Lawsuit: Pending Ameslap v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 26

ameslap

ameslap

Citizen
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Construction & Transport Department
5th Anniversary 6th Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls
ameslap
ameslap
Inspector
Joined
Jan 7, 2025
Messages
443

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Ameslap
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The President and Vice President have broken their constitutional powers by signing a treaty without the approval of the Senate.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Ameslap - Plaintiff on behalf of the Citizens of Redmont.
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont - Defendant
3. Technofied - President of Redmont, Chief Executive of Redmont
4. Scassany - Vice President, Treaty Signer.

II. FACTS
1. On April 3, 2026, at 7:21 PM MST, Vice President Scassany announced the signing of a treaty between the Commonwealth of Redmont and the Kingdom of Alexandria.
2. The Constitution gives the President or their delegate the power to sign international treaties "with the simple majority approval of the Senate."
3. The Constitution gives the Senate the sole responsibility of "approving or rejecting, by simple majority, the signing, revocation, or withdrawal from any treaty involving the Commonwealth of Redmont."
4. As of the time of the signing, there was no resolution, motion, or vote to approve the treaty.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. This is a foundational check and balance on power. The Executive Branch has breached its constitutional powers by unilaterally signing and bringing the country into a new agreement.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Reaffirm the constitutional separation of powers when it comes to Redmont's treaties.
2. The SC-DC Treaty is deemed illegal and not valid.


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 8th day of April 2026.

 

Writ of Summons


@Superwoops, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Ameslap v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 26

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
ko531 said:
you have 48 hours to provide your answer to complaint
Click to expand...

Motion



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

In a simple overview of the complaint, it can be said that the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this matter.



I. Rule 2.1 and How It's Applied​

I.I What Rule 2.1 Says​

Rule 2.1 of Court Rules and Procedures states that:
In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:
  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.
Click to expand...

Based on the above Court Rule, the Plaintiff’s complaint fails on 3 parts.

I.II. Failures 1 & 2​

The Plaintiff has not demonstrated an injury suffered by them or the Commonwealth.
Secondly, the Plaintiff is neither affected (as they haven't demonstrated so) by the SC-DC Treaty, nor is it applied to the Plaintiff or the people of the Commonwealth, nor is it law (see Appendix-Def.A)
Solely based on these conditions alone, the plaintiff is subject to a sua-sponte dismissal or a dismissal by itself. The Commonwealth does not see how the Plaintiff can be injured, or affected (negatively) by something that is not law by itself.

I.III. Failure 3​

The Plaintiff has also not demonstrated a remedy that “is applicable under relevant law” as:
  1. To provide a remedy to something, a harm or an injury must have occurred. The Plaintiff has not proved that such a harm or injury has occurred. I ask the Court how something can be made whole if it was never broken in the first place.
  2. The Plaintiff has neither provided a legal basis for a remedy nor cited any precedent. To cite the Constitution outlining the powers delegated to each branch regarding the signing of a treaty is not enough to show that a remedy is applicable under the Constitution or any other relevant law (P.S. the Plaintiff has not cited any further “relevant law”).
  3. The Commonwealth does not believe any remedy applicable is favourable, or can be granted by a favourable decision.



II. Precedent Regarding Rule 2.1​


The Commonwealth would like to draw the Court’s attention to [2025] FCR 117
The case that was being appealed was mainly about Executive Order 37/25, which created the Bar Association of Redmont. It was dismissed for a lack of standing as the Plaintiff did not demonstrate an injury suffered.
The appeal itself set forth a precedent that is very similar to the facts of this case. The SCR stated that:

Public interest does not exist so as to totally ignore the issue of standing. Nor too does a law or government action being potentially illegitimate as to its formation immediately and unquestionably give all citizens in the Commonwealth unrestricted standing to sue the government. This is absurd.
A law or Government action being potentially illegitimate in some respect—be it procedural or constitutional in nature—provides a cause for an action, but it does not immediately provide standing.
Click to expand...

After analyzing the Court's verdict, we seem to understand that solely a Government action potentially being illegitimate (in this case, unconstitutional) may provide a cause for an action, but it does NOT immediately provide standing. While what the Plaintiff states may be the case prima facie, they simply do not have enough standing to pursue the matter.

We also seem to understand that only after the application of a law, or an injury that is caused, can an entity seem to claim relief. Again, that is not the case here. The SC-DC treaty has not proved to cause an injury to the Plaintiff or the People of the Commonwealth. Whether the act of signing the treaty, allegedly without the approval of the Senate, may give rise to a cause for action, but as the SCR put it, it may “not immediately provide standing.”

The SCR also stated that:
Typically, laws or Government actions impose duties, liabilities, or obligations, grant privileges or rights, or otherwise confer some harm or benefit onto one or more parties. This is an injury, or an affect via application of law. In the case of such a harm or benefit conferral being done by a defective law, the defectiveness of the law gives cause to sue (or perhaps more accurately, enables the court to pursue a remedy under element three of the standing test), while the harm or benefit conferral (or lack thereof) to a party creates an injury (element one of the standing test).
It is important that these two concepts are not confused, and great care must be taken to evaluate the differences, as it is easy to misunderstand. Typically, an illegitimate law or Government action being litigated also conferred a benefit or harm to a party, and thus also gave the court an injury to work with. The mere fact that a law or action on its face may be illegitimate is not immediately sufficient to fill both the first and third elements, though in practice often is. …
Click to expand...

This section of the SCR’s verdict explains how a cause for action substantially differs from fulfilling the requirement of standing. There are also examples/hypotheticals that the Court can find in the above-attached link to the verdict.



III. Why the SC-DC Treaty Does not Cause Harm/Injury​

This section seeks to provide support for the reasons behind Failures 1, 2, and 3.

III.I. What the SC-DC Treaty is About​

To briefly look at the treaty, it states a few definitions, and then subsequently has 2 parts. One regarding the Formation of Treaties and one regarding Embassies.
To look at the treaty more closely, we understand that the treaty hasn’t even come into effect yet. Let's examine what the treaty itself states.

This content has been extracted from MTD-001
ARTICLE 2
Enactment of this present treaty and any other treaty which may follow, shall enter into force, upon the ratification by the legislature of the member state, in accordance with the domestic laws of that state, and shall have the force of law upon the confirmation of mutual recognition.

ARTICLE 3
Signatures by the heads of government or the plenipotentiary of each state shall have the force of regulatory statute, and shall be regarded as a good faith commitment to abide by the terms of said treaty with immediate effect.
Click to expand...
1776136765137.png

The Senate has yet to ratify the treaty. Furthermore, according to Section 5(b) of the International Community Framework Act, the Senate must approve the treaty with a “Resolution of Ratification”, and after such a resolution has been adopted, only then can the document be ratified, and only then is the treaty akin to a statute.

Furthermore, the continuation of the process is irrelevant if the treaty has not been signed by the President or their delegate, and such is the truth regarding this treaty.
To summarize, Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty require ratification from the legislature (i.e., the Senate) and the signature from the President or their delegate. Both lack in this case; therefore, this treaty hasn’t been executed.

III.II Injury Cannot Occur with these Facts​

A potential injury and an injury are two completely different. Even if the Plaintiff can prove a possible injury that they or the people of the Commonwealth may face, the fact that the treaty, by law and its own articles, hasn’t been executed, ratified, and considered similar in its force as statute or law, means that there cannot be an injury that is faced by any party.
Therefore, it would be impossible to prove that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury, or may suffer an injury (and such a possibility of injury is not enough to prove standing as the injury must actually occur).


IV. Appendix​

For something to be considered “law,” it must be akin to its force as statute as empowered by the Constitution, or must be statute itself as empowered by the Constitution, or it must be the Constitution itself.
For any of these to happen, the Constitution mandates that Congress (both chambers) pass it by the requirements it specifies, and that the President assents to it.
We look at this treaty and understand that it hasn’t been ratified by Congress. Thus, it is constitutionally lacking the force of the law.
In the context that the treaty isn’t law (yet), the matter of “an application of law” (emphasis on law) wholly fails as the treaty itself isn’t law yet.

Supporting Statute/Constitutional Clauses:
Part II of the International Community Framework Act

Section 24 of the Constitution, Powers of the President(3)

Part I of the Constitution, Sections 1-4


V. Conclusion​

To conclude, the CW asks the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice under Court Rule 5.12 due to lack of standing as demonstrated above.



SC-DC Treaty
Also see attached 'SC-DC Treaty.pdf'



Subsequently, the Commonwealth asks that deadlines for answer to complaint be tolled due to the Motion to Dismiss being dispositive.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
TheSnowGuardian said:

Motion



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

In a simple overview of the complaint, it can be said that the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this matter.



I. Rule 2.1 and How It's Applied​

I.I What Rule 2.1 Says​

Rule 2.1 of Court Rules and Procedures states that:


Based on the above Court Rule, the Plaintiff’s complaint fails on 3 parts.

I.II. Failures 1 & 2​

The Plaintiff has not demonstrated an injury suffered by them or the Commonwealth.
Secondly, the Plaintiff is neither affected (as they haven't demonstrated so) by the SC-DC Treaty, nor is it applied to the Plaintiff or the people of the Commonwealth, nor is it law (see Appendix-Def.A)
Solely based on these conditions alone, the plaintiff is subject to a sua-sponte dismissal or a dismissal by itself. The Commonwealth does not see how the Plaintiff can be injured, or affected (negatively) by something that is not law by itself.

I.III. Failure 3​

The Plaintiff has also not demonstrated a remedy that “is applicable under relevant law” as:
  1. To provide a remedy to something, a harm or an injury must have occurred. The Plaintiff has not proved that such a harm or injury has occurred. I ask the Court how something can be made whole if it was never broken in the first place.
  2. The Plaintiff has neither provided a legal basis for a remedy nor cited any precedent. To cite the Constitution outlining the powers delegated to each branch regarding the signing of a treaty is not enough to show that a remedy is applicable under the Constitution or any other relevant law (P.S. the Plaintiff has not cited any further “relevant law”).
  3. The Commonwealth does not believe any remedy applicable is favourable, or can be granted by a favourable decision.



II. Precedent Regarding Rule 2.1​


The Commonwealth would like to draw the Court’s attention to [2025] FCR 117
The case that was being appealed was mainly about Executive Order 37/25, which created the Bar Association of Redmont. It was dismissed for a lack of standing as the Plaintiff did not demonstrate an injury suffered.
The appeal itself set forth a precedent that is very similar to the facts of this case. The SCR stated that:


After analyzing the Court's verdict, we seem to understand that solely a Government action potentially being illegitimate (in this case, unconstitutional) may provide a cause for an action, but it does NOT immediately provide standing. While what the Plaintiff states may be the case prima facie, they simply do not have enough standing to pursue the matter.

We also seem to understand that only after the application of a law, or an injury that is caused, can an entity seem to claim relief. Again, that is not the case here. The SC-DC treaty has not proved to cause an injury to the Plaintiff or the People of the Commonwealth. Whether the act of signing the treaty, allegedly without the approval of the Senate, may give rise to a cause for action, but as the SCR put it, it may “not immediately provide standing.”

The SCR also stated that:

This section of the SCR’s verdict explains how a cause for action substantially differs from fulfilling the requirement of standing. There are also examples/hypotheticals that the Court can find in the above-attached link to the verdict.



III. Why the SC-DC Treaty Does not Cause Harm/Injury​

This section seeks to provide support for the reasons behind Failures 1, 2, and 3.

III.I. What the SC-DC Treaty is About​

To briefly look at the treaty, it states a few definitions, and then subsequently has 2 parts. One regarding the Formation of Treaties and one regarding Embassies.
To look at the treaty more closely, we understand that the treaty hasn’t even come into effect yet. Let's examine what the treaty itself states.

This content has been extracted from MTD-001

View attachment 79528

The Senate has yet to ratify the treaty. Furthermore, according to Section 5(b) of the International Community Framework Act, the Senate must approve the treaty with a “Resolution of Ratification”, and after such a resolution has been adopted, only then can the document be ratified, and only then is the treaty akin to a statute.

Furthermore, the continuation of the process is irrelevant if the treaty has not been signed by the President or their delegate, and such is the truth regarding this treaty.
To summarize, Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty require ratification from the legislature (i.e., the Senate) and the signature from the President or their delegate. Both lack in this case; therefore, this treaty hasn’t been executed.

III.II Injury Cannot Occur with these Facts​

A potential injury and an injury are two completely different. Even if the Plaintiff can prove a possible injury that they or the people of the Commonwealth may face, the fact that the treaty, by law and its own articles, hasn’t been executed, ratified, and considered similar in its force as statute or law, means that there cannot be an injury that is faced by any party.
Therefore, it would be impossible to prove that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury, or may suffer an injury (and such a possibility of injury is not enough to prove standing as the injury must actually occur).


IV. Appendix​

For something to be considered “law,” it must be akin to its force as statute as empowered by the Constitution, or must be statute itself as empowered by the Constitution, or it must be the Constitution itself.
For any of these to happen, the Constitution mandates that Congress (both chambers) pass it by the requirements it specifies, and that the President assents to it.
We look at this treaty and understand that it hasn’t been ratified by Congress. Thus, it is constitutionally lacking the force of the law.
In the context that the treaty isn’t law (yet), the matter of “an application of law” (emphasis on law) wholly fails as the treaty itself isn’t law yet.

Supporting Statute/Constitutional Clauses:
Part II of the International Community Framework Act

Section 24 of the Constitution, Powers of the President(3)

Part I of the Constitution, Sections 1-4


V. Conclusion​

To conclude, the CW asks the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice under Court Rule 5.12 due to lack of standing as demonstrated above.



SC-DC Treaty
Also see attached 'SC-DC Treaty.pdf'



Subsequently, the Commonwealth asks that deadlines for answer to complaint be tolled due to the Motion to Dismiss being dispositive.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I would like to respond, but need some time to do so. May I have 24 hours?
 
@ko531
Your Honour, I apologise for the ping, but we still haven't arrived at a conclusion whether the deadline for Answer to Complaint has been tolled or not due to the Motion to Dismiss. The CW seeks your earliest reply.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
@ko531
Your Honour, I apologise for the ping, but we still haven't arrived at a conclusion whether the deadline for Answer to Complaint has been tolled or not due to the Motion to Dismiss. The CW seeks your earliest reply.
Click to expand...
The deadline is still in place; I will address the motion to dismiss when I have come to my decision but to keep the trial moving the deadline is still in place
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Ameslap
(Plaintiff)
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
(Defendant)

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

The Commonwealth:
1. Neither Affirms nor Denies, NOTING that the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support the claim that the Vice President did sign or announce such a signing,
2. Affirms,
3. Neither Affirms nor Denies,
4. Denies “as of the time of the signing”, NOTING that the Plaintiff has not provided proof of a signature by the President or their delegate on the document or any supporting evidence, Neither Affirms nor Denies “there was no resolution, motion, or vote to approve the treaty”.


II. DEFENCES​

A. The Treaty Wasn’t Actually Signed
The Treaty was not actually signed by the President or their Delegate, as can be seen in D-001. There was an event that was held by both government leaderships of the two states, but it was an event whose primary intention was a sign of promise to get the treaties ratified by the respective legislatures of each government, and then sign them. This will later be proved additionally by witness testimony.

B. This Treaty isn’t Law Yet, thus It Cannot Be Deemed “Not Valid” or “Illegal”
According to Section 5(b) of the International Community Framework Act, a treaty is considered akin to a statute after the signing of the President or their delegate on the treaty and a “Resolution of Ratification” that the Senate adopts. Only after these steps can the treaty’s original document be treated as an instrument of ratification. Neither of those has happened; as such, this entire lawsuit is prejudicial and pre-emptive.


III. EVIDENCE​

See Attached 'SC-DC Treaty.pdf'

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 April 2026

 

Attachments

TheSnowGuardian said:

Motion



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

In a simple overview of the complaint, it can be said that the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this matter.



I. Rule 2.1 and How It's Applied​

I.I What Rule 2.1 Says​

Rule 2.1 of Court Rules and Procedures states that:


Based on the above Court Rule, the Plaintiff’s complaint fails on 3 parts.

I.II. Failures 1 & 2​

The Plaintiff has not demonstrated an injury suffered by them or the Commonwealth.
Secondly, the Plaintiff is neither affected (as they haven't demonstrated so) by the SC-DC Treaty, nor is it applied to the Plaintiff or the people of the Commonwealth, nor is it law (see Appendix-Def.A)
Solely based on these conditions alone, the plaintiff is subject to a sua-sponte dismissal or a dismissal by itself. The Commonwealth does not see how the Plaintiff can be injured, or affected (negatively) by something that is not law by itself.

I.III. Failure 3​

The Plaintiff has also not demonstrated a remedy that “is applicable under relevant law” as:
  1. To provide a remedy to something, a harm or an injury must have occurred. The Plaintiff has not proved that such a harm or injury has occurred. I ask the Court how something can be made whole if it was never broken in the first place.
  2. The Plaintiff has neither provided a legal basis for a remedy nor cited any precedent. To cite the Constitution outlining the powers delegated to each branch regarding the signing of a treaty is not enough to show that a remedy is applicable under the Constitution or any other relevant law (P.S. the Plaintiff has not cited any further “relevant law”).
  3. The Commonwealth does not believe any remedy applicable is favourable, or can be granted by a favourable decision.



II. Precedent Regarding Rule 2.1​


The Commonwealth would like to draw the Court’s attention to [2025] FCR 117
The case that was being appealed was mainly about Executive Order 37/25, which created the Bar Association of Redmont. It was dismissed for a lack of standing as the Plaintiff did not demonstrate an injury suffered.
The appeal itself set forth a precedent that is very similar to the facts of this case. The SCR stated that:


After analyzing the Court's verdict, we seem to understand that solely a Government action potentially being illegitimate (in this case, unconstitutional) may provide a cause for an action, but it does NOT immediately provide standing. While what the Plaintiff states may be the case prima facie, they simply do not have enough standing to pursue the matter.

We also seem to understand that only after the application of a law, or an injury that is caused, can an entity seem to claim relief. Again, that is not the case here. The SC-DC treaty has not proved to cause an injury to the Plaintiff or the People of the Commonwealth. Whether the act of signing the treaty, allegedly without the approval of the Senate, may give rise to a cause for action, but as the SCR put it, it may “not immediately provide standing.”

The SCR also stated that:

This section of the SCR’s verdict explains how a cause for action substantially differs from fulfilling the requirement of standing. There are also examples/hypotheticals that the Court can find in the above-attached link to the verdict.



III. Why the SC-DC Treaty Does not Cause Harm/Injury​

This section seeks to provide support for the reasons behind Failures 1, 2, and 3.

III.I. What the SC-DC Treaty is About​

To briefly look at the treaty, it states a few definitions, and then subsequently has 2 parts. One regarding the Formation of Treaties and one regarding Embassies.
To look at the treaty more closely, we understand that the treaty hasn’t even come into effect yet. Let's examine what the treaty itself states.

This content has been extracted from MTD-001

View attachment 79528

The Senate has yet to ratify the treaty. Furthermore, according to Section 5(b) of the International Community Framework Act, the Senate must approve the treaty with a “Resolution of Ratification”, and after such a resolution has been adopted, only then can the document be ratified, and only then is the treaty akin to a statute.

Furthermore, the continuation of the process is irrelevant if the treaty has not been signed by the President or their delegate, and such is the truth regarding this treaty.
To summarize, Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty require ratification from the legislature (i.e., the Senate) and the signature from the President or their delegate. Both lack in this case; therefore, this treaty hasn’t been executed.

III.II Injury Cannot Occur with these Facts​

A potential injury and an injury are two completely different. Even if the Plaintiff can prove a possible injury that they or the people of the Commonwealth may face, the fact that the treaty, by law and its own articles, hasn’t been executed, ratified, and considered similar in its force as statute or law, means that there cannot be an injury that is faced by any party.
Therefore, it would be impossible to prove that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury, or may suffer an injury (and such a possibility of injury is not enough to prove standing as the injury must actually occur).


IV. Appendix​

For something to be considered “law,” it must be akin to its force as statute as empowered by the Constitution, or must be statute itself as empowered by the Constitution, or it must be the Constitution itself.
For any of these to happen, the Constitution mandates that Congress (both chambers) pass it by the requirements it specifies, and that the President assents to it.
We look at this treaty and understand that it hasn’t been ratified by Congress. Thus, it is constitutionally lacking the force of the law.
In the context that the treaty isn’t law (yet), the matter of “an application of law” (emphasis on law) wholly fails as the treaty itself isn’t law yet.

Supporting Statute/Constitutional Clauses:
Part II of the International Community Framework Act

Section 24 of the Constitution, Powers of the President(3)

Part I of the Constitution, Sections 1-4


V. Conclusion​

To conclude, the CW asks the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice under Court Rule 5.12 due to lack of standing as demonstrated above.



SC-DC Treaty
Also see attached 'SC-DC Treaty.pdf'



Subsequently, the Commonwealth asks that deadlines for answer to complaint be tolled due to the Motion to Dismiss being dispositive.
Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Plaintiff opposes the Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss. The Motion misstates both the nature of the Plaintiff's injury and the nature of the Plaintiff's claim. This case is not about whether the treaty has already entered into force as law. It is instead about whether the Executive may sign a treaty without first obtaining the approval that the Constitution requires.

The Commonwealth argues that because the treaty has not been ratified, no injury exists and no remedy is available. That framing is incorrect. The Plaintiff is claiming that the constitutional violation occurred at the moment of signing, because the Constitution divides treaty power between the Senate and the President and requires Senate approval before the President (or their delegate) may sign. The unlawfulness is complete at signing, regardless of whether the treaty has entered into force.

I. The Commonwealth Mischaracterises the Claim​

The Commonwealth has framed this case as though I am arguing that the treaty is already law and is presently imposing the effects on the Commonwealth. That is not the claim. I am instead claiming that the Executive took action where the Constitution did not authorise it.

A government action may be unlawful even when it never ripens into a binding statute or enforceable treaty. The Constititional defect here is not merely the enforcement, it is the usurpation of Senate authority in the treaty process.

The Constitution states:
  • The Senate: "(7) Treaty Approval. The Senate is responsible for approving or rejecting, by simple majority, the signing, revocation, or withdrawal from any treaty involving the Commonwealth of Redmont."
  • The President: "(11) Sign and Revoke International Treaties. The President, or delegate, may sign international treaties with the simple majority approval of the Senate."
Treaties require the Senate's approval before the signing itself. By having the Vice President sign the treaty on April 3, the act was unconstitutional.

II. Plaintiff Satisfies Rule 2.1​

A. Plaintiff has alleged an injury
Rule 2.1 states that a plaintiff must show that they "suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law." The Commonwealth argues there can be no injury because the treaty is not yet law and has not yet been ratified. That argument assumes the only injury is from the enforcement of the treaty. I am arguing a different injury: the deprivation of the constitutionally required treaty approval process and the unlawful displacement of the Senate's assigned role.

The Constitution does not leave this up for some other type of reading. The President may only sign a treaty after the simple majority approval of the Senate. The injury here is procedural and structural. The Executive exercised a power that it did not yet have. I am not merely challenging a possibility of harm, but a completed constitutional injury. The Commonwealth tries to reduce this to "public interest" standing, but my position is more precise: when a constitutional protection requires congressional approval before executive action, the removal of that protection is an injury.

The Commonwealth has contended that "a law or Government action being potentially illegitimate in some respect...does not immediately provide standing." I do not disagree with that general statement. But I am not relying on some potential injury. I have identified a specific constitutional prerequisite, a specific action that was taken without that prerequisite, and a specific constitutional power that was bypassed. This is not a generalised complaint that the government acted illegally. It is a claim that a constitutionally limited power was exercised without the constitutionally required approval.

B. Plaintiff has alleged illegality
The second standing element requirement asks whether the cause of the injury was against the law. I satisfy that element.

The Senate approves or rejects the signing of treaties. The President may sign treaties only with the Senate's approval. Those clauses are naturally read to require approval first and signing second. The Commonwealth's motion does not defeat that reading. Instead, the Commonwealth is hiding behind a separate issue of whether the treaty will later become effective. That is a different question.

Article 2 states that it shall enter into force upon the ratification by the legislature in accordance with domestic law. That provision supports my claim rather than defeating it. Domestic law governs the process. Under Redmont's Constitution, domestic law appears to require Senate approval before signing.

C. A remedy is available and applicable.
The Commonwealth argues that no remedy exists because no injury has been shown and because I did not identify a legal basis for relief. That is incorrect.

If the court does find that the Executive signed the treaty without the Senate's approval as required by the Constitution, there are several remedies available:
  • declaration that the signing was unconstitutional and without legal effect;
  • an order declaring that the treaty was not valid;
  • an injunction prohibiting the Commonwealth from treating the signature as legal until the requirements are met;
  • any further relief the Court finds just and proper.
The Commonwealth's argument seems to assume that unless a treaty is already in force, the Court is powerless. That cannot be more untrue. If anything, judicial review is especially appropriate before an unconstitutional act becomes a more tangled legal problem.

III. The Commonwealth's Motion Relies on a Materially False Factual Assertion​

The Commonwealth's Motion rests in part on the assertion that the treaty "has not been signed by the President or their delegate" and states "such is the truth".

This assertion is incorrect.

The Plaintiff possesses overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the treaty was, in fact, signed prior to the filing of this Motion. As such, the Commonwealth's argument that no executive action has occurred is premised on a materially false factual foundation.

At a minimum, the existence of this evidence creates a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether the treaty was signed. Accordingly, dismissal is improper where the Commonwealth's argument depends on a factual assertion that is directly contradicted by evidence that will be presented during discovery, or even now if the court finds it.

IV. The Precedent Does Not Require Dismissal​

The Commonwealth first relies on [2025] FCR 117 for the proposition that public interest alone and mere government illegitimacy do not automatically create standing. I do not dispute that general rule. But that precedent does not control this case in the way that the Commonwealth suggests.

The quoted language distinguishes between an allegation and an identified injury. The injury is the actual unconstitutional bypassing of the Senate's assigned treaty approval prior to signing. This is not simply an ideological disagreement over policy or a generalised complaint about executive conduct. It is a direct claim about a specific unlawful action that has taken place.

V. The Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice​

Even if the Court were to find that I could have been clearer regarding the precise nature of the injury or requested relief, dismissal with prejudice would be unwarranted.

At a minimum, the Court should allow this case to proceed through Discovery. Evidence in the Plaintiff's possession will be entered into the record. Also, if the Court believes the complaint has not addressed the injury correctly, the Plaintiff would have this time to amend.

VI. The International Community Framework Act is Ex Post Facto​

The Commonwealth has mentioned the International Community Framework Act as a way to describe the treaty process. However, that law was assented to by the President on April 6, whereas the evidence will show that the signing of the treaty occurred on April 3. As such, the Act cannot be retroactively used to authorise or legitimise actions that were constitutionally deficient at the time it was undertaken.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top