- Joined
- Aug 30, 2023
- Messages
- 241
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x (Snowy D. Heart Representing)
Plaintiff
v.
Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On 07/27/23, the House of Representatives introduced the Judicial Fix Act. This bill was voted on and passed the House. It then went up for amendments in the Senate on 08/29/23, which were passed on 09/03/23 (without any additional consent from the house) and then the bill was subsequently passed through the Senate. The Bill was then signed into legislation on 09/06/23 by President LilDigiVert. The Bill, however, was not put up for a referendum.
The Judicial Quick Fix, since it amends a system of government, fits the definition of a complex change under Part VII, Section 39, of the constitution. All complex changes must satisfy additional requirements beyond the normal congressional process, among these is a referendum. Under constitutional common law, when a constitutional amendment is enforced unconstitutionally because it failed to meet all the requirements of the act and sufficient time has been given to the government to rectify its mistake, then the act must be declared unconstitutional.
I. PARTIES
1. Matthew100x.
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. The Secretary of State, who is responsible for posting the referendum
II. FACTS
1. The Judicial Fix Act was posted on 07/27/23. (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act)
2. The Judicial Fix Act passed the House. (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act)
3. The Judicial Fix Act went before the Senate. (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act)
4. The Senate moved for amendments on 08/29/23. (see Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities)
5. The Senate passed the amendment on 09/03/23. (see Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities)
6. The Bill was signed on 09/06/23. (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act)
7. The bill was supposed to have been placed up by the Secretary of State for a period of 3 days (see Act of Congress - Referendum Quick-Fix Act), yet it was not (https://www.democracycraft.net/forums/petitions-referendums.85/?prefix_id=35).
8. One definition in the constitution for a complex change is “Changes to the System of Government.” (see Part VII, Section 39, Government - Constitution).
9. When a constitutional amendment meets the definition of a complex change, it must satisfy additional requirements, chiefly among these is the referendum (see Part V, Section 33, Government - Constitution).
10. According to Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1 “It is the purpose of the Judiciary to ensure the law is being properly enforced, even when the ones who are writing the law are breaking it. Within the case, the Legislative has been found to be performing an unconstitutional act by not following the proper procedure of applying changes to the constitution.” (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1)
11. In Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7, an unconstitutional action is reversed, even if the plaintiff was not returned to the presidency because of inactivity. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7)
12. In Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont, an award that was not granted because the plaintiff did not file the case within 7 days. We file this case within 9 days. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7)
13. In Milkcrack v. The Commonwealth of Redmont, it is found that if a complex change does not meet all the additional requirements necessary to be a constitutional amendment, it cannot be accepted (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Milkcrack v. The commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 42).
14. An Emergency Injunction can be granted against an ongoing constitutional issue until resolved (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and Lawsuit: Dismissed - Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 89).
15. In spite of the lack of referendum, lawyers have begun making arguments using the Judicial Fix Act, leading to a halt in a Supreme Court case and causing a crisis in the Judiciary due to a lack of Supreme Court Justices and unclear standards for how to handle existing cases (see Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18 and Lawsuit: In Session - Snowy_Heart v Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76).
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The House did not get to vote on any changes made by the Senate on a complex constitutional change, raising the question if a super majority has been achieved in both chambers of Congress on the same constitutional amendment.
2. A referendum has not been held on the complex change, therefore the constitution has not been followed in the constitutional amendment and the action must be reversed (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1).
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Judicial Quick Fix Act be held unconstitutional and reversed.
V. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
1. Due to the complex change not following the proper methods for a constitutional amendment, that its enforcement be blocked and held harmless until the matter is resolved.
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 September, 2023.
CIVIL ACTION
Matthew100x (Snowy D. Heart Representing)
Plaintiff
v.
Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On 07/27/23, the House of Representatives introduced the Judicial Fix Act. This bill was voted on and passed the House. It then went up for amendments in the Senate on 08/29/23, which were passed on 09/03/23 (without any additional consent from the house) and then the bill was subsequently passed through the Senate. The Bill was then signed into legislation on 09/06/23 by President LilDigiVert. The Bill, however, was not put up for a referendum.
The Judicial Quick Fix, since it amends a system of government, fits the definition of a complex change under Part VII, Section 39, of the constitution. All complex changes must satisfy additional requirements beyond the normal congressional process, among these is a referendum. Under constitutional common law, when a constitutional amendment is enforced unconstitutionally because it failed to meet all the requirements of the act and sufficient time has been given to the government to rectify its mistake, then the act must be declared unconstitutional.
I. PARTIES
1. Matthew100x.
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. The Secretary of State, who is responsible for posting the referendum
II. FACTS
1. The Judicial Fix Act was posted on 07/27/23. (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act)
2. The Judicial Fix Act passed the House. (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act)
3. The Judicial Fix Act went before the Senate. (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act)
4. The Senate moved for amendments on 08/29/23. (see Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities)
5. The Senate passed the amendment on 09/03/23. (see Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities)
6. The Bill was signed on 09/06/23. (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act)
7. The bill was supposed to have been placed up by the Secretary of State for a period of 3 days (see Act of Congress - Referendum Quick-Fix Act), yet it was not (https://www.democracycraft.net/forums/petitions-referendums.85/?prefix_id=35).
8. One definition in the constitution for a complex change is “Changes to the System of Government.” (see Part VII, Section 39, Government - Constitution).
9. When a constitutional amendment meets the definition of a complex change, it must satisfy additional requirements, chiefly among these is the referendum (see Part V, Section 33, Government - Constitution).
10. According to Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1 “It is the purpose of the Judiciary to ensure the law is being properly enforced, even when the ones who are writing the law are breaking it. Within the case, the Legislative has been found to be performing an unconstitutional act by not following the proper procedure of applying changes to the constitution.” (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1)
11. In Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7, an unconstitutional action is reversed, even if the plaintiff was not returned to the presidency because of inactivity. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7)
12. In Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont, an award that was not granted because the plaintiff did not file the case within 7 days. We file this case within 9 days. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7)
13. In Milkcrack v. The Commonwealth of Redmont, it is found that if a complex change does not meet all the additional requirements necessary to be a constitutional amendment, it cannot be accepted (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Milkcrack v. The commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 42).
14. An Emergency Injunction can be granted against an ongoing constitutional issue until resolved (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and Lawsuit: Dismissed - Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 89).
15. In spite of the lack of referendum, lawyers have begun making arguments using the Judicial Fix Act, leading to a halt in a Supreme Court case and causing a crisis in the Judiciary due to a lack of Supreme Court Justices and unclear standards for how to handle existing cases (see Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18 and Lawsuit: In Session - Snowy_Heart v Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76).
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The House did not get to vote on any changes made by the Senate on a complex constitutional change, raising the question if a super majority has been achieved in both chambers of Congress on the same constitutional amendment.
2. A referendum has not been held on the complex change, therefore the constitution has not been followed in the constitutional amendment and the action must be reversed (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1).
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Judicial Quick Fix Act be held unconstitutional and reversed.
V. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
1. Due to the complex change not following the proper methods for a constitutional amendment, that its enforcement be blocked and held harmless until the matter is resolved.
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 September, 2023.
