ToadKing
Illegal Lawyer
Public Defender
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary
Change Maker
Popular in the Polls
Statesman
ToadKing__
Public Defender
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2025
- Messages
- 198
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Anthony_Org (represented by ToadKing)
Plaintiff
v.
Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. Anthony_Org2. Commonwealth of Redmont
II. FACTS
1. On or around 27 September 2025, Congress passed the Legislative Service Commission Act (P-001)2. The Legislative Service Commission Act established the LSC as "an independent, non-partisan body" to serve as "the principal legal and drafting service of Congress." (P-001)
3. The LSC Act, Section 5(1)(a), authorises the LSC to provide "Legal research and drafting support for bills and resolutions." (P-001)
4. On or around 10 October 2025, the 33rd House of Representatives amended the House Standing Orders that operationalised the LSC. (P-002)
5. Section 8 of the House Standing Orders establishes procedures for LSC review of bills.
6. Section 8(4) of the House Standing Orders establishes that LSC advice "is subject to attorney-client privilege unless waived by the House of Representatives by motion" and "is automatically classified as LEG-RESTRICTED upon creation."
7. The LSC is currently functioning and providing legal services to Congress pursuant to these laws and Standing Orders.
8. On or around 30 October 2025, the President issued Executive Order 37/25, titled "The BAR, Bring it forth." (P-003)
9. Section 1(2) of Executive Order 37/25 states: "The BAR shall be the only government-endorsed public advisory legal organization that is allowed to operate within the territory of the Commonwealth of Redmont." (P-003)
10. Section 1(3) of Executive Order 37/25 states that the BAR "shall encompass individuals that are licensed to represent other individuals before the Courts of Redmont, and those who act as Judicial Officers of those Courts, on an opt-in basis." (P-003)
11. On or around 31 October 2025, the Plaintiff moved that Congress formally endorse the LSC. (P-004)
12. The motion stated: "Congress recognizes the Legislative Service Commission as a public advisory legal organization established to support the Congress of the Commonwealth of Redmont." (P-004)
13. The motion passed in the Senate. (P-004)
14. The same motion passed in the House of Representatives. (P-005)
15. The Congressional endorsement was officially announced on 31 October 2025, stating: "Congress recognizes the Legislative Service Commission as a public advisory legal organization established to support the Congress of the Commonwealth of Redmont." (P-006)
16. The LSC, as recognised by Congress, is a "public advisory legal organization," which directly conflicts with Executive Order 37/25's provision that the BAR shall be "the only" such organisation.
17. Section 24 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the President, which include granting pardons, appointing Cabinet members, vetoing legislation, chairing Cabinet meetings, issuing Executive Orders to ensure good governance, dissolving legislative bodies upon request, overseeing government spending, removing executive officials, and signing treaties.
18. Section 42 of the Constitution states: "Executive Orders must only be used as a mechanism by which the President can exert powers expressly granted to the Executive within the Constitution."
19. None of the enumerated presidential powers in Section 24 authorise the President to create monopolies on legal advisory organisations or to restrict what legal support bodies Congress can create for itself.
20. The Constitution, Part I, Section 2(7), grants Congress the power under the Elastic Clause to "pass any law necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers."
21. The Constitution does not grant the Executive any authority to regulate or restrict Congressional support structures, standing orders, or internal procedures.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Executive Order 37/25 Exceeds Presidential Authority
Section 42 of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous:The enumerated presidential powers in Section 24 include granting pardons, appointing Cabinet members, vetoing legislation, chairing Cabinet meetings, issuing Executive Orders "to ensure good governance of the server," dissolving legislative bodies upon request, overseeing government spending, removing executive officials, and signing treaties.
None of these enumerated powers authorise the President to create a monopoly on legal advisory organisations. None of these powers authorise the President to regulate the legal profession in the manner attempted by Executive Order 37/25. Most critically, none of these powers authorise the President to restrict what legal support bodies Congress can create for itself to carry out its constitutional duties.
The President's power to issue Executive Orders "to ensure good governance" is not a blank check to regulate any aspect of Redmont society. This power must be read in conjunction with Section 42's limitation that Executive Orders "must only be used as a mechanism by which the President can exert powers expressly granted to the Executive." The phrase "to ensure good governance" refers to good governance of executive functions and the executive branch, not to general governance of all aspects of Redmont, including the internal operations of a co-equal branch of government.
Executive Order 37/25 therefore violates Section 42 of the Constitution by exceeding the President's expressly granted powers. An Executive Order that lacks constitutional authorisation is void and unenforceable.
Executive Order 37/25 Unconstitutionally Restricts an Act of Congress
The Legislative Service Commission was created by an Act of Congress that passed in both chambers. The LSC Act is valid legislation, duly enacted through the constitutional process, signed by the President, and currently in force as law.Section 1(2) of Executive Order 37/25 states that the BAR "shall be the only government-endorsed public advisory legal organization that is allowed to operate within the territory of the Commonwealth of Redmont." This provision directly conflicts with the LSC, which is unquestionably a government-endorsed public advisory legal organisation. Congress itself has formally recognised the LSC as such through the joint motion passed on 31 October 2025.
An Executive Order cannot override or nullify an Act of Congress. The Constitution vests legislative power in Congress, not the President. The President's role is to execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress, not to prohibit their operation through Executive Order. When an Executive Order conflicts with an Act of Congress, the Act of Congress prevails, and the Executive Order is void to the extent of the conflict.
Here, Executive Order 37/25's prohibition on any legal advisory organisation other than the BAR directly conflicts with the LSC's statutory authorisation to provide legal research and drafting support to Congress. This conflict renders the Executive Order's monopoly provision unconstitutional and void.
Violation of Separation of Powers - Congressional Authority to Organise Itself
The Constitution grants Congress the power under the Elastic Clause:Creating an independent legal support commission is clearly necessary and proper for Congress to fulfill its constitutional role of drafting, debating, and passing legislation.
The LSC Act itself recognises this necessity in Section 2(3):
Congress's power to create such support structures flows directly from its core legislative function.
Beyond the Elastic Clause, Congress has inherent institutional authority to organise itself and determine its own procedures. The Constitution recognises this principle in Section 4(1) of the Legislative Standards Act, which provides that "the first order of business for each chamber is to amend or reconfirm its extant standing orders." The House of Representatives has exercised this authority by adopting and amending Standing Orders that integrate the LSC into the legislative process.
The Executive branch has no constitutional authority to interfere with Congress's internal organisation or to dictate what support structures Congress may create to carry out its constitutional duties. The President cannot use an Executive Order to shut down or restrict a body that Congress has created as part of its institutional machinery. Such interference violates the separation of powers by allowing the Executive to constrain how Congress organises itself to fulfill its constitutional functions.
This would be equivalent to the President issuing an Executive Order saying the Office of Congressional Affairs cannot exist. Both are Congressional support bodies created to assist Congress in performing its constitutional duties. The Executive has no more authority to restrict the LSC than it would to restrict the Office of Congressional Affairs.
Violation of Separation of Powers - Attorney-Client Privilege
The relationship between Congress and the LSC is protected by attorney-client privilege under both statute and House rules. The Modern Legal Reform Act, Section 4(a), establishes that:The LSC, which must be headed by a qualified lawyer and staffed by lawyers, provides legal advice to Congress on constitutional questions, drafting matters, and effectiveness of proposed legislation. This creates a statutory attorney-client relationship.
Additionally, Section 8(4)(b) of the House Standing Orders explicitly establishes that LSC advice "is subject to attorney-client privilege unless waived by the House of Representatives by motion" and "is automatically classified as LEG-RESTRICTED upon creation." This creates both a statutory and procedural protection for the confidential legal advice Congress receives from the LSC.
Attorney-client privilege is a fundamental protection that enables clients to seek frank legal advice without fear that their communications will be disclosed. For Congress, this privilege is essential to enable members to receive candid legal advice about proposed legislation, constitutional questions, and sensitive policy matters without those communications becoming public or being used against the institution. The Modern Legal Reform Act, Section 4(b), reinforces this by providing that:
Executive Order 37/25 threatens this privileged relationship by claiming that the BAR must be "the only government-endorsed public advisory legal organization that is allowed to operate." This provision, if enforced, would interfere with the attorney-client relationship Congress has established with the LSC, which is protected by an Act of Congress. The Executive branch has no constitutional authority to insert itself into Congress's attorney-client relationships or to dictate who can provide legal counsel to Congress, particularly when that relationship is protected by statute.
The separation of powers requires that each branch of government be able to seek confidential legal advice to carry out its constitutional functions. Just as Congress cannot dictate who provides legal advice to the President, the President cannot dictate who provides legal advice to Congress. Executive Order 37/25's restriction on legal advisory organisations violates this principle by attempting to limit Congress's ability to obtain the legal counsel it needs and by threatening to disrupt a statutorily protected attorney-client relationship.
IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court grant the following:1. A declaratory judgment that Executive Order 37/25, Section 1(2) is unconstitutional and void for exceeding the President's expressly granted powers under Section 42 of the Constitution.
2. A permanent injunction striking Executive Order 37/25 as unconstitutional.
3. A declaratory judgment that Congress has exclusive authority to determine its own procedures, including the integration of the Legislative Service Commission into the legislative process, and that the Executive branch lacks authority to restrict these procedures through Executive Order.
4. $6,000 in Legal Fees, per Section 9(3)(c) of the Legal Damages Act
EVIDENCE
Act of Congress Thread 'Legislative Service Commission Act'
Executive Order Thread 'Executive Order 37/25 - The BAR, Bring it forth.'
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 4th day of November 2025
