Lawsuit: Adjourned Dusty_3 v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 8

[Dusty_3]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dusty_3
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

It explicitly states within the Executive Standards Act, which is constitutional law, that "(1) Any person which holds roles functionally equivalent to a department Secretary must be approved by the Congress. This includes “Acting” Secretaries."

xEndeavour became acting secretary of the DCT without being approved by Congress. This makes his appointment unconstitutional. Therefore we ask the supreme court immediately revoke any decisions xEndeavour has made as secretary and strip him of his positions in the DCT. He is even calling himself the acting secretary of the DCT.

Hypothetically, even if an Acting Secretary can be appointed without senate approval, which as previously stated is not constitutional, "(2) During a vacancy in the Secretary position, their duties fall to the Deputy Secretary until a new Secretary can be chosen." The President did not let secretary fall to Deputy Secretary Nacholebraa or Deputy Secretary Kycnn1703, and instead appointed xEndeavour. This is unconstitutional, Kycnn1703 and Nacholebraa were Deputy Secretaries of DCT and constitutionally speaking the duties of the secretary of the DCT should've fallen to them.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth
2. xEndeavour
3. Derpy_Bird
4. Kycnn1703
5. Nacholebraa

II. FACTS
1. LavenderxBlaxii was fired from DCT secretary
2. Both Nacholebraa and Kycnn1703 are Deputy Secretaries of the DCT at the time of Lavenders dismissal
3. xEndeavour was made acting secretary of the DCT by Derpy_Bird
2. xEndeavour was not put up to vote

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. It is a violation of section 5.1 and 5.2 of the Executive Standards Act which is a constitutional level law.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. We ask the courts remove xEndeavour from the position of Secretary of the DCT
2. We ask the courts reverse any actions xEndeavour has taken as DCT Secretary through judicial review
3. We ask the courts to order the President to issue a public apology for the blatant disregard of constitutional law

V. Evidence
View attachment 31975

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 13th day of February 2023

 

[Dusty_3]

The evidence didn't attach properly:

 

[Dusty_3]

Emergency Injunction
I request the courts freeze xEndeavours accounts via an emergency injunction. He has multiple allegations of corruption and embezzlement against him, and he has started to withdraw funds from the DCT accounts to pay himself. This case is built on the fact that xEndeavour is currently not constitutionally supposed to be Secretary of the DCT. Therefore, we must prevent harm to the DCTs budget and freeze his accounts so he can't move his funds.

End is not protected by the use of constitutional powers in this case, because he does not have those powers.

There is a serious possibility that an unconstitutionally appointed secretary already accused of embezzlement and corruption is once again embezzling.

We must prevent any further harm.

 

[Dusty_3]

Emergency Injunction
I request the courts temporarily remove xEndeavour from the position of Secretary of the DCT until this cases completion. This case once again is built on the fact that xEndeavour is currently not constitutionally supposed to be Secretary of the DCT. We must prevent any further harm to the DCT

 

[End]

You honour, if I may respond to the above objection:

The purpose of this case is to determine the constitutionality of the temporary appointment. The Defence disputes the claims that the appointment is unconstitutional and has a strong case to make.

Denying the DCT from having any form of leadership, particularly when it is doing well and is productive, would be a premature move by the court.

I was appointed under Section 5 of the ESA. Any successor to me would need to be be appointed under Section 5 of the ESA until a permanent nomination can be made, which is unlikely to occur prior to the next administration taking over in 5 days.

It would be irresponsible of the court to leave the DCT with nobody accountable for the operation of the Department when the constitutionality is yet to be determined. For example, someone charged with fraud is not typically held in custody before a verdict is handed down. Therefore, the Defence should not be removed from their acting position until a verdict is handed down.

Please excuse me for talking out of turn, however I'm currently being litigated for the same thing by the same person in two different cases, except one is being posed by the government. I would ask that the civil trial be recessed until the outcome of the criminal trial. These motions have already been denied by the Supreme Court in SCR 7.

The Defendant cannot maintain fighting 2+ high level cases at once, particularly when the Plaintiff is stacking them in what is best described as a floodgate effect.

 

[Dusty_3]

I would like to respond to xEndeavours objection if possible, but similar to my other cases I will have to ask for an extension until Sunday the 19th.

Thank you your honors

 

[Banana]

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

The Defendant is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Dusty v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 8.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[End]

I do not agree to the Government representing me in this case and request to mount my own defence as someone whom this case is directly implicating and as a party to this case.

SCR 20 established in common law that I have the right to defend myself in court.

 

[Banana]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION 1 | REJECTED

Emergency Injunction
I request the courts freeze xEndeavours accounts via an emergency injunction. He has multiple allegations of corruption and embezzlement against him, and he has started to withdraw funds from the DCT accounts to pay himself. This case is built on the fact that xEndeavour is currently not constitutionally supposed to be Secretary of the DCT. Therefore, we must prevent harm to the DCTs budget and freeze his accounts so he can't move his funds.

End is not protected by the use of constitutional powers in this case, because he does not have those powers.

There is a serious possibility that an unconstitutionally appointed secretary already accused of embezzlement and corruption is once again embezzling.

We must prevent any further harm.

The Court has decided to reject this emergency injunction as this case does not have to do with the financial actions of the Defendant or xEndeavour. Furthermore, all spending from DCT accounts is tracked and freezing accounts poses an unnecessary burden to xEndeavour.

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION 2 | REJECTED

Emergency Injunction
I request the courts temporarily remove xEndeavour from the position of Secretary of the DCT until this cases completion. This case once again is built on the fact that xEndeavour is currently not constitutionally supposed to be Secretary of the DCT. We must prevent any further harm to the DCT

The Court has decided to reject this emergency injunction, as the constitutionality of the appointment can be argued without removing xEndeavour from the post of DCT Secretary, as no abuse of power has occurred or been proven by the Plaintiff to be a risk.

 

[Banana]

You honour, if I may respond to the above objection:

The purpose of this case is to determine the constitutionality of the temporary appointment. The Defence disputes the claims that the appointment is unconstitutional and has a strong case to make.

Denying the DCT from having any form of leadership, particularly when it is doing well and is productive, would be a premature move by the court.

I was appointed under Section 5 of the ESA. Any successor to me would need to be be appointed under Section 5 of the ESA until a permanent nomination can be made, which is unlikely to occur prior to the next administration taking over in 5 days.

It would be irresponsible of the court to leave the DCT with nobody accountable for the operation of the Department when the constitutionality is yet to be determined. For example, someone charged with fraud is not typically held in custody before a verdict is handed down. Therefore, the Defence should not be removed from their acting position until a verdict is handed down.

Please excuse me for talking out of turn, however I'm currently being litigated for the same thing by the same person in two different cases, except one is being posed by the government. I would ask that the civil trial be recessed until the outcome of the criminal trial. These motions have already been denied by the Supreme Court in SCR 7.

The Defendant cannot maintain fighting 2+ high level cases at once, particularly when the Plaintiff is stacking them in what is best described as a floodgate effect.

xEndeavour is hereby held in contempt of court. You may not speak in cases you have not been summoned to.

I do not agree to the Government representing me in this case and request to mount my own defence as someone whom this case is directly implicating and as a party to this case.

SCR 20 established in common law that I have the right to defend myself in court.

xEndeavour is hereby held in contempt of court. You may not speak in cases you have not been summoned to.

I hereby order that the DOJ carry out the appropriate sentence for 2 counts of contempt of court.

Additionally, everything stated by xEndeavour will be struck from the record. As the only named Defendant against whom claims have been made is the Commonwealth, that is who may respond to this case unless otherwise summoned.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honors, (I hope I’m not speaking out of turn)

I’ll be heading back home early on Sunday (We are changing to an earlier flight) and will work on both of my previous cases while in flight to save the courts as much time as I can. I am very grateful for the leniency.

I am unsure on whether the defendant will respond or not but I would like to outline that in my DMs multiple people have put forward a “law” that exists. The “law” is called the Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act.

Legally speaking this act is unconstitutional.

If the defendant does not respond by the end of the 48 hours I’d like to explain how this “law” is unconstitutional before your verdict so that the court is aware of all the facts.

I can begin writing it up later and have it ready by the end of Sunday if that is acceptable from the courts.

Thank you for the leniency once again your honours. I look forward to being back in the court room Sunday

 

[Claxx77]

Your honour, the commonwealth requests 48 hours extension because the cabinet is changing soon.

 

[Banana]

The extension requested by the Commonwealth is granted.

 

[zLost]

stop posting about baller

 

[Banana]

stop posting about baller

View attachment 32083

zLost is hereby held in contempt of court. You may not speak in cases to which you have not been summoned. I hereby order that the DOJ carry out the appropriate punishment for one count of contempt of court.

 

[End]

I do not agree to the Government representing me in this case and request to mount my own defence as someone whom this case is directly implicating and as a party to this case.

SCR 20 established in common law that I have the right to defend myself in court.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honor if I may respond to this interruption by xEndeavour:

This case questions the actions of a government. Unless xEndeavour considers himself the executive branch, then he does not represent them. I am suing the states actions to appoint xEndeavour, so unless xEndeavour somehow appointed himself using presidential powers, then I would like to have him prohibited from speaking further on this case, unless called upon.

And to xEndeavour, constant interruptions are a common tactic you have employed in order to bully the courts to do what you want. In my professional opinion your legal license (if you actually have one) should be stripped from you. These courts deserve respect and your shockingly poor tactics to bully them into making a favorable decision is very disrespectful.

 

[End]

I'm not bullying anyone, I am pushing to have the court uphold my right to respond to allegations made against me, as upheld in SCR 20. In denying me the opportunity to speak, the court is ignoring my rights and also ignoring common law. The court has provided no legal reasoning as to why it is ignoring either in failing to hear my arguments.

While my 'tactics' might be pushing to have my rights exercised, yours has been to put me in a position where I am required to fight to be heard. I.e. you have sued someone else concerning my position and my decisions. You are indirectly suing me and my legacy and you have purposely done it this way because you know that I will have to fight for my rights in the process.

 

[Banana]

I do not agree to the Government representing me in this case and request to mount my own defence as someone whom this case is directly implicating and as a party to this case.

SCR 20 established in common law that I have the right to defend myself in court.

xEndeavour is hereby held in contempt of court. I order that they be fined/jailed as appropriate by the DOJ. You may not speak in cases you have not been summoned to.
You were already warned that the Commonwealth is the Defendant in this case, and that is the party that has the right to respond. Regardless of whether you are a named party, the party the claim is made against is the Commonwealth. The Defendant is the Defendant, and other named parties may not interject to make their own defense in a case that is not against them.

 

[End]

Your honour, if the prayer to relief includes removing me from an office I hold I will not be allowing the court to violate my rights by denying me representation. While this case is not directly against me by name, it is directly against me in the requested outputs.

Therefore, I again request that I be afforded common law rights found in SCR20.

 

[Dusty_3]

If it helps xEndeavour, I can explain why you are not the defendant. I am suing President Derpy's decision to employ you. I am claiming that her decision is unconstitutional.
In the event Derpy's decision is declared unconstitutional by these courts, you are then removed from office and all your prior decisions are repealed. This is a consequence of Derpy's actions as president, therefore it is up to her to defend her actions and decisions as president.
If you defended Derpy's actions/decisions, that would be unfair for Derpy and the Commonwealth Government as it is the Attorney General that defends them.

Please stop interrupting the court please.

 

[Dusty_3]

Also, if it pleases the court, given the extension granted to the commonwealth has passed, I request a default judgement.

To assist in explaining my arguments further:

It is of my belief that Derpy_Bird has made her unconstitutional decision to appoint xEndeavour based off of the unconstitutional law: Act of Congress - Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act

To explain why this law is unconstitutional: it states that it amends the Executive Standards Act, however the Executive Standards Act is a constitutional level law. Therefore any change to the Executive Standards Act must also amend the constitution.

To amend the constitution, following this law Act of Congress - LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act, a bill must start with “A Bill to Amend the Constitution”.

The Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act does not start with “A Bill to Amend the Constitution,” it doesnt even mention it. Therefore The Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act does not amend the constitution, meaning it doesn' amend the Executive Standards Act (a constitutional level law).

Because that act does not legally amend the ESA, it should be removed from law by this court for its unconstitutionality.
Upon the removal of The Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act, the only process the President follows when fulfilling a secretary vacancy is the following:

5 - Cabinet
(1) Any person which holds roles functionally equivalent to a department Secretary must be approved by the Congress. This includes “Acting” Secretaries.
(2) During a vacancy in the Secretary position, their duties fall to the Deputy Secretary until a new Secretary can be chosen.
(3) Should both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary be vacant, the Secretary’s duties shall temporarily fall to a person appointed by the President.

With this information in mind, along with the initial complaint I filed, xEndeavour was unconstitutionally appointed DCT secretary.

Thank you, your honors

 

[End]

If President Derpy and I are going to be impacted by this case, it is only fair that we are represented in this case, regardless of the Commonwealth's ability to respond.

 

[Banana]

That is more than enough arguing back and forth. This is the Supreme Court and this behavior is unacceptable. This is not the place to behave like children, and anyone speaking out of turn will be held in contempt of court. This entire situation will be sorted out later today, and in the meantime there will be no more arguing in this case thread.

 

[Neemfy]

Your Honor, apologies for the issues. Because of the changes in DLA leadership, this case was not able to be attended to. The Commonwealth requests a 48 hour extension in order to properly address the case.

 

[Banana]

Your honour, if the prayer to relief includes removing me from an office I hold I will not be allowing the court to violate my rights by denying me representation. While this case is not directly against me by name, it is directly against me in the requested outputs.

Therefore, I again request that I be afforded common law rights found in SCR20.

xEndeavour is hereby held in contempt of court. I order that they be fined/jailed as appropriate by the DOJ. You may not speak in court cases to which you have not been summoned.

If President Derpy and I are going to be impacted by this case, it is only fair that we are represented in this case, regardless of the Commonwealth's ability to respond.

xEndeavour is hereby held in contempt of court. I order that they be fined/jailed as appropriate by the DOJ. You may not speak in court cases to which you have not been summoned.

If it helps xEndeavour, I can explain why you are not the defendant. I am suing President Derpy's decision to employ you. I am claiming that her decision is unconstitutional.
In the event Derpy's decision is declared unconstitutional by these courts, you are then removed from office and all your prior decisions are repealed. This is a consequence of Derpy's actions as president, therefore it is up to her to defend her actions and decisions as president.
If you defended Derpy's actions/decisions, that would be unfair for Derpy and the Commonwealth Government as it is the Attorney General that defends them.

Please stop interrupting the court please.

Dusty_3 is hereby held in contempt of court. I order that they be fined/jailed as appropriate by the DOJ. You may not speak out of turn in a court case.

In addition, all posts made out of turn will be struck from the record.

 

[Banana]

I'm not bullying anyone, I am pushing to have the court uphold my right to respond to allegations made against me, as upheld in SCR 20. In denying me the opportunity to speak, the court is ignoring my rights and also ignoring common law. The court has provided no legal reasoning as to why it is ignoring either in failing to hear my arguments.

While my 'tactics' might be pushing to have my rights exercised, yours has been to put me in a position where I am required to fight to be heard. I.e. you have sued someone else concerning my position and my decisions. You are indirectly suing me and my legacy and you have purposely done it this way because you know that I will have to fight for my rights in the process.

xEndeavour is hereby held in contempt of court. I order that they be fined/jailed as appropriate by the DOJ. You may not speak in court cases to which you have not been summoned.

 

[Banana]

Your Honor if I may respond to this interruption by xEndeavour:

This case questions the actions of a government. Unless xEndeavour considers himself the executive branch, then he does not represent them. I am suing the states actions to appoint xEndeavour, so unless xEndeavour somehow appointed himself using presidential powers, then I would like to have him prohibited from speaking further on this case, unless called upon.

And to xEndeavour, constant interruptions are a common tactic you have employed in order to bully the courts to do what you want. In my professional opinion your legal license (if you actually have one) should be stripped from you. These courts deserve respect and your shockingly poor tactics to bully them into making a favorable decision is very disrespectful.

Dusty_3 is hereby held in contempt of court. I order that the DOJ fine/jail them as appropriate. You may not speak out of turn in court cases.

 

[End]

As a named party in the case, and as an individual whose appointment is being challenged in this case without being defended by the government, I request to file an amicus brief.

If the court denies this request, not only does it deny someone their right to defend themselves, but it also allows a one-sided case with no argument for the legal reasoning behind the appointment of the Acting Secretary. This is exactly what the Plaintiff wanted, as you can see through their case history:

SCR 7 - Sues xEndeavour and requests removal from office and a bribery charge
SCR 5 - Sues the commonwealth, names xEndeavour as a party, requests removal from office and charges of embezzlement, treason, and corruption
SCR 8 - Sues xEndeavour and Derpy Bird and requests removal from office and reverse 'all decisions'

If the court cannot see through what is happening here, it is denying my rights to a fair trial in SCR 5 and 7. Any decision made in SCR 8 will be binding on SCR 5 and 7 where I am a defendant. The plaintiff has put me in a legal checkmate because he is suing the government for the same endstate as SCR 5 and 7, to which the Government have not even responded to this case in my defence.

This is a classic legal tactic of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, and due to the incompetence of the government, this case will go unchallenged in an adversarial court system. A court system which has recognised an individual's right to defend themselves. The findings of this case will directly implicate and inform two current criminal trials.

Therefore, I believe there are compelling grounds for an amicus brief.

The court also gave the plaintiff a 5+ day extension a few days after he filed the case, so it would be remiss of the court to not accept the government's request for an extension given the changeover of government.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honors,
Its been another 48 hours, I request a default judgement, this case has been left without a response from the commonwealth for almost 2 weeks.

I have a pretty clear cut case here, it is of my professional opinion the court has plenty to make a decision. The law is specific.

Thank you

 

[End]

The court has heard a one sided argument against two individuals which has been proxied through a civil case against the commonwealth. The two individuals whose actions are being criticised should have the opportunity to present an amicus brief each.

We have an adversarial court system and that requires two opposing parties. So far you have heard arguments from one side and you have another ready to provide another side in lieu of the incompetent DLA.

The Court has also not responded to the Government's request to reply.

I again ask the court for permission to present an amicus brief and to extend that privilege to the former president.

 

[Banana]

The Court has decided to accept the request to present an amicus curiae brief.

The Commonwealth's request for an extension has been denied, as the deadline for the previous extension had more than expired by the time the second request was filed.

 

[End]

Thank you, I will provide an amicus brief in no more than 24 hours.

 

[End]

AMICUS BRIEF

Your honour, I’m writing this amicus brief to provide context and an explanation of legality to the incorrect claims made by the plaintiff concerning the appointment of an acting secretary to the Department of Construction and Transport in February 2023.

Acting Secretaries

The ESA provides that secretaries are appointed in the following manner:

5 - Cabinet
(1) Any person which holds roles functionally equivalent to a department Secretary must be approved by the Congress. This includes “Acting” Secretaries.
(2) During a vacancy in the Secretary position, their duties fall to the Deputy Secretary until a new Secretary can be chosen.
(3) Should both the Secretary and Deputy Secretary be vacant, the Secretary’s duties shall temporarily fall to a person appointed by the President.

This establishes three successive methods to fill a vacancy in the event that the proceeding method fails.

1. s5(1) provides that Secretaries must be approved by Congress whether permanent or temporary.

But - this Act is incredibly pragmatic and also recognises that the Department cannot be without someone to lead and be accountable for the department. Therefore:

2. s5(2) provides that Deputies fill the vacancy automatically (without the need for approval) until such time that s5(1) can be met.

3. s5(3) provides that if a Deputy Secretary is unable to fulfil an automatic appointment, the President is able to appoint someone until such time that s5(1) can be met. This is a last resort and continues to recognise that Departments cannot just shut down or have no one accountable during a nomination stalemate.

The notion that s5(2/3) require confirmation is contrary to their purpose. The subsections are fail safes that address stalemates while s5(1) is ongoing. If it too requires approval, it would make s5(2) and s5(3) redundant because it would just repeat the process of s5(1) nominations. It would also mean that if a department is without a secretary, technically the President could not use the years-long convention of appointing themselves to portfolios without approval under s5(3) in order to fill vacancies.

Deputies

There were no suitable replacements from the Deputy Secretaries. Nacholebraa was the Chief Justice and therefor unable to fulfil the role of Secretary due to the separation of powers. having Nacho move from the courts to fulfil a 10 day period as Secretary is irresponsible on both parties.

Kycnn discussed with the President that they would rather focus on the BI side of house rather than serve as Secretary, turning the job down in favour of working for End as Secretary.

Thus, the President was able to proceed to appointments under s5(3).

Even if there was a willing and suitable deputy replacement, the constitution states that Secretaries serve at the pleasure of the President. Therefore, if the President does not support a Deputy taking over a department, they are able to proceed to s5(3). This would mean that the President could appoint someone for an unlimited period of time, however, they would be subverting the checks and balances on their branch if done for and unreasonable period of time and would then be liable to constitutional offences. If the court rules that this was illegal and that the decisions need to be reversed, then it will impact years worth of appointments made by presidents utilising this clause to appoint themselves or an interim secretary.

This period was for seven days prior to the election and three days until the inauguration, which I would argue is far from unreasonable when the incoming administration is nominating their secretaries.

Therefore, you can see that none of these appointments needed to be made under the provisions of the Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act.

Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act

The RAS amended the ESA. It would therefore be implied that by editing the ESA - a core framework to one of our branches of government which ‘amends the constitution’ - that it would be amending the constitution.

The bill does not constitute a complex change or rights and freedoms change.

39. Complex Change
A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President:

• Changes to the System of Government.
• Plugin-related changes.
• Changes involving significant staff involvement.
• Creation of new towns/cities/urban establishments.
• A Rights & Freedoms change.

Screenshots

I’m unsure what the evidence provided represents other than department employees being paid by the acting secretary for work done, which has all transparently been logged.

The plaintiff has accused be of embezzlement and corruption in what is a civil case and of which has not been proven. The court should strike these defamatory remarks from the record.

Final Remarks

The questions and state put to the court are:

1. In ruling for the plaintiff and reversing decisions made by the Secretary, the court would be impacting several years of self or acting appointments which would also be bound by this decision. The ramifications of removing all decisions and implementations would completely destabilise the government.

2. Why would section 5 of the ESA have a s5(b) and s5(c) if it required the same confirmation and was functionally indifferent to s5(1)? The spirt of this law was to provide an interim solution to a stalemate. If the court rules in favour of the plaintiff they are requiring that departments run without leadership or close down in the event of an executive/legislative confirmation stalemate.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honors, if you allow me to respond to this amicus brief

Its as simple as this. xEndeavour and Derpy orchestrated a way to get xEndeavour back into the DCT upon his firing. When doing this they forgot Kycnn was deputy secretary.

xEndeavour is trying to argue that Derpy didnt want Deputy Kycnn to become secretary, and also that Kycnn didnt want the secretary position. Here are the facts

- Lavander was fired from Secretary
- Nacholebraa was declared, by Derpy, unable to obtain the position because of his role as Chief Justice. He wasn't given a choice to resign from the courts, he was just told he couldn't become secretary. Nacho might've wanted Secretary, Derpy just assumed he didn't.
- xEndeavour was appointed
- Derpy and xEndeavour noticed Kycnn is also Deputy secretary.
- xEndeavour and Derpy immediately realised they made a terrible mistake in their attempted coup of the DCT
- Upon this realisation they began urgently requesting Kycnn talk with them.
- During their talk, Kycnn was convinced not to take the position.

So lets roll through this very interesting looking evidence:

Spoiler: Kycnn Testimony

Here we have testimony from Kycnn explaining their side of what occurred. It is a good read

Spoiler: End realises Kycnn exists

Here's where xEndeavour realized his big mistake. Pay attention to the phrases "Please chat to me before anyone else" (clearly showing xEndeavour wants to keep his mistake hush hush as its unconstitutional and doesnt want to be called out for it) and "I need your support to stay in a secretary for this week" (Clearly showing xEndeavour approached Kycnn with the sole reason of fixing his mistake)

This evidence is very clearly showing xEndeavour forgot kycnn was deputy secretary

Spoiler: The Big Evidence

Lets not forget this message! Derpy thanked both "Secretary/Deputy." Not deputies? What makes this case even more clear is that Derpy literally tells one Deputy Secretary, Nacholebraa, why he can't become Acting Secretary. She however did not contact Kycnn in anyway shape or form regarding her position as Deputy Secretary until after xEndeavour was made Secretary illegally.

Now xEndeavours claims he made to the court, where he is obligated to tell the truth, are that "if the President does not support a Deputy taking over a department, they are able to proceed to s5(3)." First of all, the President must fire the Acting Secretaries who were Deputies in order for s5(3) to come into effect (neither Nacholebraa or Kycnn were fired, one of them wasnt given a choice and the other was forgotten, meaning s5(3) does not come into place), so xEndeavour logic is flawed.

Secondly the President quite clearly had no clue Kycnn was Deputy Secretary as shown in all the evidence, meaning the testimony given by xEndeavour is a lie and since this court has punished a player midtrial for perjury before in case Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20, I request xEndeavour is charged with perjury for knowingly lying to the court.

Derpy and xEndeavour both forgot Kycnn was deputy secretary, as shown with this evidence, therefore it is false to claim Derpy did not support either deputy secretaries before using s4(3), and xEndeavour knows that very well.

Thanks to xEndeavour for the reminding that this is civil court. In civil court it is the balance of probabilities and so far the defence has provided nothing, and this amicus brief is riddled with falsities and lies.

I'd also like to note, accusations of corruption and embezzlement are not defamatory because they are accusations. Even if they were somehow, it is on you to prove that.

All this amicus brief has provided the courts is misguided logic that will do nothing but misguide the courts, lies that will harm the judicial system, and prolonged this case from being concluded.

Your honors, I respectfully request this case has a ruling ASAP given the defence has not touched this case, I do not want to be kept waiting by endless motions from xEndeavour coupled with awful amicus briefs.

Thank you

 

[Derpy_Bird]

AMICUS BRIEF

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about this issue.

I think its important that the court considers that Secretaries serve at the pleasure of the President.

Lav was removed from her position of leadership in the department due to the way she was handling herself and the culture she was creating where it was acceptable to tell people to 'get f**ked' and Nacho was included in these remarks where he said that they can go and 'rot.' This was not what I expected of my leadership team in the DCT.

Kycnn was really nice and we spoke about what they'd like to do. We settled that it was best for them to assist with improving the BI side of the Department working with End. Afterall, Secretaries serve at the pleasure of the President. So even if Kycnn became the Secretary automatically, they still serve at my pleasure and I chose End as Secretary under s5(3). This would have effectively removed him from the position anyway.

Dusty is making this out to be a big mistake. This was a carefully considered move and I had to deal with people trying to turn it into something it wasn't (like someone getting a job with the government to sue me and End twice and then suing me and End privately). I think I speak for both End and I when I say that we were on the back foot when Dusty was invited back to the server for the sole reason of suing us and that Kycnn was being manipulated by the dusty and his friends into saying he wanted the role to create this legal mess.

 

[Banana]

Your honors, if you allow me to respond to this amicus brief

Its as simple as this. xEndeavour and Derpy orchestrated a way to get xEndeavour back into the DCT upon his firing. When doing this they forgot Kycnn was deputy secretary.

xEndeavour is trying to argue that Derpy didnt want Deputy Kycnn to become secretary, and also that Kycnn didnt want the secretary position. Here are the facts

- Lavander was fired from Secretary
- Nacholebraa was declared, by Derpy, unable to obtain the position because of his role as Chief Justice. He wasn't given a choice to resign from the courts, he was just told he couldn't become secretary. Nacho might've wanted Secretary, Derpy just assumed he didn't.
- xEndeavour was appointed
- Derpy and xEndeavour noticed Kycnn is also Deputy secretary.
- xEndeavour and Derpy immediately realised they made a terrible mistake in their attempted coup of the DCT
- Upon this realisation they began urgently requesting Kycnn talk with them.
- During their talk, Kycnn was convinced not to take the position.

So lets roll through this very interesting looking evidence:

Spoiler: Kycnn Testimony

Here we have testimony from Kycnn explaining their side of what occurred. It is a good read
View attachment 32374
View attachment 32376

Spoiler: End realises Kycnn exists

Here's where xEndeavour realized his big mistake. Pay attention to the phrases "Please chat to me before anyone else" (clearly showing xEndeavour wants to keep his mistake hush hush as its unconstitutional and doesnt want to be called out for it) and "I need your support to stay in a secretary for this week" (Clearly showing xEndeavour approached Kycnn with the sole reason of fixing his mistake)

This evidence is very clearly showing xEndeavour forgot kycnn was deputy secretary
View attachment 32377

Spoiler: The Big Evidence

Lets not forget this message! Derpy thanked both "Secretary/Deputy." Not deputies? What makes this case even more clear is that Derpy literally tells one Deputy Secretary, Nacholebraa, why he can't become Acting Secretary. She however did not contact Kycnn in anyway shape or form regarding her position as Deputy Secretary until after xEndeavour was made Secretary illegally.

Now xEndeavours claims he made to the court, where he is obligated to tell the truth, are that "if the President does not support a Deputy taking over a department, they are able to proceed to s5(3)." First of all, the President must fire the Acting Secretaries who were Deputies in order for s5(3) to come into effect (neither Nacholebraa or Kycnn were fired, one of them wasnt given a choice and the other was forgotten, meaning s5(3) does not come into place), so xEndeavour logic is flawed.

Secondly the President quite clearly had no clue Kycnn was Deputy Secretary as shown in all the evidence, meaning the testimony given by xEndeavour is a lie and since this court has punished a player midtrial for perjury before in case Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20, I request xEndeavour is charged with perjury for knowingly lying to the court.

Derpy and xEndeavour both forgot Kycnn was deputy secretary, as shown with this evidence, therefore it is false to claim Derpy did not support either deputy secretaries before using s4(3), and xEndeavour knows that very well.
View attachment 32381

Thanks to xEndeavour for the reminding that this is civil court. In civil court it is the balance of probabilities and so far the defence has provided nothing, and this amicus brief is riddled with falsities and lies.

I'd also like to note, accusations of corruption and embezzlement are not defamatory because they are accusations. Even if they were somehow, it is on you to prove that.

All this amicus brief has provided the courts is misguided logic that will do nothing but misguide the courts, lies that will harm the judicial system, and prolonged this case from being concluded.

Your honors, I respectfully request this case has a ruling ASAP given the defence has not touched this case, I do not want to be kept waiting by endless motions from xEndeavour coupled with awful amicus briefs.

Thank you

Dusty_3 is hereby held in contempt of court. I order that they be fined/jailed as appropriate by the DOJ. You may not speak out of turn in a court case.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor,
May I respond to the amicus briefs?

 

[End]

By extension, if the Plaintiff is able to make unlimited rebuttals to arguments and information made against them, I'd like to request that those who provide amicus briefs be afforded the same opportunity to address the responses to the amicus brief in a case where there is no opposition.

This is an adversarial court system and the Plaintiff is getting a uniquely one-sided case with little arguments against his case.

This case has also been left untouched for around a week.

 

[Banana]

Nobody may respond further to this case unless they have a motion to make.

 

[Banana]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dusty_3 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 8

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The President, Derpy_Bird, fired Secretary LavenderxBlaxii from the position of Secretary of the Department of Construction and Transportation.
2. In the latter’s place, instead of allowing a Deputy Secretary to assume the tasks of the Secretary as constitutionally prescribed, the President appointed xEndeavour.
3. xEndeavour was not confirmed by the Senate prior to serving in the position of Acting Secretary, in violation of the Executive Standards Act.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear before the Court in the allotted time frame.

III. OPINION OF THE COURT
Justice BananaNova delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Justice JoeGamer joined.

The Plaintiff has argued that President Derpy_Bird’s placement of xEndeavour into the position of Acting Secretary of a department violates the Constitution as xEndeavour was never confirmed by the Senate as specified in the text of the Constitution. The Defense did not respond, however in consideration of amicus curiae briefs, the Court has been brought to consider the flexibility of the Constitutional clauses in question. The Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act has also been mentioned as a possible reason to put an Acting Secretary in a post without prior Senate confirmation. The question being considered by the Court is that of whether xEndeavour was legally put into the position of Acting Secretary of the Department of Construction and Transportation, as well as to what legal enforceability the Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act carries. The providers of amici curiae briefs have made the argument that the Constitution allows for a period of serving as the acting secretary without being confirmed in order to allow for the smooth running of a department while a suitable replacement is still being found. This is permitted by the Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act (RASA). However, the constitutionality of the RASA is also in question. In order to properly consider the legality of xEndeavour’s serving as the Acting Secretary, the Court must first examine the constitutionality of the law by which they were appointed.
The RASA did amend the Executive Standards Act, an amendment to the Constitution, and therefore sought to amend the Constitution itself. By the LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act, any act that attempts to amend the Constitution either directly or via another amendment must include the phrase “A Bill to Amend the Constitution '' in its opening. The RASA’s opening simply states that it is “A Bill to Amend the Executive Standards Act ''. There is no mention of the Constitution. Therefore, by the previous and duly passed LDV Cool Amending Constitutional Amendments Act, it is the opinion of the Court that the Reasonable Acting Secretaries Act does not meet the established standards for amending the Constitution.
So given that the RASA is null by virtue of its unconstitutionality, the Court is brought to the question of xEndeavour’s appointment. By the Executive Standards Act prior to its modification by the RASA, “Any person which holds roles functionally equivalent to a department Secretary must be approved by the Congress. This includes “Acting” Secretaries.” In this case, xEndeavour is the individual holding the acting secretary role, and the Executive Standards specifies that they must be approved by Congress. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Court that the appointment of xEndeavour to the position of Acting Secretary of the Department of Construction and Transportation without congressional approval was unconstitutional. However, regardless of the unconstitutionality of the appointment, the Court is not able to grant the first item in the Prayer for Relief, as the issue is moot.
With regard to the request by the Plaintiff to overturn all of xEndeavour’s actions as Acting Secretary, the Court has determined that the actions taken were not outside of the standard duties of Secretaries, and were consistent with the actions taken by preceding and succeeding Secretaries of the Department. Furthermore, the Secretary immediately following xEndeavour had the opportunity to overturn decisions made and chose not to, making the point moot. Overturning everything done in the time period is something that is an overly severe response for mundane actions that would cause more instability than the actions themselves.
The final element of the Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief, a public apology from the President, has also been declared moot by the Court. The public apology would serve no purpose, as former President Derpy_Bird is no longer in office.

IV. VERDICT
The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont hereby finds in favor of the Plaintiff. In accordance with the opinion of the Court, none of the items in the Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief may be granted. The Court thanks all parties for their time.

It is so ordered.​