Lawsuit: Adjourned Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION

Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On July 8th, 2022 the LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act was signed by President Digi and took effect. This act states that all acts that wish to amend the constitution must start with “A Bill to Amend the Constitution” which was later confirmed in the verdict of Dusty_3 v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 8 by which it claimed the Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act was unconstitutional. Multiple amendmets that went into effect after July 8th 2022 that are considered law do not state that they amend the Constitution. This includes:

Stay Act
Opportunity Act
Contempt of Court Amendment Part 1/2 Act
XL Peel Those Appeals
XL Think Before Speak Act.
A Somewhat Cool Asset Seizure Warrant Amendment Act

I. PARTIES
1. Ko531
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. All acts after July 8th, 2022 according to the LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act must state they are amending the constitution in order to amend the Constitution
2. The acts listed above attempt to amend the Constitution but fail to state they are amending the Constitution
3. Dusty_3 v. The Commonwealth confirmed in its verdict that amendments must say they are amending the Constitution

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act states:

"A constitutional amendment is defined as any amendment made to the constitution itself or an amendment to a bill that amends the constitution. Any constitutional amendment must start with “A Bill to Amend the Constitution”.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. All Bills listed above be declared unconstitutional.
2. All actions permitted because of these bills be declared unconstitutional including but not limited to:
a. Removing Comtempt of Court from Judicial Standards Act and adding it to the Miscellaneous Offense Act
b. Appeals allowed 2 weeks after a verdict
c. Any contempt of court charge in which the punishment consisted of:
First Offence: $500 Fine
Second Offence: $1000 Fine + 5 Minutes Jail
Third Offence: Maximum $2500, up to 10 Minutes Jail.
d. Any asset seizures for unsettled fines
e. Limits that Secretaries can not serve as Deputy Secretaries in other departments for more then 14 days

DATED: This 23nd day of Feburary, 2024

 

[Nacho]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33. 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.​

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, Its been 72 hours. Since the Defense has failed to show up I wish to speed this up and go to a default judgement

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
I Apologize for my absence.
The commonwealth would not like to go into summary judgment.
I ask for 24 hour extension to supply an answer to the compliant.
Thank you, Your Honor.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,
I Apologize for my absence.
The commonwealth would not like to go into summary judgment.
I ask for 24 hour extension to supply an answer to the compliant.
Thank you, Your Honor.

I will give you a 12-hour extension from this message since they appeared before I could indicate as such. I will note that further failure to appear on time will result in contempt.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS All acts after July 8th, 2022 according to the LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act must state they are amending the constitution in order to amend the Constitution
2. The defense AFFIRMS The acts listed above attempt to amend the Constitution but fail to state they are amending the Constitution
3.The Defense Can neither AFFIRM NOR DISPUTE Dusty_3 v. The Commonwealth confirmed in its verdict that amendments must say they are amending the Constitution, since the plaintiff did not specify which dusty_3 v. The Commonwealth case they were referencing.

II. DEFENCES
Although It is true that The LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act states:
"A constitutional amendment is defined as any amendment made to the constitution itself or an amendment to a bill that amends the constitution. Any constitutional amendment must start with “A Bill to Amend the Constitution”, The fact that the aforementioned laws don't have that specified is a simple clerical error that should not result in the laws being repealed. The court of law has a responsibility to minimize damages and provide stabilization to the laws that rule the commonwealth. If these laws were repealed the consequences of that would ripple through the commonwealth and cause even more instability and insecurity. I request that instead the court offers a modified prayer of relief in which they recognize that these laws are missing these 6 small words at the top of it, and an injunction on congress be placed to modify them by updating these laws to follow constitutional protocol and procedure.

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 15th day of march 2024

 

[Nacho]

The court thanks you for providing the answer to complaint.

We will now transition into a 7-day discovery period. Should either party wish to end discovery early, please note that both parties will need to consent.

 

[Nacho]

With the conclusion of the discovery period we will not be moving into opening statements.

The plaintiff can now provide their opening statement within the next 48 hours.

 

[ko531]

OPENING STATEMENT

Laws are written for a reason. They are written for a purpose. They are also written to be followed otherwise there would be no point in writting laws. Among these laws are ones that attempt to amend the Constitution as no law can have greater power then the Constitution.

One of these Amendments is the LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act. This Act states that any bill that wishes to amend the Constitution must state that it amends the Constitution. As this act holds such power to amend and be included in the Constitution it must be held to that same power.

The Supreme Court has affirmed in the past via Dusty v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 8 and that any bill that doesnt state it wishes to amend the constitution but tries to anyway "does not meet the established standards for amending the constitution" and therefore holds no power.

Yet half a dozen bills that have been passed, treated and exercised as holding Constitutional power when in fact they do not and in so any action granted and allowed by said bills are not Constitutional making these actions illegal.

So I ask the court to enforce the Constitution and past Supreme Court rulings by nullifying these bills and the actions permitted by them as they are unconstitutional.




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 27th day of March 2024

 

[Nacho]

The defense may now present their opening statement within the next 48 hours.

 

[ko531]

Your honor,

This is the second time the Commonwealth has missed a deadline and I wish to motion for Summary Judgement as the commonwealth as already affirmed my entire argument and are doing nothing but delaying my right to a speedy trial

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
I appologize for the missed deadline. School has just started back up for me and my daughter and I know that does not excuse me for missing this deadline but I do thoroughly appologize to the court and defendent.

 

[Nacho]

Your honor,

This is the second time the Commonwealth has missed a deadline and I wish to motion for Summary Judgement as the commonwealth as already affirmed my entire argument and are doing nothing but delaying my right to a speedy trial

The motion is denied.

The court does not see this as hindering your right to a speedy trial, as no evidence of purposeful delaying of the case was presented or is evident within the case.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,
I appologize for the missed deadline. School has just started back up for me and my daughter and I know that does not excuse me for missing this deadline but I do thoroughly appologize to the court and defendent.

While I understand out-of-game life can be hectic and chaotic at times. The Commonwealth is empowered with various resources and personnel to be able to respond with an extension request or provide the opening statement. It does not require the same individual to respond to the case each time.

The defense is found in contempt for failure to provide an opening statement on time.

The defense is given a 24-hour window to provide their opening statement as we conduct a final call for witness requests, as no party requested it previously.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Motion for Sua Sponte dissmisal
​

Your Honor, under rule 2.1 of the court rules and procedures standing is defined as the following:

1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

The defendent fails to fulfil the requists required by subsection 1 of the rule 2.1 and has provided no evidance nor claim that they themselves has received any personal injury from the enaction of the above laws.

According to rule

I request the court dismiss this case with prejudice as according to rule 2.2 "Failure to meet all parts of Rule 2.1 can be grounds for a Sua Sponte dismissal."

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
The defense would like to call the following as witnesses:
Xendeavour-Author Of the 'Opportunity Act

 

[Snowy_Heart]

OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Laws are the cornerstone of our legal system, However, they are not immune to human error, as is evident in the case before us. While it is undeniable that the bills in question were intended to amend the constitution, a regrettable clerical oversight resulted in the omission of a crucial passage expressly stating this intent.

It is imperative to recognize that the absence of such language was an inadvertent mistake, rather than a deliberate omission. The Commonwealth should not bear the burden of responsibility for a minor drafting error made by past lawmakers. Holding the Commonwealth liable for this oversight would unjustly penalize it for a mistake that was not made with malicious intent.

I ask the court to exercise discretion and to uphold the laws as written while requiring the legislative to correct this obvious and easily fixable error.

 

[ko531]

Motion for Sua Sponte dissmisal
​

Your Honor, under rule 2.1 of the court rules and procedures standing is defined as the following:

1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

The defendent fails to fulfil the requists required by subsection 1 of the rule 2.1 and has provided no evidance nor claim that they themselves has received any personal injury from the enaction of the above laws.

According to rule

I request the court dismiss this case with prejudice as according to rule 2.2 "Failure to meet all parts of Rule 2.1 can be grounds for a Sua Sponte dismissal."

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

Your honor,

Just because it is my name on this lawsuit doesnt mean that I am suing for a personal matter. I am suing as a member of the people. These bills were written, voted on and passed by representatives of the people so I believe a member of the people can sue on a matter that they were being represented on. If you also look at my prayers of relief none of them are personally tied to me. They are for the law to be corrected.

Rule 5.2 of the court rules and procedure states:

" Motion to Dismiss must be submitted at anytime prior to the beginning of opening statements."

I have already delivered my opening statement so to accept this motion to dismiss would be nothing short of the court ignoring their own rules and procedure

Plus your honor you have already determined that this case has enough validity and standing to be heard when you issued the summons. Why hear the case to just waste both parties time and energy when it is just going to be dismissed on an issue that should have been determined before the summons was ever issued.

 

[Nacho]

Motion for Sua Sponte dissmisal
​

Your Honor, under rule 2.1 of the court rules and procedures standing is defined as the following:

1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

The defendent fails to fulfil the requists required by subsection 1 of the rule 2.1 and has provided no evidance nor claim that they themselves has received any personal injury from the enaction of the above laws.

According to rule

I request the court dismiss this case with prejudice as according to rule 2.2 "Failure to meet all parts of Rule 2.1 can be grounds for a Sua Sponte dismissal."

The Motion is denied.

Members of the public can challenge the constitutionality of laws within the Federal Court. While they may not have specific damages related to the application of the law, they can challenge whether a law follows the parameters for being a law.

In practice, it is considered a Check the public has on the government to ensure only legally acceptable laws are passed.

 

[Nacho]

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

Your honor,

Just because it is my name on this lawsuit doesnt mean that I am suing for a personal matter. I am suing as a member of the people. These bills were written, voted on and passed by representatives of the people so I believe a member of the people can sue on a matter that they were being represented on. If you also look at my prayers of relief none of them are personally tied to me. They are for the law to be corrected.

Rule 5.2 of the court rules and procedure states:

" Motion to Dismiss must be submitted at anytime prior to the beginning of opening statements."

I have already delivered my opening statement so to accept this motion to dismiss would be nothing short of the court ignoring their own rules and procedure

Plus your honor you have already determined that this case has enough validity and standing to be heard when you issued the summons. Why hear the case to just waste both parties time and energy when it is just going to be dismissed on an issue that should have been determined before the summons was ever issued.

Standing is consistently reviewed throughout the case. Should it be discovered midway through, either side can still motion to dismiss it. While Court procedure dictates that motions to dismiss can only be filed before opening statements, in some cases, they can be public following opening statements.

Both parties have entered their opening statements to the court. We will transition to witness testimony beginning with the defense as they are the only party that requested a witness. I will issue a summons on Monday (4/1/24)

 

[Nacho]

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

@End is required to appear as a witness before the court in the case of the ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a charge of Contempt of Court.

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

 

[End]

 

[Nacho]

As the witness is now present. The defense may begin their questioning if the witness.

Please submit all your question for the witness within the next 48 hours. Should you have a question that is dependent upon the previous answer please indicate it to the court.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Questions for End

1. When writing the opertunity act did you intend for it to amend the constitution?

2. Was the lack of the phrase "“A Bill to Amend the Constitution” inside of the opertunity act an error or was it intentionally left out?

 

[End]

Thank you for your questions.

1. When writing the opertunity act did you intend for it to amend the constitution?

In short, yes this was intended to change the content of the constitution. As it stands, the Constitution is a living document which draws from several key acts of congress (ESA, LSA, JSA etc.). I'm not saying I like this system - I'm actively working to fix it - but its the reality of how our constitution is formed. Its ambiguous and its vague.

The opportunity act amends the Executive Standards Act, which the Constitution draws from. The ESA amends the constitution. So while the opportunity act does not directly amend the constitution, it does so by way of the constitution drawing from key acts of congress.

So the intent was there and the long title of the ESA provides for amendments to the constitution.

2. Was the lack of the phrase "“A Bill to Amend the Constitution” inside of the opertunity act an error or was it intentionally left out?

Well it was something i considered adding but I wasn't directly editing the constitution, I was editing an act which the constitution draws from. Remember that our constitution has historically been an all-encompassing government guide.

If I may add, these are important changes to law which are non-complex in nature. To throw out such a number of acts of congress due to them not explicitly stating that they amend the constitution in the long title would be counter productive and dangerous.

Please ping me if you would like me to reply otherwise I will not see the follow up questions.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Thank you End,
The defense has no further questions Your Honor.

 

[Nacho]

The Plaintiff may now cross-examine the witness.

Please submit all your questions for the witness within the next 48 hours. If your question(s) depends on the previous answer, please indicate this to the court, and additional time will be awarded.

 

[ko531]

Questions for @End

1. Is it true that the lawsuit being used as precedent in this case (Dusty v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 8), Declared the actions surrounding your appointment to DCT Secretary in Feburary of 2023 to be illegal?

2. Has the case, Dusty v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 8, ever been used in the slightest to harm your image


I am reserving the right to ask follow up questions.

 

[End]

Questions for @End

1. Is it true that the lawsuit being used as precedent in this case (Dusty v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 8), Declared the actions surrounding your appointment to DCT Secretary in Feburary of 2023 to be illegal?

2. Has the case, Dusty v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 8, ever been used in the slightest to harm your image


I am reserving the right to ask follow up questions.

1. I can’t recall

2. I can’t recall

 

[Nacho]

Does the plaintiff have further questions for the witness?

 

[ko531]

Your Honor,

I wish to submit rebuttal evidence to Endeavour's answers. I know it was not submitted during discovery but as you allowed the defense to give you their witness list after discovery ended, there was no way for me to know that I needed to submit evidence for this witness during discovery.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

I wish to submit rebuttal evidence to Endeavour's answers. I know it was not submitted during discovery but as you allowed the defense to give you their witness list after discovery ended, there was no way for me to know that I needed to submit evidence for this witness during discovery.

The time for submitting evidence has come and gone councillor.

Should you wished to have objected to the witnesses being submitted you should have done so previously before they were summoned. Furthermore, if you had evidence to be submitted for this witness specifically then you should have indicated to the court when allowed the chance ti question them.

The request is denied.

Since, you failed to answer my question regarding follow up questions. I will take it as a no, but give you the chance to correct this assumption and present your follow up questions within the next 24 hours.

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I have evidence to refute end's answer or at the very least refresh End's memory about this lawsuit. There was no way for me to put this evidence in discovery as no witness list was given by the defense in discovery. The defense gave their witness list after my own opening statement. I did not have any time during discover to submit and prepare evidence for this witness.

To ask me to put evidence in discovery for a witness that was never called for during discover is unreasonable. As you gave the defense extra time to give their witness list outside of discovery I am asking for extra time to provide evidence for said witness after discovery as I was never given any time to prepare for the witness during discovery

 

[Nacho]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I have evidence to refute end's answer or at the very least refresh End's memory about this lawsuit. There was no way for me to put this evidence in discovery as no witness list was given by the defense in discovery. The defense gave their witness list after my own opening statement. I did not have any time during discover to submit and prepare evidence for this witness.

To ask me to put evidence in discovery for a witness that was never called for during discover is unreasonable. As you gave the defense extra time to give their witness list outside of discovery I am asking for extra time to provide evidence for said witness after discovery as I was never given any time to prepare for the witness during discovery

The request is denied. As I said previously, you had the opportunity to object to the witness should you have this grievance of them being improperly requested. I gave you 5 days between their request and my issuing a summons, and during those 5 days, nothing was filed. As the witness went without objection the court proceeded as per normal proceedings.

You have a little under 12 hours to submit further questions to the witness.

 

[ko531]

Questions for @End

Here is a screenshot of part of the verdict to refresh your memory.

1. So if the precedent being used went against you, is it true that it could be seen as beneficial for you to give witness testimony that refutes said precedent

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor,
You have worked with snowy in the DLA extensively as both her boss and her employee. I held from asking for a recusal because I thought you would have more impartialness. It is clear that this is not the case. For no reason you allowed the defense to submit their witness list after discovery even after missing the deadline and being charged with contempt.

When I as the plantiff ask for some leniency to submit evidence for a witness I was never given property time to prepare for, you deny my request and then blame me for not objecting to your blantent disregard of court room procedure. It is unfair and cruel to throw blame at a side for your own wrong doing and have that impact your decisions.

Equal treatment between the plantiff and defense is clearly not happening and I wish for your Recusal.

 

[Nacho]

MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor,
You have worked with snowy in the DLA extensively as both her boss and her employee. I held from asking for a recusal because I thought you would have more impartialness. It is clear that this is not the case. For no reason you allowed the defense to submit their witness list after discovery even after missing the deadline and being charged with contempt.

When I as the plantiff ask for some leniency to submit evidence for a witness I was never given property time to prepare for, you deny my request and then blame me for not objecting to your blantent disregard of court room procedure. It is unfair and cruel to throw blame at a side for your own wrong doing and have that impact your decisions.

Equal treatment between the plantiff and defense is clearly not happening and I wish for your Recusal.

I will be rejecting the recusal for the below reasons.

- Having previously worked with someone is not a valid reason to recuse from a case. As I have nearly 4 years of history and experience within the community and, more so specifically, the legal field, It would not be practical to recuse from the case for simply previously working with individuals. My time within the DLA did not cover the subject matter of the case in question.

- No blame has been accused, and if it appears as if it was, then that was not the intention. The court has merely presented you with an alternative as it is deemed to be a valid witness until objected to. As it has been presented to the court, the witness is acceptable for you as no objection to the witness was filed to the court.

- The Plaintiff and Defense have been treated the same throughout the case. No evidence has been submitted to prove that either side has been mistreated. What has been outlined within the motion is not supported by any evidence presented to the court.

 

[Nacho]

Questions for @End

Here is a screenshot of part of the verdict to refresh your memory.

View attachment 42724
1. So if the precedent being used went against you, is it true that it could be seen as beneficial for you to give witness testimony that refutes said precedent

The witness (@End ) is instructed to answer the questions within the next 24 hours.

 

[End]

Questions for @End

Here is a screenshot of part of the verdict to refresh your memory.

View attachment 42724
1. So if the precedent being used went against you, is it true that it could be seen as beneficial for you to give witness testimony that refutes said precedent

Well no, because this is a completely different scenario.

Dusty v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 8:
This case defaulted because the commonwealth failed to appear. The crux of the case was that the deputy was asked if they would like the position and they said no. When the President appointed someone as lawfully allowed to, they were challenged. This was captured in the amicus briefs to the court.

ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33:
This case argues that acts that don't say amend the constitution that have amended the constitution are unconstitutional. A case on semantics at best which does more damage than good. Will a ruling that I don't agree with impact me or the things I've done? No, it'll be inconsequential to the decisions and time that I've spent in act9ng secretary role anyway. We're talking years ago now.

So while you are taking your time to discredit my standing, your time spent is redundant.

I will be away for work until Monday AEST and will have limited ability to reply to this case. I will respond when able to further questions, which will likely be early next week.

 

[ko531]

I will be rejecting the recusal for the below reasons.

- Having previously worked with someone is not a valid reason to recuse from a case. As I have nearly 4 years of history and experience within the community and, more so specifically, the legal field, It would not be practical to recuse from the case for simply previously working with individuals. My time within the DLA did not cover the subject matter of the case in question.

- No blame has been accused, and if it appears as if it was, then that was not the intention. The court has merely presented you with an alternative as it is deemed to be a valid witness until objected to. As it has been presented to the court, the witness is acceptable for you as no objection to the witness was filed to the court.

- The Plaintiff and Defense have been treated the same throughout the case. No evidence has been submitted to prove that either side has been mistreated. What has been outlined within the motion is not supported by any evidence presented to the court.

You Honor,

I wish for the other members of the Supreme court to decide on this recusal and not you. You are of course going to feel that your actions so far are valid and should not be recused.

According to Rule 4.9 in the Court Rules and Procedure it states: "In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery." This rule is here for a reason, it is to give sides time during discovery to prepare and submit evidence for cross examinination. Yet you allowed the defense to give their witness list after my own opening statement ignoring rule 4.9.

Instead of allowing me to submit evidence that I have zero time during discovery to prepare and submit, you deny my request telling me "The time for submitting evidence has come and gone councillor." and continue by saying "Should you wished to have objected to the witnesses being submitted you should have done so previously before they were summoned." You actually go on more to state "Furthermore, if you had evidence to be submitted for this witness specifically then you should have indicated to the court when allowed the chance ti question them." I reserved the right to ask follow question and then asked to submit the evidence. I still had and was being allowed the chance to question them.

But by you ingoring rule 4.9 of the Court Rules and Procedure, I was given zero time to prepare and submit evidence for the defense's witness and instead of allowing me to remedy your mistake in ingoring rule 4.9 by submit the evidence after discovery you tell me that it is my fault for not objecting to the witness before they were summoned. This is exactly why I feel that I am being treated unequally. By ignoring this rule you have helped the Defense in allowing their witness and screwed me as the plantiff by not allowing evidence for cross examination.

Also, you may have 4 years on this server but your relationship with snowy is extremely fresh. You worked in the DLA extensively with Snowy only days before you became a Justice. One of the reasons listed for Recusal is "Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer." You worked with Snowy months leading up to becoming a Justice. You worked together on cases, got to learn from each other. Learn how the other thinks and interprets law. It is fair to assume that after months of working together that snowy can formulate arguments tailored just for you better then most people. She knows quiet a bit about how you think in the legal capacity. As I can not recuse the defense, I wish to recuse the judge

 

[RelaxedGV]

You Honor,

I wish for the other members of the Supreme court to decide on this recusal and not you. You are of course going to feel that your actions so far are valid and should not be recused.

According to Rule 4.9 in the Court Rules and Procedure it states: "In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery." This rule is here for a reason, it is to give sides time during discovery to prepare and submit evidence for cross examinination. Yet you allowed the defense to give their witness list after my own opening statement ignoring rule 4.9.

Instead of allowing me to submit evidence that I have zero time during discovery to prepare and submit, you deny my request telling me "The time for submitting evidence has come and gone councillor." and continue by saying "Should you wished to have objected to the witnesses being submitted you should have done so previously before they were summoned." You actually go on more to state "Furthermore, if you had evidence to be submitted for this witness specifically then you should have indicated to the court when allowed the chance ti question them." I reserved the right to ask follow question and then asked to submit the evidence. I still had and was being allowed the chance to question them.

But by you ingoring rule 4.9 of the Court Rules and Procedure, I was given zero time to prepare and submit evidence for the defense's witness and instead of allowing me to remedy your mistake in ingoring rule 4.9 by submit the evidence after discovery you tell me that it is my fault for not objecting to the witness before they were summoned. This is exactly why I feel that I am being treated unequally. By ignoring this rule you have helped the Defense in allowing their witness and screwed me as the plantiff by not allowing evidence for cross examination.

Also, you may have 4 years on this server but your relationship with snowy is extremely fresh. You worked in the DLA extensively with Snowy only days before you became a Justice. One of the reasons listed for Recusal is "Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer." You worked with Snowy months leading up to becoming a Justice. You worked together on cases, got to learn from each other. Learn how the other thinks and interprets law. It is fair to assume that after months of working together that snowy can formulate arguments tailored just for you better then most people. She knows quiet a bit about how you think in the legal capacity. As I can not recuse the defense, I wish to recuse the judge

Due to this being the second Motion of Recusal, I am coming in to rule on the Motion to Recuse.

As I believe most people know, I am blunt when ruling and this time will be no different. I will be rejecting the Motion to Recuse.

I want to be clear on this however, I am not saying the previous actions were good, bad, etc. I am simply ruling on if a bias is shown. The bias in question, I see none. The idea of recusing a Presiding Officer due to relations that occurred before they became a Judicial Officer unless blatant. Talking with someone as long as it is not regarding a case is not auto recusal and would due more harm than anything.

If I talk to another individual and they later sue, that is not grounds for recusal. As long as I don't discuss a case, help in the case, or other, I am not able to be recused. This Motion to Recuse as well, feels as though you are testifying and not wishing to recuse Chief Justice Nacholebraa.

Going further, this feels as though you are upset regarding Chief Justice Nacholebraa's rulings within the case. Thus throughout all of this and with Nacholebraa's reasonings for denying the first Motion, this Motion to Recuse is rejected.

 

[Nacho]

Does the plaintiff have further questions for the witness? Please provide the follow-up questions within 24 hours.

 

[ko531]

Questions for @End

1. You are someone who takes a lot of pride in the bill they write. You are often seen in press releases bragging about the number of bills you have written. As you wrote one of the bills in question. Why should the court not believe that you are not giving this testimony today out of self interest?

2. You mention that a ruling you dont agree with wont impact you. But lets talk about a rulling that you do agree with. The only reason in Dusty v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR8 declared the actions surrounding your apointment to DCT sec illegal was that the bill which would allow your appointment was found to be unconstitutional because it didnt mention it amends the constitution just like the bills being brought to the court in this case. What would be stopping you or most likely the Commonwealth from using this case with a favorable ruling as evidence that Dusty v. The Commonwealth should be appealed and overturned.?

3. It seems here you already know how you want this case to go and its affecting your witness testimony. For the defense you give nice long and thought out answers. When I as the plaintiff asked you two yes or no questions you respond unhelpfully with "I dont recall" too both. After I ask you a follow up question which attacks your witness testimony you suddenly either remembered the case in question or decided to do some late research and gave a very aggressive answer. Why shouldnt the court see your unwillingness to work with both sides of this lawsuit as a tainted witness testimony because of you playing favorites?

 

[ko531]

I noticed a typo in one of my questions and wish to amend my first question to Why should the court believe that you are not giving this testimony today out of self interest?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

You are someone who takes a lot of pride in the bill they write. You are often seen in press releases bragging about the number of bills you have written. As you wrote one of the bills in question. Why should the court not believe that you are not giving this testimony today out of self interest?

Objection your honor. Counsel is testifying.

Objection your honor. Argumentative.

Objection your honor. Vague question.

Objection your honor. Calls for narrative.

Objection, your honor. Incompetent witness (calls for an opinion about how the Courts should see or interpret something).

Objection your honor. Calls for conclusion / opinion.

You mention that a ruling you dont agree with wont impact you. But let’s talk about a rulling that you do agree with. The only reason in Dusty v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR8 declared the actions surrounding your apointment to DCT sec illegal was that the bill which would allow your appointment was found to be unconstitutional because it didnt mention it amends the constitution just like the bills being brought to the court in this case. What would be stopping you or most likely the Commonwealth from using this case with a favorable ruling as evidence that Dusty v. The Commonwealth should be appealed and overturned.?

Objection your honor. Counsel is testifyingz

Objection, your honor. Lack of foundation.

Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Objection, your honor. Relevance.

Objection, your honor. Compound question.

Objection, your honor. Vague / ambiguous.

Objection, your honor. Question calls for conclusion / opinion.

It seems here you already know how you want this case to go and its affecting your witness testimony

Objection, your honor. Argumentative.

Objection, your honor. Counsel is testifying.

Objection, your honor. Speculation.

Objection your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

For the defense you give nice long and thought out answers. When I as the plaintiff asked you two yes or no questions you respond unhelpfully with "I dont recall" too both. After I ask you a follow up question which attacks your witness testimony you suddenly either remembered the case in question or decided to do some late research and gave a very aggressive answer. Why shouldnt the court see your unwillingness to work with both sides of this lawsuit as a tainted witness testimony because of you playing favorites

Objection your honor. Absurdly argumentative.

Objection your honor. Relevance.

Objection your honor. Counsel is testifying.

Objection your honor. Question calls for conclusion.

Objection your honor. Witness incompetent (unable to answer as to what the Court should or shouldn’t see).

Objection your honor. Relevance.



Due to the absurdity of these questions and obvious attempt to simply argue with the witness without invoking factual testimony, I motion to conclude cross examination.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Questions for @End

Here is a screenshot of part of the verdict to refresh your memory.

View attachment 42724
1. So if the precedent being used went against you, is it true that it could be seen as beneficial for you to give witness testimony that refutes said precedent

Objection, your honor. Question calls for conclusion / opinion.

Objection your honor. Question calls for speculation.

I motion to strike any testimony given as a result of this question.

 

[ko531]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION to STRIKE​

AlexanderLove is not employeed by the DLA as a Prosecutor and therefore does not have the power to represent the commonwealth. As he is not apart of this case in the slightest. I motion to strike everything that AlexanderLove has just said.

DATED: This 13th day of april 2024

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honour,
I make this submission to confirm the employment of Mr.AlexanderLove as an Associate Prosecutor within the DLA. I have attached proof of employment taken from his office within the DLA Discord.

Apologies for the intrusion, and thank you for your time.

Spoiler: Proof of Employment

 

[ko531]

Response to Objections

​

Objections for Testifying: I am giving context to let the court and the witness know why I am asking the questions. These questions on their own would not make much sense without said context and would be objected to for Vagueness.

Objections for Witness incompetents: I am basically asking why his own testimony so far should be taken at face value. I said the "court" to indicate everyone in the case including Myself, The Defense and the Judge. To say that the witness is incompetent about their own testimony would be insane. And if that is a fact I wish to strike the entirety of End's Testimony for him being incompetent

Objections for assuming facts not in evidence: The Case "Dusty v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 8 is in evidence, the link to this lawsuit was submitted in my original filling of this case. The other objection for the statement about End's witness testimony. End's testimony is very much in evidence.

Objections for Relevance: All these questions are relevant as it questions the very testimony that End gave. By asking these questions it will let the court understand how much weight (if any at all) that End's Testimony should hold in this court case.

Objections for calls for conclusion: As already stated, these questions are asking for the witnesses to explain on the validity of their own Testimony. I would say that even if this was considered an opinion End is more then qualified to give an opinion on their own testimony. There is no one more knowledgable about End's Testimony then End himself. You could say End is an expert on his own testimony and as experts are allowed to give opinions in court on their expertise these question would be allowed.

Objection for Speculation: Speculation would be asking a witness about something they didnt observe or be apart of. If End was not apart of his own testimony would be insane again and I would motion to strike this time for End not being the one providing his own Testimony.

Objection for compound question: The question at concern is not a compound question as it is asking for only one thing and can not be split up. When asking "should be appealed and overturned" is the exact same thing as the only reason to appeal a case is to have it overturn. They are just 2 steps in the same process.

Objections for Argumentative: I am not making an argument for the same reason I am not testifying. I am just giving context to these question so everyone understand why they are being asked. The questions by themselves make little to no sense.

Objections for Vague: I gave a lot of context to each question so I find it very hard to understand how someone would not understand what the question is about. I provided the context for the very reason to avoid Vagueness

Objection for Lack of Foundation: I very much laid the foundation that the case being used as Precedent had a negative impact towards end and therefore it would be beneficial for that case to be overturned. I could have provided even more foundation if the evidence I wanted to submit was allowed.

Objection, your honor. Question calls for conclusion / opinion.

Objection your honor. Question calls for speculation.

I motion to strike any testimony given as a result of this question.

These questions were already asked and answered and the case has moved foward. I ask that these objections are not even heard for the same reason I was not allowed to submit evidence for End. The time to do so has passed and it is too late.

 

[ko531]

(Almost forgot)

Objection for Calls for Narrative: All I am doing is asking why is the witness's testimony creditable. It a simple question and if the witness should need to provide a Narrative means that there are multiple reason one would consider their testimony not creditable which would raise red flags and should be allowed to be answered.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION to STRIKE​

AlexanderLove is not employeed by the DLA as a Prosecutor and therefore does not have the power to represent the commonwealth. As he is not apart of this case in the slightest. I motion to strike everything that AlexanderLove has just said.

DATED: This 13th day of april 2024

The Motion to Strike is denied as the DLA has provided proof of employment. I just ask that the associate prosecutor in the future lead with the information you are here on behalf of the state to save the court the time and the filing of these motions.

 

[Nacho]

I wasn't sure how to format this response as I can't provide a quote for some reason. So I am numbering them within the order they were presented to the court. The objections that are listed below that are indicated as sustained will remain. The ones not mentioned will be considered by the court to be overruled.

Context 1 - Filed by the defense.
The objection to argumentative and testifying is sustained. - Should the individual object to vagueness then you can provide the clarification within your response to an objection. The plaintiff will need to stick to asking questions rather than providing testimony within the question.

Context 2 - Filed by the defense.
The objection to Counsel testifying and Relevance is sustained. While providing context is fine in a general sense, this appears to be more about arguing with the witness rather than providing context. it. After reading the counsel's explanation multiple times, I do not understand where the question is going. Please reword the question to properly be within the scope and purpose for which the witness is here.

Context 3 - Filed by the defense.
The objection to Counsel testifying and Argumentative is sustained. Counsel is again instructed to ask questions and not make off-the-shelf remarks when conducting the witness examination.

Context 4 - Filed by the defense.
The objection to Calls for Conclusion, Argumentative, and Relevance is sustained. Counsel is again instructed to ask questions and not make off-the-shelf remarks when conducting the witness examination.

The Motion to conclude the cross-examination is denied. While the number of objections filed is vast, the plaintiff is awarded the right to rephrase his questions to the witness to comply with the above-substantiated objections.

 

[Nacho]

Objection, your honor. Question calls for conclusion / opinion.

Objection your honor. Question calls for speculation.

I motion to strike any testimony given as a result of this question.

The objection is overruled. While the court understands that you may not have originally been assigned to the case, the time has come and gone. We moved on from the set of questions being objected to.

 

[Nacho]

The plaintiff shall provide their final round of questions for the witness, including their reworded questions, as indicated in the above responses to the objections, within the next 24 hours.

 

[ko531]

Questions for @End

1. As you did write one of the bills in question, Why should one take your testimony at face value when you could be trying to protect your bill?

2. As already shown the case being used as precedent negatively impacted you, Why should one believe you are not giving testimony for the purpose of refuting that precedent as a favorable ruling could lead to that case being appealed?

3. You went from one question not recalling the case in question to the next giving a summary on the same case. Why shouldnt one take your inability to answer questions during cross examination (that it seems you have the knowledge to answer) as a tainted witness testimony?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Questions for @End

1. As you did write one of the bills in question, Why should one take your testimony at face value when you could be trying to protect your bill?

2. As already shown the case being used as precedent negatively impacted you, Why should one believe you are not giving testimony for the purpose of refuting that precedent as a favorable ruling could lead to that case being appealed?

3. You went from one question not recalling the case in question to the next giving a summary on the same case. Why shouldnt one take your inability to answer questions during cross examination (that it seems you have the knowledge to answer) as a tainted witness testimony?

Objection argumentative

 

[Nacho]

Objection argumentative

Could you specify which question you are objecting to? Once defined, the plaintiff has 24 hours to provide a response.

 

[ko531]

Response to Objection
​

Nothing there in any question is making an arguement. Those are valid questions about the validity of End's Testimony while giving a sentence of context so the questions arent considered vague. Every statement before each question is stating a fact that has already been addressed in this lawsuit at one point or another.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Could you specify which question you are objecting to? Once defined, the plaintiff has 24 hours to provide a response.

All of them, your honor

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Response to Objection
​

Nothing there in any question is making an arguement. Those are valid questions about the validity of End's Testimony while giving a sentence of context so the questions arent considered vague. Every statement before each question is stating a fact that has already been addressed in this lawsuit at one point or another.

Rebuttal, your honor?

 

[End]

1. As you did write one of the bills in question, Why should one take your testimony at face value when you could be trying to protect your bill?

I have no emotional attachment to any bills that I've written. I've written what I'd estimate to be around 200 laws in the course of my time in the legislature, I was a primary author of the constitution, and I have served as both President and Chief Justice. I'm not here today just because I wrote one of the laws that you are contesting and want to provide an opinion, I am here at the request of the commonwealth to provide expert advice on the potential negative impacts of your challenge and the legality of the legislation that I happened to draft.

I am at no loss on whether this case goes in the commonwealth's favour or yours. It changes nothing for me, I'm not concerned about 1/200 bills being struck down by a court - and it won't be the first time nor the last.

2. As already shown the case being used as precedent negatively impacted you, Why should one believe you are not giving testimony for the purpose of refuting that precedent as a favorable ruling could lead to that case being appealed?

As I've described previously, this is a completely different scenario in a completely different context. The merits of this case should be judged independently of any other case and compared for sentencing/costs where common law applies. In this case, there is little to no common features in this case and the case you continue to mention. You have my answer on the matter, I ask that you stop asking this question in a slightly different way each time as my answer will not change regardless of how you ask it.

3. You went from one question not recalling the case in question to the next giving a summary on the same case. Why shouldnt one take your inability to answer questions during cross examination (that it seems you have the knowledge to answer) as a tainted witness testimony?

You were asking leading questions. I could not recall any of the information which you were ambiguously prompting. Ask me a pointed question and I will give you a pointed answer.

Would you like my expert opinion or would you like to continue attacking my well-established credibility to be speaking on the matters asked of me?

 

[Nacho]

Objection argumentative

As the plaintiff did, in fact, reword the question(s), and it does appear in this instance to simply provide context, I will overrule the objection.

 

[Nacho]

Rebuttal, your honor?

Customarily we don't normally allow rebuttals to respond to objections. In the future I will consider the option for rebuttals of responses.

 

[ko531]

No further questions your Honor

 

[Alexander P. Love]

As the plaintiff did, in fact, reword the question(s), and it does appear in this instance to simply provide context, I will overrule the objection.

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor it wasn’t just the remarks. The questions themselves are argumentative as they are outside the scope of witness examination. An example would be “why are you a liar?” In this extreme example, you can see the question doesn’t actually shed light on material facts at hand to the case, it serves only to harass the witness. Ko’s questions do the exact same thing. They seek to smear the testimony of the witness in a manner not within the scope of a cross examination. A lawyer intending to discredit a witness should ask FACTUAL questions that lead to their discrediting, NOT targeted opinion questions that are worded similar to political push polls. The questions asked by the plaintiff are predatory in nature and do not help advance this case. I therefore also move to strike the questions as well as testimony as a result of these questions.

 

[Nacho]

I will allow the plaintiff to respond to this motion if the plaintiff doesn't respond within 24 hours. I will consider the matter settled and decide on the motion.

As the Plaintiff has indicated, they don't have any more questions at this time; we will move into closing statements by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their closing statement before the court. Please be prompt in delivery.

 

[ko531]

The defense states these statements dont shed light on facts in the case. They infact do shed light on facts in this case including the validity of ends testimony. These question ask The motive behind Ends testimony since he wrote one of the bills being contested and because the precedent in this case affected him negatived with the third question asking about End's contradicting testimony in which he went from not recalling the case to summarizing the case.

It is extremely important to understand the validity of a witness's testimony especially when it appears they may possibly benefit from giving a certain testimony. Each statement is based on facts in this case.
1. FACT: End wrote a bill being contested in this case.
2. FACT: The precedent being used affect end.
3. FACT: End original said he didnt recall the case and in the next question went on to summarizing the same case.

 

[Nacho]

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor it wasn’t just the remarks. The questions themselves are argumentative as they are outside the scope of witness examination. An example would be “why are you a liar?” In this extreme example, you can see the question doesn’t actually shed light on material facts at hand to the case, it serves only to harass the witness. Ko’s questions do the exact same thing. They seek to smear the testimony of the witness in a manner not within the scope of a cross examination. A lawyer intending to discredit a witness should ask FACTUAL questions that lead to their discrediting, NOT targeted opinion questions that are worded similar to political push polls. The questions asked by the plaintiff are predatory in nature and do not help advance this case. I therefore also move to strike the questions as well as testimony as a result of these questions.

I will be denying the motion to reconsider, by extension, the request to strike the testimony as well. While I do see your perspective on the question, I also see that it is still based on the facts and not fully opinionated.

 

[Nacho]

The defense states these statements dont shed light on facts in the case. They infact do shed light on facts in this case including the validity of ends testimony. These question ask The motive behind Ends testimony since he wrote one of the bills being contested and because the precedent in this case affected him negatived with the third question asking about End's contradicting testimony in which he went from not recalling the case to summarizing the case.

It is extremely important to understand the validity of a witness's testimony especially when it appears they may possibly benefit from giving a certain testimony. Each statement is based on facts in this case.
1. FACT: End wrote a bill being contested in this case.
2. FACT: The precedent being used affect end.
3. FACT: End original said he didnt recall the case and in the next question went on to summarizing the same case.

Can you clarify if this was a response or a closing statement it did not have the header, and didn't want to mismark it as such?

 

[ko531]

Can you clarify if this was a response or a closing statement it did not have the header, and didn't want to mismark it as such?

It was a responses as you allotted me 24 hours to respond to the objection and so I did

 

[Nacho]

The motion to reconsider is denied as I further reaffirm my original decision.

The plaintiff has failed to submit to the court their closing statement within the time frame given with no request for additional time. The plaintiff is found in contempt.

We will now transition into closing statements by the defense. They have 72 hours to provide their closing statement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The motion to reconsider is denied as I further reaffirm my original decision.

The plaintiff has failed to submit to the court their closing statement within the time frame given with no request for additional time. The plaintiff is found in contempt.

We will now transition into closing statements by the defense. They have 72 hours to provide their closing statement.

Due to Nacholebraa's resignation from the Courts, I will be presiding over the remainder of this case.

Due to the Defense missing their Closing Statement they are found in contempt, given I am unsure who was at fault I will not be issuing a contempt of court charge.

We will however be in recess pending verdict.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 33

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. All listed bills are unconstitutional due to not stating they are to amend the Constitution.
2. The bills listed are unconstitutional due to the Court Precedent and Law regarding Amending the Constitution.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Courts have a duty to ensure stability thus this case should not have been heard.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This case is hinging on the fact of whether the Acts in question stated they were to amend the Constitution and if stating you are amending a Constitutional Amendment if it still requires you to state that you are amending the Constitution. Simply, the LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act states that any bill amending the Constitution or an amendment to the Constitution needs to state they are amending the Constitution.

2. This case is a simple case and is just open and closed.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of Plaintiff however, I will not be granting the Prayer for Reliefs due to what is being requested.

I will however, request that Congress posts a new bill fixing these issues. Until those are signed into law however, the old laws are still in effect.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.