Lawsuit: In Session End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31

Apologies to @gribble19, I completely misread the witness requests. You are not required.

Plaintiff, you may present your questions to your witness. You have 48 hours.
 
You honour, in my witness testimony, I will seek witness accounts on my legal test that I established above.

Did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act meet the requirements to become law?

Commonwealth's Legal Representative:
  • As of today, has the Commonwealth acknowledged the automatic assent of the JSAA?
President:
  • What date were you notified when the JSAA was presented to you after passing both chambers?
  • Did you sign, veto, or otherwise act on the JSAA within 14 days?
  • In the absence of veto or assent, what does the Constitution dictate happens to a bill after 14 days?
What type of law was the Judicial Standards Amendment Act?

A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President:
1. Changes to the System of Government.
2. Plugin-related changes.
3. Changes involving significant staff involvement.
4. A Rights & Freedoms change.
Click to expand...
Defining System of Government Changes
Any changes that:
1. Affect the distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state.
2. Changes to Government Departments.
3. Significant changes to the system by which the state is governed in general.
Click to expand...

Commonwealth Legal Representative:
  • Does the JSAA change the system of government?
  • Does the JSAA change any rights & freedoms?
Staff:
  • Does the JSAA have any significant changes involving staff involvement?
  • Does the JSSA have any plugin related changes?
Did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act amend the Constitution?

Commonwealth's Legal Representative:
  • What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?
  • Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?
  • At any stage, did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act modify the Constitution?
President:
  • Was the JSAA intended to change the Constitution itself, or merely to update statutory law?
Was the referendum required?

President
  • Under the new and old constitutions, is a non-complex/statutory change required to pass a referendum?
  • After it was identified that the referendum was unnecessary, why did the Executive not implement the JSAA?
Is Ex-Post Facto relevant?

Commonwealth's Legal Representative
  • Where in Redmont law does ex-post facto apply outside of criminal law?

Thank you.

@Freeze_Line
@1950Minecrafter
@Technofied
 
Senator End has requested I explicitly lick the court (do not fact check this).

As such, may it arouse the court, and by extension, Your Honour, that the court has been licked.

To the questions:
End said:
  • Does the JSAA have any significant changes involving staff involvement?
Click to expand...
No.

End said:
  • Does the JSSA have any plugin related changes?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Your honor, I apologize for the late response. On Sunday afternoon and evening, the forums didn't work for me, and on Monday, we had an electric system malfunction all over Spain and Portugal from 12PM to 1AM. I will now proceed to answer the plaintiff's questions:

What date were you notified when the JSAA was presented to you after passing both chambers?
I was notified on the 28th of February 2025 in the #presiding-officers channel in the main DemocracyCraft discord server by the plaintiff, then President of the Senate, xEndeavour. I was notified again as a reminder on the 1st of March 2025 in the same channel by the same presiding officer.

Did you sign, veto, or otherwise act on the JSAA within 14 days?
I did not sign or veto, but I requested a referendum to the DOS as it was a Complex Change of the Constitution and the Constitutional Amendment process of the moment required a referendum to pass before the President signed or vetoed the bill.

In the absence of veto or assent, what does the Constitution dictate happens to a bill after 14 days?
As far as I can remember, back then, nothing happened. The bill would be on the President's desk as long as it took the President to sign or veto the bill. With the current Constitution, the bill gets automatically approved after 14 days of not having a sign or a veto issued.

Was the JSAA intended to change the Constitution itself, or merely to update statutory law?
The intention of the JSAA should be asked to the author of the bill. But the JSAA did actually want to change the Constitution, as back then, the JSA was part of the Constitution, so amending the JSA was inherently an amendment to the Constitution. Also, the bill explicitly said "A bill to amend the constitution and the Judicial Standards Act", which I would say it clearly shows that it was meant to change the Constitution.

Under the new and old constitutions, is a non-complex/statutory change required to pass a referendum?
In the old Constitution, a non-complex/statutory change didn't require a referendum to pass. In the new Constitution, every single change to the Constitution, no matter how small it is, requires a referendum.

After it was identified that the referendum was unnecessary, why did the Executive not implement the JSAA?
I have only been told by the plaintiff that the referendum was unnecessary and I stand by the argument that the referendum was, indeed, necessary as the JSAA was, indeed, a Complex Change. The referendum was held and the results were clear: The referendum on the JSAA didn't get enough support for it to be passed. The moment the referendum failed, the JSAA was basically removed of existance and so the Executive had nothing to implement from the JSAA.
 
1950Minecrafter said:
Your honor, I apologize for the late response. On Sunday afternoon and evening, the forums didn't work for me, and on Monday, we had an electric system malfunction all over Spain and Portugal from 12PM to 1AM. I will now proceed to answer the plaintiff's questions:

What date were you notified when the JSAA was presented to you after passing both chambers?
I was notified on the 28th of February 2025 in the #presiding-officers channel in the main DemocracyCraft discord server by the plaintiff, then President of the Senate, xEndeavour. I was notified again as a reminder on the 1st of March 2025 in the same channel by the same presiding officer.

Did you sign, veto, or otherwise act on the JSAA within 14 days?
I did not sign or veto, but I requested a referendum to the DOS as it was a Complex Change of the Constitution and the Constitutional Amendment process of the moment required a referendum to pass before the President signed or vetoed the bill.

In the absence of veto or assent, what does the Constitution dictate happens to a bill after 14 days?
As far as I can remember, back then, nothing happened. The bill would be on the President's desk as long as it took the President to sign or veto the bill. With the current Constitution, the bill gets automatically approved after 14 days of not having a sign or a veto issued.

Was the JSAA intended to change the Constitution itself, or merely to update statutory law?
The intention of the JSAA should be asked to the author of the bill. But the JSAA did actually want to change the Constitution, as back then, the JSA was part of the Constitution, so amending the JSA was inherently an amendment to the Constitution. Also, the bill explicitly said "A bill to amend the constitution and the Judicial Standards Act", which I would say it clearly shows that it was meant to change the Constitution.

Under the new and old constitutions, is a non-complex/statutory change required to pass a referendum?
In the old Constitution, a non-complex/statutory change didn't require a referendum to pass. In the new Constitution, every single change to the Constitution, no matter how small it is, requires a referendum.

After it was identified that the referendum was unnecessary, why did the Executive not implement the JSAA?
I have only been told by the plaintiff that the referendum was unnecessary and I stand by the argument that the referendum was, indeed, necessary as the JSAA was, indeed, a Complex Change. The referendum was held and the results were clear: The referendum on the JSAA didn't get enough support for it to be passed. The moment the referendum failed, the JSAA was basically removed of existance and so the Executive had nothing to implement from the JSAA.
Click to expand...

Follow on questions:

  • What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?

  • Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?

  • At any stage, did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act modify the Constitution?
 
Your honour, I posted my questions to the government 3 days ago.

They were pinged here and on discord.

I request that they be held in contempt for needlessly delaying the trial and failing to respond to very simple questions.

IMG_7061.png
 
End said:
Your honour, I posted my questions to the government 3 days ago.

They were pinged here and on discord.

I request that they be held in contempt for needlessly delaying the trial and failing to respond to very simple questions.

View attachment 54694
Click to expand...
The Attorney General was not summoned, Nacho was summoned. As you insisted, it was "very clear" that Nacho was the legal representative of the Commonwealth.

@Nacho, please respond to the Plaintiff's questions in 24 hours. Otherwise, you will be held in contempt.
 
juniperfig said:
The Attorney General was not summoned, Nacho was summoned. As you insisted, it was "very clear" that Nacho was the legal representative of the Commonwealth.

@Nacho, please respond to the Plaintiff's questions in 24 hours. Otherwise, you will be held in contempt.
Click to expand...

He informed me that he stepped away from the case.

So I request whoever the replacement government legal representative is responds, and if not, the Attorney General is ultimately liable for ensuring the Government responds.
 
Your honour, the questions were posted for the President 3 days ago and for the Government 5 days ago.

This is delaying the case and is the third time occurring of missing a deadline for the defendant.

I request that witnesses be held to account and that all questions now be answered within 24 hours from now.
 
Your honor, I apologize for the delay in the answer, 2 days ago I begun a 5 days-long event in my irl party and I didn't have time to provide a properly thought answer to this. I'm going to be answering right now:

What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?
  1. The JSAA removed the establishment of what a district is, as the JSA defined that "Each‌ ‌town‌ ‌or‌ ‌city‌ ‌shall‌ ‌be‌ ‌considered‌ ‌a‌ ‌district‌", while I can't find any reference to that in the old Constitution. And the new Constitution doesn't define that neither, so I think this is relevant.
  2. The requirements for Judicial Officers both in the old and the new Constitution was only of total playtime, while in the JSA it is total playtime + playtime in the last 30 days, something that the JSAA was going to remove. I think this is an important change.
  3. The JSA establishes Appeal requirements that I can't find in the old nor the new Constitution.
I think these 3 changes are relevant changes that the JSAA did to the JSA and so the old Constitution that the new Constitution didn't address.

Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?
Yes, it could have passed without the Redmont Constitution Act passing for 2 reasons:
  • The bill amended the JSA, and as the JSA was within the Constitution with the old Constitution, it amended the old Constitution too.
  • The JSAA had a clause that specified what would happen until the CRCA passed, so there was a situation in which the CRCA didn't passed already planned and established within the bill.
So I think it wouldn't have mattered if the CRCA would have passed or not, as there were the 2 scenarios already taken into account and planned.

At any stage, did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act modify the Constitution?

Taking into account that the JSAA didn't pass, no, it never modified anything in the Constitution, neither the old nor the new one. But if we mean about the content of the bill, then, yes, the JSAA was meant to modify the old Constitution as it was meant to modify the JSA, which was part of the Constitution.
 
@Freeze_Line, please respond to the Plaintiff's questions within 24 hours. Any further delay will have you held in contempt.

Thank you @1950Minecrafter.
 
What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?
  1. The JSAA removed the establishment of what a district is, as the JSA defined that "Each‌ ‌town‌ ‌or‌ ‌city‌ ‌shall‌ ‌be‌ ‌considered‌ ‌a‌ ‌district‌", while I can't find any reference to that in the old Constitution. And the new Constitution doesn't define that neither, so I think this is relevant.
  2. The requirements for Judicial Officers both in the old and the new Constitution was only of total playtime, while in the JSA it is total playtime + playtime in the last 30 days, something that the JSAA was going to remove. I think this is an important change.
  3. The JSA establishes Appeal requirements that I can't find in the old nor the new Constitution.
I think these 3 changes are relevant changes that the JSAA did to the JSA and so the old Constitution that the new Constitution didn't address.
Click to expand...

Thank you, to summarise your answer you agree that the JSAA did not directly change the constitution it only amended the JSA. Is this correct?

Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?
Yes, it could have passed without the Redmont Constitution Act passing for 2 reasons:
  • The bill amended the JSA, and as the JSA was within the Constitution with the old Constitution, it amended the old Constitution too.
  • The JSAA had a clause that specified what would happen until the CRCA passed, so there was a situation in which the CRCA didn't passed already planned and established within the bill.
So I think it wouldn't have mattered if the CRCA would have passed or not, as there were the 2 scenarios already taken into account and planned.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you've said yes then said completely opposite in your commentary. To clarify, the JSAA has this included in the passage requirements of the bill:
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage and is contingent to the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act's passage.
Click to expand...

With that in mind, do you agree that If the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act did not pass, the JSAA could also not be signed into law?

At any stage, did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act modify the Constitution?

Taking into account that the JSAA didn't pass, no, it never modified anything in the Constitution, neither the old nor the new one. But if we mean about the content of the bill, then, yes, the JSAA was meant to modify the old Constitution as it was meant to modify the JSA, which was part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

How can the JSAA amend the old constitution if it can't pass unless the new constitution passes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
End said:
Thank you, to summarise your answer you agree that the JSAA did not directly change the constitution it only amended the JSA. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Leading

Plaintiff is asking a leading question, asking to confirm a narrative that he presented.

End said:
Sorry, you've said yes then said completely opposite in your commentary. To clarify, the JSAA has this included in the passage requirements of the bill:


With that in mind, do you agree that If the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act did not pass, the JSAA could also not be signed into law?
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Arguing with witness, Leading

Plaintiff is clearly arguing with and antagonizing the witness in the first section of the quote, as opposed to impeaching the witness, described as correct procedure for this situation in the objections guide.

Plaintiff then asks a leading question, asking the witness to confirm a narrative presented ("Do you agree that ... ?").
 
Staff Team said:
Senator End has requested I explicitly lick the court (do not fact check this).

As such, may it arouse the court, and by extension, Your Honour, that the court has been licked.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike

Witness's comments regarding licking and arousing were out of line, irrelevant, and/or sexual. The defense therefore moves to strike them from the record.
 
End said:
Commonwealth's Legal Representative:
  • As of today, has the Commonwealth acknowledged the automatic assent of the JSAA?
Commonwealth Legal Representative:
  • Does the JSAA change the system of government?
  • Does the JSAA change any rights & freedoms?
Commonwealth's Legal Representative:
  • What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?
  • Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?
  • At any stage, did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act modify the Constitution?
Commonwealth's Legal Representative
  • Where in Redmont law does ex-post facto apply outside of criminal law?
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Incompetent

The legal representative for the Commonwealth, a State Prosecutor, is not an expert on any questions listed. This question is not within her official purview as a state prosecutor, and she should therefore not be called as an expert on these matters in her official prosecutorial capacity.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Leading

Plaintiff is asking a leading question, asking to confirm a narrative that he presented.
Click to expand...

Response

The Defence hasn't answered my original question. I have put a confirmatory question to them which they can answer as they please. If they don't want to confirm what the question is asking, then I will ask them to answer the question again.

 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Arguing with witness, Leading

Plaintiff is clearly arguing with and antagonizing the witness in the first section of the quote, as opposed to impeaching the witness, described as correct procedure for this situation in the objections guide.

Plaintiff then asks a leading question, asking the witness to confirm a narrative presented ("Do you agree that ... ?").
Click to expand...

Response


I'm pointing out that the witness has contradicted themselves in their testimony.

 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike

Witness's comments regarding licking and arousing were out of line, irrelevant, and/or sexual. The defense therefore moves to strike them from the record.
Click to expand...

Response

Get a sense of humour. If the judge sees that they need to remove the comments, then that can be done by striking the comment and not the entire testimony - which is valuable to the case.

 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Incompetent

The legal representative for the Commonwealth, a State Prosecutor, is not an expert on any questions listed. This question is not within her official purview as a state prosecutor, and she should therefore not be called as an expert on these matters in her official prosecutorial capacity.
Click to expand...

Response

I don't care who represents the Government in this matter. If you keep trying to get out of answering on behalf of the government I will just forward my questions to the President. Your choice.

 
Questions for the President due to the Government's failure to answer questions over six days.

RE-ASKING THESE QUESTIONS:

I offer you the opportunity to clarify your standing noting that you have provided excessive narrative and not answered the questions as they were asked without needing to flood the court with objections.

What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?

In your previous response you discussed what statutory changes the JSAA made. Please answer the question which is strictly limited to asking about direct amendments to the Constitution.

Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?

You have said that the Constitution could have been amended and that it could not be amended in your response. Please clarify your position on whether the JSAA could have passed without the passage of the new constitution. This question is not relevant to the old constitution.

How can the JSAA amend the old constitution if it can't pass unless the new constitution passes?


QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ANSWERED

Does the JSAA change the system of government?

Does the JSAA change any rights & freedoms?

Where in Redmont law does ex-post facto apply outside of criminal law?

Request response within 24 hours.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Leading

Plaintiff is asking a leading question, asking to confirm a narrative that he presented.
Click to expand...
Sustained. The question will be struck.

Mask3D_WOLF said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Arguing with witness, Leading

Plaintiff is clearly arguing with and antagonizing the witness in the first section of the quote, as opposed to impeaching the witness, described as correct procedure for this situation in the objections guide.

Plaintiff then asks a leading question, asking the witness to confirm a narrative presented ("Do you agree that ... ?").
Click to expand...
Sustained. The question and statement shall be struck.

Mask3D_WOLF said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Strike

Witness's comments regarding licking and arousing were out of line, irrelevant, and/or sexual. The defense therefore moves to strike them from the record.
Click to expand...
No.

Mask3D_WOLF said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Incompetent

The legal representative for the Commonwealth, a State Prosecutor, is not an expert on any questions listed. This question is not within her official purview as a state prosecutor, and she should therefore not be called as an expert on these matters in her official prosecutorial capacity.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff summoned the legal representative of the Commonwealth to testify on behalf of the Commonwealth — not in her capacity as a prosecutor, but as someone presumably able to speak to the legal and procedural context of the law in question.

If the Department of Justice is now claiming that their representative is not competent to do so, I won’t argue. It is, frankly, alarming that the DOJ cannot produce a single legal representative who can answer questions about the passage of Commonwealth legislation. But if that is truly the position being taken here, then so be it. Sustained.
 
Last edited:
The Department can very well produce someone who can do it, however that is not within the expertise of a prosecutor who joined yesterday. Would you like me to pass the message onto another person in the department, perhaps?
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
The Department can very well produce someone who can do it, however that is not within the expertise of a prosecutor who joined yesterday. Would you like me to pass the message onto another person in the department, perhaps?
Click to expand...

The Government's testimony is no longer required, I have forwarded your questions to the President since the Defence ignored them for a week.
 
juniperfig said:
The Plaintiff summoned the legal representative of the Commonwealth to testify on behalf of the Commonwealth — not in her capacity as a prosecutor, but as someone presumably able to speak to the legal and procedural context of the law in question.

If the Department of Justice is now claiming that their representative is not competent to do so, I won’t argue. It is, frankly, alarming that the DOJ cannot produce a single legal representative who can answer questions about the passage of Commonwealth legislation. But if that is truly the position being taken here, then so be it. Sustained.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Normally, a motion to reconsider would not be filed for a decision supported by the party filing. When a verdict such as this is based on such snarky and legally unsound statements, however, this is filed in the interest of fairness.

The reasoning behind sustaining the objection is unsound. A lawyer would not be called to testify on behalf of their client, and a governmental department employee would not be called to testify on behalf of the government on matters pertaining to government-wide policy, nor would a random lawyer would not be called to testify as an expert on subjects in which there is no guarantee that expertise is present.

In addition, it is quite a stretch to say that a random lawyer from the department, not even listed by name, not being an expert on the subject means that nobody in the department is an expert on it. It is not that “a single legal representative” from the department cannot answer, it is that the random person who was called to answer has no established expertise in government-wide policy. As established prior, this is on par with a lawyer being summoned to testify on the thoughts of a client.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Objection


OBJECTION
Relevance

This is no longer relevant, the Government has no questions pending.

 
End said:

Objection


OBJECTION
Relevance

This is no longer relevant, the Government has no questions pending.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The motion shall be struck.
 
End said:
The Government's testimony is no longer required, I have forwarded your questions to the President since the Defence ignored them for a week.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

The plaintiff spoke out of turn to improperly speak and retract his questions.
 
juniperfig said:
Sustained. The motion shall be struck.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Regardless of the relevance, this is an extremely important point of law to rule upon nonetheless. I especially ask you to reconsider seeing as the objection was hastily ruled upon with no response from opposing counsel.

If the above objection is sustained, however, there is indeed relevance. Due to plaintiff's improper striking of their questions for the legal representative of the Commonwealth, the questions still stand and this important matter should be ruled upon.
 
Greetings all, I will be taking over this case following the (Frmr.) Honourable Judge juniperfig's untimely resignation. Please bear with me as I review the case at hand, along with the numerous others on my docket.
 
Your honour, I request that the President be given a 24 hour timeline to respond. He has been reminded several times to respond to this case, his government failed to respond in six days, and he has had fair and ample time.

This is nothing but a delay tactic.
 
End said:
Your honour, the President was given their questions 6 days ago.

These questions were first posed to his Government 12 days ago.

@Dr_Eksplosive
Click to expand...
Before I impose any sanctions or make any rulings, could you please provide images of the questions being forwarded to the President. This is highly unorthodox and all witness examination should be done within the court, not outside during proceedings. Given the apparent incompetence of the Commonwealth's legal team in answering the previously asked questions, I will grant some leeway. Please provide the evidence within 24 hours.
 
End said:
Questions for the President due to the Government's failure to answer questions over six days.

RE-ASKING THESE QUESTIONS:

I offer you the opportunity to clarify your standing noting that you have provided excessive narrative and not answered the questions as they were asked without needing to flood the court with objections.

What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?

In your previous response you discussed what statutory changes the JSAA made. Please answer the question which is strictly limited to asking about direct amendments to the Constitution.

Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?

You have said that the Constitution could have been amended and that it could not be amended in your response. Please clarify your position on whether the JSAA could have passed without the passage of the new constitution. This question is not relevant to the old constitution.

How can the JSAA amend the old constitution if it can't pass unless the new constitution passes?


QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ANSWERED

Does the JSAA change the system of government?

Does the JSAA change any rights & freedoms?

Where in Redmont law does ex-post facto apply outside of criminal law?

Request response within 24 hours.
Click to expand...

All questions are visible within this thread.
 
1746973516961.png


You can also see that the President has been reminded several times on Discord as well as being pinged on forums (assuming they have not removed the autofollow post).
 
End said:
All questions are visible within this thread.
Click to expand...
My sincerest apologies.

The President is hereby held in Contempt for failing to answer these questions. Answer them. Now. You have 24 hours. @1950Minecrafter you have been sufficiently warned.
 
Your honour, I have had a busy week and I haven't been able to answer yet, specially after the plaintiff reworded his questions before I could answer and so I had to adapt my old answers to the new questions. I don't take this process lightly and so I wanted to properly answer and until now I didn't have the time. Plus, yesterday and today forums didn't work for me. I apologize for any delay on this case. No, this wasn't a delay tactic, as the plaintiff suggested. That being said, I'm going to proceed to answer to the plaintiff's questions.

What did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act change in the Constitution which was not already changed by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act?

I have already answered this in the previous answers. But I'm going to repeat them again, in case it wasn't clear enough:
  1. The JSAA removed the establishment of what a district is, as the JSA defined that "Each‌ ‌town‌ ‌or‌ ‌city‌ ‌shall‌ ‌be‌ ‌considered‌ ‌a‌ ‌district‌", while I can't find any reference to that in the old Constitution main document. And the new Constitution doesn't define that neither, so I think this is relevant.
  2. The requirements for Judicial Officers both in the old and the new Constitution main documents was only of total playtime, while in the JSA it is total playtime + playtime in the last 30 days, something that the JSAA was going to remove. I think this is an important change.
  3. The JSA establishes Appeal requirements that I can't find in the old nor the new Constitution main documents.
Could the Judicial Standards Amendment Act have passed into law without the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passing?

The JSAA could have passed through the existing procedures for a Constitutional Amendment of a Complex Change nature, but wouldn't have been legally binding until the CRCA passed.

How can the JSAA amend the old constitution if it can't pass unless the new constitution passes?

Precisely because the new Constitution didn't pas. You can't amend or take action on what doesn't exist. At the moment the JSAA was proposed, there wasn't the new Constitution, but the old Constitution, and while there was the old Constitution, what this one established was what had to be followed.

So, as the Constitution in place was the old one, as the JSA was as much part of the old Constitution as the Rights&Freedoms section of the old Constitution, even if in separate documents, an amendment to the JSA was an amendment to the old Constitution. The JSAA bill in itself even said it, that it amended the Constitution.

If the CRCA had passed before the JSAA, would the JSAA amend the Constitution? No. If the CRCA hadn't passed before the JSAA, would the JSAA amend the Constitution? Yes. Was the CRCA enacted before the JSAA passed the Congress? No. Did the JSAA pass Congress before the CRCA was enacted? Yes. Therefore, the JSAA amended the old Constitution and the procedures established at the moment is what had to be followed.

In this case, as the JSAA was amending the JSA and so the Constitution, even if it wouldn't be legally binding until the CRCA passed, it had to follow the procedure for a Constitutional Amendment, and by the nature of the JSAA, a Constitutional Amendment for a Complex Change, which required a referendum. And so the JSAA went to referendum and failed the referendum. And so the JSAA failed.


QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ANSWERED

Does the JSAA change the system of government? Yes.

Does the JSAA change any rights & freedoms? No.

Where in Redmont law does ex-post facto apply outside of criminal law? I'm not a lawyer, so a lawyer would answer this better, but I imagine it also applies in civil law in cases where law has changed after the lawsuit was filed.
 
End said:
@Dr_Eksplosive
Click to expand...
I don't take kindly to being pinged repeatedly. Kindly remember that I am a lone member of the judiciary handling a large caseload with an already hectic irl schedule. Next time you speak out of turn you will be held in contempt.

However, I do note that you no longer have any questions. I will grant 24 hours to the Commonwealth to post any cross-examinations. After these 24 hours have elapsed, a 72 hour period will automatically commence for Plaintiff's Closing remarks.
 
Dr_Eksplosive said:
I don't take kindly to being pinged repeatedly. Kindly remember that I am a lone member of the judiciary handling a large caseload with an already hectic irl schedule. Next time you speak out of turn you will be held in contempt.

However, I do note that you no longer have any questions. I will grant 24 hours to the Commonwealth to post any cross-examinations. After these 24 hours have elapsed, a 72 hour period will automatically commence for Plaintiff's Closing remarks.
Click to expand...
Could we please get an extension of this to 48 hours?
 
The defense has neglected to submit any cross-examinations. The Plaintiff shall now have 72 hours from this post to submit their closing statement.
 
for your sanity, view in light mode

Closing Statement


CLOSING STATEMENT

The Judicial Standards Amendment Act (JSAA), duly passed by both chambers of Congress, was designed to align our judicial framework with the new constitution and the removal of obsolete, duplicated provisions.

Timeline

The following timeline shows that the JSAA has met all things necessary for it to pass into law.

DateAction
~ 25 February 2025Passage through House
~ 26 February 2025Passage through Senate
28 February 2025President notified of passage by the Senate President
05 March 2025JSAA was erroneously put to public referendum
07 March 2025Referendum complete.
08 March 2025New constitution is in effect, now governing document.
14 March 2025JSAA passes into law. Assent is assumed.
16 March 2025President is informed.
30 March 2025FCR 31 filed.

What requires a referendum?

The Defence’s reliance on a public referendum is legally baseless.

The governing document at the time that the referendum was posed was the old constitution.

The governing document at the time that the referendum was completed was the new constitution.

Regardless, neither of these constitutions required a referendum of the JSAA.

Old Constitution Requirements for ReferendumNew Constitution Requirements for Referendum
Complex ChangeConstitutional Change
A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President:

1. Changes to the System of Government.

1a. Affect the distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state.

1b. Changes to Government Departments.

1c. Significant changes to the system by which the state is governed in general.

2. Plugin-related changes.

3. Changes involving significant staff involvement.

4. A Rights & Freedoms change.		Any change to the constitution.

The JSAA amended only the Judicial Standards Act, not the Constitution, and made no structural, rights-based, or technical changes. The bill explicitly required the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act to pass in order for the JSAA to be enacted — meaning any changes in the JSAA only took effect after the Constitution changed, further limiting any legal impact it could have had alone.

What does the JSAA change?

With the triggers for a referendum in mind, lets summarise what the JSAA does.

What complex changes does it make?What Constitutional changes does it make?
The JSAA does not make any complex changes.
The JSA Amendment Act simply does not amend anything but itself, it simply amends the JSA.
All constitutional changes are made by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act.

The JSAA only removes sections which were made redundant when the new constitution came into effect.

The JSAA was only able to pass IF the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passed. This was a condition to it being enacted in the bill.

Therefore, there is absolutely no way possible that the JSAA could make any complex changes.

Therefore:

1. No systems of government were changed by the JSAA.

2. The Staff Team testifies that there were no plugin related changes required by this act.

3. The Staff Team testifies that there were no significant staff actions required by this act.

4. No rights or freedoms are amended by this act.

5. Any changes in this act are actioned by the new constitution's passage and removed as duplicate information by the JSAA.		The JSAA does not amend the constitution.

The JSA Amendment Act simply does not amend anything but itself, it simply amends the JSA.

All constitutional changes are made by the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act.

The JSAA only removes sections which were made redundant when the new constitution came into effect.

The JSAA was only able to pass IF the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act passed. This was a condition to it being enacted in the bill.

Therefore, there is absolutely no way possible that the JSAA could make any change to the new constitution.

On the passage of the new constitution, the JSA immediately lost it's constitutional status and became a regular statue. Nothing could have been changed in the JSA until the new constitution was enacted.

Addressing the Defence's Claims

On 'the JSAA says that it amends the constitution in the long title'

This argument misrepresents legislative convention and reflects the legal reality that, at the time, the Judicial Standards Act (JSA) was embedded within the Constitution. However, the new constitution made the operative changes to the constitution and the JSAA simply removed the duplicated information after the new constitution was enacted. The JSAA merely removed now-redundant language and made no change to the constitution.

On Ex Post Facto

The Standardised Criminal Code Act explicitly limits the scope of ex post facto protections to criminal actions. S4(a) states:

"Individuals cannot be subject to punishments for criminal actions if it was not illegal at the time it was committed."
Click to expand...

This clause confines the ex post facto principle to criminal liability. The Judicial Standards Amendment Act (JSAA) is not a criminal statute, nor does it impose any form of punishment retroactively.

On Judicial Activity Requirements

The new Constitution overrides the JSA by setting its own playtime criteria, making the JSA’s legally redundant. The JSAA removes these from the JSA.

If you are suggesting that there is a clash between the JSAA and the Constitution, then the JSAA is only more redundant as the new Constitution supersedes the requirements of the JSAA.

JSAA/Old ConstitutionNew Constitution
The following requirements exist in order to be nominated to the bench:
Chief Justice - has accrued 150 hours and 12 hours of playtime in the last 30 days
Justice - has accrued 125 hours and 12 hours of playtime in the last 30 days
Judge - has accrued 72 hours and 12 hours of playtime in the last 30 days ‌		(3) Qualifications for nomination:
(a) Chief Justice: 150 hours of total active playtime.
(b) Justice: 125 hours of total active playtime.
(c) Judge: 72 hours of total active playtime.
Makes JSA requirements redundant by superseding them.

In Closing

The Defence’s few submissions have lacked both legal reasoning and any form of clarity throughout this case. Rather than answering the constitutional questions at the heart of this case, the President and his administration have demonstrated a concerning misunderstanding of the legislative process and pushed a significant amount of irrelevant narrative.

The Defence has failed to establish any lawful basis for classifying the JSAA as a complex change nor a constitutional change. This Court must reaffirm that laws passed according to constitutional process are binding and not subject to executive veto by omission, delay, or invented procedure.

The Defence has invested considerable time and effort into obstructing the implementation of an Act which does nothing more than remove redundant and superseded provisions from a non-constitutional law.

I respectfully ask that the Court take into account the time, qualifications, and sustained effort I have committed over the past two months in holding the government accountable, and that it award costs accordingly to reflect the burden I have undertaken in pursuing this matter in the public interest.

 
The Defense now has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statement.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor, the Plaintiff paints a beautiful picture of the Executive’s malpractice in its duties. The problem is the Plaintiff is wrong.

The Plaintiff has wasted this court’s time by bringing this case. The only reason the Plaintiff is suing in this instance is because the referendum failed. There has never been any argument (whether before in this case or any other) of the constitutionality of the Executive Standards Amendment Act, Legislative Standards Amendment Act, or the Electoral Amendment Act, all of which held referendums, and all of which were authored by the Plaintiff.

At the time of the legislation’s passage from Congress, the Judicial Standards Act was an amendment to the constitution. Any proposed amendments to the JSA were also amendments to the constitution. The Speaker of the House did the proper process for amendments: request a referendum.

The Plaintiff has brought up that this bill has only been contingent on the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act being passed, which is true. However there are issues with the Plaintiff’s arguments as a whole:

The Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act does not explicitly remove previous amendments from the constitution, only the sections which conflict with the new Constitution: “(a) Amendments to the previous Constitution will not be repealed in their entirety; only the superseded sections will be severed from the legislation.”

So what does this mean? Upon the passage of the new constitution, the JSA was and is still a constitutional amendment. This is because, as outlined by our Plaintiff, a complex change to the constitution (under the old constitution) and ANY change to the new constitution needs a referendum. The JSAA sought to remove the JSA from the constitution as a whole, this alone makes it a complex change that required the referendum.

We agree that any wording in the constitution that matches the JSA should be removed from the JSA, but that is not because of the JSAA, but rather the CRCA. Any wording that was not replaced by the CRCA, but instead was supposed to be removed by the JSAA should be considered a complex change and needed a referendum. Furthermore, because the JSAA required a referendum, and failed, the JSA is still an amendment to the constitution, so the 14-day auto-assent cannot apply, as a referendum would be required since it would be another constitutional amendment, and ANY change is now required to have a referendum.

The Executive and Legislative have done their duties, and the JSAA should not be granted assent because it did not pass referendum, which was required then and still required now.

 
Case is hereby in recess pending verdict. Please bear with me as this may take a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top