Lawsuit: Adjourned Mask3D_WOLF v Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 72

[RelaxedGV]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
As the allegations are on the Contempt of Congress charge that was placed on Mask3D_WOLF we are fighting that Congress cannot charge Mask3D_WOLF with Contempt of Court whatsoever due to the Senate not having the authority to charge or motion for the charge until certain criteria were met and that the Senate could not start a Hearing until certain criteria were met. Thus until the conclusion of this case the Prosecution moves to have an Emergency Injunction placed on the DOJ from charging Mask3D_WOLF with Contempt of Court.
Lawsuit will follow shortly.

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Mask3D_WOLF (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the 22nd of July , the Joint Legal Reform Committee (JLRC) summoned Mask3D_WOLF to a hearing (Evidence H). Mask3D_WOLF was punctual with responding to questions during the hearing, before it was put on hold due to the debate between Nacholebraa and xEndeavour (Evidence E). Once the hearing was resumed, Mask3D_WOLF was asked a question by the committee, which she did not respond to, and she was charged with Contempt of Congress . However, Mask3D_WOLF was not pinged again by the JRLC to respond to the question, and was not pinged again until the Contempt of Congress charge was filed (Evidence G). Mask3D_WOLF was dealing with an IRL matter, and did not receive proper notification. Therefore, Mask3D_WOLF was unable to respond.


I. PARTIES
1. Mask3D_WOLF (Prosecution)
2. Commonwealth of Redmont (Defense)

II. FACTS
1. On July 22nd, Mask3D_WOLF was summoned to a Hearing by the Joint Legal Reform Committee (JLRC) (Evidence H).
2. Mask3D_WOLF has been answering questions as quickly as she could.
3. Senator xEndeavour started asking questions after their turn had ended (Evidence E).
4. Nacholebraa and xEndeavour started debating in the Hearing channel.
5. Nacholebraa put the Hearing into recess (Evidence E).
6. Motion was put up to remove the committee from recess and passed (Evidence F).
7. xEndeavour asks the same questions without pinging Mask3d_Wolf which prompted AlexanderLove to ping her instead (Evidence G).
8. Mask3D_WOLF stated she would get to it that night.
9. The question then slipped Mask3D_WOLF’s mind due to being very busy which prompted no answer.
10. 48 hours later xLayzur files a motion for a Contempt of Congress charge against Mask3D_WOLF (Evidence G).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. From the Constitution, Evidence A, “The Senate can only issue punishments to a verdict as specified within this constitution”. The Senate has no right to motion for Contempt of Congress as the punishment Contempt of Congress is listed in the Legislative Standards Act (LSA) and not the Constitution.

2. Right 9, Evidence B, “ fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.”

Mask3D_WOLF does not have a fair trial given that for a fair trial you must have an Impartial Judge presiding over the case. Given the people voting on the motion are the people overseeing and running the Hearing she is not given an impartial Judge. Mask3D_WOLF has also not been able to explain and have the assistance of counsel for their defense before the voting commenced.

3. Right 13, Evidence C, ”equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.”Mask3D_WOLF was not given equal protection or benefit of the law, as the charge of Contempt of Congress was filed with prejudice. The charge was not voted on by an unbiased panel.

4. Right 14, Evidence D, “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Due to every citizen having the same right to not be deprived of life, liberty, and justice, Mask3D_WOLF’s rights were violated as they were not given the right to a fair trial. This violates both Rights 9 and 14 as they do not have justice.

5. The Constitution is a contract. How is the Constitution a contract you may ask? Well if we look at the Foundation of Contract Law Act (CLF), some criteria include, Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal Intent, and Format. The Constitution has the offer which is done when you are offered the option to run for Office or are offered the position to hold a public office, Consideration is done when you consider whether to run or take the office, Capacity is achieved through in what capacity will you work in that position, Legality is achieved through whether it legally binding, Legal Intent is achieved as it is meant to form the Government and it's positions, Format is achieved through the way the Constitution is written, and finally acceptance is written through the oath.

There is also a theory for this exact thing, “Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior.” The Constitution is an agreement signed by all which provides rights, punishments, jobs, and more which an agreement is a contract (Non-Disclosure Agreement for example). Thus the Committee has violated this Contract and the rest of the Senate aided in violating the Constitution.

Given that Congress can only do punishments outlined within the Constitution and Contempt of Congress not being one of them, this means that the Senate violated the Constitution which is a document they are meant to uphold and thus violated it’s contract and is subject to the punishments.

6. The Committee did not at all ping or attempt to contact Mask3D_WOLF regarding the question again during those 48 hours. Everyone can get busy between those times and although yes, xLayzur shows Mask3D_WOLF getting on, is it too far-fetched to believe someone can get on while being very busy? Whether it be late night, lunch, or just a short break between everything. We all have time for games even when lives are heavily busy. This makes it easy for things to slip your mind due to focusing on other things and not being reminded about a question.

Given this the Committee did not make an attempt to notify Mask3D_WOLF before motioning and approving the charge. Mask3D_WOLF’s attorney even had to ping regarding the question with no help from the Committee before the 48 hours began. Showing that the committee was making no effort to attempt to make the questions answered quickly.

7. The Legislative Standards Act did not have a Referendum. Due to the Act changing the Constitution and adding itself in with no Referendum seen (see Evidence K). You may be asking if this didn’t have a referendum then Referendums must not have been around at the time.The Legislative Standards Act was posted on April 23, 2021, if we look at the Pardon Powers Amendment we can see it got a referendum (Evidence L) and it was posted on April 4, 2021.

Thus showing that the Legislative Standards Act is an illegal change to the Constitution and did not follow due process for complex changes and should also be unable to be used by Congress as it was not put through a Referendum.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Removal of Charge.
2. $15k in compensation for not making reasonable efforts before filing the Charge and breaching of a contract (the Constitution).
3. $10k in Legal Fees.

V. EVIDENCE
Evidence A

Evidence B

Evidence C

Evidence D

Evidence E

Evidence F

Evidence G

Evidence H

Evidence I

Evidence J

Evidence K

DemocracyCraft

www.democracycraft.net

Evidence L

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/pardon-powers-amendment.5057/

Evidence M

Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.

discord.com

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 3rd day of August, 2023.

 

[Banana]

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

@Dartanman is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Mask3D_WOLF v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 72.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Banana]

I will grant the emergency injunction, and I order that the Plaintiff not be punished for contempt of Congress charges by the DOJ for the duration of this trial.

 

[drew_hall]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Mask3D_WOLF
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM on July 22nd, Mask3D_WOLF was summoned to a Hearing by the Joint Legal Reform Committee (JLRC).
2. DENY that Mask3D_WOLF has been answering questions as quickly as she could.
3. NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY Senator xEndeavour started asking questions after their turn had ended.
4. NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY Nacholebraa and xEndeavour started debating in the Hearing channel.
5. AFFIRM Nacholebraa put the Hearing into recess.
6. AFFIRM Motion was put up to remove the committee from recess and passed.
7. AFFIRM xEndeavour asks the same questions without pinging Mask3d_Wolf which prompted AlexanderLove to ping her instead.
8. AFFIRM Mask3D_WOLF stated she would get to it that night.
9. AFFIRM Mask3D_WOLF failed to answer when she said she would, but NEITHER CONFIRM NOR DENY the reason she did not do so.
10. AFFIRM 48 hours later xLayzur files a motion for a Contempt of Congress charge against Mask3D_WOLF.

II. DEFENSES

1. As seen in the Plaintiff's Exhibit J, as well as Fact 9, Mask3D_WOLF was not answering questions as fast as she could.

Note that this Answer to Complaint is intended to set out the facts of what happened, and makes minimal to no legal arguments.


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 12th day of August 2023

 

[Banana]

The Plaintiff may now present their opening statements.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor, I believe the allotted 48 hours have since passed for the Plaintiff. Am I permitted to submit the Commonwealth's opening at this time?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, we ask for 24 more hours. I was moving the past two days and did not have internet until this evening. Relaxed has a current real life matter he is tending to.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I would like to remind the court to review this motion and I will post my opening as soon as I see it approved.

 

[Banana]

I will grant the extension for the Plaintiff. You have 24 hours from this point to post your opening arguments, after which the Defense may post theirs.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I will grant the extension for the Plaintiff. You have 24 hours from this point to post your opening arguments, after which the Defense may post theirs.

Thank you, your honor.

May it please the court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen who bear witness to this case today, we are here to discuss and assert one simple fact: the Legislative Standards Act is unconstitutional. The plaintiff was charged with contempt of Congress by the legislature in an exercise to reassert their power. Congress, who lately has taken to posturing and threats to get their way, seems to forget we live in a democracy with checks and balances, and that adherence to the Constitution is mandatory. Today, we will demonstrate how Congress failed to uphold the Constitution.

The legislature's ignorance has cost one morally upstanding citizen of this democracy his rights and liberties under the Constitution. The plaintiff is the victim of a power-hungry body of elitist politicians who will go to any length to humiliate and coerce my client into obedience, including ignoring a blatant constitutional requirement to issue a referendum for Constitutional amendments. The Legislative Standards Act, which provides the provisions for contempt of court, was intended as a Constitutional amendment, however, was never posted as a referendum and therefore ineligible to serve as a referendum. The bill failed, simply put, and is unlawful. It cannot be enforced, nor can it be treated as a valid component of neither the Constitution nor the law.

Even if we were to treat the bill as valid as a statute, despite the fact that it is not due to it being proposed as a Constitutional amendment, the contempt of court provision is inherently unlawful as the legislature cannot give itself the authority to conduct the business of the judiciary. It is only in the judiciary's hands to assign and finalize punishment, and only in the executive's hands to both action penalties and bring charges against a person for a crime committed. Contempt of Congress bypasses our system of separation of powers and unfairly gives Congress the power to decide criminal penalties, charge people for it, and have them sentenced without a trial.

Furthermore, the defense claims to know the Plaintiff's capabilities better than she knows her own. The Plaintiff was responsive to a considerable degree, and given her position in the Courts, is busy. Throw in real life, and it can be easy for one or two questions to slip her mind, especially when no reminder ping is issued. No hard deadline was set, and the questions were eventually answered. The defense cannot provide mens rea though they may boldly claim to read the mind of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not intend to thwart Congress' operations, but rather she was showing human normality in being busy and able to lose track of mundane items from time to time. The Court must see reason in this matter.

Given the logic outlined above, the Legislative Standards Act should be struck and this contempt of court charge should be overturned. All prayers for relief should be granted as this major attempt to subvert democracy must not go unchecked. I ask the Court to use its authority to restore checks and balances before Congress yanks that away from the peoples' cold, grasping hands. Thank you.

 

[drew_hall]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Mask3D_WOLF
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Your Honor, Opposing Counsel, I would first like to apologize on behalf of the commonwealth for a slightly late filing. I misread the time the Plaintiff originally filed their opening and was under the impression the state had until 2:37pm today and not 2:37am. This will not happen again. The Plaintiff in this case has made the assertion that the enactment of the Legislative Standards Act was not done in accordance with the constitution. To this claim, the state disagrees. In our opening statement we will show why the Legislative Standards Act is in fact constitutional, as well as why the contempt of congress charge should remain.

The constitution outlines the steps congress must take in order to introduce and enact amendments, and only when there is a complex change or a change to rights and freedoms is there to be requirements “...beyond the normal congressional process…” Simply put, the Legislative Standards Act, from hereon referred to as the “LSA,” was not a complex change nor was it a rights and freedoms change, therefore there was no need to satisfy the requirements for those changes. The LSA is a consolidation of many other former acts put into one bill for organizational purposes, and, as stated, does not include the changes to satisfy those additional requirements by the congress mandatory in order to be enacted.

The Plaintiff has argued that by the LSA giving congress the power to vote upon contempt of congress for those that are under trial is actually a breach of powers across the three branches of our government. This could not be further from the truth. It is also worth noting that the Legislative Standards Act was an amendment to our constitution, therefore it cannot be unconstitutional. By being a constitutional amendment it is inherently constitutional. In [2021] SCR 1 the courts had to see similar arguments be made about the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment when there were questions surrounding the process of the amendment being signed into law, specifically due to no referendum having been posted. The Supreme Court then, in a unanimous decision, upheld the amendment stating that “The courts do not feel the amendment is an issue it does in fact meet all requirements needed for a constitutional amendment.” despite the referendum apparently not being done correctly. Simply put, the LSA is a long-standing constitutional amendment that has satisfied the constitutional outlines for an amendment to be signed into law, therefore it is a recognized and lawful amendment to our constitution.

Now, to briefly expand on how this is NOT a breach of separation of powers, I will explain. Much like when a congressional body holds a vote to censure an individual or entity, a vote of contempt of congress has about the same ramifications. It is simply a vote to gain a consensus over whatever body is holding that vote, and a call to the executive to take notice and act accordingly. This is NOT the legislature overstepping into charging and prosecuting individuals as the executive has the ultimate authority to do so. If the individual themselves or the justice department disagree with that congressional body’s opinion, the courts will offer the remedy. It is also worth noting that nowhere in the LSA does it make mention of contempt of congress being a criminal charge, which under the constitution, again, only the executive branch may enforce.

Finally, the Plaintiff has asserted that the commonwealth believes to know the reasonings on why they failed to provide answers to a congressional body at the time they themselves said they would. This is not true. We simply denied they were giving answers as quickly as they could. During the duration between the Plaintiff stating they would have their answers back the night of July 27th around 9:30pm EST and the time of the vote of contempt of congress on July 29th around 8:15pm EST, the Plaintiff had been active in several chats, just not the one they said they would be. To us, this is simply not answering as quickly as able to.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Motion for Summary Judgment

Your Honor, Opposing Council. The Defense argues that the LSA is not a complex change. Yet, there is one provision inside the LSA that states otherwise. The section is named Peer Review, this section is listed below this Summary Judgment. This Peer Review section is not a part of any of the rescinded bills. Given that this is a new part of the LSA and a new area added to the Constitution. This is without a doubt a complex change making this an illegal Act. Despite the fact this bill is a consolidation of other bills, it is still implementing changes that are complex and adding them to the Constitution. This law modifies the powers of the legislature and therefore is a complex change.

The Defense has stated in their Opening Statement that Contempt of Court is not a criminal charge. Given that the Defense agrees that Contempt of Court is not a Criminal Charge we believe the charge should be struck from Mask3D_WOLF’s record and the Court urges Congress to either strike this unconstitutional Act or go through the proper processes in making the LSA law.

 

[Dartanboy]

May we respond?

 

[Banana]

Yes, you may respond to the motion for summary judgment.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
I. RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

1. The Plaintiff claims "The Defense argues that the LSA is not a complex change. Yet, there is one provision inside the LSA that states otherwise. The section is named Peer Review, this section is listed below this Summary Judgment. This Peer Review section is not a part of any of the rescinded bills. Given that this is a new part of the LSA and a new area added to the Constitution. This is without a doubt a complex change making this an illegal Act."

Merely adding a new area to the Constitution does not automatically make it a Complex Change. A Complex Change is defined by the Constitution as follows:

• 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.

This obviously did not change the Rights & Freedoms section. It was not a plugin-related change. It did not involve significant staff involvement. It did not create new towns/cities/urban establishments. That leaves only Changes to the System of Government, which the Constitution also conveniently defines as any change 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.

This Act does not affect the distribution of power (as we explained in a previous filing), nor does it make changes to any Government Departments. Finally, requiring a co-sponsor for bills (peer review), the State argues is not a significant change to the system by which the state is governed.

For these reasons, the State holds that the LSA was not a Complex Change, and thus, did not require any steps beyond the normal Congressional process.

2. The Plaintiff claims "The Defense has stated in their Opening Statement that Contempt of Court is not a criminal charge. Given that the Defense agrees that Contempt of Court is not a Criminal Charge we believe the charge should be struck from Mask3D_WOLF’s record and the Court urges Congress to either strike this unconstitutional Act or go through the proper processes in making the LSA law."

First of all, we still stand by the fact that the LSA is a legal Act that is not a Complex Change.

Secondly, we will assume the Plaintiff meant "Contempt of Congress" and not "Contempt of Court."

Thirdly, we are not arguing that Contempt of Congress is not a crime, but that Congress cannot charge you with the crime. This is similar to the Saviour Act (Act of Congress - Saviour Act) which defines several crimes without explicitly mentioning the word "crime."

The Saviour Act has been upheld in court many times already:

• Lawsuit: Dismissed - Chrisorg1 v. The Department of Justice [2021] DCR 57 - A Motion to Dismiss (filed by the Lovely Law Firm) was approved depending on the Saviour Act.
• Lawsuit: Adjourned - AB6A5SI v. Department of Justice [2021] DCR 74 - The Saviour Act is at the core of this entire case, and is mentioned in the Verdict.
• Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Deadwax [2022] SCR 12 - The Court finds Deadwax guilty of a crime under the Saviour Act.
• Frivolous Court Cases are defined under the Saviour Act.

Again, the reason this is important is that it clearly shows that the word "crime" is not necessary to be considered a criminal act.

Now, Contempt of Congress is defined in the Legislative Standards Act as "To refuse to testify, won't provide information requested by the House or the Senate, or obstructs an inquiry by a congressional committee."

While it does say "Congress votes to hold a person "in contempt" by a majority vote. The Speaker will then report the incident to the Department of Justice to be actioned" this is not part of the definition of Contempt of Congress. The vote from Congress to hold someone in Contempt is truly a vote to report them to the Department of Justice, but it is ultimately the Executive's decision whether they wish to pursue the charge or not.

Thus, we hold our stance that Contempt of Congress is a crime, but that the Congressional vote is not one that holds any legal power, and merely acts as a report to the Executive.

 

[Dartanboy]

Oh, and I'll just say it verbatim: The Defense does not agree to summary judgement.

 

[Banana]

I believe that there is not agreement on the facts sufficient for summary judgment, and we will move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff may present their opening arguments now.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, both Opening Statements were presented.

 

[Banana]

My apologies to both parties, I overlooked that opening statements had been presented. We will move on to witness testimony. Both parties may present a list of witnesses to call, or declare that they have none.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor, the Commonwealth has no witnesses to call.

 

[Dartanboy]

We have no witnesses.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Plaintiff also has no witnesses to call. Apologies for the late response my internet was being slow and was having a hard time loading the Forums.

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Banana has left the courts and is therefore no longer the presiding judge. I have been assigned as the new presiding judge for the remainder of the proceedings. As there are no witnesses to be called, we will be moving on to closing statements. The plaintiff has 48 hours to present their closing statement.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Closing Statement

This case is about whether Congress’s ability to motion for a Contempt of Court charge and then charge it. The illegal Amendment that gives Congress this power is the Legislative Standards Act (LSA). This was an Amendment that codified a bunch of bills all into one for easier searching and future amending.

What makes the LSA illegal you may ask? The base issue is that none of the original Amendments that are put into the LSA had a referendum. All of these amendments were complex changes as they either added, amended, or similar to the Constitution directly. Now I ask, why is the LSA legal when the very amendments they were standing on were not legal?

The first Referendums were all the way back on May 24, 2020. Given that all of these Amendments were passed and even posted after May 24 this shows without a doubt that the Amendments were meant to go to Referendum which they had none.

Now how does this pertain to the Contempt of Congress Charge? Well the main thing that gives Congress this power is a now rescinded bill called Congressional Hearings Act. This was a bill that did not amend the Constitution however given this did not amend the Constitution it should not be included in the LSA as it did not originally amend the Constitution. Yet we see it added into the singular document that amends the Constitution.

Now you could argue that this is not a complex change, however I beg to differ. When you look at the fact that this adds an entire new process at Congress’s disposal and codifies it into the Constitution that makes a complex change. Let's not even look at the fact that this gives Congress more power into itself which is a violation of the Constitution.

Why did Congress charge Mask3D_WOLF with a Contempt of Congress charge despite timely responses? This we simply cannot answer as we cannot look into the minds of the Senate. What I can say however is that Mask3D_WOLF did place a time for when an answer would get out yet due to a busy life that can always occur along with a normal human mind that can let things slip from memory if they forgot to do so in 48 hours. Stated in the LSA the Committee asking the questions was supposed to make a reasonable effort to notify Mask3D_WOLF regarding the forgotten question and the Committee failed to do so. Beyond this the Committee only after this lawsuit was filed started doing so which shows they knowingly failed to act upon a duty they must do.

To put this simply, we do not wish to completely remove the LSA via the Court Case. We only wish to remove the Contempt of Congress charge and have the Courts urge Congress to amend this illegal Act by making it go through the true process and making it legal. This illegal Act not only hurts the very people that Congress is sworn to protect but also shows that Congress has violated the Constitution more than any other Branch of Government by letting this illegal Act be in place for over 2 years.

 

[Milkcrack]

The defence has 48 hours to present their closing statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
Your Honor, opposing counsel,

The case brought before this court is one that poses questions regarding breaches of separation of powers amongst government branches, the overturning of a long-standing and well-established constitutional amendment that has also been foundational to this commonwealth, the overturning of established case law set forth by the Supreme Court, and general questions surrounding constitutional amendments and the processes and application behind them. The plaintiff is of the opinion that the same constitutional amendment which they once were bound to, one that has been foundational to the judiciary and this commonwealth as a whole, is, well, unconstitutional. Our closing arguments will outline the legal fallacies in the arguments brought forth by the plaintiff to give further clarity on the defenses we have made.

II. CLOSING STATEMENTS
To start us off, the plaintiff has brought forth concerns around separation of powers, and the possible violation that Congress having the power to motion for contempt might be of those. While on the surface this does seem a sound legal argument, there are key points that have been left out.

1. As all parties to this case are aware of, only the Executive branch of government holds the authority to prosecute organizations and individuals. This is the primary function of the Departments of Justice and Legal Affairs. However, what the plaintiff has failed to recognize throughout this case is that the legislature is not overstepping their authority, but rather fulfilling their constitutional duties by holding these motions. These motions of contempt are similar to motions to censure, it is a consensus of the body holding them. Contempt of Congress motions, which also have guidelines on when one can be held (the defense would like to point out), when successful, are to get the attention of law enforcement to assess the situation for themselves and act accordingly. There are no exact repercussions for the executive ‘failing’ to action a successful contempt of congress motion, rather the remedy for the discrepancy between the two branches would be the judiciary. This not only places value and importance on our three branches of government and the separations between them, but also their cooperation amongst each other to efficiently run this commonwealth.

2. The Legislative Standards Act (hereon referred to as the ‘LSA’,) is a long-standing constitutional amendment that has not only been foundational to the judiciary and this commonwealth, but has also been pivotal in the way business and constitutional duties are carried out on a day-to-day basis in the government. The plaintiff has made the claim that because a referendum has not yet been posted that this automatically discredits the LSA from being a constitutional amendment. This simply is not true for two reasons:
a) The LSA was not a complex change; it was a consolidation of pre-existing acts put into one. Although some minor additions existed, there were no complex changes made at its creation or its enactment into law.
b) Under existing case law, constitutional amendments can be considered valid with no referendum having been posted; this is established precedent set forth by the verdict handed down in Supreme Court case [2021] SCR 1, where the Supreme Court ruled a constitutional amendment to be valid regardless of the status of a public referendum.
c) Furthermore, Supreme Court Case [2021] SCR 3 establishes that any properly ratified Constitutional amendment is, by definition, Constitutional. Thus, even if this does violate the idea of separation of powers (although we believe it does not), it is still Constitutional, as the LSA is a Constitutional Amendment.

For these reasons specifically, the LSA is recognized as a foundational constitutional amendment, and to overturn it would not only go against the constitution, as it is constitutionally sound, but would also go against established case law in this commonwealth.

III. SUMMARY
We would just like to highlight the facts we have laid forth throughout this case:
1) The LSA does not introduce a violation of the separation of powers granted under the constitution as it does not allow the legislature to overstep, rather it requires separations of powers to function properly by allowing cooperation between government branches.
2) The LSA is a constitutionally sound amendment, tried and true, not only by-way of the constitution, but by-way of established case law as well. This fact is bolstered by the LSA introducing no Complex Changes – which are defined in the Constitution.

Thank you Drew_Hall for writing the majority of this filing.

DATED: This 5th day of September 2023.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Your Honor, it has been almost a week since the Commonwealth has sent their Closing Remarks. When can we expect a verdict? This is not meant to be a question of character rather a reminder and question regarding the verdict.

 

[Milkcrack]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT VERDICT
Mask3D_WOLF v Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 72

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Congress has unlawfully accused Mask3D_WOLF of contempt of Congress, a power that exceeds its jurisdiction, thereby infringing upon the principle of separation of powers. The Constitution explicitly prohibits the Senate from issuing verdicts not specified within its framework.
2. The act authorizing Congress to charge someone with contempt of court, known as the Legislative Standards Act, has not undergone proper ratification. This act constitutes a complex constitutional amendment which would necessitate a majority in a referendum to pass, which did not occur.
3. Mask3D_WOLF was inadequately informed regarding the consequences of not answering questions during congressional proceedings. Proper notification and communication standards were not upheld.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Legislative Standards Act merely empowers the Legislature to refer charges to the Department of Justice, without issuing a verdict or conducting prosecutions. Therefore, it does not violate the separation of powers.
2. The Legislative Standards Act is an established constitutional amendment and does not qualify as a complex change, thus not requiring a referendum.
3. Even if a referendum were necessary, precedent exists for a constitutional amendment to take effect before a referendum.

III. THE COURT OPINION

This is a civil court rather than a criminal one. This means that this court will not decide whether Mask3D_WOLF is guilty of contempt of Congress but only whether a legal framework exists in which MAsk3d_wolf can be charged with contempt of Congress.

Before addressing other arguments, the court must consider whether the Legislative Standards Act was properly ratified. If it was, it is constitutional and cannot be unconstitutional. This would mean there exists a legal framework in which Congress can report a contempt of court charge to the Department of Justice.

The plaintiff has alleged that the Legislative Standards Act is a complex change, which would require a referendum that did not happen. The defence has argued that because the Legislative Standards Act consolidates many previous bills, it did not create any changes and therefore cannot be considered a complex change.
The plaintiff contests this point adding that a new section was added, namely "Peer review."

It is the opinion of this court that for a constitutional amendment to be classified as a complex change it must change the nature of the status quo. This is based on the verdict provided by Chief Justice xEndeavour on the Supreme Court Case [2022] SCR 2 as follows:
"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. Their bill did not make a change to rights and freedoms; it made a reasonable limitation that is justified in a free and democratic society."

This court, therefore, agrees with the defence that a complex change must alter the nature of the status quo to be considered as such. Therefore, this court will only consider the peer review section as highlighted by the plaintiff.

A constitutional amendment has to fall into one of the following categories to constitute a complex change:

1. Changes to the System of Government.
2. Plugin-related changes.
3. Changes involving significant staff involvement.
4. Creation of new towns/cities/urban establishments.
5. A Rights & Freedoms change.

The plaintiff failed to provide any argument related to a plugin-related change, a change involving significant staff involvement, or the creation of new towns/cities/urban establishments. Therefore, the court agrees with the defence that it is not one of those.

To determine whether the peer review amendment was a complex change, this court will therefore only consider whether it was a change to the system of government or a rights and freedoms change.
According to the constitution, a change to the system of Government:

• Affects the distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state.
• Involves changes to Government Departments.
• Constitutes significant changes to the system by which the state is governed in general.

The plaintiff did not provide any allegations that it was a change to the government department, so we will not consider that. Adding a peer-review section is also not a significant change to the system by which the state is governed in general or one that affects the distribution of power between the different parts and levels of the state.

Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove that the legislative standards act is a complex change and it's the opinion of this court based on the arguments provided that the act has been properly ratified. Therefore there does exist a legal framework to charge someone with contempt of Congress.

As for the arguments concerning the rights and freedoms. The law clearly states that the legislature is reporting the issue to the Department of Justice. Therefore the crime of contempt of Congress would be not unlike any other summary offence therefore rights and freedoms of the plaintiff are still protected through the criminal appeal system of the courts.

IV. DECISION
1. This court rules in favour of the defence.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.