Lawsuit: Adjourned Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 8

[Krix]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Krix
Plaintiff

V.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On December 11, 2023, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President 'xLayzur' for allegedly pocket vetoing the 'No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act.' This Act, proposing a significant alteration to the system of government, mandates the automatic removal of the President-Elect and/or Vice-President-Elect from any congressional position upon election, triggering a special election.
The Plaintiff contends that the 'No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act' constitutes a Complex Change, necessitating a referendum by the Department of State. As the Speaker of the House failed to make such a request, the bill remains incomplete in the congressional process as it is still on the Speaker of the House’s desk. The Plaintiff further argues that, until the referendum results are announced, the bill cannot be considered to have passed through Congress as the referendum is an extension of the congressional process, thereby rendering the accusations of a pocket veto by the President within the constitutionally allotted 14-day timeframe unfounded.

I. PARTIES
1. Krix
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On the 11th of December 2023 the House of Representatives voted to impeach the President ‘xLayzur’ for:
“Pocketing Vetoing - The President, on the 19th of November, pocket vetoed No President in Congress Act, which according to the constitution is a violation of constitutional duties”

2. The ‘No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act’ intended to add the following to the Constitution:
“The President-Elect and/or Vice-President-Elect shall automatically be removed from any position they may be serving in Congress after the results have been announced and special elections for their seat in Congress shall be called.”

3. The Constitution states a “Complex Change” as including:
"Changes to the System of Government”

4. The Constitution states:
“A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change”

5. The Constitution states:
“The Department of State, upon the request of 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. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.”

6. The Constitution states:
“Once the bill has passed through Congress, it is then sent to the President for their approval. The President has 14 days to sign or veto a bill from the time that they are notified, otherwise he or she will be in violation of their constitutional duties and the bill will be auto-vetoed.”

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The ‘No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act’ is a Complex Change due to constituting "Changes to the System of Government” as it would cause sitting members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to automatically be removed from their role in Congress upon winning election and trigger a special election, instead of the current process in which it only states that they cannot simultaneously hold both roles which results in the individual in question having to chose to resign from one of either position. This bill would grant the Department of State the power to remove a sitting member of Congress by simply declaring them as the winner of the Presidential election. Furthermore it seeks to change the mechanics of separation of power and would remove someone from office earlier than normal. All of this into consideration would most definitely identify it as change to the System of Government, and a Complex Change.

2. As the ‘No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act’ is a Complex Change, the Speaker of the House would be required to request that the Department of State hold a referendum. As this has not happened that means that the bill is still on the Speaker of the House’s desk, as the Speaker of the House is a member of congress this step is a part of the congressional process and part of the bill “passing through Congress”. The President can only veto or assent to a bill, within the 14 day time frame, once it has passed through Congress.

3. Under the understanding of the situation from the Congress, who are accusing the President of violating the constitutional clause:
“The President has 14 days to sign or veto a bill from the time that they are notified, otherwise he or she will be in violation of their constitutional duties”
it would be possible for a Speaker of the House to not send a complex change for referendum and instead place it on the President desk who would then legally be unable to sign the bill as it had not passed through the constitutional process, and then trigger this inaction as a cause for impeachment, which is exactly what has happened here. Congress is wrong in their interpretation of the situation, and the President has not violated his Constitutional Duties.

4. The clause which states:
“A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change”
implies that the process of holding a referendum is part of an abnormal congressional process, but importantly still a congressional process. Therefore until the results of the Referendum have been announced the bill cannot be considered as having passed through Congress. The President can only veto or assent to a bill, within the 14 day time frame, once it has passed through Congress.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Impeachment Charge, and subsequent conviction, against the President:
“Pocketing Vetoing - The President, on the 19th of November, pocket vetoed No President in Congress Act, which according to the constitution is a violation of constitutional duties”
be declared as an illegal invocation of the:
“The President has 14 days to sign or veto a bill from the time that they are notified, otherwise he or she will be in violation of their constitutional duties and the bill will be auto-vetoed.”
clause and conviction be overturned due to the fact that as the Speaker of the House never requested the Department of State hold a referendum. Therefore the bill is still on the Speaker of the House's desk and did not complete the congressional process and pass through Congress meaning the President is not yet, legally, able to act upon it.

2. The Impeachment Charge, and subsequent conviction, against the President:
“Pocketing Vetoing - The President, on the 19th of November, pocket vetoed No President in Congress Act, which according to the constitution is a violation of constitutional duties”
be declared as an illegal invocation of the:
“The President has 14 days to sign or veto a bill from the time that they are notified, otherwise he or she will be in violation of their constitutional duties and the bill will be auto-vetoed.”
clause and conviction be overturned due to the fact that a referendum was never held on the bill and therefore the bill did not complete the congressional process and pass through Congress meaning the President is not yet, legally, able to act upon it.

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 23rd day of January 2024

 

[drew_hall]

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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of the Krix v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​

 

[IncompleteRiver]

Your Honor, I would like to motion for summary judgement and the courts opinion

 

[Alexander P. Love]

At the risk of contempt, the commonwealth (controlled by Krix) is just gonna throw this case so I’ll step in and say something: the plaintiff has no standing, your honor. Thus the case should be dismissed.

Edit: would you look at that? Perfect timing lol

 

[Krix]

Your Honour
I also would request the courts opinion through a summary judgement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good day, Counselors.

I have a couple questions for the Plaintiff. Please respond within 72 hours.

1. You stated the following:

The ‘No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act’ is a Complex Change due to constituting "Changes to the System of Government” as it would cause sitting members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to automatically be removed from their role in Congress upon winning election and trigger a special election, instead of the current process in which it only states that they cannot simultaneously hold both roles which results in the individual in question having to chose to resign from one of either position. This bill would grant the Department of State the power to remove a sitting member of Congress by simply declaring them as the winner of the Presidential election. Furthermore it seeks to change the mechanics of separation of power and would remove someone from office earlier than normal. All of this into consideration would most definitely identify it as change to the System of Government, and a Complex Change.

How is this a Change to the System of Government? You've listed lots of things that happened, but nowhere did you explain how it meets the Constitutional definition of a Change to the System of Government (see Constitution, Part VII, Section 40):
Any changes that:

• Affect the distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state.
• Changes to Government Departments.
• Significant changes to the system by which the state is governed in general.

2. If it is not a Change to the System of Government, is there any other reason that this Act would be considered a Complex Change to the Constitution?

 

[drew_hall]

I will offer these questions to the Plaintiff in this matter

1. How do the claims filed arise to the level of governmental changes of a system of governance? In your initial filing you mention the reasoning that there is a requirement, or at least allude to one which may be present, that upon the election of a member of the House of Representatives or Senate, who has a current presidential campaign, must immediately be removed. Please explain how, under the passage of the aforementioned act of congress, this would be true.

2. You were the current President's foremost defense in his recent impeachment trial, why was the validity of this not mentioned within the trial itself? You are bringing claims to light that have had the opportunity to be given before based on your filing. If these were true concerns, they should have been arisen beforehand. Allowing actions to continue on in an effort to build a case is not lawful, and will not be tolerated. I presided over the impeachment of President xlayzur and the fact these concerns were not thoroughly addressed by counsel in the impeachment, but only now in a private lawsuit, is majorly concerning to me. Please explain to me why these concerns were focused on only after the impeachment.

I may have follow ups dependent upon answers to my questions

 

[Matthew100x]

No questions from me.

 

[Krix]

Justice Dartanman Question 1:

You stated the following: The ‘No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act’ is a Complex Change due to constituting "Changes to the System of Government” as it would cause sitting members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to automatically be removed from their role in Congress upon winning election and trigger a special election, instead of the current process in which it only states that they cannot simultaneously hold both roles which results in the individual in question having to chose to resign from one of either position. This bill would grant the Department of State the power to remove a sitting member of Congress by simply declaring them as the winner of the Presidential election. Furthermore it seeks to change the mechanics of separation of power and would remove someone from office earlier than normal. All of this into consideration would most definitely identify it as change to the System of Government, and a Complex Change.


How is this a Change to the System of Government? You've listed lots of things that happened, but nowhere did you explain how it meets the Constitutional definition of a Change to the System of Government (see Constitution, Part VII, Section 40):

Affect the distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state.

• Changes to Government Departments.
• Significant changes to the system by which the state is governed in general.

RESPONSE
This act changes multiple elements in our commonwealth's system of government.

Separation of Powers

The bill proposes a significant alteration to the system of government by changing the fundamental element of separation of powers, that has been present in Redmonts constitution for almost 4 years. The following is what defines this nation's separation of powers: “If a player runs for Representative, Senator or President while being from another arm and gets elected, they will have to choose between being what they have been chosen to become or keeping their current position in the other arm.” The ‘No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act’ will completely contradict and therefore change this line in the constitution, altering how this nation's separation of powers operates. The changes are as follows:

• This line: “If a player runs for Representative, Senator or President while being from another arm and gets elected,” will change to where a player does not even have to be officially President, but merely President-Elect. The same goes for the VP and VP-elect.
• This line: “they will have to choose between being what they have been chosen to become or keeping their current position in the other arm,” will change to where the players ability to choose, whether they keep their old position, or accept the new position, is removed. They no longer have the freedom of choice.

Completely changing the framework of the separation of powers is a significant change to the system by which the state is governed in general.

Elections

The bill changes how elections are handled in the event of a vacancy in congress. The current system is that a special election is not mandatory, because congress may nominate the next winning candidate from a previous election so long as 4 days have not elapsed since. The ‘No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act’ would change it to: “special elections for their seat in Congress shall be called.” The bill proposes an immediate election, with no option for nomination. This would remove congress’s option to choose how a special election should be handled.

Therefore, altering how elections function is a complex change.

Justice Dartanman Question 2:

If it is not a Change to the System of Government, is there any other reason that this Act would be considered a Complex Change to the Constitution?

RESPONSE
Upon reflection, it is also undeniably a change in rights and freedoms. The constitution explicitly grants citizens “The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime.” Under the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this right is guaranteed, but can be “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.” One such limit imposed on this right is the element of separation of powers. Separation of powers imposes a limitation on the right to freely participate in public office, as it prevents individuals from freely holding two elected positions at one time - a Senator being a President for example. Essentially, individuals possess the right to engage in public office, with the caveat that they may occupy only one branch at a time, according to their preference.

The 'No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act' represents a significant shift in how the separation of powers works. The bill imposes stricter limits on the freedom to participate in public office by automatically removing players from an elected position, rather than letting them choose. Consequently, this legislative measure imposes additional constraints on the right to participate in elected offices, rendering this bill a Rights and Freedoms change. To change the limitations on rights and freedoms is to alter those very same rights and freedoms.

A rights and freedoms change would either make this bill a complex change or a rights and freedoms change, requiring it be requested by the Speaker to put up for referendum.


Justice Drew Question 1:

How do the claims filed arise to the level of governmental changes of a system of governance? In your initial filing you mention the reasoning that there is a requirement, or at least allude to one which may be present, that upon the election of a member of the House of Representatives or Senate, who has a current presidential campaign, must immediately be removed. Please explain how, under the passage of the aforementioned act of congress, this would be true.

RESPONSE
The current law allows for Presidents and Vice Presidents-elect to be permitted to retain their roles as members of Congress if they currently hold those positions. However, the proposed 'No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act' seeks to amend this provision, deeming it unconstitutional for Presidents and Vice Presidents-elect to serve concurrently as members of Congress. The intentions of this bill were to establish new constitutional law to “preserve the separation of powers.”

As explained prior in response to Justice Darts questions, there are multiple reasons as to why this bill is a complex change/rights and freedoms change.


Justice Drew Question 2:

2. You were the current President's foremost defense in his recent impeachment trial, why was the validity of this not mentioned within the trial itself? You are bringing claims to light that have had the opportunity to be given before based on your filing. If these were true concerns, they should have been arisen beforehand. Allowing actions to continue on in an effort to build a case is not lawful, and will not be tolerated. I presided over the impeachment of President xlayzur and the fact these concerns were not thoroughly addressed by counsel in the impeachment, but only now in a private lawsuit, is majorly concerning to me. Please explain to me why these concerns were focused on only after the impeachment.

RESPONSE
As you can understand, impeachment trials are stressful, and it's easy for certain details to escape one's attention. My defense of the current president was focused on acquitting him on all charges, and proving his complete innocence. The Pocket Veto claim was not something I focused on at the time because it was from an incident months prior when he was censured, so I felt it was only a filler charge. This feeling was reassured by the fact that the Houses’ questioning did not revolve around this charge - in fact it was only very briefly mentioned twice in the whole trial.

Additionally, the Senate curtailed the length of the trial, which obviously limited time for a thorough review of each charge's legalities. It was only after the president was acquitted on all charges, excluding the Pocket Veto, that I had the opportunity to conduct a post-review and unearth this legal argument. I did my utmost best to defend the President throughout the trial, and I apologize to President xLayzur that, due to the extreme pressures and fractured state of the trial because of the senate's restrictions (all while in a busy holiday period), this legal argument slipped my mind.

Regardless, this case is foolproof, and I implore the courts to thoroughly examine the arguments made in this case, and find that xLayzur could not pocket veto a bill that was not even at his desk yet. You can’t ignore an invitation to a dinner party if you haven’t been sent the invitation yet.


Summary

To summarize this case, not only does the ‘No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act’ affect the bedrock of Redmonts Government system by altering the framework of the separation of powers and changing how special elections are held, but it also places further limitations on a citizen's right to participate in public office.

As a result, the bill was a complex change, and therefore should’ve gone to referendum. The Constitution states:

“Once the bill has passed through Congress, it is then sent to the President for their approval. The President has 14 days to sign or veto a bill from the time that they are notified, otherwise he or she will be in violation of their constitutional duties and the bill will be auto-vetoed.”

“A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change or a rights and freedoms change:

The Department of State, upon the request of 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. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.”

The speaker's actions, to request a complex amendment be put up to referendum, are a continuation of the congressional process, therefore the bill had yet to reach the President's desk by law. The speaker is the presiding officer of congress, therefore if the speaker has to do an action in order for a bill to continue, by definition that is a continuation of the congressional process. The President therefore cannot be convicted for pocket vetoing a bill that had yet to complete the congressional process, resulting in the complete acquittal of xLayzur from all the impeachment convictions.

 

[Krix]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honors, with so little time now till the Presidents potential illegal and unconstitutional removal we request this Court delays the implementation of sentencing until after the court has made its verdict. We had hoped that this matter could be concluded before the removal deadline, however this now looks unlikely. The removal of a President from office illegally would do untold damage to our government.

Thank you for your time and consideration

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor, I would like to motion for summary judgement and the courts opinion

Your Honor,
The commonwealth would like to rescind its motion for summary judgment. I apologize for any inconvenience but the commonwealth voice deserves a defense in the matter.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your Honor,
The commonwealth would like to rescind its motion for summary judgment. I apologize for any inconvenience but the commonwealth voice deserves a defense in the matter.

I believe that since we have already begun working on a verdict, that is not possible. Matthew and I have already written verdicts. We are waiting for Drew's.

 

[Dartanboy]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honors, with so little time now till the Presidents potential illegal and unconstitutional removal we request this Court delays the implementation of sentencing until after the court has made its verdict. We had hoped that this matter could be concluded before the removal deadline, however this now looks unlikely. The removal of a President from office illegally would do untold damage to our government.

Thank you for your time and consideration

In response to the EI, we again lack an opinion from Drew, but Emergency Injunctions cannot be filed at the end of a case. Since we were already working on verdicts, my opinion was that this would be denied.

 

[Dartanboy]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont

Chief Justice Drew_Hall is unable to access his computer right now, and spoke with us via a smartphone. Thus, Associate Justice Dartanman is providing the verdict.

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. President xLayzur was unlawfully convicted of pocket vetoing the No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act.
2. This happened because the Act in question was a Complex Change and/or Rights and Freedoms Change that never went to referendum - thus it never arrived at the President's desk to be signed or vetoed.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant did not contest any arguments and moved for Summary Judgement.

III. THE COURT OPINION
Associate Justice Matthew100x wrote the Majority Opinion, to which Chief Justice Drew_Hall signed:

In this situation, the President has been accused of pocket vetoing a constitutional amendment, the No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act. According to Act of Congress - Pocket Veto Reasonability Amendment, pocket vetoing is a constitutional offense that can carry the threat of impeachment. The plaintiff, who is a part of the executive branch, alleges that the pocket veto never occurred because the bill never reached the President’s office. They alleged that the requirements laid out in Section 33 - Changing the Constitution is sequential because the Department of State, with no request from the Speaker of the House, did not post the referendum. Congress has made a decision to impeach the President based on his pocket veto, the plaintiff sues, and the defendant, who is also the executive branch, has decided not to defend and elected for summary judgment.

Setting aside the obvious issues stemming from the conflict of interest involved that cannot be easily remedied by this Court, the legal question then becomes as such, does the No Presidents in Congress Act require a referendum? Most people would say that the only need for a referendum is during a complex change, however, the requirements are two-fold. That is, a complex change is not the only issue that triggers the additional requirements of a constitutional amendment. Changing someone’s right & freedoms would also automatically trigger the automatic additional requirements necessary to make a constitutional amendment. These are listed in Section 33 - Changing the Constitution (citing Government - Constitution) and the requirements are as follows follows:

A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change or a rights and freedoms change:
1. The Department of State, upon the request of 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. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.
2. An absolute majority (50%+1) needs to be achieved via public referendum.
3. A supermajority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
4. Presidential Assent or Veto Override.

The plaintiff alleges that this is both a complex change and a freedom and rights change. The complex change is with regards to allowing the Department of State to remove a sitting member of Congress just because they got elected. The plaintiff argues that this changes the established rules of not holding positions simultaneously, it does not, this rule would be an addition. I am unconvinced that requiring the President-elect to step down from their Congressional position upon winning an election would be a Complex Change. I am, however, perplexed that this line of logic does not extend to a member of the judiciary if they for whatever reason won the presidency.

That being said, is it possible that the No President in Congress Act fundamentally affects a player’s constitutional rights? The answer is yes. According to the very first right in the Constitution, a player shall have “The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime” (citing Government - Constitution). The wording of this right is perplexing, but the intent is quite clear. A player has the right to run for and participate in an elected office, unless as punishment for a crime. Though to the disagreement of some, being elected to President is neither a punishment nor a crime. Therefore, this potential constitutional amendment runs afoul of the first right and requires a constitutional amendment.

With the referendum and additional requirements now necessary, the next questions this court must ask is this, are requirements laid out in Section 33 - Changing the Constitution sequential? The legal history of this section has allowed the requirements of this section of the constitution to be met non-sequentially, thus all the previous issues the Commonwealth of Redmont has had with regards to constitutional amendments. The requirement that gets forgotten far too often is the Department of State, previously the Speaker of the House (citing the Referendum Quick Fix Act), posting a referendum. This has happened multiple times, see Lawsuit: Dismissed - Matthew100x V. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 81, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Matthew100x v. xEndeavour [2022] SCR 21 , and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1. I find no fault in having the requirements be met sequentially. Congress and the Department of State have often forgotten to send constitutional amendments for referendum. By having the requirements for Section 33 - Changing the Constitution be held sequentially, that error should cease to occur as the referendum would become the first hurdle a constitutional amendment must overcome before anything else.

With that answered, the final question now is did a pocket veto occur when all the other requirements for a complex change have not been met yet? No. Under the above theory of sequentialization the requirements for Section 33 - Changing the Constitution, the bill never reached the President’s desk and therefore he never vetoed it.

Therefore, I move to vacate the impeachment on the only charge laid against the president that he was convicted of on the grounds that he was convicted for an action that did not occur.

Associate Justice Dartanman authored the Dissenting Opinion:

This case – SCR 8 – comes to us after the impeachment trial of President xLayzur. The Senate voted to have the President removed. This case alleges, however, that the bill the President was impeached for not signing or vetoing was actually never sent to the President’s desk to receive such attention, and thus, he cannot be impeached for the supposed “pocket veto.”

The question to answer is this: is the Act in question even a Complex Change or Rights and Freedoms change in the first place?

Obviously, this is not the creation of a town, a plugin change, nor a significant staff change. These will not be considered. The two Complex Change definitions to be considered are “Changes to the System of Government” and “Rights and Freedoms Changes.”

As for a change to the system of government, the Constitution declares that to be considered such, it must “Affect the distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state,” make “changes to Government Departments,” or make “significant changes to the system by which the state is governed in general.” Requiring that the President-elect and Vice President-elect be removed from Congress doesn't seem to meet any of those requirements, as this is simply describing how the separation of powers may be enforced – not making an actual change to the already existing separation.

Now the question of whether it is a rights and freedoms change: frankly, I don't think it is. In [2022] SCR 2, the Allegiance Act - which limited the ability to run for office if holding foreign office - had its status as a Complex Change and Rights and Freedoms Change (or not) questioned. Ultimately, it was considered not to be a Complex Change nor a Rights and Freedoms Change. In the words of then-Chief Justice xEndeavour: “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. [The] bill did not make a change to rights and freedoms, it made a reasonable limitation that is justified in a free and democratic society.”

In similar fashion, the No Presidents In Congress Allowed Act is also a reasonable limitation that is justified in a free and democratic society – and not a Rights and Freedoms Change or Complex Change.

IV. VERDICT
In a 2-1 decision, the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and moves to vacate the impeachment due to the conviction not having constitutional basis.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.