Lawsuit: Dismissed Matthew100x V. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 81

[Snowy_Heart]

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.

 

[Dartanboy]

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 the Matthew100x v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 81. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment based on the known facts of this case.

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.​

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RULING ON THE EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The injunction is denied because since the filing of this case, the bill in question has been put up to referendum, failed, and marked as failed by Congress.

 

[Anthony]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Matthew100x (Snowy D. Heart representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth Of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. 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

   1. A referendum was posted by the Department Of State, and subsequently failed, as the referendum failed to meet the constitutionally required threshold to be actioned into law.
2. As established above, due to the referendum failing to meet the constitutional threshold required to be signed into law, there was no legal impact. The Plaintiff has cited two cases, [2023] SCR 18 and [2023] FCR 81. It is the opinion of the Commonwealth that no actual damage has occurred as a result of either cases, any misrepresentations of the legality of this law hangs on the presiding officer of the court it was allowed in. Having said this, the Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont has, on September 21st of this year, dismissed arguments which reference the act in question, and, as we all are aware, the Supreme Court sets the precedent.
3. There are no prayers for relief to be met, as mentioned above, there was never an enactment of this law, as the referendum required to enact it failed. The court rules upon law, not rejected amendments or acts of congress, as they are not law.

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 29th day of September 2023

 

[Dartanboy]

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, or inform the court that they do not wish to.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your honor,

The plaintiff agrees to the terms of the motion to dismiss.

Thank you for your time your honor.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RULING ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS

Because the entire Prayer for Relief has essentially already been enacted by the Commonwealth, this case no longer holds any legal purpose.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff agrees with the Motion to Dismiss.

For these reaaons this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

The court thanks all involved for their time.