Lawsuit: Adjourned hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

HugeBob

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


hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Defendant has, on multiple occasions, in disregard of the laws regulating executive power, placed people into executive office without the consent of Congress. This is a fundamental danger to the balance of power in the Federal Government, as these restrictions were expressly put in place in response to previous administrations evading the confirmation process with "Acting" Secretaries. These actions are unlawful and if the Congress will not step up to defend the public from these abuses of power, it is incumbent on the citizens to file a lawsuit to plea for intervention from the Courts. If the Courts fail to stop these violations of law, I am certain that the current administration, as well as future administrations, will continue to ignore this law.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth

2. hugebob23456

II. FACTS
1. The Constitution (link) uses the following language in the definition of Secretaries: "Secretaries & Executive Officers are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate"

2. The Executive Standards Act (link) codifies the following: "(1) Any person which holds roles functionally equivalent to a department Secretary must be approved by the Congress. This includes “Acting” Secretaries."

3. Defendant has installed an Acting Secretary of the Department of State without Senate confirmation. (Exhibit A)

4. Defendant had previously installed an Acting Secretary of the Department of Justice without Senate confirmation. (Exhibit B)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. These appointments are expressly forbidden from being made, and therefore the Courts must immediately reverse them.

2. The Acting Secretary of the Department of Justice was later formally nominated and confirmed by the Senate, therefore it would be unreasonable to request their removal from office, however the public and future presidents must be made aware that these actions were unlawful.

3. Testimony from the author of the Cabinet Approval Act (Exhibit C), which later became apart of the Executive Standards Act, clearly states the intention of the original text of the bill.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The current Acting Secretary of the DOS be removed from their position until formally nominated and confirmed by the appropriate bodies within Congress.

2. A public statement in #government-announcements which pings @politics explaining that the Government violated the law when it installed Acting Secretaries without Congressional approval.

V. EVIDENCE
Exhibit A: Acting DOS Secretary Link

Exhibit B: Acting DOJ Secretary Link

Exhibit C: hugebob23456: "During the 2nd Congress, President Endeavour made many appointments to Executive office without receiving Congressional approval under the guise of their roles being temporary. Some of these officers served for an uncomfortably long period of time, and more Secretaries were being given informal 'Acting' titles than legitimate roles. I felt it was necessary to codify in law that everyone who holds the powers of the Secretaries, regardless of their official title, be confirmed by the Congress. This was originally meant to include Deputy Secretaries, who would have to be confirmed by Congress in the event that their Secretary takes a leave of absence, however this scenario was so uncommon that it was never properly enforced. The current actions are however clearly in violation of the law and common practice established by previous administrations. The law even expressly forbids the word 'Acting' as an example of a fake title that would require confirmation."

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 January 2022
 
PwFVDhr.png


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 Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 6. Failure to appear within 72 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.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

HugeBob
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiff’s case is inaccurate. The Acting Secretary of State was in fact confirmed by the Senate of Redmont. See attached screenshot.
2. Per the plaintiff’s own admission, the former Acting Secretary of Justice was confirmed by the Senate of Redmont as well.

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: 01-16-2022
 
Forgot to attach screenshot, doing it now
 

Attachments

  • EDF2A6A9-8B40-4954-8C9A-EB15845FF773.jpeg
    EDF2A6A9-8B40-4954-8C9A-EB15845FF773.jpeg
    435.8 KB · Views: 118
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

OBJECTION

The Defendant is free to bring this evidence to the attention of the Court once the trial has begun. Even if the DOS Secretary were properly confirmed, the former Acting Secretary of the DOJ was not confirmed before taking on the powers and duties of the Secretary of the DOJ. I will not be pursuing the first prayer for relief so as to not perjure myself, and I would like to formally request that the Defendant invest in increased transparency to prevent miscommunications such as this in the future. However, I remain insistent that this case be deliberated in pursuit of my second prayer for relief.

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.
 
In regards to the objection by hugebob23456, while new facts are frowned upon in a motion to dismiss, filing a motion to dismiss on the grounds of inaccuracy (which it appears that the Attorney General is) sometimes requires that evidence be brought forth.

In regards to the motion to dismiss, I will be rejecting it. While hugebob23456 has agreed to strike the first prayer for relief, the court sees nothing frivolous their claim of prior law break.

The court now asks the plaintiff to provide an opening statement. The plaintiff has 48 hours to provide their opening statement.
 
Your honor,

I would like to request an extension of 24 hours as I have been busy irl (and actually lost power for some time o.o)

My opening statement is complete, however seeing as the time has already passed I will be withholding it pending the extension request.
 
Extension granted for 24 hours.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


tekkovvs (LilDigiVert and hugebob23456 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

The Constitution and other Acts of Congress have, for longer than the institution of the Senate has even existed, mandated that all persons who hold the powers of a Secretary be confirmed by Congress to hold such powers BEFORE they may wield such powers. The Defendant clearly violated this law when they appointed awwwimnicki to the position of Acting DOJ Secretary without Congressional consent. Of course, removal from office would be unwarranted as they were given a formal nomination and a formal approval at a later time, however it is important that we establish a clear precedent that those actions were unlawful and that this and future administrations cannot engage in such activity. The prayer for relief is extremely reasonable, no monetary renumeration of any kind has been requested. The purpose of this lawsuit is simply to right a wrong that the Defendant may not have known was unlawful at the time they engaged in these unlawful acts.

WITNESSES

The Plaintiff does not wish to call any witnesses at this time.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. A public statement in #government-announcements which pings @politics explaining that the Government violated the law when it installed Acting Secretaries without Congressional approval.

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 19th day of January 2022
 
The attorney general may now present their opening statement to the court.
 
The State has 48 hours to present their opening statement.
 
Your Honor, I will be taking over this case on behalf of the Attorney General. I would like to request an additional 24 hours to present the opening statement.
 
Extension of 24 hours granted.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

At the time of GoldBlooded’s resignation from the position of Secretary & the absence of the Secretary of Justice, awwimnicki was serving as the Deputy Secretary of Justice.
According to Section 5, Subsection 2 of the Executive Standards Act, “During a vacancy in the Secretary position, their duties fall to the Deputy Secretary until a new Secretary can be chosen.” awwimnicki would have been serving the duties of Secretary, whether officially or not, regardless if they were confirmed by the Senate until a new Secretary was chosen. awwimnicki ended up serving until being officially confirmed by the Senate as Department of Justice Secretary.

It would be superfluous to go through the process of an appointment and confirmation of an Acting Secretary, while the person that was appointed would be carrying out the duties of Secretary anyway. At that time, the best course of action would have been to quickly confirm the Deputy Secretary as the Secretary, rather than go through two confirmations.
 
Thank you both for your statements. At this time, the court ask both parties if they wish to call forth any witnesses or key testimonials. You have 48 hours to provide a list of witnesses.
 
The State calls no witnesses at this time.
 
The Plaintiff does not wish to call any witnesses at this time.
 
The court now calls for the plaintiff's closing statement. Please provide a closing statement within 48 hours or the court will move on without it.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Your honor,

This is a very simple case. The Plaintiff has presented evidence that the Defendant has committed an unlawful act. Of course, this individual instance of unlawfulness is not of great significance. For that reason, the most simple prayer for relief possible has been requested. An admission of wrongdoing is necessary to prevent a future administration from violating the same law for more nefarious purposes. That is all.

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 31th day of January 2022
 
Thank you Hugebob. The court ask the state to provide a closing statement within 48 hours or risk being held in contempt.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing Statement

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

The time between the resignation of GoldBlooded and the appointment and confirmation of awwimnicki as the next DOJ Secretary was far too short to consider any appointments for acting Secretary, especially considering they would have been acting as de-facto Secretary whether confirmed as acting Secretary or not.

The “wrongdoing” of the government is virtually non-existent, they had simply carried out their duties as efficiently and quickly as possible to keep the government, and one of its most active departments running smoothly.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 6

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The State put awwwimnicki as the Acting Secretary of Justice without Senate confirmation as required under the Executive Standards Act

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Under §5.2 of the Executive Standards Act, because the Secretary of Justice was absent, the Deputy Secretary was is to fulfill the duties of the Secretary until a new Secretary is appointed.
2. The timing between the former Secretary of Justice Goldblooded resigning and awwwimnicki being formally nominated as Secretary of Justice was far too short for any acting secretary appointment.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Executive Standards Act is a very complicated piece of legislation because it’s was an amendment to the Constitution, but portions of the act aren’t in the Constitution. Originally proposed on April 22, 2021, and signed into law on May 12, 2021, the Executive Standards Act has become the most important amendment to the Constitution in regards to the abilities of the Executive, the duties of the President and their Executive Officers, an laying out what each department of the Executive is to do. As of February 5th, 2022, the Executive Standards Act has been in effect for 269 days. Since then, the Executive Standards Act has been amended four times (maybe more, depending on if the draftsman hasn’t moved amendments under the act). The Executive Standards Act is one of the most closely followed pieces of legislation. However, since the original Executive Standards Act was implemented, one section was left out of the Constitution, §5. For the entirety of its lifespan, §5 of the Executive Standards Act has never been a part of the Constitution itself despite the Executive Standards Act having been in effect for 269 days, and both the Constitution and the Executive Standards Act being amended several times. The underlying question that needs to be answered is this: Is §5 of the Executive Standards Act a part of the Constitution? Based on the fact that despite the Executive Standards Act has been in effect for 269 days, and both Constitution and the Executive Standards Act have been amended multiple times and §5 never made its way into the Constitution, in the opinion of the court, §5 of the Executive Standards Act is not apart of the Constitution. I have a duty to interpret and defend the Constitution, and I cannot and will not add something that was hasn’t been a part of the Constitution for 269 days. That is beyond my power. What is a part of the constitution is written in the Constitution, §5 is not, and therefore not a part of the Constitution.
2. Given the fact that §5 is not a part of the Constitution, it’s also not constitutional. Under Article III, Secretaries, Clause 3 of the Constitution “Secretaries & Executive Officers are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate, continuing to serve at the pleasure of the President.” Anyone that holds an Executive Officer position (this term includes Secretaries) must be approved by the Senate, regardless of how long the President intends them to serve, an Executive Officer is nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. The second in charge of a Government Department or Office does not get de facto Executive Officer; they don’t get to inherit the power of Executive Officer. That breaks the fundamental checks and balances bestowed in our Constitution. The system as of now is President nominates, Senate confirms. Regardless of the circumstances, whether time or the threat of a government collapse, no matter how bad a Government Department or Office needs an Executive Officer, the President is to nominate an Executive Officer, and the Senate is tasked with the confirmation of that nominated Executive Officer.
3. The “acting” title in front of the Executive Officer's position does not change the fact that this is an Executive Officer and is the leader of that Department or Office. There is no difference constitutionally between an “Acting” Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Justice. From a constitutional perspective, they are the same thing, no matter what the President calls them. All Executive Officers, whether “acting” or not, must abide by the same process laid out in the Constitution.

IV. DECISION
1. Based on the fact that Secretary of Justice awwwimnicki was not nominated to her position for close to 24 hours, the State was in violation of the Constitution as awwwimnicki was not confirmed by the Senate as the Constitution requires.

I hereby rule in favor of the plaintiff, hugebob23456.

I hereby order the State to issue a public apology in government announcements which pings the politics role.

The Federal Court thanks all involved. This case is hereby adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top