Lawsuit: Adjourned End v Commonwealth [2025] FCR 44

Status
Not open for further replies.
End

End

Owner
Owner
Senator
President Order of Redmont Trifecta
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
Senator
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
2,510

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


End
Plaintiff


v.

Commonwealth
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Redmont Legal Code Act establishes an unlawful legislative mechanism that bypasses the Constitutionally mandated legislative process and unlawfully removes the Executive from its proper role in law making.

I. PARTIES
(1) xEndeavour
(2) Commonwealth

II. FACTS
(1) The Redmont Legal Code Act establishes a process whereby the Legal Code Committee has unilateral legislative power.
(2) The Act creates an alternate legislative path not authorised by the Constitution.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Redmont Legal Code Act is unconstitutional.
(2) The legislative process established within the Act violates the Constitution by enabling law making without Presidential assent.
(3) The Act infringes upon the separation of powers by removing the Executive from its role in the legislative process.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
(1) Strike the Redmont Legal Code Act: Act of Congress - Redmont Legal Code Act

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 14th day of May 2025

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons


@juniperfig is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of End v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 44

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.

 
Commonwealth is present, your honour.
 

Motion


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

Your honor, the Plaintiff has no standing per rule 2.1 #1.

  1. The Plaintiff is a member of the party they are suing, so in essence they are suing themself and there is no “injury caused by a clear second party” as they have caused injury, if any, to themselves.
  2. By suing the Congress of the Commonwealth, and by being a member of said Congress, this should be considered an intragovernmental matter to be mediated by the Department of State as per the Executive Standards Act.


In the event that the Motion to Dismiss is not granted:

Answer to Complaint


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

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

Congress of the Commonwealth
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirms the Redmont Legal Code Act establishes a process whereby the Legal Code Committee was delegated some legislative power.
2. Affirms the act creates an alternative legislative path, but Denies this being unconstitutional.

II. DEFENCES
1. By the passing and assent of this bill, congress and the executive have delegated some power to a committee created by congress.
2. The constitution only outlines the powers of congress and the executive when creating and implementing legislation, but leaves the process of how these powers are executed to these parties.

III. REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
The Commonwealth agrees that this law should be struck, while maintaining the right for the Government to maintain their constitutional ability to exercise their powers through legislation.

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 May, 2025

 

Response


ameslap said:

Motion​


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

Your honor, the Plaintiff has no standing per rule 2.1 #1.
  1. The Plaintiff is a member of the party they are suing, so in essence they are suing themself and there is no “injury caused by a clear second party” as they have caused injury, if any, to themselves.
  2. By suing the Congress of the Commonwealth, and by being a member of said Congress, this should be considered an intragovernmental matter to be mediated by the Department of State as per the Executive Standards Act.
Click to expand...
This is correct, I wish to amend the defendant to the Commonwealth.

 
End said:

Response



This is correct, I wish to amend the defendant to the Commonwealth.

Click to expand...
You may.
 
Motion to dismiss denied as the Plaintiff is amending their complaint.

As Summary Judgement as been agreed upon by both parties, this case is im recess pending verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
End v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 44

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Redmont Legal Code Act establishes a process whereby the Legal Code Committee has unilateral legislative power.
2. The Act creates an alternate legislative path not authorised by the Constitution.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Redmont Legal Code Act isn't unconstitutional
2. By the passing and assent of this bill, congress and the executive have delegated some power to a committee created by congress.
3. This law should be struck, while maintaining the right for the Government to maintain their constitutional ability to exercise their powers through legislation.

III. THE COURT OPINION
When looking at the Redmont Legal Code Act, The court only found one section which could possible fall under the plaintiff's claim of "unilateral legislative power." Section 5 of the Redmont Legal Code act gives the power to inact and transition to the new Legal Code to congress by motion instead of legislating it through a Bill with presidential assent. This is the section the court will be examining during this verdict.

When looking at the entire legislative process the court found two defining bodies, The Constitution and The Legislative Standards Act. The Constitution mostly defines the "who" in the legislative process as in who are the legislatures and who has the power to veto bills. The LSA on the other hand mostly defines the "how" as in the process that all legislation must follow to become law. It is important to understand that for the longest time, these two pieces of legislation were the same, but since the Constitution Act and other connected acts, the LSA was removed from the Constitution so any contradictions with the LSA does not mean unconstitutional.

When looking at section 5 of the Redmont Legal Code Act its important to look at is it changing the "how" or the "who" when it comes to the legislating process. Are any powers going to change because of this section? The court does not see the powers and who they are granted to by the constitution being changed, Congress still is the Legislature and The president can still grant and veto legislation. The court does see the process to use these powers changing as defined in the LSA. The president in this instances has preemptively approved legistlation by congress instead of the normal legislative process defined in section 10(6) of the LSA.

The next question to answer after the constitionality is what to do with the two equal standing bills contradicting each other. The courts have practice in the past something similar to the Doctrine of Implied repeal, where when two acts contradict the newer one takes power as it implied to repeal/amend the older. An example of this is in zlost v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 12. "In terms of chronological order, the Constitutional Repair Act II came first followed by the Electoral Act. This is important because it means that the Electoral Act’s sections could supersede the Constitutional Repair Act II." This court is not saying that the Redmont Legal Code Act is repealing the LSA, but is amending it. The entire Idea of this act creating a new "legal code" to organize legislation is already an amendment on section 11 of the LSA and the court finds that in this and only this instance of implementing the new "legal code", is an amendment to sections 8 and 10 of the LSA defining the Legislative Process.

Therefore this court after determining that the Redmont Legal Code Act is both constitutional and takes affect over the LSA as it essentially amends it, The Redmont Legal Code Act will not be struck as requested by both parties.


IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant.

The Federal Court thanks all parties involved. Court is now adjourned.

 
  • Nay
Reactions: End
Im sorry, but what exactly is your decision in ruling in favour of the defendant?

The defendant has asked for the bill to be struck, but you have ruled in their favour and not granted any prayers? Further you are saying that a bill not intended to amend the LSA has amended the LSA and therefore the entire legislative process including removing the president from the legislative process as required by the constitution?

Have you applied any weight to the LSA versus the LCC Act? One outlines the entire legislative process and has done for years and the other outlines a committee which can make law without the assent of the president.
 
End said:
Im sorry, but what exactly is your decision in ruling in favour of the defendant?

The defendant has asked for the bill to be struck, but you have ruled in their favour and not granted any prayers? Further you are saying that a bill not intended to amend the LSA has amended the LSA and therefore the entire legislative process including removing the president from the legislative process as required by the constitution?

Have you applied any weight to the LSA versus the LCC Act? One outlines the entire legislative process and has done for years and the other outlines a committee which can make law without the assent of the president.
Click to expand...
This was my bad as I forgot to lock the thread but as a Former chief justice, you should know to not speak in a case after it has been adjourned

Therefore I am charging End with Contempt of court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top