Lawsuit: Dismissed hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 22

Featured Businesses

Status
Not open for further replies.

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

It is an extremely critical concept that only those who have the powers to cast votes in Supreme Court verdicts are permitted to cast votes in Supreme Court verdicts. The Constitution states that, in the event of a vacant Courts, or if there are no capable Justices, then the Speaker may preside over the Supreme Court. In a recent case, the Speaker was allowed to cast a vote despite neither of these requirements being fulfilled. Even if one of the sitting Justices was not capable of casting a vote, that still fails to meet the standard that all Justices must be simultaneously incapable to cast a vote. There is however another law that attempts to give the Speaker even further powers. A law is unconstitutional when it is contradictory to the Constitution. The Judicial Standards Act is contradictory to the Constitution. I am not asking that the Courts reconsider my prior case, only that the unlawful vote be removed pending the casting of a lawful vote. Thank you.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth

2. hugebob23456

II. FACTS
1. The Constitution states: "In the event of a vacant court, or that no Judge is in the capacity to preside over such a case, the Speaker may preside."

2. At the time of the case hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2 (Exhibit A), there were 3 sitting Justices on the Supreme Court.

3. In the case hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2, the Speaker of the House cast a vote on the verdict.

4. The Judicial Standards Act states: "Where there is a deficiency in Judges, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will deliver a verdict. Where more than one vacancy exists, cases will not be heard until such time that a suitable number of Judges."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Judicial Standards Act amends a process that is clearly defined within the Constitution.

2. The Judicial Standards Act is an Act of Congress, not a Constitutional Amendment.

3. A person who does not hold the power to cast a vote in a Supreme Court verdict cast a vote in a Supreme Court verdict.

4. The Court is not vacant, and there are Judges that have the capacity to preside over the case.

5. Even if Justice Wuutie were incapable of casting a vote, the Speaker is not granted the power to substitute vote on Supreme Court verdicts, only to preside in the event that there are zero Justices on the Court or zero Justices capable of presiding.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The verdict in the case hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmon [2022] SCR 2 be reversed pending a vote cast by the legally nominated and approved Justice Wuutie.

2. The Judicial Standards Act be struck as unconstitutional, or at least the following clauses:
(1) Where there is a deficiency in Judges, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will deliver a verdict. Where more than one vacancy exists, cases will not be heard until such time that a suitable number of Judges.
(2) In the event that this is an appeal of an appealed decision and there are only two sitting judges, the Speaker of Congress will also preside.

V. EVIDENCE
Exhibit A:
Lawsuit: In Session - hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2

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 March 2022
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Former President
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
constructor
The Constitution was out of date and has been amended appropriately - does you complaint still stand?
 

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
Yes, in fact this new development brings further claims. The clause in the Constitution I had cited has since been removed, despite the Judicial Standards Act not expressly removing any parts of the Constitution. Someone has arbitrarily removed parts of the Constitution without approval from Congress, and that is something that I will be seeking be reversed. Furthermore, parts of the Judicial Standards Act are in the Constitution while other parts are not, despite no differentiation between which parts are and which parts are not within the act itself. Which parts did the Congress approve to be in the Constitution, and which parts did the Congress approve as an Act of Congress? Who gets to decide what is enshrined in our most sacred legal document? These are extremely important questions that I seek to answer in this case.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
After consulting with my peers on the Supreme Court, it has been determined that this case shall be originally heard in the Federal Court. We believe that this case does not meet the criteria for Supreme Court original jurisdiction.
Yes, in fact this new development brings further claims.
In which case, do you wish to edit your initial filing to express these "further claims"?
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
@HugeBob please respond to my question within 48 hours or you will be held in contempt of court
 

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
@HugeBob please respond to my question within 48 hours or you will be held in contempt of court
I believe editing the initial message poses risks related to the authenticity of my express citations from the Constitution. Don't worry, I will reiterate and make clear all of my claims in my closing statement as is standard practice for me.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
federal-court-png.12082


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

@drew_hall as Attorney General is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of HugeBob v Commonwealth of Redmont.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 

drew_hall

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Drew_Hall
Drew_Hall
justice
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. There is no outline, that I can recall, that formally establishes the procedure of proposing an amendment, or in other words, an amendment can be within an Act of the Congress without needing to outline it. There is a long-standing precedent on this matter; we can see how this procedure has been followed in other amendments, for example: the Executive Standards Act and Electoral Act, among others. Should the Judicial Standards Act be unconstitutional, countless other Acts will follow.

2. The amendment that the plaintiff tries to declare unconstitutional at the moment, was signed during his own presidency. The presidential assent is an essential requirement to change the constitution, assent that he himself gave. We believe that this lawsuit only puts the plaintiff in a personal contradiction. This leads us to believe that the Plaintiff’s motivation behind filing this lawsuit is not in safeguarding the constitution, but rather in self interest.

3. If the Act is declared unconstitutional, we would find ourselves in a legal vacuum with the consequent legal uncertainty. There are a large number of amendments approved through this procedure. Therefore, even if it were to be believed that the amendment process was not the best, currently declaring this Act unconstitutional would cause more harm than good, even more so if we consider that it was approved unanimously in Congress, in addition to meeting all the requirements of an amendment, therefore making it a perfectly legitimate amendment.

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.

(The words defendant and complaint should be changed in case the motion is to dismiss a counterclaim.)

DATED: This 16th day of March 2022
 

HugeBob

Citizen
Former President
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, for the convenience of the Court I will be using the same numbering system as the Defendant and outlining my counterclaim to each of their claims within the same point number. Thank you.

1. The first part of this point is not entirely clear. I agree that a piece of legislation can simultaneously amend the Constitution and have clauses that are not Constitutional Amendments, however any clauses that amend the Constitution must cite specific clauses of the Constitution that are being amended. While this is not necessarily codified, it is a principle of common sense. If the legislation does not decide what parts of the Constitution change, then who does? Clauses of the Constitution have been removed despite the fact that the Judicial Standards Act has no clauses that would remove parts of the Constitution. For the latter portion of this point, maybe those other Acts are unconstitutional. That doesn't make this one constitutional. Imagine being charged for murder and claiming innocence on the basis that other people commit murder. That isn't how it works.

2. Bro my whole presidency was an unconstitutional coup, as was literally decided in the case Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7. While I am flattered at the assertion that my support makes something constitutional (and the idea of having that kind of power truly excites me), that is, unfortunately, not how it works. My motives for filing this lawsuit are not relevant. If it is determined that the Judicial Standards Act is unconstitutional (or at least parts of it), that is what is materially relevant.

3. The Judicial Standards Act is not a Constitutional Amendment. It just isn't. While the reason listed includes the text "to amend the Constitution", the number of clauses throughout the entire piece of legislation and all subsequent amendments that directly cite any part of the Constitution to add, remove, or otherwise amend is zero. While I agree that the bill received the requisite support to pass as a Constitutional Amendment, it makes no amendments to the Constitution, and yet parts of the Constitution have been amended behind the justification of this Act of Congress. It is extremely important that we can all point at a specific line of text and read what part of the Constitution (if any) is being changed, and what it is being changed to. That is a concept so fundamental that I am frankly surprised the Commonwealth wishes to challenge this suit.

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 18th day of March 2022
 

nnmc

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Association
nnmc
nnmc
deputyspeaker
The motion to dismiss is granted. After considering all arguments, I have determined the plaintiff’s case to be inaccurate. Per their own admission:

While this is not necessarily codified, it is a principle of common sense.
Whether it’s common sense or not is a moot point. The court’s job is to interpret the codified laws of Redmont. Given the lack of any codified law to back up the plaintiff’s claims, this merits dismissal. The Constitution says that the Speaker is to provide a ruling in the case of a deficiency. The deficiency created by The Honorable Justice Wuutie thus required the Speaker to issue their ruling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top