a brief response. Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor,

The Defendant seems to be confusing the terms statutes and laws. Laws encompass all governing authority in Redmont, which includes statutes, but also includes Court orders, Executive orders, and even the Congressional standing orders. The orders specifically state they are being enacted with the force of law in the document. Additionally, the Speakership is a Constitutional position and some election requirements are stipulated under there. Therefore, this matter intersects with the Constitution which is most certainly within Court jurisdiction. Also, the Attorney General fails to understand the timeline. There were times when the orders applied and others which they did not due to the time and conditions. His absolute statement of contradictions is therefore false.

Thank you.

 

[Westray]

The Supreme Court has convened and decided to unanimously reject the motion to dismiss at this time. The argument presented is fundamentally flawed and not grounded within the principles of the Constitution.

As directly examined in the Constitution, the‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌is‌ ‌"responsible‌ ‌for‌ ‌resolving‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌between‌ ‌Government‌ ‌Institutions".‌ ‌We have a duty and the authority to resolve this dispute.

We believe that the standing orders are quasi law, or at least a contract that bounds Representatives. To argue that the Standing Orders is a set of agreed-upon rules that can be disregarded at any time is a disregard for the law and or a contractual breach of what Representatives had agreed to.

Did the Plaintiff or Defendant have any additional evidence and or witness testimony to present before we proceed?

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION
The Defendant objects on a point of relevancy to the questions posed to Elainathomas29 and responses provided.

The plaintiff has put forward evidence outside of the bounds of the Statute of the Limitations. The accusations for electoral fraud extend beyond 2 months ago, therefore they are subject to the statute of limitations and therefore cannot be considered in this case.

2(a) Prosecution for a criminal offence must be commenced within two months of the date of the alleged offence.

Albeit a jovial executive order, the President was also formally pardoned for Electoral Fraud in Executive Order 19/21, after the date that accusations in this evidence are presented.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, as I have had to state multiple times for the Plaintiff to understand, we are not using the evidence in a manner against limitations. We are using it to establish propensity, which is explicitly allowed.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION OF INJUNCTION

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION
Your honor, with the inauguration pending, given the severity of the charges accused on certain parties, including Consumer, it would be an obstruction of justice if it was all erased by him pardoning himself when he takes office. Therefore, I motion the Court to place an emergency injunction on the President from pardoning 218218Consumer until the conclusion of this case. This would be the least drastic and most reasonable solution for the problem presented. Thank you.

 

[pugbandit]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION
The Defendant objects on a point of relevancy to the questions posed to Elainathomas29 and responses provided.

The plaintiff has put forward evidence outside of the bounds of the Statute of the Limitations. The accusations for electoral fraud extend beyond 2 months ago, therefore they are subject to the statute of limitations and therefore cannot be considered in this case.

2(a) Prosecution for a criminal offence must be commenced within two months of the date of the alleged offence.

Albeit a jovial executive order, the President was also formally pardoned for Electoral Fraud in Executive Order 19/21, after the date that accusations in this evidence are presented.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

REBUTTAL

Your honour,

The Defendant is attempting to drag out this case with matters already argued in the past however to further clarify what my colleague has said I will give a statement on the objection raised by the Defendant to provide clarity on the situation, for the benefit of the court.

Firstly, the Defendant argues the following:

That we cannot sue for corruption on the matter of the President leaking votes.

Although, we mostly are including this matter to indicate the propensity of the President. We did state we also want him charged for corruption when filing the complaint and we stand by that. This is due to the Statue of Limitations explicitly stating:

(d) Corruption is not subject to this statute of limitations.

We therefore will be continuing the charges of corruption on the President for vote leaking as stated in the opening argument:

6. President Austin27 also violated Law 5.9 and 15.27 in the past which was later discovered which shows the President leaking votes in the past. As the President used his role at the time to access the votes of the Presidential election and to then spread it was using his position in power for his own personal use/interest in telling who he wishes. 15.27 was also violated as the President meddled in the election to obtain vote and then spread it, damaging the security of voting in Redmont.

The second point the Defence brought to our attention was the pardoning of President Austin for Electoral Fraud on the date June 16th.

Although we are also charging President Austin for electoral fraud in the case of the speakership election (which occurred after this pardon), the vote leaking incident which occurred before this pardon, Austin can still be prosecuted for this incident due to:

Although President Austin was pardoned for Electoral Fraud he was not pardoned for corruption at the time.

Corruption and Electoral Fraud are both matters that there could be impeachments over and hence the following law can be interpreted to mean that offences of such high crime that a government position can be removed over the matter should not be able to pardoned:

“Grant reprieves and pardons to citizens charged with breaking the law, with the exception of impeachment.”

Hence it is our belief that the courts should rule in favour of such crimes being exempted from pardons as they are impeachable offences along with offences the court can remove people over.

Since the Speakership election incident of potential electoral fraud occurred after the pardon, it does not apply to that incident, even if the pardon WAS lawful.

We request that the Defence does not try to drag out this case with matters such as the Statute of Limitations which were discussed at the start of the case.

 

[Westray]

The Supreme Court has decided to grant an alternative decision to the request to issue an injunction filed by the Plaintiff against preventing the President from pardoning any individual during this case. Given that there has been no claim that the President nor President-Elect has been unlawfully elected, we feel that it is not within our scope of authority to effectively remove their constitutional powers.

Therefore, the Supreme Court would like to assert that the use of pardon powers to absolve corruption shall be considered contempt and the explicit abuse of power may serve as reasoning for impeachment.

As for the objection to the testimony of ElainaThomas29, it is hereby overruled. The evidence presented in such testimony still poses relevance to the allegation of Corruption, which is not covered by the Statute of Limitations.

Additionally, we have decided that it would be within the best interest in reviewing this case and such that the Plaintiff decides on one individual to make posts as the Plaintiff's counsel. This will allow us to efficiently review this case, in order to avoid the confusion of having 2-3 different individuals commenting on this lawsuit. Hence, we ask that the Plaintiff's counsels continue work together with background arguments, but that everything is kept under a single poster.

Did the Plaintiff or Defendant have any additional evidence and or witness testimony to present before we proceed?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

No, your honor.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ESTOPPEL

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

ESTOPPEL

Your Honor,

The court has failed to recognize that there is an estoppel -the principle which precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.

The plaintiff is arguing that the President could not draw authority from the standing orders for the Speakership election because the standing orders approved by the 8th Congress were not in effect at the time of the election of the Speaker.

Therefore, the plaintiff is arguing the legitimacy of the Speaker who facilitated the passing of the standing orders in the 9th Congress. This means that the standing orders approved by the 9th Congress would be invalid if the Speakership is ruled invalid.

Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that the Deputy Speaker was wrongly elected under the 9th Congress' standing orders, therefore asserting that they are valid standing orders.

The plaintiff has thrown together a number of accusations, in what is a politicized case against the President and Speaker, with no regard to the legal intercourse between the three notions that they are presenting. Therefore, an estoppel exists and request the Court to enforce as such.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I request the Court to compel the Defendant to stop absurdly using the same rejected arguments repeatedly in an effort to delay this case.

 

[Westray]

The Court would like to ask that the Defendant provides more clarity on what we are being asked to estop. The Defendant needs to precisely examine what exactly they are seeking from the court. Thank you.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, this case is urgent and the defendant keeps making these motions, and then taking a long time to answer any clarifying questions. I request the Court to compel the Defendant to answer within the next 24 hours or sooner.

 

[Westray]

Your honor, this case is urgent and the defendant keeps making these motions, and then taking a long time to answer any clarifying questions. I request the Court to compel the Defendant to answer within the next 24 hours or sooner.

I agree. The Defendant has 24 hours to respond to the Court's request, otherwise we will proceed to closing statements.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor,

In the event that a person asserts a contradicting statement to a statement stated or implied earlier, an estoppel exists.

We request the court to estop the plaintiff from arguing that the standing orders are both in effect and not in effect. These two statements contradict each other and hurt both Austin and Consumer by manipulating the argument into contradicting statements. Both of these statements directly clash with each other.

We ask the court to estop the conflicting arguments before we head into closing arguments. The plaintiff ought to assert one statement or the other but not both.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the Attorney General's argument is frivolous. I have already explained twice that I am alleging the Standing Orders are valid at one point in time and not at the other due to their reaffirmation by the next Congress.

 

[Westray]

Considering the facts, the Supreme Court has convened and would like to clarify that we believe the Standing Orders are considered valid. As mentioned in our rejection of the motion to dismiss, we believe that the standing orders are quasi law, or at least a contract that bounds Representatives. This law, or at least binding contract, has remained extant throughout.

Provided there is nothing else additional to present, we will be moving to closing statements. I will ask that the Plaintiff presents their closing statement first.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I motion for xLayzur to not be allowed to assist in the presiding of the case (if he is) given his conflict of interest in the case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, this is a case of fraudulence over fairness. Key figures in our former democracy have violated the very sanctity of the principles of a good democracy. They conducted a botched Speaker election that violated the will of the people. 1950Minecrafter won the Speakership under the terms the then-presiding officer President Austin established. Through the facts of todays case and witness testimony, we learned that the standing orders were not clearly in effect during the Speaker election. The Standing Orders of the Eighth Congress are after all of the Eighth Congress. Do they really also affect the Ninth? Several legislative experts and members, who held positions of leadership, would say no. At this time, the decision of the presiding officer is the rule. The first candidate to reach a majority in the Speaker election wins the Speakership. 1950Minecrafter should have been named Speaker. This did not however happen. Later, the new Standing Orders were indeed adopted. The Defendant claims they cannot be both adopted and non-effective but I just laid out how the timeline operated again. During this time in which the Standing Orders, which have the force of law, were in effect, a botched Deputy Speaker election occurred. xLayzur was named the Deputy Speaker before all members had voted. The evidence shows that Consumer willfully acknowledged this fact in his conversation with Congressman Aladeen and conspired to commit election fraud. If a botched Speaker and Deputy Speaker election is not enough, we know from evidence that President Austin has had a history with corruption pertaining to fair elections. He leaked votes. If he could do it when he served under a figure of authority, imagine what he would do in the highest and mightiest position in the land. The propensity buttresses the demonstrated malintent these figures possessed to rig the elections in the ICP’s favor for political gain. This is not just corruption; it is treason for it harms democracy itself. I ask that the appropriate parties are charged with corruption under the fullest extent of the law. 1950Minecrafter should be named Speaker for the rest of the term, and legal fees should be awarded. The Plaintiff is not asking for the Speakership itself and the actions completed under it to be invalidated as that would be absurd, but rather for the Court to recognize the illegitimacy of the circumstances behind the former Speaker’s election and to remedy it in a clean and proactive, not retroactive, manner. Thank you.

 

[Westray]

Your honor, I motion for xLayzur to not be allowed to assist in the presiding of the case (if he is) given his conflict of interest in the case.

Considering he is a key party to this case, I would agree with that notion. He will not be provided any sort of presiding oversight to this case. As for the recent vacancy of the Justice who was also presiding over this case, I will ask that both parties express patience with the courts.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

As we approach the conclusion of this case, there are several facts that the plaintiff refuses to recognize.

Continuance of Standing Orders
Standing orders are a living document. The Standing orders are updated or reaffirmed, not rewritten and reproposed. Therefore, the Standing Orders of the 8th Congress remained in effect until the 9th Congress reaffirmed the Standing Orders of the 9th Congress on the 12th of September. The Courts have affirmed this notion in response to the estoppel request.

As mentioned in our rejection of the motion to dismiss, we believe that the standing orders are quasi law, or at least a contract that bounds Representatives. This law, or at least binding contract, has remained extant throughout.

The Plaintiff continues to argue that the Standing Orders do not apply to the new Congress, suggesting that the Speakership election process outlined in the Standing Orders is redundant. The Standing Orders are what defines the process which every President to date performing the Speakership election has followed. The Plaintiff, in making this claim, suggests that the President is able to dictate whatever rules they deem fit for the election of the Speaker and that Congress is anarchical until the Standing orders are reconfirmed.

The Speaker Election was Lawful
Section 1 - Election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the 8th Standing Orders (and reaffirmed in the 9th), it states under subsection 4 that “Should more than two members be nominated, all members are to vote for the Speaker. The ballot is to be conducted through instant runoff voting. The winner of the ballot is to be declared the Speaker of the Congress.” The text is plain and simple, all members of the House of Representatives are to vote. The only evidence presented to this court has been a simple majority with 1950Minecrafter winning, however, only six of the eleven representatives voting. This means that the election was not over, meaning that 1950Minecrafter was not the speaker of the house. Until all eleven members voted, no one was the rightful speaker of the house. Once all members voted, then the president declared the rightful speaker of the house, 218218Consumer.

Estoppel
In order for the plaintiff to argue that the Deputy Speakership is illegitimate, the plaintiff recognizes that the Speaker is legitimate in conducting the Deputy Speakership election. The Court has failed to recognize that the plaintiff is basing their arguments both on the Standing Orders of the 8th Congress and the 9th Congress, which has direct implications on each other. If the court finds that the speakership election was illegitimate, so too would be the standing orders that the Speaker facilitated through the House, as well as the Deputy Speakership election.

The plaintiff has continued to contradict his argument. He claims that the President should have declared 1950Minecrafter as the Speaker of the House even though all representatives had not voted, and claims that xLayzer should not have been voted in as Deputy Speaker of the House because not all votes were counted. The plaintiff continues to claim two different things, and doesn’t know which they are actually fighting for. What the plaintiff really wants is political gain. For this case, the plaintiff isn’t actually fighting for the law to be clarified, the plaintiff just wants to use this case for political gain. They haven’t strung together a clear argument towards one interpretation or the other. This case was to be used purely as a way to undermine the democratic House election; an election in which Consumer won Speaker of the House. The plaintiff could not take that fact, and came to the court with an unclear and inconsistent argument in an attempt to clear his political adversaries.

Burden of Proof
The plaintiff has the burden of proof. The plaintiff must prove beyond reasonable doubt that former President, Austin, and former Speaker of the House, Consumer, committed acts of election fraud and corruption.

No evidence has been brought forward showing Austin meddling with individual votes. President Austin conducted a fair election in accordance with the standing orders, as all of his predecessors before him have done. Following the rules set by Congress isn’t electoral fraud or corruption, rules that this court agreed were in effect. The President misspoke in his second election message, although the election was carried out how it is legally defined in the Standing Orders. While it was a mistake on the President’s part, nothing was illegal about the way in which the election was conducted.

No evidence has been produced as to where President Austin received the information about who the voter in question voted for. Either way, this is outside the statute of limitations and is not evidence of corruption or electoral fraud, merely evidence that the President knew who someone voted for and shared that information with a colleague.

Because of the contradicting statements provided, the plaintiff cannot argue that Consumer committed Election Fraud. The plaintiff moves the goalpost around to try and fit Austin and Consumer into the same Election Fraud claim. If the plaintiff argues that Austin committed election fraud, then they can’t argue that Consumer committed election fraud, and vice versa. Because the plaintiff has argued both, they are attempting to portray two opposite actions as the same, something that this court cannot allow. Furthermore, the plaintiff has failed to show how Consumer has privately, as the definition of corruption requires.

Proportionality
The President misspoke in a voting announcement, which was directly after he outlined the correct process? Does this amount to corruption or electoral fraud? Hardly. We are all human and we will all misspeak. The votation was corrected and carried out as it was legally outlined in the Standing Orders.

Is the Speaker calling the election at a simple majority considered electoral fraud and corruption? Hardly. The newly appointed Representative was not as well acquainted with the Standing Orders. Did his actions have an impact on the outcome of the Deputy Speakership? Highly unlikely. Is this something that the house could have sought to correct or censure? Most certainly.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I motion for the Supreme Court to deliver a verdict on this case with the current incumbent Supreme Court justices. From the Constitution:

"If ‌a‌ ‌majority‌ ‌is‌ ‌not‌ ‌attainable‌ ‌the‌ ‌Chief‌ ‌Justice’s‌ ‌ruling‌ ‌shall‌ ‌prevail."

Additionally, nothing in the Constitution states that the Supreme Court must have a majority to make a decision. One member of the Court constitutes a unanimous and majority vote.

I am willing to be patient, however, if we wait on the party of interest in this case to appoint a Justice, it could take a while and/or create a biased outcome. The case also needs to urgently happen to convict the appropriate parties of corruption, if applicable, before the election such that they are not allowed to run for office this cycle.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Case No. 09-2021-15-02

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, 1950minecrafter, represented by Pugbandit and the Lovely Law Firm, allege that Austin27 and 218218Consumer engaged in corruption and electoral fraud as the presiding officers for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker elections as they disregarded procedure for political gain.
2. The Plaintiff claims that Austin27 had deliberately meddled with the Speaker election by not announcing 1950minecrafter's win after he had met a mere majority, instead waiting for all Representatives to vote before announcing.
3. The Plaintiff claims that 218218Consumer had deliberately meddled with the Deputy Speaker election by not allowing all Representatives to vote before announcing.
4. The Plaintiff asserts that prior to the Speaker election, the Standing Orders were not in effect as they had not yet been installed by the new House. They additionally assert that upon the passage of the new Standing Orders, they were not followed during the Deputy Speaker electoin.
5. The Plaintiff suggests that the President and Disputed Speaker have a history of political corruption and fraud, presenting a claim that the President (at the time of this instance) had leaked information about a voter to another individual.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Commonwealth of Redmont, allege that the respective elections were handled with the proper procedure and that there is no evidence of political corruption.
2. The Defendant claims that Austin27 had misspoke in regards to when a winner is to be declared, and that they had enforced the Standing Orders properly, mandating that all members are to vote for the Speaker.
3. The Defendant claims that 218218Consumer acted within his authority as Speaker to conduct the Deputy Speaker elections differently, as they believe the Standing Orders are enforced by the Presiding Officer.
4. The Defendant asserts that there is no evidence to indicate that Austin27 used government information to inform an individual about a voter, and that it could have been simply based on what Austin27 had heard. Furthermore, they assert that Austin27 is protected under the Statute of Limitations due to the message being sent in June.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the court that the Standing Orders applies to both the session it was re-passed in and the session following it. In §5.1 of the Legislative Standards Act it clearly states that it is the duty of the House to either "reconfirm" or "amend" the Standing Orders, not to re-propose, defining the Standing Orders of something that remains in effect until amended or otherwise.
2. It is additionally the opinion of the court that these Standing Orders are binding law within the Commonwealth of Redmont. We find the logic argued by the Defendant that effectively allows the Presiding Officer to interpret the Standing Orders to be fundamentally flawed within the principle of the rule and law. Just like every law that Congress proposes, the Standing Orders includes a key clause at the beginning that certifies its enactment into law.
3. Due to the existence of the Standing Orders that are applied as law, the court finds that the election of 218218Consumer as Speaker of the House was lawful due to the "all members are to vote for the Speaker" clause within the Standing Orders. It was clearly intended to ensure that all Representatives were granted an input into the election of the Speaker due to timezones and other matters. As for the remarks of Austin27 in the Speaker election, we believe that this was an honest mistake and have not been provided any evidence to indicate otherwise.
4. As a result of the Standing Orders are applied as law, the court finds that the election of xLayzur as Deputy Speaker of the House was conducted in a way that was unlawful as the result was announced prior to letting all members of the House vote. The Standing Orders is very clear in the total votes clause and has applied the same rules for Speaker and Deputy Speaker. It is incredibly inconsistent for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to be elected in different ways when the Standing Orders mandate the same rules for each.
5. The court believes that 218218Consumer had directly meddled in the election of the Deputy Speaker. We believe that 218218Consumer should have been well aware as to how to properly conduct the election, given he was elected as Speaker using the all members must vote rule. He did not apply the same rule that allowed for him to get elected, resulting in this inconsistency.
6. While expressing discontent with some of the questionable actions that have occured, the court's opinion is that the evidence presented throughout this case over the actions of 218218Consumer and Austin27 during the respective elections do not prove political corruption beyond a reasonable doubt. Not enough evidence has been presented by the Plaintiff to show any distinct benefit that either individual had received from their actions.
7. The court believes that the evidence presented of the conversation between Austin27 and ElainaThomas29 is not evidence of political corruption by the former President. There is no evidence to indicate that Austin27 used his position as President to discover this information, nor has any personal benefit from it been shown. The law on corruption clearly prohibits an individual from using their government position to benefit their own private or corporate interests.

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

Congress is a fundamental aspect of the democratic institution of the Commonwealth of Redmont. While I am saddened to see the issues that have occurred within the 9th House of Representatives, I believe that this lawsuit has allowed us to clarify and certify current and potential future disputes within Congress.

The direction of the law has lead us to to clarify the role of the Standing Orders in the Congress, and how crucial it is to how the House of Representatives operates. While both parties today argued against the authority of the Standing Orders in one way or another, we affirmed the binding element of the Standing Orders as law. The Standing Orders is key in the proper procedure in conducting the Speaker and Deputy Speaker elections, and it is something that I hope every spectator to this trial takes into account. For every single session, the beginning of the Standing Orders have clearly stated "do hereby enact the following provisions into law" just as every other bill has.

When it comes to the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, I truly do believe that the Standing Orders were designed in a way that circumvents contentious situations like this. Since any Representative can change their vote through discord reactions, it is crucial that the entire House has came to the consensus that the vote has concluded. It prevents the he-said-she-said situations over timelines and who voted for who when. The legal fact is that 218218Consumer was lawfully elected as the Speaker of the House after all Representatives had carefully considered their choices and all voted.

What I find irresponsible was the actions of 218218Consumer after the Speaker election, in which he deviated from the Standing Orders in concluding the Deputy Speaker election prior to the vote of all members. To say that he is inexperienced or it was a mere error is a stretch - the way that voting was conducted should have been clearly evident to 218218Consumer. In fact, it was the very provision he violated in the Deputy elections that got him elected as Speaker. The actions there are nothing short of hypocritical in approach.

This case also dealt with an onslaught of other allegations. This included political corruption, accusing 218218Consumer and Austin27 of abusing their authority for their own personal gains. That was clearly a key goal of this lawsuit, to potentially remove these individuals from office, however we have not found enough evidence to take such severe action.

The removal of someone from government office is an exceptionally high standard, given these individuals were elected by the people. While the Honourable Justice SumoMC and I agree that the sharing of a voter's choice is morally repugnant, we do not believe that enough evidence can link this information to being accessed through his role as President nor what kind of benefit that Austin27 would receive from revealing the choice of a voter who was severely inactive.

As for 218218Consumer's actions, while I support punishing him for the meddling of the Deputy elections, I support this decision because he failed to abide by the Standing Orders and thus the law, not because I believe that evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt any further malicious intent. No evidence presented in this case has presented more than speculation in regards to the accusations of corruption.

- Westray, Chief Justice

Remarks from the Hon. SumoMC:

This was a long and drawn out case. We observed new Presidential and Speakership elections, yet the issue was still there, did the President and Speaker of the House break the law? As seen in the Court's opinion, we believe that the then Speaker of the House Consumer did indeed meddle in the Deputy Speaker Elections, and is indeed guilty of Electoral Fraud. He went against the same rules that gave him the speakership, the standing orders clearly state that all representatives must vote if there are 2 or more candidates. If we overlooked this and ruled that the same rules did not apply to the Deputy Speaker Elections then we would not only be breaking the law, but we would be hypocrites.

This case also brought up corruption when it came to the then President Austin27 talking about the way an individual voted, in my opinion this was not the right thing to do. The security of everyone's vote and privacy in that vote must and will be protected, but there was no evidence proving that the President abused his power in order to obtain this information, a point I brought up to the Chief Justice when we were deliberating this case. Morally, President Austin was in the wrong but with the evidence provided, there was not enough to prove he abused his power as the President of the Commonwealth. I stand by and fully agree with the verdict given in this case and hope that this will serve as a deterrent to any future potential acts of corruption or election meddling.

- SumoMC, Justice

IV. DECISION

The Supreme Court hereby adjourns this case in favour of the Plaintiff, granting a limited prayer for relief. We find 218218Consumer guilty of one count of Electoral Fraud, ordering that he is fined $5000 for meddling in the election of the Deputy Speaker during his time as Speaker of the House.

Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.