Lawsuit: Dismissed hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 5

Status
Not open for further replies.

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
Supporter
hugebob23456
hugebob23456
donator3
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
655
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Congress has unlawfully passed legislation which is in violation of the Constitution and seizes powers from the Executive through use of the Veto Override. As clearly established in law and in previous cases, this act is unlawful and it is the duty of the public to sue when such violation arises, and the duty of the Courts to intervene and settle the issue. I am NOT suing as President, but as a concerned citizen. I believe that the Congress should be the supreme legislative body in our land, however the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and this act is in violation of the Constitution on multiple accounts.

I. PARTIES
1. The Congress of Redmont
2. The Executive of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Legislature proposed a law which sought to codify that a Secretary could be removed from office through a system of Motion of No Confidence, contrary to the constitutionally codified Impeachment process.
2. The Legislature proposed a law which sought to codify that the Congress may motion for a Motion of Replacement to fill vacancies created in the Congress, in violation of the Pugbandit People's Choice Amendment.
3. The Legislature proposed a law which sought to codify that the Department of Justice shall no longer handle instances of violations of Contempt of Congress, but rather the Congress shall hold the power to vote players in violation of the law, taking power away from the Executive in violation of case law established in Thire_ vs The State (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/thire_-vs-the-state-case-no-09-2020-16.1472/)
4. The Legislature proposed a law which did not contain any sort of markings for changes made to the law as required by the Amendment Scrutiny Act, which was in effect at the time (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/the-amendment-scrutiny-act.1310/).
5. The Congress passed this bill lawfully, then the President vetoed the bill, and the Congress unlawfully overrode the veto, as evident by the clause "Congress cannot give themselves power over other branches of Government nor can they take power away from them." present in the Constitution.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Congress has passed legislation in violation of multiple clauses of the Constitution and other Common Law.
2. The relevant legislation makes no modification to the Constitution, and therefore can be unconstitutional.
3. Precedent established by Thire_ vs The State is clear in that the Congress may not take power away from the Executive without the Executive's consent.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Legislative Standards Act be struck as unconstitutionally passed into law, and bills rescinded by this Act be reinstated immediately.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if possible)

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 10th day of May 2021
 
supreme-court-seal-png.8642

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 96 hours, or this summons will result in a default judgment.

Due to the nature of this case, we have decided to summon the Speaker of the House. As established in Thire v. State, where a subpoena was issued to the Speaker of the House in order to inform the court of the bill. Congress is the one who voted to override the veto on this bill, therefore it is reasonable to allow them to be able to defend their actions.​
 
Your honour,

Given there is no Speaker at present, as the principle author of the bill and the Representative who motioned to override the veto, may I provide a submission to the court on the matter?
 
OBJECTION

Precedent established in Thire_ v. The State has established that the President may act to defend the Government in the case that the Government is sued by a member of the public. A private citizen has sued the Government, and it should therefore be the President who defends the Government on this matter.
 
OBJECTION

Precedent established in Thire_ v. The State has established that the President may act to defend the Government in the case that the Government is sued by a member of the public. A private citizen has sued the Government, and it should therefore be the President who defends the Government on this matter.

After discussing with the rest of the court, we will be overruling your objection. Given that the "private citizen" who sued the Government is also President - there is a clear conflict of interest in allowing the Plaintiff to effectively argue with themselves. The situations here are also different from the case of Thire v. The State - as the Plaintiff did not explicitly defend against themselves. Even so, precedent also established in such case that the Speaker of the House is to be summoned to provide a defence on behalf of the legislature and explanation for the bill.

Your honour,

Given there is no Speaker at present, as the principle author of the bill and the Representative who motioned to override the veto, may I provide a submission to the court on the matter?

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the court. We determined that you can provide an amicus brief to the court after we receive a response to this case from the newly re-elected Speaker of the House.
 
I would like to request that this case be put on hold pending the consideration of the newly proposed Legislative Standards Amendment Act, which addresses many of the concerns brought up in this case. In the event the bill passes, this lawsuit will be moot. Because of this, I believe we should give the Legislature a few days to address the issue without Judicial intervention. (so I guess I'm requesting a 96 hour recess)
 
You are hereby found in contempt.

The Department of Justice is hereby ordered to fine Hugoplayz_YT $20 for their first offence of Contempt of Court.

I would advise you refrain from speaking out of turn, especially in cases you are not a party to, thank you.
 
I would like to request that this case be put on hold pending the consideration of the newly proposed Legislative Standards Amendment Act, which addresses many of the concerns brought up in this case. In the event the bill passes, this lawsuit will be moot. Because of this, I believe we should give the Legislature a few days to address the issue without Judicial intervention. (so I guess I'm requesting a 96 hour recess)
The request for an extension of 96 hours has been granted, please keep the court updated.
 
Given that the Legislature has addressed many of the issues present in the original bill, I wish to hereby withdraw this lawsuit from the Court's docket.
 
This lawsuit is hereby dismissed at the request of the plaintiff. The court thanks both parties for their time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top