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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am moving as well. In light of all this, I motion for a recess until Monday.
 
The Court is back in session.

I believe Mr. Love was examining the witnesses. Mr. Love, do you have any further questions for the witness?
 
JoeGamer said:
The Court is back in session.

I believe Mr. Love was examining the witnesses. Mr. Love, do you have any further questions for the witness?
Click to expand...
Yes, your honor.

@Galavance I have a few more questions for you:
  1. Did Congress remove you from office?
  2. Did the Department of State itself and directly remove you from office?
  3. Did the President remove you from office?
  4. How did you take office as the Mayor of Oakridge in the first place?
    1. To clarify, who or what put you in power?
  5. Does Oakridge have its own Constitution and set of laws, as of the time you were Mayor?
  6. Does Oakridge have its own procedures for the election and removal of public officials, particularly the Mayor, as of the time you were Mayor?
 
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The questions posted are not follow-up questions that depended on previous answers and should have been asked in the original list of questions.
 
Dartanman said:
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The questions posted are not follow-up questions that depended on previous answers and should have been asked in the original list of questions.
Click to expand...
I argue the contrary. Many of these questions fill in gaps where the first question answers did not suffice. Further, it is not a strict requirement they ALL be listed in one big post at first.
 
Dartanman said:
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The questions posted are not follow-up questions that depended on previous answers and should have been asked in the original list of questions.
Click to expand...
Objection Overruled.

The witness has 24 hours to answer the questions.
 
  1. Did Congress remove you from office?
    No.

  2. Did the Department of State itself and directly remove you from office?
    No.

  3. Did the President remove you from office?
    No, Cabinet did.

  4. How did you take office as the Mayor of Oakridge in the first place?
    1. To clarify, who or what put you in power?
      The people who voted for me.
  5. Does Oakridge have its own Constitution and set of laws, as of the time you were Mayor?
    Yes.

  6. Does Oakridge have its own procedures for the election and removal of public officials, particularly the Mayor, as of the time you were Mayor?
    Yes.
 
Does the plaintiff's counsel have any further questions for the witnesses?
 
The Commonwealth may cross-examine the witness. Please post questions within the next 24 hours.
 
The Commonwealth has no questions for Galavance.
 
federal-court-png.12082


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

The Staff Team is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont as a witness.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once the witness has declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness 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, subject to the penalties of perjury.

The Witness is to identify themselves in this case thread in the next 48 hours. Failure to comply with this summons may result in being held in Contempt of Court.​
 
Your honor, should the Plaintiff or the Defense begin questioning?

Your post says the Plaintiff, but the Defense called Staff Team as a witness.
 
Dartanman said:
Your honor, should the Plaintiff or the Defense begin questioning?

Your post says the Plaintiff, but the Defense called Staff Team as a witness.
Click to expand...
The defendant should begin with their direct examination of the witness. Apologies for the confusion.
 
1) Yes
2) Ownership indicated intent to the President that Towns be available to all to be elected as mayor at intervals throughout the year
 
Do you have any further questions Dartanman?
 
Hearing no further questions, the Court will move to a period of cross examination. The plaintiff has 24 hours to provide its questions to the staff team.
 
Staff Team said:
Ownership indicated intent to the President that Towns be available to all to be elected as mayor at intervals throughout the year
Click to expand...
Please elaborate / rephrase for clarity.

I may have more follow-up questions pending the witness's answer.
 
Staff, please respond within the next 24 hours.
 
Your honor,

For the sake of a speedy trial, can we continue?
 
Your honor,

If we continue, I motion to strike the entirety of the staff team testimony. It is not fair for them to deliver direct answers and not cross answers.
 
I am informing the Court that I am no longer the Attorney General. @drew_hall is and I will no longer be involved in this case.
 
I will be calling the Staff Team back to answer unanswered questions. At this time, no part of the testimony provided by them previously will be stricken from the official court record.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Staff Team is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont as a witness.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once the witness has declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may resume with questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness 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, subject to the penalties of perjury.

The Witness is to identify themselves in this case thread in the next 48 hours. Failure to comply with this summons may result in being held in Contempt of Court.​
 
We just need someone from server leadership pinged, remember we don't get notifications.

Staff indicated to the President that indefinite mayoral terms are not within ownership intent for the server and that there will need to be elections implemented. In the first instance, staff offer the opportunity to the President to resolve identified issues. This is what occurred.

The President indicated that they would support the change through an EO. The President is never forced to make a change, they can deny the request and have staff formally veto instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The witness shall wait until a question has been asked before making a statement. The statement above will be stricken from the record.

I understand this case has been drug out, but there is procedure to be followed and seeing to the end of this case is my top priority at the moment.

With this having been said, the witness shall wait to respond until a question has been asked by the Plaintiff.

Having given an answer already, the witness shall be considered present and as such the Plaintiff may begin questioning.

To the Plaintiff, please present your question(s) within the next 24 hours.
 
On further thought, I will allow the first sentence of the Witness's statement to remain, as it provides seemingly relevant information to the court about procedure.

I would like the witness, the Staff Team, to identify who in leadership should be pinged moving forward in an instance like this one.

The rest of the statement provided by the witness will remain stricken from the record, and the witness maintains a duty to be available to respond to questions presented from the Plaintiff when provided to them.
 
We will be moving on from witness testimony as no questions have been asked by the deadline given by the court.

The Plaintiff may now post their closing statement within 48 hours from now.
 
Due to the failure of the attorney to promptly respond to the case when requested, the Lovely Law Firm as the organization who employs said attorney is held in contempt of court.

The court now calls upon the Defendant to provide the court with their closing statement within 48 hours from now.
 
Your honor, I ask that the Lovely Law Firm be given an extension. The attorney assigned to this case is in the hospital and is unavailable.
 
The court has moved on from the Plaintiff's closing statement, however the court will take into account the reason as to why one was unable to be provided.

This should be a learning moment for the organization in question, which is the 'Lovely Law Firm,' to accurately maintain the progression of the cases which they are handling. This decision has been made, there can be no going back on it at this point. As a law firm, it ultimately falls upon you to ensure this does not happen with attorneys you employ within your firm. The court is beyond generous when informed of circumstances, but in this case we were not informed, therefore unable to extend that generosity. As such, the contempt of court charge against Lovely Law Firm stands, and no closing statement may be provided by the Plaintiff, as they missed the chance to provide it.

The Defendant may proceed with their Closing Statement to the court, provided to it within 48 hours, as provided to the Plaintiff.
 
To clarify my last submission, the Defendant maintains the same timeline as provided before, meaning there is approximately 44 hours from now for their submission to submitted on time to this court.
 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor, the Contempt of Court charge is not fair to the Lovely Law Firm, as the assigned attorney was in the hospital during the proceedings of this case. IRL comes over DC any day, and the attorney was rightfully more concerned about their immediate health than an online game. The Lovely Law Firm could not have prepared for or predicted this event, and therefore the case was not responded to. Therefore, the Lovely Law Firm requests the Contempt of Court charge to be dropped.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing Statement

Your Honor, Opposing Counsel,

Throughout this case, it has been argued that the Executive does not have the Constitutional right to assert its authority over towns, and the executive order defining such was unconstitutional. Each of these arguments however, have been largely disproved. This closing statement will go over each of these (paraphrased) arguments, and refute each.

One of the first arguments against this Executive Order is that it did not receive owner assent for its complex changes made. This has been proven false, as the Staff Team confirmed that not only was the EO given assent, but was also encouraged by ownership.

Most of the arguments against the Executive asserting authority over towns were based on emotion and opinion, and largely do not reflect the facts of the case. Constitutionally, it is not stated that the Federal Government, and more specifically the Executive, is to be laissez-faire when it comes to the Towns. An express power of the executive, as determined in multiple EOs previously stated within the case, states that unanimous cabinet approval will allow the removal of the mayor. This unanimous vote was achieved, so the mayor was, by definition, removed constitutionally. Impeachment is not the sole method of removing an elected official.

Furthermore, another express power of the Executive in the Constitution, gives the Department of State (an extension of the executive) this: “Administration, facilitation of, and communication with towns, including notification of any laws that may impact towns.” It is clearly defined in the Constitution that the Executive has the power of administration of towns.

Finally, we come to the “bribery.” What occurred between the President and the former Oakridge mayor cannot be described as bribery. The President simply brought up an idea that’s legality needed to be discussed further. The amount was not offered, nor was it ever paid. Bribery is defined as “the act of offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving an item or service of value to influence an individual holding public office or serving in a legal capacity.” None of these actions were initialized, so bribing the mayor out of his position did not occur.

DATED: This 21st day of October, 2023.
 
After much thought, I will approve the motion to reconsider, due to the circumstances. However, I must make it clear that should an event like this occur further, I will not be so generous. The court of course agrees real life certainly comes first, which is why the contempt charge was placed on Lovely Law Firm as the employer, not on the individual attorney. Owning a law firm, you maintain a duty to the courts and your clients, and part of that duty is ensuring prompt responses to your cases. If an issue arises with an attorney employed at your firm, it falls on you to inform the court of that if they are unable to, the court does not stop because of events we are not made aware of. It's also worth mentioning that the contempt charge was placed after two responses were missed, so I truly am being generous with this reversal of my previous decision.

I also want to note that the Plaintiff's counsel also deleted a submission, and this is not tolerated either. Please do not repeat this behavior in any court you are in, it leads to an unfair trial to the other side, as you are removing submissions they have not seen and now cannot answer to, if needed.
 
I thank the Defendant for their closing statement. I now call upon the Plaintiff to provide theirs. I understand this is not traditional flow of closing statements, however due to the circumstances I hope all parties understand.

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to provide the court with their closing statement.
 
Your Honor,

Thank you so much for your time and dedication to this court and this case and for your generosity and understanding of my situation. I will be forever grateful.

Members of the court and opposing counsel,

When I first arrived at Redmont, I was in awe. The foundation of my very being was shaken. I could barely contain my excitement. I had found one of those scarce instances where a nation fully embraces the powerful ideologies of democracy. A country that passionately moves toward freedom, self-governance, and personal rights. I sat there gazing at the beautiful nation we call home, proud to be a citizen of a government that protects the people's voice.

This case is a clear example of that powerful voice and the threats that work to silence it. The defendant attacked the people's voice when he removed an elected official without going through the proper methods outlined by the Constitution to keep our citizens' representation safe.

We set out to prove that the executive order given by the president that this case references was an overreach of authority and, indeed, unconstitutional. We proved this by citing the clear-cut definition of an executive order. It cannot change the law or the Constitution. The removal of an elected official is outlined throughout the Constitution and must be done through impeachment.

We argued that towns are, by nature, independent of the executive, and any executive action taken would be considered overreach. We proved this by demonstrating the town's autonomy with elections held by Oakridge as specified by our witness. He was put as mayor of Oakridge through Oakridge's constitutional powers and those who voted for him to lead as mayor.

Furthermore, we argued that because of this autonomy granted to towns due to their own governmental structures, the democratic processes that they possess should go unimpeded and without interruption.

As I make the points above, I will leave the court with a few questions. If this unjust executive removal of a government position through non-legislative means goes through, what ramifications will this have on our governments? Where does the buck stop? Who will be next on the executive action chopping block? Speaker of the House? A senator? A judge?

We must stand here now to prevent this process from setting a precedent. The consequences of not doing so are wicked.
Thank you for your time, thoughts, and patience.
Your Honor,
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 66

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The President’s Executive Order was unconstitutional as it made complex changes without owner’s assent.

2. Executive Order 19/23 was also unconstitutional as served as a piece of legislation.

3. Town constitutions take precedent as Redmont’s constitution lacks a supremacy clause.

4. The executive attempted to bribe the plaintiff.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Executive Order 19/23 was granted owner’s assent and it did not need to be noted in the EO itself.

2. Towns are an extension of the executive, by-way making mayors an extension of the executive as well.

3. Then-President LilDigiVert was exerting constitutionally-granted authority in EO 19/23

4. The executive did not attempt to bribe, as it was made clear nothing was final until a check with cabinet and the attorney general first.

III. THE COURT OPINION

This case brings into question the extent of authority the executive, in particular the president by-way of executive orders, maintains in relation to towns and government leadership within. I recognize the constitutional challenges this case holds, and will deliver the verdict with detailed explanations behind the decisions I have made and what led me to them.

To start off I will address executive orders and the functions and extent of them. An executive order, as defined under the constitution, is a “...lawful directive issued by the President…” and a lawful directive is then defined as one which does not “...amend the Constitution or any law outside the Constitution.” The question in this case is if Executive Order 19/23 amended the constitution, therefore deeming it an unlawful directive, or if Executive Order 19/23 was lawful and only used to further exert the executive’s authority given under the Constitution. In the Constitution under Part III Section 27 the Cabinet is given the authority to oversee all government-owned assets, which includes, but is not limited to, towns. Furthermore, under Part III Section 29, the Department of State is tasked with the “Administration, facilitation of, and communications with towns.”

It is quite clear that the executive and town governments have a strong constitutional connection, and that the executive is largely responsible for administering the functions within them. However, this alone does not grant the executive the ability to remove town officials, it only grants the ability on how leadership is determined within the town. This is also affirmed in Executive Order 19/23, setting the new requirement for towns to “..host fair elections for at least the mayor position.” In order for the executive to have the power to remove a mayor, the position must be an executive position. The defendant referenced the “Financial Standards Act,” which I believe they meant the “Financial Services Act,” which states that “Towns are an extension of the Executive…” This bill has since been rescinded after the “Banking Act” was signed into law, and as such can no longer be considered in the final decision making of this court. As it stands currently, there is no law existing which has reaffirmed that section mentioned above.

Having said this however, there is a long precedent that has been set affirming time and again the position of mayor in relation to the executive, and that is one of being an extension of the executive. Mayors work directly with the president and their cabinet, and, while not serving as direct members of the President’s Cabinet, maintain a position that forces close collaboration with the executive. There cannot be total independence from the executive by town governments, towns would simply cease to function. Mayors are undoubtedly subjected to the same procedure as any other executive officer would be in terms of removal, which is a vote by cabinet members with no conflicting interests in the matter. While mayors and the towns which they represent enjoy a certain level of independence, ultimately a mayor answers to the executive, it is outlined within the constitution. If the executive is tasked with the administration of towns, and a mayor’s duty is to administer the town which they are mayor of and the functions within it, then they must answer to the executive.

I will finally address the plaintiff’s claims of bribery. I simply do not see a strong enough argument to satisfy the legal parameters for this. The evidence presented shows an idea that then-President LilDigiVert had, but does not show any unlawful actions or even intent, as later it was shown the President said they would check with their Attorney General before any final decision making happened.
Click to expand...

IV. DECISION
The Court rules in favor of the Defendant, and will not be granting any of the Prayers for Relief.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top