Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. Town of Oakridge [2023] FCR 107

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On 12/18/23 Oakridge Mayor Yeet_Boy published within a town communication channel informing the public that a bill (Internal Affairs Act) has been signed into law. Upon signing this bill, it created an unconstitutional bylaw within the town of Oakridge.

Section 29(a.1g) of the constitution dictates that the Department of State is charged within the facilitation of federal elections and other elections as requested. The Executive released an Executive Order 19/23 which dictates that ‘ALL local elections are actioned by the DOS (Department of State).


I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont (plaintiff)
2. Town of Oakridge (defendant)

II. FACTS
1. 6/27/23 - Executive Order 19/23 goes into effect under the LilDigiVert Administration. (Exhibit A)
2. 12/2/23 - Internal Affairs Act is submitted as a bill to the Oakridge Council. (Exhibit B)
3. 12/18/23 - Internal Affairs Act is signed into law by Oakridge Mayor Yeet_Boy.(Exhibit C)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Executive has delegated powers to the local jurisdiction to hold elections, but has limited that to be managed by the Department of State. As defined within EO 19/23
2. Towns cannot pass bylaws that supersedes Federal Jurisdiction. As defined within the ‘Federal System Clarification Act’ 4(2) towns can only exercise lawful authority if it’s been delegated to them.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Strike bylaw ‘Internal Affairs Act’ as unconstitutional and throw the whole act out.
2. $5,000 in legal fees sent to the DLA for services rendered.


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 19th day of December 2023

 

[Neemfy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@YeetBoy1872325 is required to appear before the court in the case of the Commonwealth of Redmont v. Town of Oakridge. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Please hold. The Oakridge Attorney General will be with you shortly.

 

[zLost]

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

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence affirms Fact 1
2. The Defence affirms Fact 2
3. The Defence affirms Fact 3


II. DEFENCES
1. There is a clause in the Internal Affairs Act (link) passed by Oakridge which states:
(1) Facilitation of any and all elections in the Town of Oakridge, other than elections which are the Department of State's responsibility stated outside of this Constitution.
2. This is the reason why the Town of Oakridge still hasn't done any elections or appointed a Head of Internal Affairs even after the act passed. We are aware that the DOS currently according to the Town Revisions Executive Order is the one responsible for actioning all local elections in Oakridge.

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 22nd day of December 2023

 

[zLost]

The Defence would like to move for summary judgement now, or after the prosecution has given their opening statement if the prosecution wishes to provide a rebuttal.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

The Defence would like to move for summary judgement now, or after the prosecution has given their opening statement if the prosecution wishes to provide a rebuttal.

Your Honor,
The plaintiff would be okay moving to summary judgment after opening statements have been made.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[Neemfy]

Does the Defense agree to summary judgement after opening statements?

 

[zLost]

Yes, Your Honor

 

[Neemfy]

We will now be moving onto the Discovery phase of the trial. Both sides have 7 days to provide evidence and a list of witnesses.

 

[zLost]

The Defence has no evidence and witnesses and wishes to skip the discovery phase.

 

[Neemfy]

Seeing as the Prosecution has not provided any witnesses or evidence and the 7 days has elapsed, we will now move on to Opening Statements. The Prosecution has 72 hours to produce an Opening Statement.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
This is simply a case of redundancy.
To understand why the internal affairs act should be struck as Unconstitutional we first look at the constitution. The constitution states that: 1. "the Department of State is charged within the facilitation of federal elections and other elections as requested." 2. The cabinet "Oversees Government-owned assets, including any cities and towns, plots, apartments, and buildings,"
That means that the government was fully within its constitutional rights when they created executive order 19/23.

executive order 19/23 states "All local elections are actioned by the DOS"
The key word in that sentence is word ALL. The internal affairs act clearly states that the town department of internal affairs has the responsibility of "Facilitation of any and all elections in the Town of Oakridge, other than elections which are the Department of State's responsibility stated outside of this Constitution."

This infers that there are any elections outside the elections that are the Department of States responsibility. If there were elections that were outside of the Department of States responsibility they would NOT be responsible for ALL elections, but as stated above in EO 19/23 The department of state IS responsible for ALL elections.

This shows that the internal affairs act contradicts EO 19/23 by stating that there could be an election outside of the Department of States responsibility. This contradiction puts them out of line with the powers the constitution grants the Executive, the Department of State and towns.

Your Honor, I Implore you to strike down this unconstitutional overreach by the town of Oakridge

Thank you for your time and dedication
Your Honor.

 

[Neemfy]

Thank you, Snowy_Heart. The Defendant now has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.

 

[Neemfy]

The Defense has failed to provide an Opening Statement within the allotted time. I hereby charge zLost with Contempt of Court.

The Court will now be in recess pending a verdict.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

zLost has asked that I inform the court of his inability to access the forums currently due to his PC being inaccessible.

 

[Neemfy]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. Town of Oakridge [2023] FCR 107

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. According to the Constitution, the Department of State is charged with the facilitation of elections.
2. The Executive Order 19/23 states that all local elections are actioned by the Department of State.
3. The Oakridge by-law Internal Affairs Act conflicts with Federal law and is an overreach of power.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Internal Affairs Act states that the Department of Internal Affairs only facilitates elections that are not under Department of State jurisdiction as stated in the Constitution.
2. The Oakridge Government and the Department of Internal Affairs has not done any elections or appointed a Head of Internal Affairs as a result of lack of jurisdiction.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Constitution clearly states that the Department of State is responsible for Federal elections and other elections as requested.
2. Executive Order 19/23, which is the most current guidelines for the facilitation and governance of towns, states that all local elections are actioned by the Department of State. As the Constitution states, other elections must be requested, and this is a clear request.
3. According to Executive Order 19/23, Federal legislation supersedes town legislation, unless Federal legislation specifies otherwise. Despite the Internal Affairs Act not actioning any elections, or even having a Head of Internal Affairs, it still conflicts with Federal law.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court orders that the entire Internal Affairs Act be struck as unconstitutional from the Oakridge by-laws.

Legal fees to the Department of Legal Affairs will not be granted, as legal fees are capped to 20% of the total case value. Since the Plaintiff did not claim any damages, 20% of $0 is $0.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.