Testing Tech new features.

No

Click to expand...

CoolCat said:

test

Click to expand...

Mask3D_WOLF said:

Verdict

Click to expand...

Imza said:

Motion

MOTION TO IMPEACH

I, Representative RealImza, move to impeach Secretary xEndeavour of the Department of Construction and Transportation.

I present the following Articles of Impeachment against xEndeavour for serious constitutional offences:

**ARTICLE I: USURPATION OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER**
> Secretary xEndeavour violated Section 2(4) of the Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive "Power of the Purse," including control over taxation. He did so by unilaterally creating a so-called "fairness fee" that functions as a progressive tax, with rates ranging from 0% to 75% based on property ownership, without any statutory authorisation from Congress. This fee was implemented despite Congress's clear legislative framework and in deliberate circumvention of the Plot Regulations Act, by counting property plots that had been explicitly exempted from the Auction Levy under that law. Furthermore, Secretary xEndeavour openly admitted that the fee was designed not to cover administrative costs, thus usurping Congress’s constitutional authority over taxation policy.

**ARTICLE II: VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION**
> Secretary xEndeavour violated Section 32(13) of the Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the "equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination."
> He established a discriminatory fee structure that imposes vastly different charges on citizens for the same government service, based solely on their property holdings. This fee structure applies arbitrary financial penalties to property owners that bear no rational relationship to the administrative costs or labour required to process auction participation and has no statutory authorization. As a result, citizens with greater property assets are disproportionately burdened and effectively denied equal access to public auctions on the basis of their economic status, undermining the principle of equal treatment under the law.

**ARTICLE III: ABUSE OF OFFICE**
> Secretary xEndeavour abused his office and violated his constitutional obligations by unilaterally implementing major policy changes — specifically, amending the Auction Policy — without consulting the President or Cabinet. This conduct violates Section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution, which requires secretaries to "create and amend departmental policy in accordance with the President’s direction." By acting independently and without executive coordination, Secretary xEndeavour undermined the authority of the President and disrupted the principle of unified executive governance. In addition, he has exhibited a pattern of deceptive conduct, as evidenced by allegations in pending lawsuits such as Yeetglazer v. Commonwealth, which accuse him of misrepresentation and administrative overreach. His actions also violated Section 29(1)(d), which requires secretaries to impartially administer their department according to law.

**ARTICLE IV: BREACH OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION**
> Secretary xEndeavour violated his constitutional duties under Section 29(1)(d) by disclosing CABINET-classified discussions with the President, without authorisation, contrary to the Classification Act. By releasing this information publicly, he failed to "administer his department in accordance with the law." Additionally, his actions conflicted with Section 28(1), which states that "Cabinet derives its authority through delegated Presidential executive authority." In unilaterally disclosing internal Cabinet communications, Secretary xEndeavour acted outside the bounds of that delegated authority and disrupted the intended structure of executive governance.

Secretary xEndeavour, by repeated disregard for legal and executive boundaries, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the constitutional order and rule of law if allowed to remain in office.

Click to expand...

enigma.root said:

Owner Veto

Just because

Click to expand...

enigma.root said:

Owner Veto

Just because

Click to expand...

enigma.root said:

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CRIMINAL ACTION


Concerned Citizen
Prosecution

v.

Frostify11
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: Impersonating Staff


I. PARTIES
1. Concerned Citizen
2. Frostify11

II. FACTS
1. Frostify11 issued two owner vetoes while they weren't End or Tech.
III. CHARGES
The Prosecution hereby alleges the following charges against the Defendant:<br>1. Impersonating Staff

IV. SENTENCING
The Prosecution hereby recommends the following sentence for the Defendant:
1. Death

V. Witnesses
Rubilubi, End, RealImza, Mask3dWolf

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 13th day of August 2025

Click to expand...

enigma.root said:

Verdict

I rule in favor of the defendant and make the plaintiff give all of their assets to the defendant.

Click to expand...

enigma.root said:

Motion

Motion to Recuse

The presiding judge is the defendant.

Click to expand...