Lawsuit: In Session Kycnn1703 v. Department of State [2022] SCR 8

Featured Businesses

Claxx77

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Environment & Recreation Department
Claxx77
Claxx77
ranger
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

I REQUEST AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE USE OF THE TOWN’S ASSETS FOR BAD PURPOSES.

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Kycnn1703; Wackjap and Deadwax ran for mayor of Oakridge, which did not comply with the new electoral law passed unanimously by the council. Although our mayoral candidate, Managerhell, met with DOS, DOS ignored this unconstitutional candidacy and allowed the Oakridge constitution and council decisions to be violated. It has also been accepted by the former mayor and vice president that this election is unconstitutional. I hereby request you to take the necessary action.


I. PARTIES
1. Kycnn1703
2. Department of State


II. FACTS
1. The council of the Oakridge passed a bill to change requirements for mayoral elections on the 2nd of June 2022 [Image 1]
2. The next day, the 3rd of June 2022, another bill passed for the deputy mayor candidates. The bill sets the same requirements for the mayor position. [Image 1]
3. The requirements state that the candidates for Mayor and Deputy Mayor position must be an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums and also states the candidate must have experience within the town of Oakridge such as being within the council or mayor's office. [Image 1& 2]
4. The candidate WackJap and DeadWax is not active member of the community and discord. [Image 3 & 4]
5. Both candidates were not in the council or mayor’s office before.
6. As we can see in facts 4 and 5, the candidate WackJap and Deadwax can not participate in this mayoral election. But they participated in this election.
7. Candidate Managerhell contacted DOS about this situation and stated that deadwax is not eligible to run for this election on the 8th of June, 2022. But DOS didn’t do any movement to prevent the violation of the town constitution. [Image 5]

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Department of State violated the town constitution in this election.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The removal of WackJap and Deadwax from their positions in the mayor’s office of Oakridge.
2. Immediate election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor positions that will take 24 hours.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of June 2022


EVIDENCES
 

Attachments

  • Image 1.png
    Image 1.png
    158.4 KB · Views: 65
  • Image 2.png
    Image 2.png
    291.8 KB · Views: 72
  • Image 3.png
    Image 3.png
    41.2 KB · Views: 65
  • Image 4.png
    Image 4.png
    58.2 KB · Views: 60
  • Image 5.png
    Image 5.png
    104.5 KB · Views: 66
  • Screenshot 2022-06-10 at 17.23.53.png
    Screenshot 2022-06-10 at 17.23.53.png
    82.9 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
This lawsuit is moved to Supreme Court, because of the following reason: "In‌ ‌a‌ ‌case‌ ‌of‌ ‌extraordinary‌ ‌circumstance‌ ‌that‌ ‌doesn’t‌ ‌clearly‌ ‌fit‌ ‌into‌ ‌any‌ ‌established‌ ‌category,‌ ‌the‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌can‌ ‌decide‌ ‌which‌ ‌level‌ ‌of‌ ‌court‌ ‌the‌ ‌case‌ ‌can‌ ‌be‌ ‌heard‌ ‌in.‌ " We believe that this is an extraordinary circumstance because it's about an election of a mayor.
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
The Supreme Court has denied the emergency junction because no good arguments were given to support such an injunction and the reasons were too vague, please elaborate more if you want us to reconsider.
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
supreme-court-seal-png.8642


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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Kycnn1703 v. Department of State

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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. (Let us see if we can make an in-game trial happen)​
 

Claxx77

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Environment & Recreation Department
Claxx77
Claxx77
ranger
The Supreme Court has denied the emergency junction because no good arguments were given to support such an injunction and the reasons were too vague, please elaborate more if you want us to reconsider.
Your honour, the elected candidates don’t meet the constitution’s requirements. They might use the assets of Oakridge for their personal needs. For example, they can sell plots or transfer money to their accounts. Because they know that they will lose their Mayoral rights in Oakridge if this case is verdicts against them. The plaintiff will be happy if the court reconsiders the emergency injunction request.
 

Aladeen

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
Aladeen21
Aladeen21
traineeofficer
Your honor, the Commonwealth of Redmont asks for an extension until the 17th until the new government is fully established. The Defence for this case is highly dependent on the decisions needing to be made by the future Attorney General and the President.
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
The extension is denied. The Office of the Attorney General is capable of defending this case at this moment in time. The Solicitor General or someone else can take this case on. I ask for a response within 36 hours.
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

The defence move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Your Honours,

Different inaccuracies and misinterpretations made by the plaintiff in this case should lead the Court to the dismissal. Three points can be raised there. The misinterpretation of some points of law, the irrelevance of some statements, and finally the illegality of this case considering both Commonwealth and Town Constitution.


Referring to discussions with former mayor Marty and vice president Muffin is irrelevant.

The statements presented by the plaintiff are not corroborated by former mayor Marty or vice-president Muffin, since they did not answer my questions. This argument is irrelevant since the witnesses are absent and can’t testify.


Misinterpretation is at the hearth of this case

It is crucial for a lawyer to take legal issues point after point to understand the situation. The plaintiff is using two points of law in their request:

1) Candidates must be “an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.”
2) Candidates “must have experience within the town of Oakridge such as being within the council or mayor's office”

Concerning point 1. The state would like to drive the Court’s attention on the phrasing of the disputed text. Being an active participant of the community, in-game, discord and forum is not limited to Oakridge Bay community. Yet, in this case, the plaintiff is basing his argumentation on the fact that candidates were Wackjap and Deadwax were not active members of Oakridge community, which is a clear misinterpretation of the law. Facts 3 and 4 are thus absolutely not relevant.

Now, concerning point 2, the phrasing is once again ambiguous and simply suggesting an example, illustrated by the using of “such as”. Having experience in a town is really wide and may suggest many things, not only being involved in town politics. Facts 5 and 6 thus doesn’t stand in this affair.

Moreover, no one can make a proof to himself. A statement from candidate ManagerHell — directly involved in this case — to DoS Secretary is not relevant enough to declare these elections as illegal.

That being said, the responsibility of the DoS in this affair is not existing.
ManagerHell contacted DoS secretary himself (and not DoS through a ticket procedure), who is not in position to prevent any town constitution violation, because firstly talking in private message with the secretary is not talking to the government body he is representing, and secondly because the DoS is not competent in this matter. I would like to drive the court’s intention on the Executive Order 38/21 concerning town competencies. Four points are here relevant:
  • Town can legislate to create rules for elections
  • Elections are run by mayor or DoS at town convenience
  • Town constitution is enforced by town government in cooperation with DoJ
  • Elections can be facilitated by the Department of State on behalf of the town, upon request.

Yet, if Oakridge chose to have their elections monitored by Dept of State, this body is responsible for preventing any breach of integrity in this election, but is not responsible for constitution violation. This matter is town government responsibility, who could be assisted by DoJ. The plaintiff should thus have sued the Town of Oakridge Bay, or at least Dept of Justice for inaction, not Dept of State.


This demand is against the Constitutions

Your Honours, the plaintiff is in this case trying to prevent citizens from being elected, without any tangible argument. The right to be elected is however protected by the Town Constitution and Commonwealth Constitution.

Section III article X of Oakridge Bay Constitution gives to residents “The Right to be elected member of the Town Council or Mayor of Oakridge bay”. Moreover, section IV paragraph 1 of the Commonwealth Constitution grant to all citizen “The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime”.



That being said, we can consider that this complaint has been filed by a plaintiff who have been disappointed by elections outcome. All means are good to come to power, even preventing citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.


For your consideration,


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 15th day of June 2022
 

Claxx77

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Environment & Recreation Department
Claxx77
Claxx77
ranger
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant


Rebuttal to “Referring to discussions with former mayor Marty and vice president Muffin is irrelevant.” section.


The former mayor Marty and the former acting mayor RelaxedGV answered my two questions. The questions and their answers are attached below. The witnesses can testify in the court after the opening statements as the court will ask for the witnesses. The defendant is calling them "absent and can't testify" without any proper reason. The witnesses don’t have to answer any questions asked in DMs. I would like to mention to the defendant that you can ask your question when they are summoned to court.


Rebuttal to “Misinterpretation is at the hearth of this case” section.


If we take a look at section 1, we can see that the law states the participants must be active members of the community and discord. If a statement like “the participants must be an active member of the community and discord of DemocracyCraft” were included in the law, the defendant would be right. But since it is written under Oakridge Town Consitution, it means that the participants must be active members of the community and discord of Oakridge. Also, the former mayor and former acting mayor confirmed that it means that the participants must be active members of the community and discord of Oakridge. The image is attached below.



Now, let’s take a look at section 2. This section is so important for this lawsuit. The law clearly states that the participants must be within Mayor’s office or Council before the elections. The defendant misunderstands the “such as” section. Marty(Former Mayor) states that that section is written to allow the further mayors to add more if they open new positions within Oakridge Politics. So the “such as” section means participants must be a part of Oakridge Political Positions before the election. Also, the former acting mayor’s statement is stating the same things as Marty’s statement. Also, two deputy mayor candidates left the elections after the new bill passed. After a few hours of the passed bill, the former acting mayor confirmed that the two deputy mayor candidates can not participate in the election. With this, we can clearly see that no one can be a participant without an experience within Mayor’s office or Council.


Plaintiff is not creating a proof. Also, the plaintiff does not emphasize the illegality of the election with the communications between the Department of State Secretary and Manager. The plaintiff enforced that it is illegal because the constitution was violated. ManagerHell informed the DOS Secretary about this situation as a citizen and fulfilled his civic duty. At this point, the DOS Secretary became aware of the situation. Unfortunately, the DOS Secretary didn't make anything about this situation. If the defendant is enforcing that DMs are not the right way to communicate, the defendant DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO call the witnesses as “absent and can’t testify” if they didn’t answer your questions in DMs. Department of Justice is enforcing the Town Constitution. But the Department of State was responsible for the elections. And Department of State must follow the constitution of the town while monitoring the elections. That’s why this lawsuit opened against the Department of State. At this point, the defendant is trying to blame someone else.




Rebuttal to “This demand is against the Constitutions” section.

The plaintiff is not trying to take away citizens’ right to elect and to be elected. The defendant is blaming someone else again. The plaintiff is not requesting the candidate have the second-highest number of votes to be the next mayor. The plaintiff is requesting a new election with the enforced town constitution. This is a heavy accusation. The right to elect and to be elected is still protected by Oakridge’s and Commonwealth of Redmont’s constitution but as the defendant mentioned, Executive Order 38/21 “Towns can create by-laws. They can edit specific areas within their jurisdiction.” this allows the towns to change and edit their constitution. And local elections are one of the areas that can be edited.

DATED: This 16th day of June 2022
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-06-16 at 18.41.06.png
    Screenshot 2022-06-16 at 18.41.06.png
    166.4 KB · Views: 16
  • Screenshot 2022-06-16 at 18.47.43.png
    Screenshot 2022-06-16 at 18.47.43.png
    204.6 KB · Views: 16

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
The Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. The Supreme Court did not find any reason in the motion to dismiss that can support a dismissal of the case. The points given were insufficient to convince the Supreme Court that this case could have been frivolous or enough to get the case dismissed.

We move on to the Opening Statements of both parties. I ask the Plaintiff to present his opening statement within the 48 hours time period.
 

Claxx77

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Environment & Recreation Department
Claxx77
Claxx77
ranger
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


Kycnn1703 (Claxx77 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant


Your honour, we can clearly see that this election violated the constitution. The Department of State is responsible for the completion of elections while following the constitution. In this election, the highest position within the Department of State, which is the Secretary of Department, was aware of this violation. But failed to enforce the constitution within the election. Even if the Department of State approved the candidate WackJap and Deadwax as suitable for this election, the constitution doesn't approve them so they participated while they are not eligible for the election. If a really important department works closely with the constitution violates the constitution, why citizens should not violate the law?



Your honour, as stated in the rebuttal, the activity within the community and discord requirement means that the candidate must be an active member of the community and discord. Also, the defendant stated that “such as” means that the candidate’s experience is not limited to Oakridge politics. But it is wrong. The defendant misunderstood the law. The “such as” is written for future mayors to write new positions if they add new positions. The former mayor and acting mayor approved this by answering the questions given by the plaintiff.


There is a mistake that happened and now, it needs to be fixed.

DATED: This 19th day of June 2022
 

PiOs67

Citizen
Justice Department
Redmont Bar Association
PiOs67
PiOs67
constable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Kycnn1703
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

Your Honours,

The plaintiff is presenting you a case in black and white. If we take time to reconsider point after point the arguments of the defendant, we find that Department of State (DoS) failed in their duties and outrageously violated a town constitution in spite of being informed of the situation, that the State failed in interpreting correctly the meaning of “such as”, that former mayor is right and gave the perfect interpretation of “such as”… In conclusion, what happened is clearly a mistake.

In legal community, we are used to say “only lawyers and painters can turn white to black”. This case is a perfect example.

Two questions are here risen: Are these elections illegal? Is the DoS responsible for enforcing the town constitution?

I. The elections conducted by the Town of Oakridge bay should not be declared illegal

Your Honours, he plaintiff is here basing all his argumentation on the interpretation given by former mayor and acting mayor Marty and RelaxedGV. Both for “community” interpretation and “such as” interpretation. Two conditions have been set by the Oakridge legislator, the State already gave their interpretation in motion to dismiss.

However, if the plaintiff is able to summon any interpretation given by the legislator, they cannot present this interpretation as correct. I drive the court’s attention on a binding decision (Olisaurus123 v. WalmartCo [2022] SCR3) establishing the literal rule of interpretation of statute law. In this case, the Supreme Court chose to interprete the SLATT act word by word and gave it the sense given by its own words. Considering Oakridge town constitution, both statutes are ambiguous and unclear. Plaintiff is using this breach to dismiss an elected mayor from office.

Thus, the court is not legally bound by any interpretation given by the legislator in virtue of separation of power, and should give the correct interpretation in English grammar.

II. The DoS should not excess their duties by preventing anyone from running in town elections

Your Honours, this case is referring to Town law. This special law thus has to be substituted for general law, by the virtue of the latin proverb “specialia generalibus derogant”. Special law in this matter belongs to executive competence. Executive order 38/21 legislate on this matter. Yes towns can create their own rules for elections, yes elections can be rules by DoS at town convenience. However, elections can be facilitated by DoS on behalf of the town, and town constitution is enforced by town government in cooperation with DoJ.

“The defendant is trying to blame someone else”, says the plaintiff. But this allegation is not resolving the legal issue here. Where is DoS role in constitution enforcement? Nowhere. What would plaintiff has said if DoS tried to prevent anyone from running for elections because of the constitution? Plaintiff would have complaint for excess of power. General law do not apply there, DoS is not responsible at any time for constitution enforcement. This is town government liability, the Federal State through DoJ is only there for support and cooperation.
What did town government in this matter? Plaintiff assumed that “former acting mayor confirmed that the two deputy mayor candidates cannot participate in the election”. In fact, RelaxedGV forbade Claxx and A__C from running for Oakridge elections. He was perfectly right, he was simply exercising town government duties. What did RelaxedGV concerning Wackjap / Deadwax ticket? Nothing.

It is town governent duties to prevent candidates from running for elections if they do not fit with defined criteria.

For your consideration,
 

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
Thank you both, if you would like to call up any witnesses please make a list of them and post it here within 48 hours.
 

Claxx77

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Environment & Recreation Department
Claxx77
Claxx77
ranger
Your honour, the plaintiff would like to call Martytje1234567 (Former Mayor), RelaxedGV (Former Acting Mayor) and A__C (The deputy mayor candidate that left the elections after the bill passed).
 
Last edited:

Wuutie

Citizen
Justice
supreme-court-seal-png.8642

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

The following witnesses have to appear in court on request of the Plaintiff.

@Martytje1234567, @RelaxedGV and @A__C are hereby summoned to the court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case [2022] SCR 8 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.

The witnesses will be called in the following order:
Martytje1234567
RelaxedGV
A__C

I would ask that the plaintiff provide a list of all the questions they want to be 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. When the plaintiff is ready, they may post questions to the first plaintiff witness.

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 to the Perjury Act.

Once the witnesses of the plaintiff have been questioned, the defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine.​
 

RelaxedGV

Citizen
Congressional Staff
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
RelaxedGV
RelaxedGV
eventcoordinator
I'm here and Marty has quit DC.
 

A__C

Citizen
Administrator
Speaker of the House
Representative
Justice Department
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
A__C
A__C
speaker
I am here as well.
 

Claxx77

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Environment & Recreation Department
Claxx77
Claxx77
ranger
Questions for Relaxed and Marty

1- Can you tell us the meaning of the “ Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.” section of the Town Constitution, Election Requirements.

2- Can you tell us the meaning of the “Must have experience within the town of Oakridge such as being within the council or mayor's office.” section of the Town Constitution, Election Requirements.


Question for A__C

1- Can you tell us the reason for leaving the deputy mayor candidateship?
 

RelaxedGV

Citizen
Congressional Staff
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Association
Donator
RelaxedGV
RelaxedGV
eventcoordinator
1. It means that you have to be active within Oakridge.

2. It means that you have to have been in either Council or the Mayors office. The such as was put for future Mayors to amend that selected part.
 

A__C

Citizen
Administrator
Speaker of the House
Representative
Justice Department
State Department
Education & Commerce Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
A__C
A__C
speaker
1. Can you tell us the reason for leaving the deputy mayor candidateship?

This started when I noticed ManagerHell leaving the Willow Council to pursue the Oakridge Mayorship. DimpledRobin then asked if I was going to leave too, to which I asked why would I? When checking the town bylaw, it only referred to potential mayors. To make sure of this then-Mayor Marty was asked. Sometime shortly after, deputy mayors were added to the town bylaw. (On June 2, 2022, in the town's #passed-bills channel: "The council has voted to extend this to deputy mayor candidates as well.")
Since I had not been in Oakridge town council or mayor's office before, I assumed I was no longer qualified to run for the position, and told ManagerHell I was withdrawing from the election.
 

BlogWorldExpo

Citizen
Donator
TexasbbqMarty
TexasbbqMarty
oakridge-res-ns
1- Can you tell us the meaning of the “ Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.” section of the Town Constitution, Election Requirements.

This meant to ensure that the mayor candidates were active both inside of Oakridge's community and in-game so that Oakridge didn't have an inactive mayor/deputy.

2- Can you tell us the meaning of the “Must have experience within the town of Oakridge such as being within the council or mayor's office.” section of the Town Constitution, Election Requirements.

The meaning of this bylaw is to ensure that the next mayor/deputy mayor had experienced within the town of Oakridge before taking up the duties of the mayor.
 

Claxx77

Citizen
Redmont Bar Association
Environment & Recreation Department
Claxx77
Claxx77
ranger
Your honour, the plaintiff doesn't have any other questions.
 
Top