Lawsuit: Dismissed Snowy_Heart v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Snowy_Heart
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On January 23rd 2024 Krix filed the lawsuits, Lawsuit: Pending - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 9 | DemocracyCraft and (2) Lawsuit: Pending - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 8 | DemocracyCraft. On january 16th milk crack filed lawsuit Lawsuit: Pending - Milkcrack v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 5 | DemocracyCraft.

All of these lawsuits have a common theme that runs through them. The plaintiff's stance has clear cut benefits and advantages for the executive and the defense is counseled by the DLA. The DLA is an integral branch of the executive and according to the constitution serves at the pleasure of the president.

Essentially the executive gains more from losing its defense then it does in protecting the commonwealth. It would not be beyond a shadow of a doubt that the executive does not perform its constitutional duties to the commonwealth while defending against its own alignment and leadership. The intricate connection between the plaintiffs' stance, the DLA, and the Executive creates a clear conflict of interest in the DLA’s ability to defend this case.
As such it would be in the best interest of the commonwealth and justice, that a special prosecutor be implemented in these cases to avoid further conflicts of interest while upholding the plaintiff's rights to a trial.

I. PARTIES
1. Snowy_heart (plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. 2024 SCR 5, 2024 SCR 8, 2024 SCR 9, all have distinct clear advantages for the executive if the court favors the plaintiff's position.
2. The DLA is a part of the executive branch and serves at the pleasure of the president.
3. The DLA is charged with defending the commonwealth against the plaintiff in SCR 5, SCR 8, and SCR 9.
4.Facts 2 and 3 conflict with each other providing a conflict of interest within the DLA.
5. An independent special prosecutor will alleviate that conflict of interest.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. In order to prevent this conflict of interest from giving rise to damages to the Commonwealth of Redmont and injustice to the judiciary an independent special prosecutor should be implemented in place of the DLA.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS be issued to DLA to step down from representing the defendant of the cases mentioned above
2. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS be issued to the senate to install an independent special prosecutor to these three cases.

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 23rd day of January 2024

Snowy_Heart said:

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
We request the courts grant a temporary freeze on the following court cases:
Lawsuit: Pending - Milkcrack v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 5
Lawsuit: Pending - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 9

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Krix Plaintiff V. The Commonwealth of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On December 11, 2023, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President 'xLayzur' for allegedly...

www.democracycraft.net

It has come to my attention in each of these cases that the DLA, and the attorney general have a clear conflict of interest. The DLA is tasked with defending the commonwealth however there is a clear benefit to the DLA and the executive if the commonwealth were to lose these cases.

These cases are essentially the executive vs the commonwealth in which the executive is acting as the plaintiff and acting as its defense. If the executive were to lose this case it would be in benefit of the executive and not the commonwealth whereas if the executive were to have won, this case it would be in favor of the commonwealth and not the executive. It is not beyond a shadow of a doubt that the executive would want the courts to side in favor of this case which would mean that the executive would have to lose this case and gives the executive and the DLA a conflict of interest. We would like to make an argument on why a special prosecutor should be implemented in such important and pivotal cases.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has denied this injunction at this time. It is imperative that when an individual asserts a legal position within a case that the opinion presented is ultimately backed by existing law. In the injunction presented before the Supreme Court there was a major lacking in terms of a legal backing, and it simply is not the job of the Supreme Court to back up arguments presented before our court.

I ask that the Plaintiff refile their emergency injunction, this time with a heavy emphasis on establishing legal grounds for their argument, and at that time the Supreme Court will review the request again.

I will move forward with the summons for the State in this case, however the Plaintiff is, again, free to refile the injunction meeting the aforementioned criteria.

drew_hall said:

The Supreme Court has denied this injunction at this time. It is imperative that when an individual asserts a legal position within a case that the opinion presented is ultimately backed by existing law. In the injunction presented before the Supreme Court there was a major lacking in terms of a legal backing, and it simply is not the job of the Supreme Court to back up arguments presented before our court.

I ask that the Plaintiff refile their emergency injunction, this time with a heavy emphasis on establishing legal grounds for their argument, and at that time the Supreme Court will review the request again.

I will move forward with the summons for the State in this case, however the Plaintiff is, again, free to refile the injunction meeting the aforementioned criteria.

Click to expand...

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor,
The Court order guide reads "The goal of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm." In this case the harm being the executive's conflict of interest in the above-mentioned cases and the continual threat of the executive manipulating the defense or prosecution of those cases in their favor. Precedent of the dangers and the courts response to those dangers can be seen in SCR 23 (2022) in which Honorable justice Nacholebraas was recused due to his perceived bias to the executive in being the DOS secretary. Although The DLA is not a judge, they do have a similar perceived bias in this case which could be perceived as a conflict of interest. in that same recusal Honorable Judge Krix himself stated "The outcome of the suit could alter the limitations of the Department if it was deemed to be an executive office," the same could be said about the suits above. winning of the suits could alter limitations of the dla and the president who is in charge of it. there for it would be in the DLA's best interest to lose the cases even though they are tasked with defending them.

furthermore Justice Krix states "Although Justice Nacholebraa may not act upon these interests it is in the interest of upholding the integrity of the court that questions of impartiality be resolved through recusal" Although the DLA may not act upon the interest above Its clear that the conflict of interest exists and it existing threatens the integrity of the court and those cases.

If the court would like, after this motion to reconsider I can file the injunction again supplying more precedent and law.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

Snowy_Heart said:

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your Honor,
The Court order guide reads "The goal of an emergency injunction is to prevent harm." In this case the harm being the executive's conflict of interest in the above-mentioned cases and the continual threat of the executive manipulating the defense or prosecution of those cases in their favor. Precedent of the dangers and the courts response to those dangers can be seen in SCR 23 (2022) in which Honorable justice Nacholebraas was recused due to his perceived bias to the executive in being the DOS secretary. Although The DLA is not a judge, they do have a similar perceived bias in this case which could be perceived as a conflict of interest. in that same recusal Honorable Judge Krix himself stated "The outcome of the suit could alter the limitations of the Department if it was deemed to be an executive office," the same could be said about the suits above. winning of the suits could alter limitations of the dla and the president who is in charge of it. there for it would be in the DLA's best interest to lose the cases even though they are tasked with defending them.

furthermore Justice Krix states "Although Justice Nacholebraa may not act upon these interests it is in the interest of upholding the integrity of the court that questions of impartiality be resolved through recusal" Although the DLA may not act upon the interest above Its clear that the conflict of interest exists and it existing threatens the integrity of the court and those cases.

If the court would like, after this motion to reconsider I can file the injunction again supplying more precedent and law.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided to deny this motion.

As a reminder, the Commonwealth has approximately 25 hours left to respond with their answer to the complaint filed.

drew_hall said:

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided to deny this motion.

As a reminder, the Commonwealth has approximately 25 hours left to respond with their answer to the complaint filed.

Click to expand...

Your Honor,
It has been around 48 hours past the deadline for the attourney general or dla representation to show up and they havent.

Your Honor,
I would like to request a modification to my prayers of relief.
Thank you.

Your honors,
It has almost been 23 days since the previous AG was summoned and with no reply and the court have sat their and done nothing to remedy it. It is a clear infraction of my right to a speedy trial.

While the Supreme Court apologies for the delay in the adjucation of this case, it has come to a decision regarding default judgment. In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has come to the decision that there was no viable claim for relief which to grant the Prayer for Relief. The Court does not have the power to give someone special prosecution powers in place of the DLA. Therefore the Court must deny this request.