Lawsuit: In Session 1950minecrafter (The Lovely Law Firm and Pugbandit representing) v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 09-2021-15-02]

JoeGamer

Citizen
Attorney General
Justice Department
Donator
JoeGamer2120
JoeGamer2120
attorneygeneral
The State does not wish to cross-examine any of the witnesses
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Attorney General
Justice Department
Donator
JoeGamer2120
JoeGamer2120
attorneygeneral
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.
 
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
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

Senior Administrator
Senior Administrator
Former President
Chief Justice
Mayor
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Donator
Westray
Westray
State Department
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

Citizen
Attorney General
Justice Department
Donator
JoeGamer2120
JoeGamer2120
attorneygeneral
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.
 
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
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.
 
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
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

Citizen
Representative
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Public Affairs Department
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

Senior Administrator
Senior Administrator
Former President
Chief Justice
Mayor
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Donator
Westray
Westray
State Department
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?
 

JoeGamer

Citizen
Attorney General
Justice Department
Donator
JoeGamer2120
JoeGamer2120
attorneygeneral
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.
 

Westray

Senior Administrator
Senior Administrator
Former President
Chief Justice
Mayor
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Donator
Westray
Westray
State Department
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.
 
Top