Lawsuit: Dismissed Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 89

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew100x

Matthew100x

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Matthew100x
Matthew100x
attorney
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
506
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Matthew100x & xLayzur
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Hello, your honor, my name is Matthew100x from Prodigium | Attorneys at Law and I’m joined by xLayzur from Prodigium | Attorneys at Law. I am here to launch a lawsuit against a constitutional amendment that failed to satisfy all requirements to become a constitutional amendment. The Department Reform Act is a constitutionally complex change that did not have a referendum attached to them. According to the s.V of the constitution "A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:" with one of the requirements being "The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass." The Department Reform Act is a complex change because it brings Changes to the System of Government. However, because there was no referendum attached to these bills, they did not satisfy that requirement. Therefore the amendment should be considered unconstitutional and be removed from the constitution.

I. PARTIES
1. Matthew100x, as a citizen aggrieved by an illegal constitutional amendment
2. xLayzur, as a citizen aggrieved by an illegal constitutional amendment
3. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Legislative Branch created the Department Reform Act. The bill received a supermajority and was passed.
2. The Executive Branch gave Presidential Assent to both bills.
3. The Amendment was not posted to the referendum page and the people were not given 3 days to assent to the amendment.
4. It is entirely clear that the process for the constitution was not followed, as illustrated by the referendum posted ex post facto: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/department-reform-act-referendum.14930.
5. As sworn by the Speaker of the House @xEndeavour, the constitutional amendment was a complex change and therefore passed unconstitutionally.
6. The amendment was law prior to the referendum being posted.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the constitution, "A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:"
2. One of the requirements is “The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.”
3. A referendum was never made.
4. 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.”
5. 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.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Department Reform Act should be declared unconstitutional.
2. All changes to the constitution caused by the Department Reform Act should be undone and rolled back.
3. The Department of Commerce and The Department of Education should be abolished and replaced with the Department of Education and Commerce.

V. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
As consistent with (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20) Supreme Court Ruling. Please block this referendum (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/department-reform-act-referendum.15007/#post-55707) as it has been created in contempt of the Supreme Court's injunction.

DATED: This 29th day of October, 2022.

Evidence:
Act of Congress - Department Reform Act - Posted on October 14th.
https://www.democracycraft.net/forums/petitions-referendums.85/ - Notice the lack of referendum for the complex change
(Barring the referendum declared illegal by the Supreme Court and the currently illegally posted referendum).
 
I'd like to request to file an amicus brief as the Returning Officer for the Referendum prior to any decision being made against the constitutional duties of the Speaker.
 
This court hereby accepts the emergency injunction and orders that the results of any referendum related to the Department Reform Act be considered null and void until this court case has been either adjourned or dismissed.

I will also be denying xEndeavour's request to post an amicus brief.
 
federal-court-png.12082

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of the Matthew100x and xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 89. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

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.

Furthermore, in order to prevent a chaotic thread similar to the one in the Supreme Court, I am warning everyone right now that talking out of turn will result in a contempt of court charge.​
 
dygyee said:
This court hereby accepts the emergency injunction and orders that the results of any referendum related to the Department Reform Act be considered null and void until this court case has been either adjourned or dismissed.
Click to expand...
As part of this acceptance of the emergency injunction, I hereby order the DOS not to vet the results of any referendum that is related to the Department Reform Act.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Matthew100x & xLayzur
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Your honor, this is getting truly ridiculous. This case has been passed from court to court like a hot potato while the will of the people has been thoroughly violated and ignored. Make no mistake, this farcical failure has has resulted in us completely failing the people.

We should never have held up the government for an entire week because two lawyers with chips on their shoulders saw a tiny opening. This absolute farce needs to end, the Supreme Court should have ended it with their rulling on the motions to dismiss, they gave rulings on every aspect of this case but then passed the case back down to the Federal Court, violating the Commonwealths right to a speedy trial. The two lawyers in this courtroom today have already shown a deep contempt for the rule of law when the originally filed this case here, they have caused untold damage and caused mayhem for no discernible purpose. We need to do better.

Make no mistake, and I am not joking when I say this, but this is truly the darkest timeline. There is a parallel universe out there where a week ago the Plaintiffs in this case said "Oh Mr. Speaker you forgot to post the referendum" the Speaker said "Oh shit" and posted it, and nothing else happened. There is a slightly darker timeline where they let the Federal Court case play out. But instead we got the darkest timeline. It's truly shameful is what it is, and even though I have spent this past week trying to put out this fire professionally I will hold it as a black mark to myself that I was even in proximity to this chicanery.

The Plaintiff's wanted this case heard in the Supreme Court, so the Supreme Court should have answered. Instead we spent a week in the Supreme Court going back and forth just for the court to rule it should have been in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. We all know what happens next. When this Court obviously dismisses this case the Plaintiff's will appeal in the Supreme Court. And I am deadly serious when I say that if this chicanery occurs I will be recommending a case to the RBA for their disbarment due to their disregard and lack of respect for the courts and the will of the people of Redmont. They have wasted the time of the courts and sought to overturn the will of the people in a malicious manner. This ends now.

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS 'II FACTS. 1)'

2. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS 'II FACTS. 2)'

3. The Commonwealth DISPUTES 'II FACTS. 3)' - This was true at the time of the original filling in the Federal Court however even by the time the Plaintiff had refiled in the Supreme Court it had been posted, at this point it has been posted twice.

4. The Commonwealth DISPUTES 'II FACTS. 4)' - The Constitutional process does not outline an order in which the three criteria have to be competed. The only legal opinion given on this was in 'Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1' by Associate Justice Matt_S, 'It is of my opinion that a referendum must be ‘launched’ within 48 hours of a Constitutional amendment receiving Presidential Assent; failing to do so would void any such amendment.'

5. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS 'II FACTS. 5)' - A mistake was made and then rectified.

6. The Commonwealth DISPUTES 'II FACTS. 6)' - All parties acknowledge that the act was not law, it was just mistaken to be law by the Government until the mistake was pointed out and then rolled back. It was not law by virtue of the constitutional requirement for a referendum to be posted not taking place.

7. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS 'III CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. 1)'

8. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS 'III CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. 2)'

9. The Commonwealth DISPUTES 'III CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. 3)' - See our previous answer to 'II FACTS. 3)'.

10. The Commonwealth DISPUTES 'III CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. 4)' - The Plaintiff here is making a laughable attempt to pass of their own previous arguments as a point of law. However in the ruling for the case quoted this comment is made null by the answer we have previously posted in response to 'II FACTS. 4)'.

11. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS 'III CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. 5)'

II. DEFENCES
1. The Commonwealth DISPUTES 'III PRAYER FOR RELIEF. 1)' - In 'Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20' the Supreme Court in their response to the Commonwealth's 4th Motion to Dismiss wrote:
The Supreme Court has determined that the Department Reform Act will not be deemed unconstitutional and it reaffirms this stance as it has met 2 of the 3 requirements for passage - The Act however has not met the third requirement which stipulates:

A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.

Therefore the Constitutional Amendment is not in affect as of yet
Therefore the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter and the Federal Court cannot override this decision, therefore the Court must uphold it.

2. The Commonwealth DISPUTES 'III PRAYER FOR RELIEF. 2)' - To the best of my knowledge, the Government has already done this with the Plaintiff providing no examples of the changes being in place. Therefore this Prayer for Relief has no legal purpose.

3. The Commonwealth DISPUTES 'III PRAYER FOR RELIEF. 3)' - To the best of my knowledge, the Government has already done this with the Plaintiff providing no examples of the changes being in place. Therefore this Prayer for Relief has no legal purpose.

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

Matthew100x & xLayzur
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 Supreme Court has already ruled that the Act is not unconstitutional.
2. All changes done by the Act have either not been implemented or have been rolled back a week ago.
3. The only thing that needs to happen for the Act to be law is for the Referendum to be reheld and voted on, so lets just get on with it.

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 October 2022

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 October 2022
 
Last edited:
Thank you to the Commonwealth for their response. The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
Your honor, the Commonwealth submitted a motion to dismiss?
 
For future reference, your answer to the complaint should be your motion to dismiss, and you shouldn't put your motion to dismiss (from the supreme court) in a spoiler in the "Defenses" section as it makes it look like your previous motion to dismiss from the supreme court contains your defenses for this case.

In the motion to dismiss, you stated "The Supreme Court ruled this act isn't unconstitutional." However that's not what this court case is for. The Plaintiff's claim is that the act was passed in an unconstitutional manner making the act unconstitutional, not that something in the act itself makes it unconstitutional.
Your second reason to dismiss is that the changes from this act haven't been implemented, or were rolled back. However this has been the case only because of the emergency injunction that the court approved of, and if this case were dismissed, the changes would be made.

For these reasons, I will be denying the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's have approximately 44 hours left to post their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

I'm sorry your honor but your ruling is based on incorrect information and I am not sure where this information has come from.

You stated your honor,
Your second reason to dismiss is that the changes from this act haven't been implemented, or were rolled back. However this has been the case only because of the emergency injunction that the court approved of, and if this case were dismissed, the changes would be made.
Click to expand...
However this is just not the case, the emergency injunction was approved by the Supreme Court on the 23rd. The original case was filed in the Federal Court on the 21st with the original Emergency Injunction being rejected at that time, with the filling of the original case in the Federal Court the Government was alerted to the mistake and then halted implementation, rolled back the changes, and began the Referendum. There is no evidence before this court to suggest that the statement made by myself in my Motion to Dismiss was incorrect with 'either not been implemented or have been rolled back a week ago', the setting up of the timeline being imperative there to this statement. Furthermore throughout the Supreme Court case it was repeatedly brought up in arguments that the changes had not been implemented, or had been rolled back, before the case had been refiled in the Supreme Court, so I am unsure where this piece of incorrect information has come from.

Therefore I'm sorry your honor but the statement from yourself that the roll back only happened because the Emergency Injunction was approved is simply incorrect. Long before it was approved this had happened. The fact remains that at the time of the filling in the Supreme Court all changes implemented from the Department Reform Act had to the best of my knowledge been rolled back. This statement if left on the record would create a false timeline of events, thus denying the Commonwealth a fair trial. So therefore the Commonwealth asks that you strike your own statement on this matter from the record.
 
I will be rejecting the motion to strike as while some things my have been rolled back before the emergency injunction not everything was rolled back before the injunction. One example of something that wasn’t rolled back before the emergency injunction is the ticket system. Tickets for the DOC and DOE are still separate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Staff implemented the changes as advised by the Speaker. The Speaker advised that they would need to be rolled back when the referendum was started.

The Staff team is waiting for the results of the referendum before rolling back hours of staff work to facilitate the changes.

This is in no part the fault of the government.
 
I would like to inform the staff team that they also should not be talking out of turn or crossing out something that the presiding judge says. If they wish to contact the courts about not being able to rollback changes, they should do so through the Judiciary discord channel and not on this thread.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

The Commonweath move that Dygee recuse themselves from this case, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Respectfully the Commonwealth is not receiving a fair trial here.
2. Firstly the Judge has made a statement using information gathered from outside the courtroom and the arguments presented within it, which creates a false timeline of events: That the rollback only happened because of the Emergency Injunction and that if the case was ended the Government would just reinstate them.
3. When this was elaborated on by the Commonwealth the Judge then went outside the courtroom and found evidence of something that had not been rolled back. However this does not constitute evidence that the rollback only happened because of the Emergency Injunction.
4. In a fair court the Judge should have given the opportunity to the Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss not going and finding the evidence itself, the Judge is meant to only rule on things inside the courtroom - Otherwise what happens is as is now the Commonwealth is having to argue against the Judge on the evidence presented by the Judge.
5. Therefore as the Judge has taken these actions they have breached Judicial Conduct, acting in a manor unbecoming of their role and unduly influenced the court.

DATED: This 30th day of October 2022
 
I will be rejecting the motion to recuse for the following reasons: Firstly I provided information that is available to the public to inform the Commonwealth that they were in fact wrong in their motion to strike. I simply provided this information because the Attorney General did not realize that he was wrong until this information was provided to him. Secondly the presiding judge doesn’t have to wait for the plaintiff to rebut a motion to dismiss if the motion to dismiss will be denied anyway. If you believe my ruling on this motion was wrong, you may motion once more and have the Supreme Court review the motion.

I am also reminding the Plaintiffs that they have a little bit under 26 hours to post their opening statement.
 
The Plaintiff’s have missed the deadline. They have lost their ability to post an opening statement. The Commonwealth now has 48 hours to post an opening statement.

Furthermore I hereby charge Matthew100x with one count of contempt of court, and order the DOJ to fine him appropriately.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The following motion does not constitute the Opening Statement of the Commonwealth but instead a separate Motion as a prelude before the Commonwealth makes its opening statement if the Motion is rejected.

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

1. Your honor, this has gone on long enough. This case has taken over a week to reach opening statements because of the shenanigans and chicanery of the Plaintiff. There is no legal intentions here, there are only political ones. They are wasting the Governments time, the courts time, and the peoples time. They can't even be bothered to respond, the disrespect for this court is obvious.
2. On rare occasion the court has thrown out a case for a lack of professionalism, the Commonwealth now asks this happen here. The Plaintiff filed the case incorrectly in the Supreme Court with bogus charges, they have failed to respond to the case in the allotted time, and have included arguments and prayers for relief that do not apply. The answer to this case is a forgone conclusion, the referendum needs to be held for the Act to become law, we are asking questions that have already received answers.
3. If the court will not dismiss the case at least lift the emergency injunction as this is having real effects on the efficiency of government at this point, the Commonwealth is being penalised here while the Plaintiff sits back and does nothing. This is an extremely one-sided case, it's time to even the scales - either throw the case out or lift the injunction and let the government move on with its business unshackled by this unprofessionalism .

DATED: This 31st day of October 2022
 
The Plaintiff has 48 hours to Rebut the motion to dismiss, or state that they do not want to post a rebuttal.
 
As the returning officer for the referendum that is currently under emergency injunction, which is due to end tonight, I’d like the opportunity to submit an amicus brief to this case.

As custodian of the referendum process, I believe I have reasonable grounds to request such a brief. The emergency injunction has been active for an abnormally long duration now and it is impacting the stability of the Government and constitutional processes.

There exists Supreme Court precedent on this issue already and I’d like the opportunity to address the court on this basis.
 
dygyee said:
The Plaintiff has 48 hours to Rebut the motion to dismiss, or state that they do not want to post a rebuttal.
Click to expand...
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The defence move that the Judge reconsider the timeframe given to the Plaintiff, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Constitution states 'Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial', that otherwise being the Commonwealth. This court case is a continuation of the case originally started on the 21st. Therefore it has taken 264 hours to reach opening statements, and in those 264 hours the people of Redmont have been denied their rights, their voice, and the realisation of what they have voted for. This law passed the House - which is elected by the people - legally, this law passed the Senate - which is elected by the people - legally, this law was given assent by the President - who is elected by the people - legally. The only thing that did not happen was a referendum was not posted because of a tiny mistake - however the Constitution does not specify the order in which the actions to make the issue law need to take place, Matt_S the Supreme Court Associate Justice said that 'a referendum must be ‘launched’ within 48 hours of a Constitutional amendment receiving Presidential Assent', there is very little question around the legallity of these surroundings and this farce against the people has gone on long enough.
2. In the Supreme Court case the Speaker of the House was given one hour to comply with the court. To now give the Plaintiff 48 hours to reply is spitting in the face of fairness and the right of the Commonwealth to a speedy trial. This Plaintiff has been given every consideration by the court when they continually spit in its face. I ask the court to grant the Plaintiff 1 hour to respond to the motion to dismiss, to not do so would be to show a clear and present bias in their favor.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022
 
Your honor,

I accept that I an past the timing for opening statements by 2 and a half hours. However, I want to make note that the attorney general has been completely out of line making constant posts when not asked. I was under the impression that you would respond to the AG prior to me posting my opening arguments, only to find that my clock was moving in spite of the frequent posts by the attorney general. I am requesting that this be clamped down on for the rest of the court case. I will form a response to the motion to dismiss in the future.
 
Speaker End, you may have 24 hours to post an amicus brief. I would also like to remind you that the referendum that you claim ends tonight has already been declared null and void, and therefore does not count. Even if the injunction is lifted in the future, a new referendum will need to be created.

I will be rejecting the motion to reconsider the amount of time that I am giving the Plaintiff to rebut the motion to dismiss. According to court procedure, a party has 48 hours to respond unless the presiding judge has a viable reason to change this amount of time. The reason you gave that this case has already taken too long is in the courts opinion not a viable reason, as some cases take longer than others, and the Commonwealth was also given 48 hours, so it would be unfair to shorten the time for the Plaintiffs. Furthermore the Commonwealth disapproved of the Plaintiff's not getting time to rebut a motion to dismiss, and in fact stated in their motion to recuse, something along the lines of: One of the reasons the judge should be recused is because he failed to give the Plaintiff's sufficient time to rebut the motion to dismiss.

However the 24 hours that Speaker End has to write and post his amicus brief, will also count towards the Plaintiff's time to rebut the motion. To clarify, the Plaintiff's have approximately 43 hours left to rebut the motion, and this time will not be paused unless I clearly say so later on in this case.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Thank you for the opportunity to address the court on this very important matter.

I have a number of points that I'd like to address in my amicus brief which I will outline under subheadings.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON LAW REQUIREMENTS MET
The constitutional requirements for a complex bill to become law are listed in the Constitution in no particular order as:
  • A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
  • A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
  • Presidential Assent or Veto Override.
In SCR 1 [2021] the Court established, in an almost identical scenario that a referendum can be posted within 48 hours of Presidential Assent after an oversight in the changes being complex.

The Government did not action any changes to the constitution, any law, or enact any other significant changes in relation to the Department Reform Act. While the government did announce the changes, the government also announced that there would need to be a referendum less than 24 hours later due to an oversight. All changes implemented by staff, within the Government's control were rolled back and staff were requested to roll back the rest (denied pending the outcome of the referendum due to the amount of work involved).

The Department Reform Act has met the constitutional requirements to become law almost twice now:
  • It has passed the House of Representatives with a supermajority.
  • It has passed the Senate with a supermajority.
  • It has been granted presidential assent.
  • It passed a public referendum with a supermajority recently, before being struck down by the court.
  • It presumably passed a public referendum with a supermajority tonight, prior to vote verification.
Not only does it meet the requirements of the constitution, but the President was elected with a mandate to implement these changes as a key policy during the election campaign.

THE SPIRIT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE PROTECTIONS
The constitution is our Government's social contract with the people of Redmont. Complex changes to the constitution are momentous decisions and these require the people's input - that's why the requirements for constitutional change involve them, to allow them to have a voice in the structure of their government.

The plaintiff has now wasted hundreds of hours and stalled the implementation of a constitutional change that the people have said yes to on the drawn out arguments of a technicality which is already enshrined in common law.

The people have spoken through their representatives and through direct democratic processes twice.

The court should recognise that while this was a mistake, specifically on my part as Speaker, it was immediately rectified when alerted that it was a complex change. We are all human and we all make mistakes - the Supreme Court has acknowledged this in SCR 1 [2021].

The court should recognise that the people have made their preference clear, technicality or not.

The court should recognise that the spirit of the constitutional change protections is to enable the people to have a voice in the change of structure in their government. The court should recognise that this has happened twice and that we are now staring down the barrel of a third referendum.

THIS CASE IS SERVING POLITICAL MOTIVES
A summary of this case shows how it has been used to cause maximum delay and disruption to the constitutional change process.

Case 1 - FCR 87
  1. Case filed in the Federal Court - Rather than opening a congressional ticket to alert the presiding officers, the plaintiffs chose to jump straight to litigation.
  2. Plaintiff files emergency injunction on the referendum - denied by court.
  3. Speaker requests to file amicus brief - accepted by the court.
  4. Plaintiff files motion to reconsider - denied by the court.
  5. Plaintiff withdraws case from Federal Court - plaintiff discusses 'how to get the case in the supreme court' with colleagues in VC and takes colleague's advice that they should 'add any random plea that includes removing someone for office and boom it's automatically original jurisdiction in the supreme court.' Evidence available to the Judge in a closed setting if required.
Case 2 - SCR 20
  1. Case filed in the Supreme Court - referendum already posted at this stage, a charge of treason toward myself is added to the prayers for relief to give the case original supreme court jurisdiction.
  2. Court accepts emergency injunction - no further evidence on the Federal Court's ruling
  3. Court denies amicus brief - no reason provided
  4. Court denies Speaker representation in the case - asserts that the Speaker's representation is the Government, regardless of differing interests and objections.
  5. Court makes an order for the Speaker to defy their constitutional responsibilities - speaker denies halting the referendum. Speaker suggests putting an injunction on the results of the referendum instead since the court is the court of disputed returns and does not have the power to inhibit another branch of Government's constitutional duties in stopping a referendum.
  6. Court declares referendum invalid because speaker did not abandon constitutional duties - charges speaker with 43 contempt of court charges for failing to provide information that the Speaker does not have access to.
  7. Court declares that the case must be refiled in the Federal Court and marks the case as adjourned.
  8. Court accepts the Government's plea that the case be split to enable a fair trial and that the Speaker is entitled to representation.
  9. Speaker restarts the referendum - the court said that the emergency injunction stands until the case is dismissed and the Supreme Court adjourned, thus the emergency injunction was not active.
Case 3 - FCR 89
  1. Case filed in the Federal Court - referendum passed at this stage, second referendum underway.
  2. Court denies amicus brief of returning officer of the referendum - no reason given.
  3. Court accepts the emergency injunction - declares referendum be considered null and void until this court case has been either adjourned or dismissed. Court extends order to DOS not to vet the results.
  4. Court accepts amicus brief of returning officer.
  5. Plaintiff fails to provide an opening statement - plaintiff given a reminder to post opening statement.

Further evidence of political motives:

Plaintiff campaigning against referendum:
1667300780151.png



THIS CASE SERVES NO LEGAL BASIS
  1. The claims for relief in two of the three cases were met prior to the filing of the case. In the third instance, the claims for relief were met before opening statements. This could be considered not having any serious legal intent or purpose and would therefore be frivolous according to court procedures.
  2. The claims for relief in this case say that 'a referendum was never made' - this is incorrect in how it is worded. Two referendums have been made. This could be considered perjury in misleading the court.
  3. There is no law that establishes that the Courts can order that the Speaker or another branch of government to stop undertaking their constitutional duties, even for a brief period. The courts are a body of review, and must act on points of law. The Federal Court has provided an emergency injunction to declare the results of a referendum null and void without any substantial argument or evidence that the referendum is unconstitutional.

REDUNDANT PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
The prayers for relief are already actioned:

1. The Department Reform Act should be declared unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has ruled that this bill is not unconstitutional and just requires a referendum (SCR20). That referendum has now just finished for the second time - so what does the plaintiff want out of this? The Supreme Court's decision is binding on the federal court so it cannot declare the Department Reform Act as unconstitutional.

2. All changes to the constitution caused by the Department Reform Act should be undone and rolled back.
No changes to the constitution have been made.

3. The Department of Commerce and The Department of Education should be abolished and replaced with the Department of Education and Commerce.
These departments do not exist.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
This case has dragged on long enough. The people have generously voted in support of this referendum twice, both achieving a supermajority.*

The effects of this bill are holistically good for government in providing government with a department specifically tailored toward education, new jobs and opportunities, and a dedicated department to assist with new player retention initiatives and the preservation of server history.

I call on the court to end the emergency injunction which has halted a constitutional process, the claims for relief in which this case is founded upon.

I call on the court to call this case out for what it is - respectfully, a drawn out political stunt.

I call on the court to view this case through the lens of mischief rule. There is no mischief - the absence of a referendum - anymore, it has been resolved.

I suspect that the plaintiff will attempt to strike my amicus brief, so I compel the court to consider severing any sections that are in contention from the brief instead of striking it in its entirety if that is the case.

Thank you for your time, your honour.
 
Last edited:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Plaintiff moves that the motion to dismiss be denied, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. Your honor, this has gone on long enough. This case has taken over a week to reach opening statements because of the shenanigans and chicanery of the Plaintiff. There is no legal intentions here, there are only political ones. They are wasting the Governments time, the courts time, and the peoples time. They can't even be bothered to respond, the disrespect for this court is obvious.
Click to expand...
Your honor, this case is about fair and valid constitutional review. There is legal basis and valid intention. While we apologize for missing the deadline for opening statement, we do not intend for our mistake to be an admission of disrespect for this Court's time and commitment to resolving this matter.
2. On rare occasion the court has thrown out a case for a lack of professionalism, the Commonwealth now asks this happen here. The Plaintiff filed the case incorrectly in the Supreme Court with bogus charges, they have failed to respond to the case in the allotted time, and have included arguments and prayers for relief that do not apply. The answer to this case is a forgone conclusion, the referendum needs to be held for the Act to become law, we are asking questions that have already received answers.
Click to expand...
There is only one difference between this point and point one. That is that the defendant states that we "incorrectly" filed the case in the supreme court with "bogus charges". None of this has been proven. The original case was asked to be split between the competing issues and we split the cases. The civil charges are still on the table. This point borders on the verge of perjury as it is a false statement that relies on rhetoric as a balancing act to convey their point while trying to implicitly imply the unproven.

Please note, I am not making a formal charge of perjury, but I am considering a more proactive approach to this case if the Attorney General and the Speaker cannot follow court procedure nor keep their hyperbole and rhetoric in check.
3. If the court will not dismiss the case at least lift the emergency injunction as this is having real effects on the efficiency of government at this point, the Commonwealth is being penalised here while the Plaintiff sits back and does nothing. This is an extremely one-sided case, it's time to even the scales - either throw the case out or lift the injunction and let the government move on with its business unshackled by this unprofessionalism.
Click to expand...
The point of review is to make sure that the constitutional amendment process is sound and proven. The reason it is so one-sided is because it is the government's onus to prove that the constitutional amendment was processed correctly, we have merely brought forth the claim.

The Supreme Court made the injunction, so in this instance your honor, you do not have jurisdictional power to lift the injunction till the end of these court proceedings. It is in your hands on whether or not you would like to see the case dismissed.

DATED: This 1st day of November 2022.
 
I will be denying the motion to dismiss as cases can go on for a long time. There have been cases that have gone on for over a month, and requesting to dismiss a case for going on too long when it has been under 2 weeks is nothing short of insane. When the constitution guarantees everyone the right to a speedy trial, it doesn't mean that the trial is over with within 2 weeks. Furthermore, this case has taken this long partly because the Commonwealth has filed many motions which can delay the court up to 96 hours if you count time for a rebuttal. Secondly, one mistake by the Plaintiff's that was corrected doesn't constitute a dismissal of the case as well. When the courts have dismissed cases in the past for unproffesionalism, it has been when the Plaintiff misses multiple deadlines, or they don't take the case seriously. However in this case, the Plaintiff's appear to be taking this case seriously. Lastly, if the Commonwealth believes this case has taken too long, and also believes that the prayer's for relief have already happened, there is no reason not to motion for a summary judgement and have the emergency injunction lifted once the summary judgment verdict is posted.

The Commonwealth now has 48 hours to post their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I will keep this brief. The complaint the Plaintiff makes is that the referendum was not held before the bill was granted asset.

As the Commonwealth has said time and time again, the constitution does not state that the order in which the three stipulations to make a complex constitutional change law must be held - all it says is that the three must be done.

The referendum has now been held twice, no law has been broken yet the courts have entertained an emergency injunction which goes against the constitution in every way. What will these courts do next? Suspend someones political campaign because someone thinks they might be corrupt? That may sound outrageous but that level of unconstitutional behaviour is exactly what has happened here.

The courts must act within the constitution as must every body of government, the referendum has been held as per the law. A previous Supreme Court Associate Justice gave the opinion in court that 'a referendum must be ‘launched’ within 48 hours of a Constitutional amendment receiving Presidential Assent' the law is extremely clear here yet the courts have blocked every single attempt by the Commonwealth to bring this sorry affair to a close despite this fact.

The actions of the Plaintiff have no legal standing, a mistake was made yes - however this is not against the law. Fo a week and a half this Commonwealth has had to dance to the tune played by the Plaintiff despite it having no legal basis. So truly what happens when right before an election a case is brought questioning a citizens right to run? Will the court entertain an emergency injunction blocking them from running? Because that is what has happened here, the court has acted against the democratic process. It's truly shameful.

I ask the court to please grant a SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, precedent shows the court can do this as it pleases. End this affair now and let the government get on with its work.

DATED: This 2nd day of November 2022.
 
We will now move on to witnesses. Both parties have 48 hours to list all of their witnesses, or state that they have none.
 
The Commonwealth has no witnesses.

Furthermore we asked for Summary Judgement your honor?
 
The plaintiffs have no witnesses.
 
If the commonwealth would like a summary judgement, they must file a motion for a summary judgement.

We will now move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff’s have 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
Your honor, once again the 48 hours have elapsed.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

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

1. Once again the Plaintiff has missed a deadline, time and time again they have shown no respect for the courts time or the governments time. Please dismiss this case with the upmost prejudice and let the government get on with its job.

DATED: This 5th Day of November 2022
 
I am hereby dismissing this case with prejudice as the Plaintiff has failed to respond yet again when asked by the court. He has wasted the time of both the court and the Attorney General multiple times now, and this is the 3rd case that the Plaintiff has filed. Ultimately it is always the Plaintiff's job to pursue the case, and in this case, the Plaintiff failed to do so.

Due to the fact that this case has been dismissed, the Plaintiff's emergency injunction has been lifted. All referendum's that were created during, or had voting take place during the emergency injunction are null and void, however the Commonwealth may create a new referendum.

Lastly, I hereby charge Matthew100x with another count of contempt of court, and order the DOJ to fine/jail him appropriately.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top