12700k
Citizen
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary
Grave Digger
Change Maker
12700k
Inspector
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2021
- Messages
- 220
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
12700k
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. 12700k
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
II. FACTS
1. On October 22, 2025, the Real Town Rights Amendment Act was introduced in the House of Representatives and subsequently passed to the Senate for consideration. (see P-001)
2. The Real Town Rights Amendment Act is a constitutional amendment that seeks to add Part VIII to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
3. Pursuant to Section 33 of the Constitution, constitutional amendments require a supermajority vote in both chambers of Congress. Section 41 of the Constitution defines "supermajority" as "a vote of greater than or equal to 2/3."
4. On October 28, 2025, the Senate voted to remove one of its members, reducing the Senate from 6 to 5 sitting senators. (see P-002)
5. On October 29, 2025, voting commenced in the Senate on the Real Town Rights Amendment Act. The voting period was set for 48 hours, with voting scheduled to conclude on October 31, 2025.
6. By October 31, 2025, all five sitting senators had cast their votes: 3 Ayes (Senators Bezzergeezer, Sofia2750, and Anthony_Org) and 2 Nays (Senators gribble19 and Inknet). (see P-003)
7. Three votes out of five (3/5 or 60%) does not constitute a supermajority as defined by the Constitution, which requires greater than or equal to 2/3 (approximately 66.67%).
8. Section 9(5)(b) of the Legislative Standards Act provides that after the 48-hour voting period in the Senate, OR if votes have been submitted, OR a majority is reached: if a bill is rejected, "the Presiding Officer of the Senate will change the Bill status to Bill: Rejected and move it to the Rejected sub-forum with Senate recommendations in the comments."
9. The bill failed to achieve the required supermajority and should have been moved to the Rejected sub-forum.
10. Instead, on October 31, 2025, AFTER all senators had voted and the voting period concluded, Senator Bezzergeezer proposed a Motion to Amend the bill, seeking to change Section 66's title from "Saver for General Laws" to "General Applicability Laws." (see P-004)
11. Section 12(12)(a) of the Legislative Standards Act states: "A Motion to Amend seeks to amend a bill that is currently undergoing voting in a Congressional Chamber."
12. At the time the Motion to Amend was proposed, the bill was not "currently undergoing voting" - all votes had been cast and the voting period had concluded with the bill's failure to meet the constitutional supermajority requirement.
13. The amendment passed in the Senate with 4 Ayes (Senators Bezzergeezer, Sofia2750, Anthony_Org, and Inknet) and 1 Nay (Senator gribble19), with Senator Sofia2750 declaring it "PASSED" on November 1, 2025. (see P-004)
14. The amendment was then sent back to the House, where it passed with 8 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions (61.5%). (see P-005)
15. During House voting on the amendment, Speaker Multiman155 stated: "I think it improves clarity, and I think the Senate will be with a new Senator who will be likely to vote aye on the bill too. For this reason, I think it makes sense to pass this amendment, it isn't attached to a bill that is doomed to fail in Senate." (see P-006)
16. Representative Scassany responded: "I don't really care either way on it, this amendment solely exists to force a revote on the bill. I am abstaining because the motion is a political tool amendment to fix an important issue." (see P-007)
17. These statements demonstrate that the purpose of the amendment was to circumvent the constitutional requirement by forcing a revote after the bill had already failed.
18. On November 3, 2025, following a special election that filled the vacant Senate seat, the bill was put up for a revote in the Senate. (see P-008)
19. On November 3, 2025, the revote passed with 4 Ayes and 1 Nay, and the bill now awaits presidential assent.
20. Section 7(2) of the Legislative Standards Act provides the proper procedure for reconsidering failed bills: "A rejected bill or a bill of the same nature will not be proposed for a period of 14 days unless a motion of reconsideration has been approved by Congress."
21. No Motion of Reconsideration was proposed or approved by Congress prior to the revote.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Violation of Constitutional Amendment Procedures
Section 33 of the Constitution establishes the exclusive procedure for amending the Constitution, requiring a supermajority in both chambers of Congress. The Real Town Rights Amendment Act failed to achieve the required supermajority in its initial Senate vote on October 31, 2025, receiving only 3 out of 5 votes (60%), which is less than the required 2/3 (66.67%).
Once a constitutional amendment fails to achieve the required supermajority, it must follow the procedures for rejected bills as set forth in the Legislative Standards Act. The Defendant's actions in allowing a revote without following proper procedures for reconsidering rejected bills violate Section 33 of the Constitution.
2. Violation of the Legislative Standards Act
Section 9(5)(b) of the Legislative Standards Act mandates that rejected bills in the Senate be moved to the Rejected sub-forum. The Real Town Rights Amendment Act was a rejected bill after failing to achieve the required supermajority on October 31, 2025. The Defendant failed to move the bill to the Rejected sub-forum as required by law. Instead, the Defendant improperly entertained a Motion to Amend after voting had concluded and all votes had been cast.
3. Violation of Motion to Amend Procedures
Section 12(12)(a) of the Legislative Standards Act specifies that a Motion to Amend "seeks to amend a bill that is currently undergoing voting in a Congressional Chamber." The Motion to Amend proposed by Senator Bezzergeezer on October 31, 2025, was made after all senators had voted and the voting period had concluded. At that time, the bill was not "currently undergoing voting" and therefore was not subject to amendment under the Legislative Standards Act. Section 12(12)(c) of the Legislative Standards Act provides that amendments restart voting "if that bill was up to vote in that chamber at any point between the motion's proposal and the motion's passage." This provision presumes the bill remains active and has not already failed to pass, which is not the case here.
The improper Motion to Amend was used as a procedural mechanism to circumvent the bill's failure to meet constitutional requirements, as evidenced by the statements of Representatives Multiman155 and Scassany.
4. Violation of Rejected Bill Procedures
Section 7(2) of the Legislative Standards Act provides that rejected bills may not be re-proposed within 14 days unless a Motion of Reconsideration has been approved by Congress.
The Real Town Rights Amendment Act was a rejected bill after failing to achieve the required supermajority. No Motion of Reconsideration was proposed or approved by Congress prior to the November 3, 2025 revote. The revote conducted on November 3, 2025, violated the procedures established in the Legislative Standards Act for reconsidering rejected legislation.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Declare the Real Town Rights Amendment Act void, unconstitutional, and without legal effect due to its passage in violation of constitutional and statutory procedures;
2. Grant the Plaintiff $6,000 in legal fees.
EVIDENCE
Awaiting Assent Thread 'Real Town Rights Amendment Act'
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 7th day of November 2025