Lawsuit: Adjourned Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 66

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Galavance (Represented by The Lovely Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

In late June, the President implemented an Executive Order changing certain parameters for the sole purpose of forcing towns to change their government. The elected leader of the Town of Oakridge, Galavance, was forcibly removed by the President of Redmont shortly after this Executive Order came into effect. This case will examine how the rule of a unitary executive can be reconciled with a democratic and elected town Government. The Constitution makes mention of certain parameters for towns that the Government through the Executive may regulate, but many of the regulations published by the Executive are an overreach of its authority and plain unconstitutional. Today, we fight to restore democracy and fight off the step toward authoritarianism that was thus far allowed to occur.


I. PARTIES
1. Galavance (Plaintiff)
2. LilDigiVert (President of Redmont)
3. The Executive Cabinet (Witness)
4. The Town of Aventura (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. President LilDigiVert issued an unconstitutional Executive Order, 19/23 - Town Revisions (link).
2. The President and Cabinet attempted to "buy" Galavance out of his seat as Mayor.
2. Galavance was removed forcefully and illegally from his position as Mayor of Oakridge by the Executive Branch.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. This Executive Order makes several complex changes that include changes in system of Government. Owner assent was not clearly noted on the Executive Order at the time of passage.
2. Executive orders as defined by the Constitution may only provide for the implementation of existing statute or Constitutional provisions, and may not create or amend the law. This Executive Order creates provisions that in effect serve as legislation when no legislative authority has been delegated to the Executive in this field. There are no existing statutes regarding the Governance of towns (link).
3. "The Executive Cabinet is defined in the Constitution as comprising of Secretaries & Executive Officers. A town mayor and or councillors may be removed from their positions following a formal vote in which a supermajority of the Executive Cabinet (excluding Cabinet members with a conflict of interest) votes in the affirmative" is unconstitutional as the Constitution grants the power for removal of elected officials and other non-Executive officials solely to the legislature via the impeachment process. The President and Cabinet may only remove officials within their Departments, including cabinet officers. Town officials are not members of the Executive Branch, as they are members of the Town Government, elected by and for the residents of that town.
4. The Executive Branch attempted to bribe the Mayor in to resigning his seat as Mayor, which is also an unconstitutional use of appropriations as it was not explicitly authorized by Congress. See the exhibits in Section V.
5. The Executive Branch has exceeded its authority and stepped on the toes of the legislature as well as the governments of the towns themselves, in summary.
6. There is a certain element of common law when it comes to towns. A large part of their existence has occurred outside of the direct purview of the law, and the towns have gained a certain separation from the federal Government in these matters. Towns have their own Constitutions which take precedence when it comes to the affairs of a town. The Redmont Constitution does not contain a Supremacy Clause like most Constitutions that govern federalist countries do, therefore, not every action of the Redmont federal government is allowed to supersede that of the towns.
7. Because there is a large level of autonomy granted to the towns, routine tasks such as the democratic election of a Mayor and town council should be done without the regulation and interference of the federal Government, particularly the President's arbitrary and capricious Executive Orders. Forcing Mayors to be removed from their positions in town government is not of reasonable interest to the federal Government and is entirely outside of its scope.

Footnote: Several Constitutional questions are at play here, including that of the role of the Executive in contrast to that of the Legislature. This also concerns the federalist relationship between towns and the Government of Redmont. This case therefore should withstand any motion to dismiss prima facie.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. For all illegal provisions contained within Executive Order 19/23 to be struck.
2. For all removed persons from town councils including Mayors under this Executive Order's provisions to be reinstated.
3. $50,000 in consequential damages falling under the category "The Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont" (see The Legal Damages Act [link]) as my client is now unable to enjoy his lawful job he held in Oakridge, and by extension, Redmont, due to these illegal actions.
4. $50,000 in consequential damages falling under the category "Humiliation" as my client now has a removal from office on his record, which to voters, is seen as a negative. This hinders my client's ability to fully participate in politics due to this humiliating removal.
5. $50,000 in consequential damages falling under the category "Emotional Damages" as my client was content and happy in his lifestyle which was abruptly and unduly interrupted.
6. $5,000 in legal fees, the cost of The Lovely Law Firm's involvement in this case affirmed by myself.

V. EVIDENCE

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 16th day of July, 2023

 

[JoeGamer]

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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of the Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion

Your honor, I motion to hold proceedings in-game.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, if this case is not dismissed after the Answer to Complaint, the Commonwealth would be willing to participate in an in-game trial.

This is in accordance with court procedure:
"The process of in-game trials will remain similar to the process outlined in the above Court Process, with the complaint being filed on forums, and Defendant answering such complaint on forums. Once the complaint has been answered, if both parties agree to hold a trial in-game, they may contact the Judge presiding over the case to arrange a time. When a time has been decided, the in-game trial will begin with opening statements, then continue with the rest of the process outlined in the court process." (emphasis added)

 

[Dartanboy]

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

Galavance
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that President LilDigiVert issued an Executive Order, 19/23, however DISPUTE that it was unconstitutional.
2. DISPUTE that the President and Cabinet attempted to "buy" Galavance out of his seat as Mayor.
3. AFFIRM that Galavance was removed forcefully from his position as Mayor of Oakridge by the Executive Branch, however DISPUTE that this was done illegally.

II. DEFENSES
1. The Executive Order did not make a Complex Change, but even so was approved (and actively encouraged) by an Owner. Even if it is considered a Complex Change, there is no requirement that this approval be noted, only that the changes be discussed with an Owner (see Constitution, Part VII, Section 39)

2. An Executive Order is defined as “A lawful directive issued by the President in the pursuit of his or her duties. For such directive to be lawful, it must not amend the Constitution or any law outside the Constitution. Executive Orders must only be used as a mechanism by which the President can exert powers expressly granted to the Executive within the Constitution.” (see Constitution, Part VII, Section 38).

3. "The Executive Cabinet is defined in the Constitution as comprising of Secretaries & Executive Officers. A town mayor and or councillors may be removed from their positions following a formal vote in which a supermajority of the Executive Cabinet (excluding Cabinet members with a conflict of interest) votes in the affirmative" is constitutional, and is an order that was issued by the President to exert the power of administration and facilitation of towns, which is expressly granted to the Executive in the Constitution.

4. Here is a key message in the conversation with Galavance. This evidence was submitted by the Plaintiff:

Notice: “[I would] need to discuss it with the cabinet and [Attorney General] to see if its legal”
This was not an offer, but merely explaining his thoughts. It’s perfectly legal to think about doing something (unknowingly) illegal, but then choosing not to do it after realizing it’s illegal.

5. The President issued EO 19/23 to exert the power of administration and facilitation of towns, which is expressly granted to the Executive in the Constitution (this responds to Claims for Relief 5, 6, and 7).

Additional Defenses/Facts:
6. Galavance was actively asking the President to be paid for Oakridge – we believe it is important to specify that this was Galavance pushing for this. Although only part of the conversation was shown in the Plaintiff’s evidence, we have included the rest of it (Exhibit A).

As you can see, Galavance approached the President, saying “Please delete Oakridge, I’ll just absorb all the funds.”

7. Galavance also asked for the town to be deleted (Exhibit A)

8. Shortly after this conversation (~2 days), Galavance took $85,000 from Oakridge and put it into their own personal balance (see Exhibit C). The Executive ultimately decided unanimously (-1 who abstained) that this warranted removal from their position as Mayor (see Exhibit D).

III. MOTION TO DISMISS

Note: In general, the Commonwealth's arguments are in the normal font, quotes from the Plaintiff/their counsel are in purple, and quotes from the Constitution and Acts of Congress are in blue.

The Commonwealth believes this case should be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Claim For Relief 1 is not valid: “This Executive Order makes several complex changes that include changes in system of Government. Owner assent was not clearly noted on the Executive Order at the time of passage.”

Owner assent is not required to be noted on the Executive Order. There is no law saying that it must. The Plaintiff does not allege anything illegal and makes no reference to law saying that it is.

2. Claim for Relief 2 is based on a fallacy and ignores an expressed Constitutional power: “Executive orders as defined by the Constitution may only provide for the implementation of existing statute or Constitutional provisions, and may not create or amend the law. This Executive Order creates provisions that in effect serve as legislation when no legislative authority has been delegated to the Executive in this field. There are no existing statutes regarding the Governance of towns”

The Constitution gives the Cabinet the following power: “Oversees Government-owned assets, including any cities and towns, plots, apartments, and buildings, as well as the management of the GDP and Government balance.” (emphasis added) as well as the responsibility “for changes . . . in town/city systems.” (See Constitution, Part III, Section 27).

Thus, changes to town systems, such as those made in Executive Order 19/23, are an expressed Constitutional power. Recognition of expressed Constitutional Power has been sufficient reason to dismiss a claim in the past (see [2022] SCR 24 – Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 24). The Federal Court cannot overturn Supreme Court precedent, so this claim for relief must be struck.

3. Claim for Relief 3 mis-identifies Town officials as ‘not members of the Executive Branch’ and ignores an expressed Constitutional power: "The Executive Cabinet is defined in the Constitution as comprising of Secretaries & Executive Officers. A town mayor and or councillors may be removed from their positions following a formal vote in which a supermajority of the Executive Cabinet (excluding Cabinet members with a conflict of interest) votes in the affirmative" is unconstitutional as the Constitution grants the power for removal of elected officials and other non-Executive officials solely to the legislature via the impeachment process. The President and Cabinet may only remove officials within their Departments, including cabinet officers. Town officials are not members of the Executive Branch, as they are members of the Town Government, elected by and for the residents of that town.”

Firstly, Towns are extensions of the Executive (see Financial Standards Act:
“(1) No non-government agency, department or, entity will be fully or partially exempt from paying tax.
(a) Towns are an extension of the Executive and are protected by this clause.”)

Secondly, to be more specific, the Department of State is tasked with: “(d) Administration, facilitation of, and communication with towns” (see Constitution, Part III, Section 29).
Executive Order 19/23 specified how the Department of State is to Administrate and Facilitate towns, but did not act as new legislation. These are expressed Constitutional powers (see Constitution, Part III, Section 29 and Constitution, Part VII, Section 38). Once again, following Supreme Court precedent, this claim for relief must be dismissed.

4. Claim for Relief 4 is provably false: “The Executive Branch attempted to bribe the Mayor in to resigning his seat as Mayor, which is also an unconstitutional use of appropriations as it was not explicitly authorized by Congress. See the exhibits in Section V.”

Here is a key message in the conversation with Galavance. This evidence was submitted by the Plaintiff:

Notice: “[I would] need to discuss it with the cabinet and [Attorney General] to see if its legal”
This was not an offer, but merely explaining his thoughts. It’s perfectly legal to think about doing something (unknowingly) illegal, but then choosing not to do it after realizing it’s illegal.

5. Claim for Relief 5 ignores an expressed Constitutional power: “The Executive Branch has exceeded its authority and stepped on the toes of the legislature as well as the governments of the towns themselves, in summary.”

As explained in the 3rd point of this Motion to Dismiss, the Executive has the expressed Constitutional power of “administration” and “facilitation” of towns. Any actions which fall under these descriptions are expressed Constitutional powers, and claims for relief depending on these being considered illegal must be dismissed according to Supreme Court precedent.

6. Claim for Relief 6 misunderstands what Towns are and ignores an expressed Constitutional power: “There is a certain element of common law when it comes to towns. A large part of their existence has occurred outside of the direct purview of the law, and the towns have gained a certain separation from the federal Government in these matters. Towns have their own Constitutions which take precedence when it comes to the affairs of a town. The Redmont Constitution does not contain a Supremacy Clause like most Constitutions that govern federalist countries do, therefore, not every action of the Redmont federal government is allowed to supersede that of the towns.”

As explained in the 3rd point of the Motion to Dismiss, Towns are not separate entities from the government of Redmont – they are extensions of the Executive. Also as explained in the 3rd point of the Motion to Dismiss, the Executive has the expressed Constitutional power of “administration” and “facilitation” of towns. Any actions which fall under these descriptions are expressed Constitutional powers, and claims for relief depending on these being considered illegal must be dismissed according to Supreme Court precedent.

Additionally, Town Constitutions do not take precedence over Federal Law.

7. Claim for Relief 7 misunderstands what Towns are and ignores an expressed Constitutional power: “Because there is a large level of autonomy granted to the towns, routine tasks such as the democratic election of a Mayor and town council should be done without the regulation and interference of the federal Government, particularly the President's arbitrary and capricious Executive Orders. Forcing Mayors to be removed from their positions in town government is not of reasonable interest to the federal Government and is entirely outside of its scope.”

As explained in the 3rd point of the Motion to Dismiss, Towns are not separate entities from the government of Redmont – they are extensions of the Executive. Also as explained in the 3rd point of the Motion to Dismiss, the Executive has the expressed Constitutional power of “administration” and “facilitation” of towns. Any actions which fall under these descriptions (such as ensuring a democratic election, removal of official(s), etc.) are expressed Constitutional powers, and claims for relief depending on these being considered illegal must be dismissed according to Supreme Court precedent.

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: ”Exhibit A”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit B”

Spoiler: ”Exhibit C”

See also [2023] FCR 64

Spoiler: ”Exhibit D”

Note: The only “Nay” was by President LilDigiVert to make the button available.

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 21st day of July 2023.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor

This was not an offer, but merely explaining his thoughts. It’s perfectly legal to think about doing something (unknowingly) illegal, but then choosing not to do it after realizing it’s illegal.

Statement contains speculation about the potential witness's thoughts and beliefs, a matter only the declarant of these statements can testify to.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor

The Executive Order did not make a Complex Change, but even so was approved (and actively encouraged) by an Owner.

Statement assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor

Galavance also asked for the town to be deleted (Exhibit A)

This statement is irrelevant to the facts at hand.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor

Exhibit B is hearsay, as it was a private conversation out of court significantly involving someone who will not be testifying at trial today.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor

Shortly after this conversation (~2 days), Galavance took $85,000 from Oakridge and put it into their own personal balance (see Exhibit C).

Assumes facts not in evidence. This is also irrelevant to the facts of the case, which ponder whether or not the President has this power at all regardless of reasoning. Furthermore, the screenshot shows $100,000 was allegedly taken from the Oakridge account in part to pay CrackedAmoeba allegedly. Therefore, determining Galavance took $85,000 is not apparent in the evidence provided.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection, Your Honor

The Executive ultimately decided unanimously (-1 who abstained) that this warranted removal from their position as Mayor (see Exhibit D).

The statement contains cumulative evidence as it has already been established the Mayor was removed by the cabinet. The reasoning is irrelevant.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection, Your Honor

Statement contains speculation about the potential witness's thoughts and beliefs, a matter only the declarant of these statements can testify to.

REPONSE TO OBJECTION

This is not speculation. My job is to represent the Government. I am telling you what the Government was doing through President LilDigiVert.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection, Your Honor

Statement assumes facts not in evidence.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence is for Witness Testimony, when "the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown."

This is not relevant. Additionally, any legal opinion - even the Court Opinion - would be strikable if this Objection were sustained.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection, Your Honor

This statement is irrelevant to the facts at hand.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
It is relevant, as the Plaintiff framed this case in such a way it appears as though the Government approached the Plaintiff (although not explicitly said), when actually the opposite was true.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection, Your Honor

Exhibit B is hearsay, as it was a private conversation out of court significantly involving someone who will not be testifying at trial today.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
This evidence was not used yet, but was submitted as it may be necessary later. The conversation happened. The fact that the conversation happened is not hearsay.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection, Your Honor

Assumes facts not in evidence. This is also irrelevant to the facts of the case, which ponder whether or not the President has this power at all regardless of reasoning. Furthermore, the screenshot shows $100,000 was allegedly taken from the Oakridge account in part to pay CrackedAmoeba allegedly. Therefore, determining Galavance took $85,000 is not apparent in the evidence provided.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
The evidence also includes the entirety of [2023] FCR 59, including screenshots showing Galavance took $85k. The legality of this action has not been mentioned in this case, but the action did happen and it is in evidence.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Response to Motion to Dismiss

1. Claim For Relief 1 is not valid

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

2. Claim for Relief 2 is based on a fallacy and ignores an expressed Constitutional power

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

3. Claim for Relief 3 mis-identifies Town officials as ‘not members of the Executive Branch’ and ignores an expressed Constitutional power

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal. Further, the fact this is an expressed Constitutional power is disputed, as the clause is vague and its extent cannot be determined at this time without interpretation.

4. Claim for Relief 4 is provably false

This is a legal defense, as there is a dispute of fact and room for interpretation on this matter, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

5. Claim for Relief 5 ignores an expressed Constitutional power

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal. Further, the fact this is an expressed Constitutional power is disputed, as the clause is vague and its extent cannot be determined at this time without interpretation.

6. Claim for Relief 6 misunderstands what Towns are and ignores an expressed Constitutional power

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal. Further, the fact this is an expressed Constitutional power is disputed, as the clause is vague and its extent cannot be determined at this time without interpretation.

7. Claim for Relief 7 misunderstands what Towns are and ignores an expressed Constitutional power

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal. Further, the fact this is an expressed Constitutional power is disputed, as the clause is vague and its extent cannot be determined at this time without interpretation.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection, Your Honor

The statement contains cumulative evidence as it has already been established the Mayor was removed by the cabinet. The reasoning is irrelevant.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
In the highly unlikely event that the legal and constitutional EO 19/23 is somehow struck, it is important to recognize that the Cabinet  unanimously voted to remove Galavance, as that was the requirement before (see previous Town Revisions EO).

 

[Dartanboy]

Response to Motion to Dismiss

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

This is a legal defense, as there is a dispute of fact and room for interpretation on this matter, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

 OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff's counsel responded to the Motion to Dismiss without being asked to do so. We believe he should be charged with Contempt of Court and the response be struck.

 

[Dartanboy]

Response to Motion to Dismiss

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal. Further, the fact this is an expressed Constitutional power is disputed, as the clause is vague and its extent cannot be determined at this time without interpretation.

This is a legal defense, as there is a dispute of fact and room for interpretation on this matter, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal. Further, the fact this is an expressed Constitutional power is disputed, as the clause is vague and its extent cannot be determined at this time without interpretation.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal. Further, the fact this is an expressed Constitutional power is disputed, as the clause is vague and its extent cannot be determined at this time without interpretation.

This is a legal defense, and therefore is not applicable in a motion to dismiss. I motion to strike this section from the record as it effectively provides bonus argumentation for the defense. I further motion to hold the Attorney General in contempt of court for egregiously failing to understand what a motion for dismissal should consist of, as the Attorney General should thoroughly understand defenses are not reasons for dismissal. Further, the fact this is an expressed Constitutional power is disputed, as the clause is vague and its extent cannot be determined at this time without interpretation.

 OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has edited the filing after posting it, casting doubt on to the original meaning of the response. We ask that the Plaintiff's Counsel be charged with Contempt of Court.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

 OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff's counsel responded to the Motion to Dismiss without being asked to do so. We believe he should be charged with Contempt of Court and the response be struck.

Your honor, I could be reasonably expected to have a chance to respond to the motion for dismissal. In the interest of hastening this trial, I simply posted a response that would inevitably be requested anyways. Also, the court has a rule that objections may be instantly responded to. I mistakenly applied that to motions as well, and it will not happen again in the future.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

 OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has edited the filing after posting it, casting doubt on to the original meaning of the response. We ask that the Plaintiff's Counsel be charged with Contempt of Court.

Your honor, as far as I recall, making a minor edit for clarity is not a breach of procedure. Further, the court is able to see the edits made.

 

[JoeGamer]

I understand that both parties have a lot to say on the matters laid out before the court. However, this weekend is extremely busy for me. I ask both parties please not post any further objections or responses until I have time to adequately review all the current objections and motions laid before the Court.

The Court appreciates your patience and I will attempt to get to each objection and motion by tomorrow evening.

 

[JoeGamer]

Objections and Motions made by Plaintiff's Counsel

Objection, Your Honor

Statement contains speculation about the potential witness's thoughts and beliefs, a matter only the declarant of these statements can testify to.

Objection sustained; while the statement "This was not an offer" is not speculation, the statements made saying it was just the President's thinking cannot be judged based on an image alone and it is not for the Attorney General to state whether it was or not.

Objection, Your Honor

Statement assumes facts not in evidence.

Objection overruled; this objection only applies during direct and cross examination.

Objection, Your Honor

This statement is irrelevant to the facts at hand.

Objection sustained; at this moment the point is irrelevant to what is currently being asked of the Court.

Objection, Your Honor

Exhibit B is hearsay, as it was a private conversation out of court significantly involving someone who will not be testifying at trial today.

Objection overruled; this is not hearsay.

Objection, Your Honor

Assumes facts not in evidence. This is also irrelevant to the facts of the case, which ponder whether or not the President has this power at all regardless of reasoning. Furthermore, the screenshot shows $100,000 was allegedly taken from the Oakridge account in part to pay CrackedAmoeba allegedly. Therefore, determining Galavance took $85,000 is not apparent in the evidence provided.

Objection on relevance sustained; from what has currently been brought before the Court, this evidence and fact have no relevance to what is currently being asked of the Court.

Objection, Your Honor

The statement contains cumulative evidence as it has already been established the Mayor was removed by the cabinet. The reasoning is irrelevant.

Objection sustained; this has already been established and no party contests that Galavance was removed from his position.

 

[JoeGamer]

Objections and motions made by the Commonwealth of Redmont

 OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff's counsel responded to the Motion to Dismiss without being asked to do so. We believe he should be charged with Contempt of Court and the response be struck.

Do not tell me that you believe I should hold the plaintiff's counsel in contempt. That is not a decision for you to make or sway the Court of. It is a decision that can be handled by the Court, not the legal defense for the Commonwealth.

Objection sustained; the response by the plaintiff's counsel was out of line.

 OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has edited the filing after posting it, casting doubt on to the original meaning of the response. We ask that the Plaintiff's Counsel be charged with Contempt of Court.

Objection sustained; a party may make edits if the Court is informed of the changes. While I can see the history of the post, it is requested that for small edits the court be notified of these small changes.

Mr. Love, this is your first and only warning. Do not post responses without permission from the Presiding Judge. While a vast majority of cases, a party is allowed to give a response to a motion to dismiss, it is not a guarantee. However, in this instance, I would have given you time to provide a response so I will not strike the response this time.

On all points raised in the Motion to Dismiss, each point does not show how the plaintiff's complaint is moot. They all read as legal defenses more than points of dismissal. For that reason, I will be rejecting all points in the Motion to Dismiss.


I will be requesting a sidebar with each party's legal counsel to discuss a potential in-game proceeding.

 

[Dartanboy]

On all points raised in the Motion to Dismiss, each point does not show how the plaintiff's complaint is moot. They all read as legal defenses more than points of dismissal. For that reason, I will be rejecting all points in the Motion to Dismiss.

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

Your honor, the Commonwealth requests you reconsider portions of the motion to dismiss and/or the reasoning for rejecting the motion.

As stated above, the Supreme Court has set the precedent that Expressed Constitutional Powers are sufficient reason to dismiss a claim.

Thank you.

Edit: Fixed typo

 

[Taelor]

Notice: This case will be given a new case number ([2023] FCR 66) as it was given the same case number as Mask3D_WOLF v. The Commonwealth of Redmont FCR 64.

 

[JoeGamer]

After our sidebar, the case will continue via the forums.

The plaintiff may now present its opening statement. Please provide your statement within the next 48 hours.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, and ladies and gentlemen gathered today to witness this case of sovereignty over slavery, this case is about putting an end to colonialism. Today, we critically examine one important question: are towns simply puppets of the Commonwealth, puppets that only serve to gather industry resources for their colonial masters? I prefer a different outlook on the matter. Towns historically have been established as a semi-independent level of governance. Towns have their own unique constitutions, processes, and people. The regulation of towns by the federal government is a regulation that should be kept minimal for the efficient running of a town.

In this case, the Executive has taken these duties to an extreme level. A constitutional duty to administer towns is the clause the executive uses to justify its autocratic rule over these autonomous institutions. Today, we ask the court to put an end to this, as when the Constitution was created in its present version, it was intended to allow the federal government to simply provide guidance for the towns. The minutia of towns, such as its elected officials and specific governance, was to be left to the towns. Over the course of years where towns have existed, they have been a recourse for citizens to go to enjoy a life outside of the bustling city of Hamilton and then Reveille. Their own governments afforded them unique traits that made the towns lovable -- full of life.

This all came to an end in July when President LilDigiVert signed an unconstitutional executive order granting the Executive Branch authority to itself to micromanage towns, including the easy removal of town Mayors simply at the behest of unelected, appointed bureaucrats who owe allegiance solely to the President. Now, we must ask ourselves, in what democracy does the President get to unilaterally remove elected officials, even at lower levels of Government? I say the President gets to unilaterally do this because he simply edited the voting threshold for removal to his liking. What stops him from removing the cabinet vote requirement altogether? What stops him from firing dissidents in the cabinet to achieve a favorable vote? If the Court does not take a critical look at this fundamental gap in democracy, we will move one step closer to a Presidential dictatorship.

Executive orders are meant solely to give power to the words that exist in the law and the Constitution. Executive orders are not meant to fill in where law is absent, nor should they make broad, sweeping interpretations of the law or the Constitution. The former duty is for that of the legislature, and the latter, the judiciary. This case examines the intersection of separation of powers, federalism, and democracy itself. Much of the legal argumentation has already elapsed in former parts of this trial, so I will not beat a dead horse. Instead, I will opt to bring the court's attention to the main issue at hand: towns are separate entities who elect government officials. Elected government officials should only be able to be removed by impeachment via Congress. The House has the sole power of impeachment. Elected town officials are not simple bureaucrats that serve at the pleasure of the President.

As a final point, I want to stress for the court the gravity of this case, and that the decision here is a momentous one that will either reinforce the principles of our democracy, or it will shatter them irreversibly. I implore the court to rule in favor of the plaintiff, to rule in favor of democracy. Thank you.


(I apologize to the Court for the slight delay. I had an internet issue)

 

[JoeGamer]

The Commonwealth has 48 hours to provide its opening statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

 OBJECTION
Perjury

The Plaintiff's counsel was chatting in Discord merely an hour before posting their Opening Statement, proving their claim of Internet issues false.

Screenshots attached.

 

[JoeGamer]

Objection overruled.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Your honor, the Plaintiff makes multiple assertions that are not grounded in facts nor in evidence. These assertions are merely the opinion of the Plaintiff. I implore you not to take these claims at face value, and we will explain why throughout this filing.

II. OPENING STATEMENTS [REBUTTALS]
1. The Plaintiff says “Towns historically have been established as a semi-independent level of governance. Towns have their own unique constitutions, processes, and people. The regulation of towns by the federal government is a regulation that should be kept minimal for the efficient running of a town.”

While much of this is true, the assertions that the “regulation of towns by the federal government is a regulation that should be kept minimal for the efficient running of a town” is not proven and is merely the opinion of the Plaintiff. Unless the Plaintiff can produce evidence that this is true, we have no choice but to sweep this argument away.

Even so, if it is proven to be accurate, that doesn't really matter, as the Constitution defines certain powers, but does not say that every single thing must be done in the most efficient manner possible.

Additionally, Towns have historically had a way for the Executive to remove a Mayor (see EO 2/23, EO 30/22, EO 38/21).

2. The Plaintiff says “In this case, the Executive has taken these duties to an extreme level. A constitutional duty to administer towns is the clause the executive uses to justify its autocratic rule over these autonomous institutions. Today, we ask the court to put an end to this, as when the Constitution was created in its present version, it was intended to allow the federal government to simply provide guidance for the towns. The minutia of towns, such as its elected officials and specific governance, was to be left to the towns. Over the course of years where towns have existed, they have been a recourse for citizens to go to enjoy a life outside of the bustling city of Hamilton and then Reveille. Their own governments afforded them unique traits that made the towns lovable -- full of life.”

Your honor, Towns have long been considered part of the Executive Branch – towns are not and have never been separate entities from the Commonwealth, but part of the Commonwealth.

Amazingly, the Plaintiff continues to claim his opinions as facts – “[The Constitution] was intended to allow the federal government to simply provide guidance for the towns” – but again, nowhere is this written in the Constitution nor is there any evidence suggesting this is true.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff pushes the idea that the “minutia of towns, such as its elected officials and specific governance, was to be left to the towns” but your honor, elections weren’t even required until the Executive Order in question here was passed. Such details only exist because of the Executive’s involvement with towns – a detail the Commonwealth implores you not to overlook.

3. The Plaintiff claims “This all came to an end in July when President LilDigiVert signed an unconstitutional executive order granting the Executive Branch authority to itself to micromanage towns, including the easy removal of town Mayors simply at the behest of unelected, appointed bureaucrats who owe allegiance solely to the President.”

Once again, we point to EO 2/23, EO 30/22, and EO 38/21 – all of which defined similar manners for the Executive to fulfill its Constitutional duty using its expressed Constitutional powers.

We would also like to remind the court that Galavance was removed via unanimous vote of the Cabinet, so even in the event this Executive Order is somehow struck, EO 2/23 would still be in effect and the removal would be legal under EO 2/23.

4. The Plaintiff claims “Now, we must ask ourselves, in what democracy does the President get to unilaterally remove elected officials, even at lower levels of Government? I say the President gets to unilaterally do this because he simply edited the voting threshold for removal to his liking. What stops him from removing the cabinet vote requirement altogether? What stops him from firing dissidents in the cabinet to achieve a favorable vote? If the Court does not take a critical look at this fundamental gap in democracy, we will move one step closer to a Presidential dictatorship.”

Your honor, the President is allowed to fire anyone from the Cabinet. That is an expressed Constitutional power of the President. Additionally, the President can make Executive Orders to define how the Executive must fulfill its Constitutional duty using its expressed Constitutional powers.

The Plaintiff is using strong wording such as “fundamental gap in democracy” and “dictatorship,” but the Commonwealth implores you not to listen to such emotional arguments, and instead examine the facts.

5. The Plaintiff claims “Executive orders are meant solely to give power to the words that exist in the law and the Constitution. Executive orders are not meant to fill in where law is absent, nor should they make broad, sweeping interpretations of the law or the Constitution. The former duty is for that of the legislature, and the latter, the judiciary. This case examines the intersection of separation of powers, federalism, and democracy itself.”

That’s right. This particular Executive Order gives power to the following task given to the Executive in the Constitution:
“Administration, facilitation of, and communication with towns”

To rule in favor of the Plaintiff would be to rule that all Government Departments have no powers – particularly the powers given to them by the Constitution.

This Executive Order does not fill in where law is absent, nor does it make broad, sweeping interpretations of the law or the Constitution. It merely actions the administration and facilitation of towns.

6. The Plaintiff claims “Much of the legal argumentation has already elapsed in former parts of this trial, so I will not beat a dead horse. Instead, I will opt to bring the court's attention to the main issue at hand: towns are separate entities who elect government officials. Elected government officials should only be able to be removed by impeachment via Congress. The House has the sole power of impeachment. Elected town officials are not simple bureaucrats that serve at the pleasure of the President.”

That’s right, the Plaintiff claims “Elected government officials should only be able to be removed by impeachment via Congress.”

This is completely, demonstrably false – for example, the punishments for Corruption, Treason, and some other crimes can remove elected officials from office. Another example is recalling a Representative or Senator. It is true that Impeachment is solely granted to the House, but it is not true that Impeachment is the only process by which to remove elected Government officials.

7. The Plaintiff claims: “As a final point, I want to stress for the court the gravity of this case, and that the decision here is a momentous one that will either reinforce the principles of our democracy, or it will shatter them irreversibly. I implore the court to rule in favor of the plaintiff, to rule in favor of democracy.”

Once again, the Plaintiff is relying on emotional arguments, claiming this case will either “reinforce the principles of our democracy” or “shatter them irreversibly.”

The Commonwealth once again asks the Court to look at the facts: Towns have always been, are currently, and should always continue to be part of the Executive branch. To give Towns the ability to detach from the Executive would be akin to allowing them to secede from the Commonwealth. Are the Towns supposed to be seen as equals with Redmont and foreign countries like Stratham? Of course not – they’re part of Redmont.

III. OPENING STATEMENTS [CONCLUSION]
I’ll keep this brief, as the previous section was rather large.

The Executive Order in question is a lawful directive issued by President LilDigiVert, in the pursuit of his duties. It is lawful, as it does not amend the Constitution or any law outside the Constitution. This Executive Order was used as a mechanism by which President LilDigiVert exerted the powers expressly granted to the Executive within the Constitution.

This is the definition of an Executive Order – defined in our Constitution (slight changes to make it about this specific Executive Order instead of all Executive Orders as a whole). Unless the Plaintiff can prove that, somehow, the above paragraph is not true, the Court must uphold Executive Order 19/23

This concludes the Defense’s Opening Statements.

 

[JoeGamer]

Thank you to both parties for providing the Court with your opening statements.

The Federal Court now ask for each party to provide a list of witnesses or expert testimonials they wish to testify before the Court. I ask that you provide a reason for which they should be summoned to the case. Please provide your list within the next 24 hours.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

For now, the Plaintiff would like to call Galavance. This could be subject to change.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defense wishes to call Staff Team as a witness.

 

[JoeGamer]

Dartanman, what specific reason does the staff need to be summoned?

 

[Dartanboy]

Dartanman, what specific reason does the staff need to be summoned?

To prove Defense 1:

 

[Dartanboy]

Well, specifically the part about owner approval.

 

[JoeGamer]

We will begin with the plaintiff's witnesses. Since Galavance is choosing to take the stand I feel no need to summon him as he should already be present in this case. After the plaintiff's counsel finishes their direct examination of the witnesses, the Commonwealth will be given a period of cross-examination.

I am hereby informing Galavance to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.

Following Galavance, I will summon the staff team as a witness.

Galavance, you have 24 hours to signify to the Court that you are ready for your direct examination.

 

[Galavance]

Present your honor.

 

[JoeGamer]

The plaintiff's counsel may begin its direct examination of the witness. Please ask your questions within the next 24 hours.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The plaintiff's counsel may begin its direct examination of the witness. Please ask your questions within the next 24 hours.

Your honor, it is final exam week for a super concentrated chemistry course. I request a 48 hour extension

 

[JoeGamer]

Extension granted from the original deadline.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Galavance, can you please describe how the events transpired from your side? I will break this up into three questions for clarification and specificity:

1. In what manner did LilDigiVert approach you?
2. To your knowledge, what caused Executive Order 19/23 to be put into effect?
   1. Specifically, was there any context involving Oakridge that caused this EO to be put into effect, to the best of your knowledge?
3. Explain how exactly you were removed, in the greatest amount of detail possible.

Your honor, I will have follow-ups pending on these answers.

 

[Dartanboy]

To your knowledge, what caused Executive Order 19/23 to be put into effect?

 OBJECTION
Speculation | Incompetent Witness

Galavance is not privy to the thoughts of the President and cannot speak to why the Executive Order was issued.

(Edit: Fixed typo [Executice -> Executive])

 

[Galavance]

1. In what manner did LilDigiVert approach you?
   
   1. LilDigiVert approached me asking if Oakridge needed anything in an Executive Order he was putting out regarding the removal of Klondike and Mandating Mayoral Elections starting December 1st.
2. To your knowledge, what caused Executive Order 19/23 to be put into effect?
   
   1. Community feedback and previous talks about removing a town were talked about among High Ranking officials in the DOS, as for the mandated Mayoral Elections it was quite a shock, and have no clue what would've caused it.
   2. Specifically, was there any context involving Oakridge that caused this EO to be put into effect, to the best of your knowledge?
      
      1. Not that I know of.
3. Explain how exactly you were removed, in the greatest amount of detail possible.
   
   1. I woke up to an announcement within the Government-Announcements channel stating the following "In light of recent events, the Cabinet of Redmont has decided to remove the mayor, deputy mayor, and all members of the town's council of the Town of Oakridge effective immediately.". This announcement was the first thing I heard regarding a removal.

 

[JoeGamer]

 OBJECTION
Speculation | Incompetent Witness

Galavance is not privy to the thoughts of the President and cannot speak to why the Executive Order was issued.

(Edit: Fixed typo [Executice -> Executive])

Objection Sustained. The witness's answer will be struck from the record.

 

[JoeGamer]

The plaintiff has 24 hours to post additional questions if he has any, otherwise, we will move to a period of cross-examination.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, due to a family member passing away I will be taking a few days' leave. I ask that I be given until Monday to respond to anything if the need for my response arises.