Lawsuit: Adjourned Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 33

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dartanman

Citizen
President of the Senate
Senator
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Aventura Resident
Dartanman
Dartanman
presidentofthesenate
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,049
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dartanman
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

At some point between January 31, 2023 and March 12, 2023, our esteemed Congress voted in favor of the Super Modern Legal Board Act, yet it was never sent to the President for approval. This is an egregious Constitutional violation that must be addressed.

I. PARTIES
1. Dartanman
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On January 31, 2023, bibsfi4a proposed a bill on the House floor -- the Super Modern Legal Board Act, authored by Dartanman and bibsfi4a.
2. In the House, it received an overall Aye vote, with 7 ayes and 1 nay.
3. In the Senate, it received an overall Aye vote, with 3 ayes and 2 nays.
4. The bill was never given to the President to get assent or be vetoed.
5. The bill is now marked as "rejected."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Constitution, Part 1, Section 2, clearly states that when a bill passes through Congress it must be "sent to the President for their approval."

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Super Modern Legal Board Act be sent to the President for approval.
2. $2,500 in nominal damages, in accordance with the Legal Damages Act.
3. $250 in legal fees

 Evidence
Exhibit A [Super Modern Legal Board Act]: Bill: Rejected - Super Modern Legal Board Act
Exhibit B [Constitution]: Government - Constitution

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 12th day of March 2023
 
Last edited:
Your honor (whoever it may be),

I made a slight typo and said the Senate voted 3-1 when it was 3-2. May I edit the filing to fix this?

Thank you
 
Your honor (whoever it may be),

I made a slight typo and said the Senate voted 3-1 when it was 3-2. May I edit the filing to fix this?

Thank you
yes you may edit that part of your case filing.
 
federal-court-png.12082

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Attorney General, or someone who can legally represent the Commonwealth is required to appear before the court in the case of the Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 33. Failure to appear within 48 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.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The Commonwealth does not dispute any of the facts stated, and motions for Summary Judgement with the stipulation that the Plaintiff drops legal fees.

DATED: This 14th day of March, 2023.
 
Dartanman, do you agree to have a summary judgement, or do you want to continue the case as normal?
 
Dartanman, do you agree to have a summary judgement, or do you want to continue the case as normal?
I'm happy to have summary judgment and am happy to drop the legal fees since the case has been cut so short.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Dartanman v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 33

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. On January 31st, the Super Modern Legal Board Act was proposed and sent to congress.
2. Both the House and the Senate voted on and approved this bill.
3. This bill was never sent to the President for presidential assent or a veto, however despite this, it is currently marked as rejected.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff, and has motioned for a summary judgement.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Since a bill that is passed by congress is required to go to the President for assent or a veto, the Super Modern Legal Board Act should have followed the same rules.

IV. DECISION
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff.
2. I am officially issuing a writ of mandamus requiring the Super Modern Legal Board Act to be sent to the president where they can either grant presidential assent, or veto the act.
3. I also hereby order the DOJ to unfine the Plaintiff $2,500 in nominal damages.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top