Lawsuit: Adjourned hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
HugeBob

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:

What is election fraud? Would a state sponsored televised debate open to all candidates which conveniently disinvites certain candidates constitute election fraud? What it be unreasonable to believe that such an event, especially one announced in #government-announcements and pinging @politics, would have a significant impact on the outcome of the election? I fully understand why some campaigns are not taken seriously. My campaign is not seeking to seriously win the Presidency, however this is a matter of establishing precedent and protecting the rights ordained in the Constitution. A future President with malicious intent could cite this debate as precedent to allow them to strategically deny unfavorable candidates access to Government sponsored debates. This threatens the very foundation of our democracy. We must guarantee that all lawful candidates are given an equal opportunity to seek elected office, no matter what. We cannot allow people who hold political affiliations to arbitrarily decide who is a "joke candidate" and who is "legitimate". All candidates, whether they be ICP, BDP, Independent, or even a "protest candidate" should, so long as they are legally eligible to contest the election, be given access to the same mechanisms provided by the State. That simple concept has been breached on this day, and we seek retribution not only for the damage done to our campaigns, but to protect the next generation of politicians from the same type of abuse.

I. PARTIES
1. The Commonwealth

2. hugebob23456

3. Krix

4. LilNickiVert

5. LilDigiVert

II. FACTS
1. Candidate hugebob23456 declared candidacy to contest the February Presidential Election and is legally permitted to contest this election.

2. Candidate LilNickiVert declared candidacy to contest the February Presidential Election and is legally permitted to contest this election.

3. Candidate Westray and Bestray declared their candidacies and were permitted to participate in the debate.

4. As evident by their username, candidate Bestray is sympathetic to the Westray campaign.

5. Both candidates hugebob23456 and LilNickiVert have a longer, more established political history than at least one of the candidates which were permitted to debate.

6. The incumbent DPA Secretary was aware of the candidacy of these other campaigns and was notified of this problem via pings in Discord.

7. The Constitution grants the following right: "XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status." and we believe that both of the parties excluded from this debate have been unfairly discriminated against in accordance with this expressly enumerated right.

8. The Constitution grants the following right: "I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime." and, while the candidates are not being barred from contesting the election, their right to participate in the election is certainly being limited to a degree that other candidates are not being subject to, and not as punishment for any crime which either candidate has been formally charged with.

9. Corruption is defined as: "To use a government position, elected or otherwise, to benefit one's private interests or corporate ventures. By applying for a position or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves." and we believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that these actions have the express motive of ensuring the victory of the Westray campaign in the upcoming election.

10. Election Fraud is defined as: "Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats." and we believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that these discriminatory actions are politically motivated, with the goal to ultimately influence the result of the election.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DPA Secretary has unlawfully kept lawful candidates from participating in a Government sanctioned debate event.

2. The President took no action to correct the DPA Secretary's unlawful action.

3. The results of the Presidential Election cannot be legitimate due to the significant amount of election interference conducted by the incumbent administration.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The incumbent DPA Secretary be removed from office and barred from serving in public office for the maximum allowable 2 month period.

2. The incumbent President be removed from office and barred from serving in public office for the maximum allowable 2 month period.

3. The upcoming Presidential Election be cancelled.

4. A total of $10,000 made payable to hugebob23456 for damage to their reputation and political campaign.

4. A total of $10,000 made payable to LilNickiVert for damage to their reputation and political campaign.

V. EVIDENCE
Exhibit A:
1644169030553.png


Exhibit B:
1644169061015.png


VI. INJUNCTION REQUEST

Because of the nature of this lawsuit, we would like to request an emergency injunction to prevent the February Presidential Election from taking place pending the completion of this lawsuit.

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 6th day of February 2022
 
Last edited:
This case is moved to the Supreme Court because it didn’t match the rules of the Federal Court. The Supreme Court will first discuss the injunction before summoning the Defendant.
 
We first want to hear the government his opinion on the injunction.
 
supreme-court-seal-png.8642


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

@Attorney General is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont.

Failure to appear within 72 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.​
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The government disputes all claims.
2. ...

II. DEFENCES
1. Krix, hugebob's running mate was in violation of the allegiance act by being prime minister of stratham.

2.lilnickivert's running mate said that he would be dropping out of the election the DPA took this seriously and removed her from the election.

3. Executive order 4/21 pardons the DPA secretary for crimes of corruption.

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

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 8th day of February 2022
 
I would like to note that we only want your opinion on the injunction at this moment. Not an answer to the complaint.
 
I severely contest this is a very major change to government elections. I also see no reason why this is nessacary as krix is in violation of the allegiance act and I cannot locate lilnickiverts declaration
 
The Supreme Court has decided to deny the injunction.

We move on to the answer to the complaint if the Defendant wishes to put a new one.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The government disputes all claims.
2. ...

II. DEFENCES
1. Krix, hugebob's running mate was in violation of the allegiance act by being prime minister of stratham.

2.lilnickivert's running mate said that he would be dropping out of the election the DPA took this seriously and removed her from the election.

3. Executive order 4/21 pardons the DPA secretary for crimes of corruption.

4.A former president cannot be vice president
When President consumer resigned lildigivert became president. lilnickivert's declaration is illegal



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 9th day of February 2022
 
The Plaintiff may present his opening statement within 48 hours.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT
1. Krix, hugebob's running mate was in violation of the allegiance act by being prime minister of stratham.
Click to expand...
There are actually multiple flaws with this argument. The Allegiance Act expressly defines which of Redmont's positions are considered "Senior Government Officials", and the Vice President is NOT one of them. The defendant may argue that the Vice President is a member of the Cabinet and is therefore subject to the Allegiance Act, however this is inaccurate. Members of Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time. The President does not have the power to fire the Vice President. Members of Cabinet must be formally nominated and confirmed by the Senate. Elected Vice Presidents are not subject to such scrutiny. Members of Cabinet oversee express government departments, the Vice President does not. The Vice President is not a part of the Cabinet, and is therefore not barred under the terms of the Allegiance Act. Furthermore, the Alligiance Act was unlawfully passed into law. The Alligiance Act, at the top of the bill, states that the purpose is to amend the constitution and is clearly a rights and freedoms change as the right to contest elected office is a right guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution. Because of the rights and freedoms change, this piece of legislation is a Complex Change and should have been sent to public referendum, which never took place. And if the defendant were to claim that it had simply passed as common law, then it would be unconstitutionally violating the rights codified in the Constitution and should be struck down immediately.

2.lilnickivert's running mate said that he would be dropping out of the election the DPA took this seriously and removed her from the election.
Click to expand...
A candidate said something in a public Discord channel and the state used that as justification to remove someone from the ballot? If the candidate does not formally withdraw from the election on the election thread, how are you able to differentiate between jokes, heat of the moment statements, and reality? This is nothing short of an admission of guilt.
3. Executive order 4/21 pardons the DPA secretary for crimes of corruption.
Click to expand...
First of all, disgusting. The attempt by the defense to abuse their executive power to evade justice should absolutely be noted by the Courts. However, whoever advised the President on this decision clearly lacks sufficient legal experience. The Constitution defines a Presidential Pardon as follows: "A lawful order to overturn a criminal charge, providing clemency on a charge to an accused player." The specific language is very important. A Presidential Pardon may overturn a criminal charge, therefore Twixted has been fully pardoned of any past charges made against them for corruption. This lawsuit has yet to result in any charges, and therefore Twixted has yet to receive any charges, and Pardons apply only to the charges, not the crime itself. This is a very important distinction to make as these end of term pardons would enable Presidents to pardon themselves and allies of crimes which no one had been prosecuting them for yet. The authors of the Constitution foresaw this possibility and insured that pardons could only take place after a formal charge had been made, to ensure that the President would suffer politically by issuing such pardons after a Court had reached a guilty verdict. This language was introduced after another President attempted to issue a pardon for all future crimes prior to convictions, an act that the Congress denounced and later prohibited with the current text.
4. A former president cannot be vice president
Click to expand...
Is the defendant's legal counsel aware of the fact that the current Vice President is a former President? The Vice President cannot be the most recent previous President, however there is no restriction that prohibits all former Presidents from serving as a Vice President in the future. However, this would have applied to the candidacy of LilNickiVert and for that reason, I will no longer be seeking any sort of relief on behalf of their campaign.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ADDITIONS

1. The Allegiance Act be struck down as unconstitutional or unlawfully passed, take your pick.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF REMOVALS

4. A total of $10,000 made payable to LilNickiVert for damage to their reputation and political campaign.

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 9th day of February 2022
 
Last edited:
HugeBob said:
The Alligiance Act, at the top of the bill, states that the purpose is to amend the constitution and is clearly a rights and freedoms change
Click to expand...
Your honor I would like to make note that the federal court ruled that the allegiance act was lawfully passed in fcr92
 
Your honor, may I rebut the above interjection?
 
Your honor,

The Defendant's assertion that the Federal Court ruled that the Allegiance Act was constitutionally passed is both inaccurate and irrelevant.

The Federal Court in case FCR 92 accepted a motion to dismiss and never held a full trial, it is therefore inaccurate to claim that a full discussion of the facts occurred that eventually resulted in the assertion that the amendment was lawfully passed.

The Court's opinion in that case was that the amendment to bar citizens from running for office was not a breach of their right to run for office because it did not expressly amend text in the rights and freedoms section of the constitution. I'm literally not even kidding that was the logic they used. I am absolutely confident that if the Plaintiff in that case had appealed their case to the Supreme Court, the ruling would have been overruled.

Beyond all of this, this is the Supreme Court. A prior ruling in the Federal Court is entirely irrelevant, the Supreme Court is expressly given the authority and jurisdiction to overrule decisions made in the Federal Court, and I believe that this is a prime example of when such action would be necessary. We cannot allow a precedent to be established that would allow the Government to deny citizens their constitutionally guaranteed rights so long as such denials of rights are written in a different section of the Constitution.
 
This is noted. We move on, the Defendant if he wishes to present an opening statement, can do it within 48 hours.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

Defences

1.Former President lildigivert became president after 218consumer resigned therefore prohibiting lildigivert becoming vice president in this election and invalidating lilnickivert's declaration.

2. The allegiance act was legally passed.

3. Hugebob's running mate was in violation of the allegiance act of which the secretary complied with

4. The DPA secretary has not committed crime, He had followed the allegiance act

5.Because the DPA secretary was not committing a crime the president could not be involved.

6. Presidential pardon was given to twixed for the accusations corruption, Even though no corruption has been committed to the defense knowledge.

7. Electoral Fraud is not present here as the invalidation is legal through the allegiance act.
 
Your honour, I would like to file an amicus brief to this case should the court allow it.

As the President-Elect I have a vested interest in this case as (a) this case is alleging that my own election was unlawful; and (b) the government is currently in a transitionary period whereas a new government led by myself will be subject to the repercussions of this case in less than a week.

Due to this, I would like to express my expertise and third opinion, in addition to making a request to the court. This is in accordance with precedents established in [2020] FCR 14 whereby multiple non-defendant senior officials filed amicus briefs accepted by the courts, and [2020] FCR 21 whereby the court allowed a third party to provide a defence.
 
I will allow an amicus brief filed by Westray, I ask to file this within a reasonable time.
 
Thank you your honour.

I will address the claims presented against the state:

Department of Public Affairs Processes and Campaigning
The Plaintiff claims that the Department of Public Affairs has a duty of care required by law to accommodate all candidates in government-sanctioned events, however has not pointed out any requirement for the department to do so in the Constitution or the Executive Standards Act. There remains zero law and zero precedent that requires the department to accommodate all candidates for government-sanctioned events.

The Department of Public Affairs had been planning this debate for several days and had arranged it in a way that involved the two key candidates - Westray and Bestray. Then these last-minute and seemingly humorous candidates (Hugebob23456 and LilNickiVert) declared and demanded involvement in a debate that was pre-planned. The exclusion of these candidates were not a result of a violation of their rights, rather simply a result of the department's event planning. In fact, in [2020] FCR 14, to an injunction demanding the department recognize the Plaintiff as an official candidate, the court ruled in favour of the Defendant, stating that "that there is nothing preventing you from continuing to campaign, as an officially recognized candidate or not"

Just because the department was unable to add them to a pre-planned debate did not hinder their ability to run for office. It is an unreasonable expectation to claim that the department must cater to everyone for debates, especially ones in voice chats. To establish a precedent that would require the department to cater to every candidate would be an egregious disregard for the law and an unreasonable expectation placed.

Allegiance Act Legality
While the Plaintiff poses an interesting argument over the process in which the Allegiance Act was ratified, it does not meet the standards that require referendum. As defined in the constitution, a 'complex change' involving a system of government must be made in an amendment in order to be required for referendum.

The Allegiance Act does not change the system of our government, nor does it hinder the rights of the people of Redmont. If anything, the Allegiance Act protects the rights of the people of Redmont against foreign enemies, noting that all individuals have the right to security of person.

The Allegiance Act is merely a requirement to prevent criminal acts such as treason and or corruption from occurring as a result of foreign officials being involved in our government, and is a reasonable limit, as stated:

"The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society."

The removal of a foreign official from our elections is a reasonable limit to protect the security of the nation of Redmont.

Request to the Court
Understanding this is simply an amicus brief, I do wish to request a matter admittedly unconventional. Given that I am set to assume office on the 15th and am currently President-Elect, I would ask the court if they would be willing to provide an extension of no more than 96 hours. The outcome of this case will ultimately pour into the next administration otherwise.

Thank you.
 
Your honor, may I rebut the above submission?
 
Your honor (I'll keep this quick and short),

The Amicus Brief claims that there is no obligation for the DPA Secretary to provide equal access to Government sanctioned events codified within the law. This is misleading. While it is true that DPA events are not codified anywhere, there is a clause within the Constitution that bars discrimination, even expressly mentioning discrimination for political reasons. "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status." The DPA Secretary knew that candidate Westray would be renominating them but did not know whether the other campaigns intended to renominate them. There is a clear political motive involved in the denial of equal benefit of the law to the other political campaigns.

The Amicus Brief also claims that the Allegiance Act is not an amendment. It literally says "amend the constitution" at the top of the bill, directly beneath the name. The Amicus Brief also claims that the law would not deny someone their right to office. Then why was my candidacy revoked from the ballot? Clearly my right to run for office has been impeded by this unlawfully passed act. The Amicus Brief then goes on to claim that the rights and freedoms may be subject to reasonable limitations that would be necessary for the good function of Government. I do not contest this. If the Allegiance Act had received the properly required referendum, it would be perfectly lawful (so long as it were passed as a Constitutional Amendment and not as an Act of Congress). The argument of the Plaintiff is that the Allegiance Act (as a Constitutional Amendment) was not lawfully passed, and yet has been applied retroactively to my campaign for the office of President. I am seeking retribution through the Courts not for the sake of my campaign, but for the sake of those campaigns of the next election, and the election after that. This is a time for the Courts to cast a landmark verdict, to establish precedent for many future generations of politicians.

The Amicus Brief then requests that the Courts intentionally filibuster this lawsuit until after the transition period. Given that this lawsuit seeks to potentially force a rerun of the Presidential Election, allowing this case to proceed into the next administration would cause a great deal of disruption to the politics of Redmont.

Thank you.
 
Your honour given that I have now assumed office I do not believe that the Plaintiff's request on my amicus brief poses further relevance. I would urge the court to consider resuming this case.
 
After a short discussion the Supreme Court has decided that it was not a change to Rights and Freedom , rather a limitation to those acting in senior government roles of foreign nations. As said we continue with the case. There is no relevance in discussing it more.

Both parties may list names as witnesses. Please do so within 48 hours.
 
Thank you, your honour. The Defence would like to call the following witnesses:
  • Bestray_, who will testify as the only other key candidate in the election.
  • Twixted, who will testify as the Secretary of Public Affairs who held the debate.
 
The Plaintiff has no witnesses to call at this time.
 
supreme-court-seal-png.8642



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

@bestray_ and @Twixted are hereby summoned to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case [2022] SCR 2 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present.

I would ask that each party provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness 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.

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, pursuant of the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses have been questioned, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine.​
 
Thank you, your honour.

To Bestray:
1. In your opinion, did you find that the Plaintiff, Hugebob23456, was a serious contender in the race?
2. What was you and Cupcakes29's reason for running for office?
3. Were Muffins29 and Westray aware of your campaign prior to its release?
4. Is it true that several of your announced cabinet picks (including DOS, DOJ, DEC, and DCT) were different from the Westray/Muffins29 campaign?

To Twixted:
1. When did the Department of Public Affairs start planning the debate?
2. Why were only two candidates included in the debate?
3. Is it true that the debate was structured around two candidates?
4. Was it your belief that Hugebob or LilNickiVert were serious candidates?
5. Is there any way in which you have personally benefitted from excluding Hugebob and LilNickiVert from the debate?
 
1. No I do not.
2. We wanted to give people another option on who to vote for. No one was gonna run against West and Muffins. So me and Cupcakes29 decided that we would be the ones to give the citizen someone else to choose.
3. Yes, we had a discord made and we had supports making ADS and we had rallies. We made it clear to West and Muffins.
4. Yes, because we revolved our campaign around change. We had our own cabinet picks and our own policies.
 
LavenderxBlaxii said:
1. No I do not.
2. We wanted to give people another option on who to vote for. No one was gonna run against West and Muffins. So me and Cupcakes29 decided that we would be the ones to give the citizen someone else to choose.
3. Yes, we had a discord made and we had supports making ADS and we had rallies. We made it clear to West and Muffins.
4. Yes, because we revolved our campaign around change. We had our own cabinet picks and our own policies.
Click to expand...
Based on your response to #2 and #4, would you say that the Plaintiff's claim in 3.4 ("As evident by their username, candidate Bestray is sympathetic to the Westray campaign.") is factually incorrect or at the least, incredibly misleading?
 
  1. The Department of Public Affairs began the formal process of planning the debate on January 19, 2022.
  2. The format of the debate, which involved the use of many follow-up and back-and-forth questions between both candidates, only would have worked with two on stage at a time.
  3. Yes, the debate was ultimately structured around two candidates.
  4. No, it was not my personal belief that hugebob23456 and LilNickiVert were running as serious candidates.
  5. No, I have not personally benefited in any way from my decision to bar hugebob23456 and LilNickiVert from participating in the presidential debates.
 
Westray said:
Based on your response to #2 and #4, would you say that the Plaintiff's claim in 3.4 ("As evident by their username, candidate Bestray is sympathetic to the Westray campaign.") is factually incorrect or at the least, incredibly misleading?
Click to expand...
Incredibly misleading.
 
The witnesses have sufficiently refuted the frivolous accusations by the Plaintiff. Thank you, your honour. I have no further questions.
 
The chance on giving questions have expired, after 3 days I can’t allow more.
 
We will move on to closing statements, the Plaintiff may provide one within 48 hours.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Your honor,

This was an election in which one of the candidates' publicly pledged nominees used their power as an incumbent to deny another candidate their access to equal benefit of the law. This was an election in which one of the candidates was removed from the ballot despite being fully compliant with all applicable laws. If this is not election fraud, then what is? Where is the line? Is there a line?

That said, this lawsuit has dragged on to such an extent that some of our prayers for relief would be unreasonably disruptive to the good function of Redmont. We recognize that a re-run of the elections would, at best, result in the same outcome and, at worst, cause a transition of power without a formal transition period and raise legal questions about bills signed during this time. The aim of this lawsuit has now shifted from seeking justice to preventing this from happening ever again. We are no longer seeking a cancellation or re-run of the Presidential Elections.

We strongly urge the Courts to reconsider the legality of the Allegiance Amendment, or at least the justification for its legality. To claim that it is perfectly lawful to limit a citizen's constitutionally guaranteed rights without going through rights and freedoms changes so long as the amendment is tucked away into any random part of the constitution is TREMENDOUSLY DANGEROUS. Imagine what a President like Krix or I would have done with this power. Seriously. It cannot fly. Obviously, our position is that the amendment should be struck as illegally passed, HOWEVER there is another option. While the amendment is not yet lawfully passed, it still can be. There is no time limit for the referendum requirement. I strongly urge the Courts order that a referendum be held on this amendment. I'm going to speak very plainly and very openly: it is good legislation and it will pass referendum. It just hasn't been lawfully passed, and it isn't too late to fix it.

We stand firm behind our prayer for relief seeking the removal and disbarment of Twixted on the basis of Corruption. They were made aware, multiple times, that there were other legal candidates seeking access to the debate and were arbitrarily denied equal benefit of the law. That is a crime.

While I would appreciate the monetary remuneration, I honestly would not even notice if it were added to my balance. Reality is, fining the Government only harms other citizens that would better benefit from the Government spending of that money. For that reason, we are no longer seeking the $10,000 compensation requested.

Thank you.

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 26th day of February 2022
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

hugebob23456
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Your honour, the Plaintiff's case is beyond ludicrous, undermining the integrity of our court system. These frivolous accusations are without any sort of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. An institution of law should not even consider the vague conspiracies mentioned today.

There is no story here, there is no conspiring to commit fraud. This entire case consists of an inactive Plaintiff who decided to run with a candidate that was ineligible for office, thus disqualifying him from the election. The Plaintiff continues to be adamant on the questioned legality of the Allegiance Act, whereas multiple cases have proved precedent otherwise. In this case, the Honourable Justice Wuutie even stated that the law was a reasonable limitation, and not a change to constitutional rights.

As a frontrunners in the election, both Westray and Bestray_ sought to gain nothing by removing or keeping the irrelevant Plaintiff on the ballot. The claim by the Defendant that one of the two frontrunners were conspiring with incumbents to benefit their personal interests is absurd and slanderous.

As evidenced in multiple precedents, including in [2021] SCR 18, and [2021] SCR 17; in order to prove corruption, there must be proof that the individual in question benefitted from it. In this instance, not only is there no proof of a personal or corporate benefit to justify the mens rea, but the Plaintiff also has not provided any proof of the act itself.

In this case, we have seen multiple witness testimonies to refute the claims of the Plaintiff. As stated by the witness, LavenderxBlaxii (Bestray_) the claims by the Plaintiff that they were in kahoots with other campaigns is highly misleading. Furthermore, as mentioned by the DPA Secretary in regards to the debate concerns, is that the Plaintiff and Nicki were not serious candidates, jumping into the election much after the debate was already planned.

The claims that the DPA must cater to every candidate is unreasonable and refuted by past precedent in [2020] FCR 14 as mentioned in my previous argument. The claim that the Allegiance Act was not properly ratified is flawed given the precedent and opinion provided by the Supreme Court.

The Plaintiff has zero respect for the court and for our democratic processes, continuing to push his argument on the Allegiance Act even after the court expressed their stance. To side with the Plaintiff would result in severe government instability and legal consequence.

The Plaintiff's entire case is based on rhetorical questions and making strong accusations with zero evidence. On the contrary, the Defence has provided countless precedents and legislation to reaffirm our arguments.

The Plaintiff has already held up everyone's time, failing to respond to cross-examination and issuing a closing statement last-minute. I urge the court to not entertain this circus any longer, and to adjourn this case in favour of the Defendant.
 

Verdict



I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The plaintiff claims that the DPA Secretary has unlawfully kept lawful candidates from participating in a Government sanctioned debate event, acting on the express motive of ensuring the Westray campaign victory.
2. The plaintiff claims that the President took no action to correct the DPA Secretary's unlawful action.
3. The results of the Presidential Election cannot be legitimate due to the significant amount of election interference conducted by the former administration.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. Former President Lildigivert became President after 218218consumer resigned, therefore prohibiting Lildigivert becoming Vice President in this election and invalidating Lilnickivert's declaration.
2. The Allegiance Act was legally passed.
3. Hugebob's running mate was in violation of the Allegiance Act of which the secretary complied with.
4. The DPA secretary has not committed a crime, rather they followed the bounds of candidacy stipulated in the Allegiance Act.
5. Because the DPA secretary was not committing a crime the president could not be involved.
6. Presidential pardon was given to Twixed for the accusations corruption, even though no corruption has been committed to the defense's knowledge.
7. Electoral Fraud is not present here as the invalidation is legal through the Allegiance Act. (edited)

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Supreme Court recognises the Vice President as a Senior Government Official, and therefore as a member of the Executive Cabinet. The Vice Presidency has clearly been part of the Executive Cabinet since it’s inception, establishing a convention of patronage. Furthermore, there are unique privileges allotted to the Vice Presidency which are consistent with other cabinet positions. Other legal structures support this conclusion in the constitution.
2. The Plaintiff was not able to prove claims of electoral fraud and corruption beyond a reasonable doubt, or even beyond the balance of probabilities given this is a civil case.
3. The majority opinion of the court is that the Dept. of Public Affairs acted within the realm of its responsibilities to prevent the mischief that the Allegiance Act sets out to resolve.
4. The majority opinion of the court is that the Dept. of Public Affairs acted within the realm of its responsibilities in accordance with the constitution concerning the removal of a Vice Presidential candidate based on a recent presidency.

Remarks from Chief Justice End

I have broken this case down in to 5 main questions of law to determine my ruling.

Were candidates Hugebob and LilNickvert eligible to run for Presidential Office?

Hugebob. Hugebob's declaration of candidacy on 2 FEB 2022 lists Prime Minister Krix of Stratham as his Vice Presidential running mate. At this time, and since 21 DEC 2021, Krix had been serving in the capacity of Prime Minister of Statham. Therefore, under the provisions of the Allegiance Act, Krix was ineligible to concurrently run for Presidential Office as he served as a member in the foreign equivalent of an executive cabinet. The mischief of the Allegiance Act is to prevent a foreign senior government office holder from concurrently holding a Redmont senior government office.

LilNickiVert. LilNickiVert's declaration of candidacy on 7 FEB 2022 lists former President LilDigiVert as her Vice Presidential running mate. Later on 7 FEB 2022, LilDigiVert became President In order to run for Vice President, the individual nominated must not have been the last President. I am satisfied that the events that lead to LilDigiVert's accession to the Presidency and were in no way nefarious to prevent him from running in the next election, therefore, LilDigiVert would be ineligible to run for Vice President as the last President.

Is there credible evidence of corruption and electoral interference?
The evidence proposed by the Plaintiff in relation to corruption and electoral fraud is circumstantial and assumptive. The Plaintiff has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that criminal activity has taken place. While the DPA Secretary may have been aware of their upcoming appointment, I am not satisfied that they were a key figure in advocating for any unlawful exclusion.

Was the Allegiance Act lawful?
The Allegiance Act was signed into law on 21 JUN 2021, passing the House with 9 votes and the Senate with 4 votes. The bill was a constitutional amendment, although, this does not mean it requires a referendum.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change
Click to expand...
A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President: - Changes to the System of Government. - Plugin-related changes. - Changes involving significant staff involvement. - Creation of new towns/cities/urban establishments. - A Rights & Freedoms change.
Click to expand...

The only applicable reason above is a change to Rights and Freedoms. The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society. I am of the opinion that this was not a complex change as it did not change the nature of the status quo. There bill did not make a change to rights and freedoms, it made a reasonable limitation that is justified in a free and democratic society.

If so, is the Vice President a Senior Government Official?
The Vice President is not expressly mentioned in the constitution as a Senior Government official, however, through convention the position has, from its inception, been associated with and involved in the executive cabinet. As an individual who understudies the President, is second in the line of succession, and as an individual whose position is established under the President and Cabinet section of the Constitution, I naturally regard the Vice President as a Senior Government Official. Therefore, their position is subject to the constraints of the Allegiance Act.

Did the Dept. of Public Affairs have the ability to exclude candidates Hugebob and LilNickVert from the February Presidential debate?
There is an expectation that the Government act in a manner that is fair and just to all, especially in times of elections. As aptly pointed out by the Plaintiff, the constitution states that:
XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.
Click to expand...
While Government is not explicitly charged with ensuring all candidates have a platform to express themselves during an election, there lies an implicit expectation that eligible candidates are not excluded from such events. Therefore, the Government should make every reasonable effort to ensure that all eligible declared candidates have the benefit of Government resources. The Government should not host an exclusive debate based on who it deems the front-runners in the election are at that point in time. While this point should be considered for future reference, I do not find the Dept. Public Affairs' exclusion of the two candidates to be unfair discrimination. Hugebob's declaration was invalid and not only was LilNickiVert's declaration invalid, it was also approximately 40 minutes prior to the debate. This short amount of notice is not a reasonable time for the DPA to be able to accommodate a candidate in an event such as a live public debate. I am satisfied that the Department of Public Affairs - as the organiser of the debate - should be able to exercise the appropriate discretion over who can partake in the debate. In this instance, I believe that there were no abuses of this discretion.

Ruling: I hereby rule in favour of the Defence.
Click to expand...
Remarks from Justice JoeGamer
Was the Allegiance Act passed constitutionally?
The first right that all citizens of Redmont share is the right to run for public office unless as punishment for a crime committed. This is the foundation for a stable democracy. It is also recognized that all members who join the server are citizens of Redmont. So this means that foreign dignitaries are citizens of Redmont and enjoy the same rights as all other citizens. With that established, the Allegiance Act limits players' constitutional ability to run for public office. Therefore, the Allegiance Act does implicitly alter the rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens of Redmont. As outlined in the Constitution, any amendment that changes the rights and freedoms must pass a public referendum. The Allegiance Act was never put up for public referendum and therefore was not passed constitutionally. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Allegiance Act was not passed constitutionally.

Was it constitutional for the DPA to withhold presidential candidates from a government-sanctioned debate? No, the DPA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by withholding presidential candidates. The duty of the Executive Branch of Government is to administer and enforce the laws as written by the legislature and interpreted by the court. In doing so, government departments must apply the law equally to all citizens. The Department of Public Affairs failed to apply this basic freedom by discriminating against candidates who, in the words of the DPA Secretary, “it was not my personal belief that hugebob23456 and LilNickiVert were running as serious candidates.” If the government is to sponsor a debate, they must apply equal protections. The DPA secretary doesn’t have to power to choose who is a valid/serious candidate and who isn’t. Now understandably the government cannot bend over backward for everything. I do realize that the DPA had spent a month orchestrating this debate, but I find it hard to believe that the debate format was solely focused on two candidates. Both hugebob23456 and LilNickiVert were present in the audience. They weren’t calling for the change of the entire debate (that would be unreasonable) but the fact the DPA did not allow them a place on the debate stage is simply an unequal application of the law. If the DPA is to sanction a debate, then they must accommodate everyone to the best of their ability.

Ruling: In favour of the Plaintiff
Click to expand...
Remarks from Speaker (Acting Justice) Mhadsher101
The Plaintiff is arguing that his omission from the debate and his subsequent removal from the race is illegal. He says he was discriminately unable to run in the debate and also refutes the legality of the Allegiance Act. It is my opinion that the DPA held the right to omit the Hugebob candidacy from the debate due to the fact that a department would not be expected to treat the candidacy of any made-up party as legitimate, as it is misleading to the voters. Furthermore Nicki's campaign post was made too close to the debate for them to have to redo the style to be appropriate for more than two candidates. The State Department chose to remove Hugebob's candidacy on the basis that his running mate Krix would be violating the Allegiance Act. I support the legality of the Allegiance Act along the rest of the Court; a referendum was not needed because it was not a Rights and Freedoms change. In order for the Allegiance Act to be applied, the Vice President position would have to be considered a senior government official. A senior government official is defined in the Act as an elected member of the state legislature, member of the Supreme Court, or a member of cabinet. The Vice President, while not clearly a member of any of these, has by conviction been a member of cabinet, participating in cabinet voting and always being in the cabinet discord. Based on this, the Allegiance Act was rightfully applied to the Hugebob candidacy. Ultimately the Plaintiff should have still been omitted from the debate and candidacy removed.

Ruling: I am siding with the Defendant as I do not see any of the charges holding.
Click to expand...
IV. DECISION

The Supreme Court hereby finds in favour of the defendant (2-1).


Nb: The Speaker of the House was called upon to break the tied verdict in accordance with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont. This was due to Justice Wuutie's leave of absence.

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top