Lawsuit: Dismissed Lawanoesepr v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 92

Status
Not open for further replies.

lawanoesepr

Citizen
Attorney General's Office
lawanoesepr
lawanoesepr
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

The commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The allegiance act is unconstitutional because it has not undergone a referendum after amending the constitution.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The allegiance act did not go through a referendum even though being a complex change
I. PARTIES
1. Lawanoesepr
2. The commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The allegiance act is a constitutional amendment
2. it did not undergo a referendum
3. It is a complex change

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. It is unconstitutional
2. It did not undergo referendum

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. That the bill have a referendum posted or that the bill is repealed

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 august 2021
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer
PwFVDhr.png



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


The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Lawanoespr v. the Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures.​
 

nnmc

Citizen
Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
RBA
nnmc
nnmc
attorneygeneral
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

Lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS


Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The lawsuit is inaccurate and should be dismissed, because the lawsuit falsely claims that the Allegiance Act is a complex change requiring a referendum.
2. A complex change is defined as a change to the system of government, plugin changes, staff-related changes, towns/cities changes, or a rights and freedoms change. The only one of those that the Allegiance Act could even remotely apply to is the rights and freedoms change. However, the Allegiance Act is not actually a change to rights and freedoms.
3. The Allegiance Act does not impede the constitutional right to run for elected office. The Act merely says that senior officials in other countries cannot hold senior offices in Redmont. However, senior officials in other countries still have the constitutional right to run for senior offices, but according to the Allegiance Act, they just would not be allowed to take and hold that office if they won. Running for an office and holding that office are separate things. The Constitution only protects the right to run, and the Allegiance Act affects only holding that office. Therefore, the Act does not affect any rights or freedoms
4. Furthermore, the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that those rights are subject to "reasonable limits that are prescribed by law". Reasonable limits include things like playtime requirements, which are commonly accepted, and should also include a requirement that Redmont's senior officials don't hold senior office elsewhere, which would impede their loyalty and dedication to Redmont. Therefore, the Act is not affecting rights or freedoms in a way that contradicts the Constitution's "reasonable limits" clause.
5. Therefore, there is no rights or freedoms change, meaning this is not a complex change requiring a referendum. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument that the Allegiance Act was unconstitutionally implemented is completely inaccurate. It is thus necessary to dismiss this case.

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 29 day of August of 2021
 

lawanoesepr

Citizen
Attorney General's Office
lawanoesepr
lawanoesepr
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
1. It does require to undergo referendum due to it being a constitutional amendment.
2. The bill does fit under the right and freedoms changes. Since it fits under this clause there is no reason why this should be a reason for dismissal.
3. This would be a very dangerous precedent to set as it would mean if you ran and won but you do not get office.
4. Reasonable limits are not defined. Reasonable limits have no definition in the constitution
5. As a constitutional amendment it does require referendum within 48 hours which congress failed to do.

DATED: This 29th day of August of 2021
 

bubbarc

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Donator
Bubba_Tea_
Bubba_Tea_
traineeofficer

Verdict

I hereby order this case dismissed on the following grounds:

1. Constitutional amendments only require anything bar the normal legislative process should they be considered a complex change or a Rights and Freedoms change, as defined under this line in section V of the constitution: "Changing the Constitution," " 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."

2. The line "Rights and Freedoms change" refers specifically to that section of the constitution by the same name, as it is even more abundantly clear another, similar and secondary mention under the complex change definition

I would like to thank both parties for their time, the court is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top