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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I am moving as well. In light of all this, I motion for a recess until Monday.

 

[JoeGamer]

The Court will stand in recess until Monday.

 

[JoeGamer]

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?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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?

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?

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

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.

 

[JoeGamer]

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.

Objection Overruled.

The witness has 24 hours to answer the questions.

 

[Galavance]

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.

 

[JoeGamer]

Does the plaintiff's counsel have any further questions for the witnesses?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Does the plaintiff's counsel have any further questions for the witnesses?

No, your honor.

 

[JoeGamer]

The Commonwealth may cross-examine the witness. Please post questions within the next 24 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Commonwealth has no questions for Galavance.

 

[JoeGamer]

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.​

 

[Staff Team]

Present

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, should the Plaintiff or the Defense begin questioning?

Your post says the Plaintiff, but the Defense called Staff Team as a witness.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor, should the Plaintiff or the Defense begin questioning?

Your post says the Plaintiff, but the Defense called Staff Team as a witness.

The defendant should begin with their direct examination of the witness. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[Dartanboy]

Questions for Staff Team:
1. Was this Executive Order (Executive Order - Executive Order 19/23 - Town Revisions) approved by at least one Owner?
2. Was that same Executive Order actively encouraged by at least one Owner?

 

[Staff Team]

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

 

[JoeGamer]

Do you have any further questions Dartanman?

 

[JoeGamer]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Ownership indicated intent to the President that Towns be available to all to be elected as mayor at intervals throughout the year

Please elaborate / rephrase for clarity.

I may have more follow-up questions pending the witness's answer.

 

[JoeGamer]

Staff, please respond within the next 24 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

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

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[Matthew100x]

Sorry for the late reply. I unfortunately must be recessing this case until a new judge is appointed due to a conflict of interest I have from defending the criminal side of this case (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59).

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.​

 

[Staff Team]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[itsBlazeX]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[itsBlazeX]

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.

 

[Neemfy]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

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,

 

[drew_hall]

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.

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.