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

Status
Not open for further replies.
End said:
Your honour, I will be respectfully requesting that you recuse if you cannot exercise your duties within the next 48 hours.

I have waited almost a month for a verdict.

@Dr_Eksplosive
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Plaintiff has now, for the second time, spoken out of order and while the Court is in recess. Furthermore, the Plaintiff appears to be trying to make a formal request to the Court without following the proper procedures for doing so. Defendant hereby requests the Plaintiff be held in Contempt of Court.

 
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Plaintiff has now, for the second time, spoken out of order and while the Court is in recess. Furthermore, the Plaintiff appears to be trying to make a formal request to the Court without following the proper procedures for doing so. Defendant hereby requests the Plaintiff be held in Contempt of Court.

Click to expand...

Well that's a little steep for someone making a polite request to the Judge and to notify them of their intentions.

Next time I''ll just jump straight into the motion and then unnecessarily cause the judge some more work.
 

Motion


Motion to Recuse

The Judge has left this case in recess for well over a reasonable timeframe and delayed the verdict by 25 days.

This is unacceptable and I wish to have them recuse because they are clearly either not interested or available to take this case.

Edit: I am not publicly calling for articles of impeachment against the presiding judge in my capacity as a Senator. A fair trial is no longer tenable with this current presiding judge due to a conflict in my accountability responsibilities against the member of the judiciary.

 
Last edited:
End said:

Motion


Motion to Recuse

The Judge has left this case in recess for well over a reasonable timeframe and delayed the verdict by 25 days.

This is unacceptable and I wish to have them recuse because they are clearly either not interested or available to take this case.

Edit: I am not publicly calling for articles of impeachment against the presiding judge in my capacity as a Senator. A fair trial is no longer tenable with this current presiding judge due to a conflict in my accountability responsibilities against the member of the judiciary.

Click to expand...
Sustained.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Executive has failed in it's duties and Judicial intervention is required.
2. JSAA should be law as the president failed to give assent or veto in the required 14 days meaning assent is assumed.
3. The JSAA did not amend the constitution and only amended the JSA.
4. No referendum was needed for the JSAA as it wasn't a complex change.
5. Ex Post Facto only applies to criminal law and therefore has no bearing on this case

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The JSAA failed it's referendum meaning it failed in becoming law.
2. The JSAA needed a referendum as it was a complex change due to the fact that it involved "Changes involving significant staff involvement."
3. The Fluff Removal Act removed the 14 day period requiring the president to sign or veto bills in the allotted time from the old constitution.
4. Ex Post Facto forces the old constitution to be treated as law and not the new constitution as it hadn't passed yet.
5. The New Constitution does not explicitly remove previous amendments from the constitution, only conflicting law.

III. THE COURT OPINION
When reviewing this case, the most important question needing to answered first is what law applies and where. With the most important legal document in Redmont, the constitution, being replace while the LSAA was at the same time being passed, it has created much more confusion then what would normally be. So before this court interprets the law, it must be decided exactly what law and what constitution needs to be interpreted.

Ex Post Facto was a major discussing point on both sides with the main argument coming from the plaintiff. This argument being that because the Standardized Criminal Code Act (SCCA) states Ex Post Facto in terms of criminal matters, Ex Post Facto only applies to criminal matters. For this, the court whole heartly disagress. Ex Post Facto is more then what the SCCA makes it out to be. It is generally a legal idea to apply the law as it was then and not what it is now when looking at all cases not just criminal. People, companies and the commonwealth can only act as the law is during the moment and not what it will be in the future. Therefore when interpreting the law, one should not retroactively apply the law unless that law overrides Ex Post Facto as stated in section 4(b) of the SCCA which the new constitution did not. This mean the law at the time an action took place is what will be interpreted.

Now when looking at whether or not the JSAA was propertly passed, the court must examine the first hurdle this act needed to get over, the referendum. Was the referendum actually needed due to the JSAA being a complex change? When looking at the changes the JSAA was making, even though its passage was contingent on the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act, it must be view by itself. Congress voted on the JSAA and the CRCA as seperate bills and the referendum focused only on the JSAA. The CRCA will not be considered when looking at what the JSAA was changing in order to determine if these changes rise to a complex change.

Looking at the JSAA, the very first change removes "Judicial power is vested in the court" from the JSA and by extentsion the constitution. As this removes the vested powers of an entire branch of government, the court finds that under the relevant law at the time, the previous constitution, this fits under "Changes to the System of Government." for a complex change. This means the referendum was needed, and as it failed, the JSAA is simply not law. The process was properly followed by the commonwealth but the JSAA failed that proper process.


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


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

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top