Lawsuit: Adjourned Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20

[Matthew100x]

IN THE SUPREME 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
4. xEndeavour as Speaker of House

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. Treason is defined as “Any party in federal office who is caught attempting to maliciously sabotage or undermine the stability, sovereignty, and/or national security of the government of Redmont.”
5. Electoral Fraud is defined as “Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.”
6. This case will have Supreme Court Jurisdiction because only‌ ‌the‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌shall‌ ‌hear‌ ‌cases‌ ‌that‌ ‌would‌ ‌remove‌ ‌a‌ ‌person/persons‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌following‌ ‌
positions:‌ ‌Representatives,‌ ‌Secretary,‌ ‌Senator,‌ ‌Judge,‌ ‌Vice-President,‌ ‌Principal‌ ‌Officers,‌ ‌General‌ ‌Advisors,‌ ‌President, Executive Officers.
7. 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.
8. As sworn by the Speaker of the House @xEndeavour, the constitutional amendment was a complex change and therefore passed unconstitutionally.
9. The amendment was law for a week prior to the referendum being posted.
10. Treason is not a criminal charge per the Crime Severity Act (Act of Congress - Crime Severity Act) nor is it labeled a crime under it's authorizing statute (Act of Congress - LDV Treason Act).

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.
6. End, by failing to post a referendum for a complex change of a constitutional amendment, maliciously undermined the government through incompetence. By shuffling the government positions around and creating two new departments and creating headaches for all members involved through improper procedure; End damaged the stability of the government.

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.
4. End to be fined $25,000 dollars and be removed from office for 2 months for treason.

V. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
I am requesting an emergency injunction to block and reverse the constitutional amendment, granting the IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF until this court case is completed due to the enormous amount of changes created by the Department Reform Act. Additionally I am requesting the referendum be halted until the end of this court case. The basis for this request is the nature of the failure in this situation. By incorrectly following procedure, the referendum exceeded common practice as the referendum was launched a week after the amendment was unconstitutionally made law, instead of the 48 hours granted by Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1). Therefore this must be thoroughly reviewed under law.

DATED: This 21st 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.

 

[Krix]

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

The Commonwealth of Redmont is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20

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.​

 

[Krix]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
The Supreme Court hereby approves the Plaintiff's request for an emergency injunction to halt and freeze the Department Reform Act which is currently under Referendum.
This is due to the Executive Branch's declaration of having actioned a change before the amendment to the constitution requirements were met, as the bill had not been put to a referendum.


The Department Reform Act will not be reversed as it has satisfied 2 out of the 3 requirements needed for passage and to be put into effect.

• A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
• Presidential Assent.
• A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.

The Referendum will be halted by the Speaker and voting on the amendment will be suspended until the conclusion of this case.

 

[End]

As a party to this case which has not yet been summoned, I'd like to request to file an amicus brief or be offered the chance to respond.

 

[End]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
The Supreme Court hereby approves the Plaintiff's request for an emergency injunction to halt and freeze the Department Reform Act which is currently under Referendum.
This is due to the Executive Branch's declaration of having actioned a change before the amendment to the constitution requirements were met, as the bill had not been put to a referendum.


The Department Reform Act will not be reversed as it has satisfied 2 out of the 3 requirements needed for passage and to be put into effect.

• A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
• Presidential Assent.
• A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.

The Referendum will be halted by the Speaker and voting on the amendment will be suspended until the conclusion of this case.

As Speaker, I'd also like confirmation from all justices that this was a Supreme Court decision (at least 2/3).

 

[Krix]

As a party to this case which has not yet been summoned, I'd like to request to file an amicus brief or be offered the chance to respond.

You May be called as a witness should either the plaintiff or defense wish to call you when the time comes in court proceedings, Your request to file an amicus briefus has been denied by the Supreme Court.

As Speaker, I'd also like confirmation from all justices that this was a Supreme Court decision (at least 2/3).

The Court has issued an emergency injunction and has ordered it to be carried out. It is not your place as Speaker to confirm whether the court has agreed to a decision. The Emergency Injunction will be carried out within the next hour. If the Emergency Injunction is not carried out within this timeframe the Speaker will be found in Contempt of Court.


Any further responses in this court forum made by Speaker xEndeavour in which he has not to be called upon to provide will result in the Speaker being found in Contempt of Court.

 

[End]

Referendums cannot be paused, I will withhold the referendum results from the Dept. of State at the completion of the constitutional referendum as an alternative.

 

[Krix]

You May be called as a witness should either the plaintiff or defense wish to call you when the time comes in court proceedings, Your request to file an amicus briefus has been denied by the Supreme Court.

The Court has issued an emergency injunction and has ordered it to be carried out. It is not your place as Speaker to confirm whether the court has agreed to a decision. The Emergency Injunction will be carried out within the next hour. If the Emergency Injunction is not carried out within this timeframe the Speaker will be found in Contempt of Court.


Any further responses in this court forum made by Speaker xEndeavour in which he has not to be called upon to provide will result in the Speaker being found in Contempt of Court.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for failing to carry out an emergency injunction.

Referendums cannot be paused, I will withhold the referendum results from the Dept. of State at the completion of the constitutional referendum as an alternative.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for responding in this court forum without being summoned.

In total the Department of Justice is hereby ordered to charge xEndeavour with 2 counts of contempt of court collectively.

COURT ORDER
The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont hereby orders Speaker @xEndeavour to provide screenshots of all votes cast within the Public Referendum of the Department Reform Act, in line with the Court-authorised emergency injunction as stated above. This is to be done within the next 30 minutes, Failure to comply will result in further contempt of court charges. The Screenshots should be provided within the #speaker channel in the "Judiciary of Redmont" discord. All further communication between Speaker @xEndeavour and the Supreme Court is to happen there.

 

[End]

The Supreme Court does not have the power to halt a public referendum.

The Supreme Court has denied the Speaker, the leader of the House of Representatives and returning officer for the referendum, a voice in this case to which the office is party to.

The Supreme Court is hearing a case which has no legal standing. Treason is a criminal charge under the Crime Severity Act. Citizens do not have the power to prosecute. This case was stopped in a lower court and refiled for political purposes to which I will not entertain.

Each‌ ‌Justice‌ ‌makes‌ ‌their‌ ‌own‌ ‌verdict‌ ‌on‌ ‌cases. The Supreme Court was unable to provide evidence that this was a whole-of-court decision as per the constitution.

The Referendum will continue and the people will be heard. I will not allow a constitutional process to be caught up in a suit that has no legal standing in a corrupt court.

Furthermore, I have offered an alternative to 'pausing' the referendum which is actually possible, that does not involve pausing the referendum.

 

[Krix]

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for failing to carry out an emergency injunction.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for responding in this court forum without being summoned.

In total the Department of Justice is hereby ordered to charge xEndeavour with 2 counts of contempt of court collectively.

COURT ORDER
The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont hereby orders Speaker @xEndeavour to provide screenshots of all votes cast within the Public Referendum of the Department Reform Act, in line with the Court-authorised emergency injunction as stated above. This is to be done within the next 30 minutes, Failure to comply will result in further contempt of court charges. The Screenshots should be provided within the #speaker channel in the "Judiciary of Redmont" discord. All further communication between Speaker @xEndeavour and the Supreme Court is to happen there.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for failing to follow a Court Order.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to halt a public referendum.

The Supreme Court has denied the Speaker, the leader of the House of Representatives and returning officer for the referendum, a voice in this case to which the office is party to.

The Supreme Court is hearing a case which has no legal standing. Treason is a criminal charge under the Crime Severity Act. Citizens do not have the power to prosecute. This case was stopped in a lower court and refiled for political purposes to which I will not entertain.

Each‌ ‌Justice‌ ‌makes‌ ‌their‌ ‌own‌ ‌verdict‌ ‌on‌ ‌cases. The Supreme Court was unable to provide evidence that this was a whole-of-court decision as per the constitution.

The Referendum will continue and the people will be heard. I will not allow a constitutional process to be caught up in a suit that has no legal standing in a corrupt court.

Furthermore, I have offered an alternative to 'pausing' the referendum which is actually possible, that does not involve pausing the referendum.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for responding in this court forum without being summoned.

In total the Department of Justice is hereby ordered to charge xEndeavour with 2 counts of contempt of court collectively.

COURT ORDER
The Supreme Court hereby orders that Speaker @xEndeavour be charged with 1 count of Contempt of Court, at every 1-hour interval until Speaker @xEndeavour has carried out:

The Court Authorised Emergency Injunction to halt voting on the referendum until the conclusion of court proceedings.
as well as
The Court Order to provide screenshots of all votes cast on the Public Referendum of the Department Reform Act in the #speaker channel in the "Judiciary of Redmont" discord.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Defense moves that the Court compel the Speaker of the House to allow the Attorney General to do his job as prescribed in the Constitution via the Department of Legal Affairs which ‘is charged with legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government’, the Commonwealth recognizes that as being listed as a party in this case the Speaker may believe they have some right to speak and act, but this listing is down to a lack of professionalism on the part of the Plaintiff, as this should be two separate cases. The primary party here is the Commonwealth and thus the Attorney General must be the one to respond.

Therefore the Commonwealth respectfully asks the court to compel the Speaker of the House to sit down and let me do my job.

DATED: This 23rd day of October 2022.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Defense move that the Court reconsider its position, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. By carrying out this Referendum the Speaker of the House is fulfilling his constitutional duties. If he were to halt it he would be in violation of his constitutional duties.

2. The Court does not have the authority to halt a public referendum, even the loosest interpretation of the section of the Constitution ‘The‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌is‌ ‌responsible‌ ‌for‌ ‌resolving‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌between‌ ‌Government‌ ‌Institutions.‌’ does not give the Court unlimited powers and unrestricted actions in order to achieve this goal, in particular ordering others to violate their constitutional duty.

3. As the court says in its response to the Emergency Injunction the bill has satisfied two of the three requirements to be acted into law. No action has been taken on the ‘Department Reform Act’, none of its changes have been implemented. Nothing illegal has been done, your honor - just unconventional. A mistake was made but this case is nothing short of a vindictive attack by a political rival of the Speaker. If we entertained this whole song and dance every time even a little mistake was made then our government would not be able function.

For the integrity of Government, now and in the future, please rescind your court order and allow the referendum to continue unmolested. Let us all just calm this down and let things play out, if the Referendum passes then the law, while unconventional and in a different way then before, was followed. If it fails then the Bill is unconstitutional. It is that simple, there is simply no need for all of this.

The Commonwealth will post its response to the complaint before the deadline.

DATED: This 23rd day of October 2022

 

[Krix]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Defense moves that the Court compel the Speaker of the House to allow the Attorney General to do his job as prescribed in the Constitution via the Department of Legal Affairs which ‘is charged with legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government’, the Commonwealth recognizes that as being listed as a party in this case the Speaker may believe they have some right to speak and act, but this listing is down to a lack of professionalism on the part of the Plaintiff, as this should be two separate cases. The primary party here is the Commonwealth and thus the Attorney General must be the one to respond.

Therefore the Commonwealth respectfully asks the court to compel the Speaker of the House to sit down and let me do my job.

DATED: This 23rd day of October 2022.

Granted, The Supreme Court would like to reaffirm that it is the duty of the Attorney General to represent and defend the Commonwealth of Redmont. The Court additionally will be granting the defense's motion to compel Speaker @xEndeavour to refrain from responding to this case. Further responses will be in violation of this Order.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Defense move that the Court reconsider its position, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. By carrying out this Referendum the Speaker of the House is fulfilling his constitutional duties. If he were to halt it he would be in violation of his constitutional duties.

2. The Court does not have the authority to halt a public referendum, even the loosest interpretation of the section of the Constitution ‘The‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌is‌ ‌responsible‌ ‌for‌ ‌resolving‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌between‌ ‌Government‌ ‌Institutions.‌’ does not give the Court unlimited powers and unrestricted actions in order to achieve this goal, in particular ordering others to violate their constitutional duty.

3. As the court says in its response to the Emergency Injunction the bill has satisfied two of the three requirements to be acted into law. No action has been taken on the ‘Department Reform Act’, none of its changes have been implemented. Nothing illegal has been done, your honor - just unconventional. A mistake was made but this case is nothing short of a vindictive attack by a political rival of the Speaker. If we entertained this whole song and dance every time even a little mistake was made then our government would not be able function.

For the integrity of Government, now and in the future, please rescind your court order and allow the referendum to continue unmolested. Let us all just calm this down and let things play out, if the Referendum passes then the law, while unconventional and in a different way then before, was followed. If it fails then the Bill is unconstitutional. It is that simple, there is simply no need for all of this.

The Commonwealth will post its response to the complaint before the deadline.

DATED: This 23rd day of October 2022

The Supreme Court is hereby Rejecting, the defense's motion to reconsider.

1. The Speaker of the House is not violating his constitutional duties by carrying out the Court authorised Injunction as it states "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"
The Speaker has fulfilled his duty as he has already posed a referendum, and the injunction would not violate the "over the course of 3 days" as the constitution does not specify that these days must run consecutively.
The Public Referendum would still be open for 3 days as the remainder of the time on the referendum would be open for public votation after the conclusion of court proceedings.

2. The Constitution states that "The‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌has‌ ‌the‌ ‌power‌ ‌to‌ ‌review‌ ‌all‌ ‌Constitutional‌ ‌challenges‌ " The Court through authorizing an injunction on a referendum is exercising this power.

3. "none of its changes have been implemented" The Executive Branch of Government has actioned these changes and they have stated so in the #gov-announcements channel in the DemocracyCraft discord.

The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont hereby charges the Attorney General with 1 count of Perjury.

The Supreme Court will now move to opening statements. The Plaintiff will have 48 hours to deliver their opening statements to the court.

 

[End]

Under the constitution, I have a right to a fair trial.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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.

Thus far I have had a request to respond to the accusation denied in a trial to which I am criminally implicated in.

I have not had the option of defending myself against criminal charges in a lawsuit that I have no representation in, rather the court has assumed that my representation is in the State. The state is here to defend itself against the civil claims for relief. I am here to defend myself from criminal charges.

This lawsuit must be severed into two so that It can be submitted correctly by the prosecuting body as a criminal trial and a civil trial against the state so that I am afforded a fair trial.

If I am not afforded the opportunity to respond, as the returning officer for the referendum I request to file an amicus brief.

Amicus briefs are rarely denied, particularly for parties to a case, and it would be an unreasonable precedent for the court to continue to deny such a request, let alone charge someone for requesting a voice in court proceedings that they are party to.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Attorney General would strongly urge the court to reconsider its position in its belief that the Attorney General has committed perjury, a disbarrable offense. This case, which is a simple open and shut one, has turned into a circus and now the court is contributing to that circusry. This is a pathetic case with no legal standing that can be Motioned to be Dismissed for 3 different reasons, however the Attorney General has not been able to do so because I’ve had to deal with this circus, both in this court and outside of it. Additionally to that we expect the Supreme Court to be the mediators in the room, however now they are destroying the good faith and belief that I have in them by charging me for a crime that I did not commit, and one I take very, very seriously indeed. I cannot perform my Constitutional duty to represent the State in these conditions - having to double guess every sentence in this case, or any case henceforth, in case the court decides that I am intentionally lying to them when making a simple statement I believe to be fact, the Court today has opened Pandora’s Box and they have a very finite window in which to try and close it again.

1. The crime of perjury is stated as ‘Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government shall be considered Perjury.’

2. The statement made by myself "none of its changes have been implemented" is factually correct to the best of the knowledge of the Attorney General.

i) To the best of my knowledge, no ‘Foreign Officer’ positions in the DoS have been advertised or recruited.

ii) To the best of my knowledge, no ‘Recruits - Trainee Officers’ in the DoJ have been changed.

iii) To the best of my knowledge, the DEC is still the existing government Department in name on Discord and on the Forums, no Department of Education has formally been created and no Secretary appointed to that role.

iv) To the best of my knowledge, the DPA has not formally changed the job title of Media Adviser to Media Officer and have not yet given up their responsibilities with archiving and touring.

v) To the best of my knowledge, no ‘Logistics Manager’ positions in the DoI have been advertised or recruited.

vi) I know for a fact that none of these changes have been implemented within the DLA.

vii) The constitutional document has not been updated with the proposed changes.

3. To implement something means to do it, all the government has done - once again to the best of my knowledge - is announce that the changes were going to be implemented, however on being made aware that the process was not legally followed the Government halted any implementation. Announcing something is going to happen is not implementing it, if I had a plan to put a pickaxe through someone's skull and announced my intentions to do so I have not implemented the plan to put that pickaxe through someone’s skull, because me stating I want to do that does not compel the pickaxe of its own free will to find a skull to embed itself in.

4. No changes as prescribed in the ‘Department Reform Act’ have been implemented, to the best of my knowledge. This court cannot prove that I knowingly lied to them, because I have not. A post stating the changes does not equal implementation as far as I believe. Perjury is a criminal charge, one that can cause a Lawyer to be disbarred, and therefore must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not thrown around like candy.

I urge you, end this circus now and let me get on with doing my job. I will stress that my good faith in this court is being tested, but I will forgive a misunderstanding in the language I used and return to that position of good faith to bring this sorry affair to a close.

DATED: This 23rd day of October 2022

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

The Supreme Court will now move to opening statements. The Plaintiff will have 48 hours to deliver their opening statements to the court.

Furthermore I must object to this your honor, the Plaintiff has not been given the opportunity to respond to the initial complaint even though we are still within the original 48 hour window. Because of all this circusry they have only been able to make a motion to reconsider the decision for the emergency injunction, a motion to compel the Speaker to stay out of this, which he is not following, and a motion to reconsider the courts charge for Perjury without any evidence as such.

Your honors the government is being being denied a fail trial here. I am still within my window to respond to the initial complaint and yet the court is deny the people this opportunity. I can understand once again if the Court has made a mistake and will restore my good faith in them is such is the case, however to deny the Government the opportunity to make that initial response is a severe breach of court procedure. This cannot stand.

 

[Krix]

Furthermore I must object to this your honor, the Plaintiff has not been given the opportunity to respond to the initial complaint even though we are still within the original 48 hour window. Because of all this circusry they have only been able to make a motion to reconsider the decision for the emergency injunction, a motion to compel the Speaker to stay out of this, which he is not following, and a motion to reconsider the courts charge for Perjury without any evidence as such.

Your honors the government is being being denied a fail trial here. I am still within my window to respond to the initial complaint and yet the court is deny the people this opportunity. I can understand once again if the Court has made a mistake and will restore my good faith in them is such is the case, however to deny the Government the opportunity to make that initial response is a severe breach of court procedure. This cannot stand.

The Supreme Court recognizes it has made an error in the procedural process, and in a manner of good faith in which this court operates we wish to acknowledge that.
The defense has not yet been given an opportunity to deliver its answer to the complaint and has 10 hours and 8 minutes still available to them in their allotted time.

I ask that the Plaintiff refrains from making their opening statement until recalled to do so, as the court must hear the defense's answer to the complaint and rule on it before the court can move to opening statements.

The Court apologizes for this procedural error and thanks both parties for their continued commitment to the case.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Thank you for recognizing this, I would ask for a 6 hour extension on the deadline to respond to the case given that the case up until this point has been so chaotic and I am busy this evening until 2 hours before the deadline.

 

[Krix]

Thank you for recognizing this, I would ask for a 6 hour extension on the deadline to respond to the case given that the case up until this point has been so chaotic and I am busy this evening until 2 hours before the deadline.

Granted, The Supreme Court hereby awards the defence an additional 6 hours to file their opening statement.

 

[End]

Under the constitution, I have a right to a fair trial.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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.

Thus far I have had a request to respond to the accusation denied in a trial to which I am criminally implicated in.

I have not had the option of defending myself against criminal charges in a lawsuit that I have no representation in, rather the court has assumed that my representation is in the State. The state is here to defend itself against the civil claims for relief. I am here to defend myself from criminal charges.

This lawsuit must be severed into two so that It can be submitted correctly by the prosecuting body as a criminal trial and a civil trial against the state so that I am afforded a fair trial.

If I am not afforded the opportunity to respond, as the returning officer for the referendum I request to file an amicus brief.

Amicus briefs are rarely denied, particularly for parties to a case, and it would be an unreasonable precedent for the court to continue to deny such a request, let alone charge someone for requesting a voice in court proceedings that they are party to.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

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

Matthew100x & xLayzur
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 1

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

The Commonwealth moves that the section of the complaint that makes reference to xEndeavour in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Constitution lists the following as a citizens rights “IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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.” and “XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.”

2. Both of these rights, in allowing for a fair trial and equality before and under the law, give a citizen the right to represent their own interests in a court of law. By unilaterally making this suit against the Commonwealth and xEndeavour the Plaintiff is denying xEndeavour their rights as xEndeavour cannot represent their own interests when this suit is made against the Commonwealth.

3. Furthermore by binding xEndeavour’s treason charges to this case the court is also denying the rights of the Commonwealth to a fair trial as well. Myself as Attorney General represents the Commonwealth as a whole, not the individuals in government for their own personal legal issues. Thus unless these charges against xEndeavour are removed from this suit the court is mandating that one individual be forced to represent the interests of another.

4. The original filling for this case was made in the Federal Court, however when the judge would not grant the emergency injunction it was quickly closed and the Plaintiff rushed to the Supreme Court and tacked on the Treason charges to grant jurisdiction. Thus once again the Commonwealth is being denied a fair trial by the Plaintiff due to this vendetta against xEndeavour.

Thus respectfully the Commonwealth asks that the Court removes the charges against xEndeavour from this suit and ask the Plaintiff to refile those charges as a separate suit.

DATED: This 25th day of October 2022

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 2

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

In the case that previous Motion to Dismiss is accepted, the Commonwealth moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. This complaint was originally filed in the Federal Court, and when the Judge would not do as the Plaintiff wished the Plaintiff tacked on the charges mentioned in the previous Motion to Dismiss to give it jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, thus without the charges referencing the xEndeavour the jurisdiction of this case belongs in the Federal Court and should be dismissed and refiled there.

2. Further to the point that this case should be dismissed without the charges referencing xEndeavour, because of those charges this case has been tainted and the Commonwealth not granted a fair trial due to the chaos around this case due to this fact. Thus respectfully the Commonwealth alleges a mistrial and asks for the opportunity to do this case properly.

DATED: This 25th day of October 2022

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 3

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

In the event that the second motion to dismiss is not accepted the Commonwealth moves that the sections of the complaint referencing undoing of the changes by the ‘Department Reform Act’ in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. At the time this case was filed in the Supreme Court as far as I am aware all of the changes outlined in the ‘Department Reform Act’ had either not been implemented or rolled back if they had. This is due to the fact that the Commonwealth & xEndeavour realized the mistake and set about rectifying it.

2. Thus the Plaintiff is asking for a Relief that has already been done. Therefore in asking for this there is no legal intent to this Relief and thus it is frivolous.

DATED: This 25th day of October 2022

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 4

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

In the event that the second motion to dismiss is not accepted the Commonwealth moves that the first Prayer for Relief in this complaint be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The first Prayer for Relief states that ‘1. The Department Reform Act should be declared unconstitutional.’, however as the court has pointed out “The Department Reform Act will not be reversed as it has satisfied 2 out of the 3 requirements needed for passage and to be put into effect.”. Therefore essentially the Court has already ruled on this matter in acknowledging that the Act will not be reversed as the referendum was underway, if the court has already stated it will not be reversed there is no need to further argue this point.

DATED: This 25th day of October 2022

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 5

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

In the event that the first, third and fourth motions to dismiss are accepted the Commonwealth moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. There are no remaining Prayers for Relief. The goal of the lawsuit, that the Government follow the legal procedure, has been achieved. Well done.

As a final note the Commonwealth would like to highlight that while the Plaintiff might feel the need for there to be some level of punishment to be made for this mistake, whether they are right or wrong, this Court is not the place to do it. The House has already passed a Censure in the Speaker xEndeavour and any further actions it might want to take should be made there - not in the Court.

DATED: This 25th 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 25th day of October 2022

 

[End]

AMICUS BRIEF

Since apparently I am not part of this trial where I am being charged with treason, I will file an Amicus Brief.

A democratic system of government with a system of checks and balances is underpinned by the constitution. The constitution is the highest legal document in the country. The constitution sets out three branches of government which all play a unique role in the operation of our government, particularly in elections. This is why the Supreme Court acts as the court of disputed returns, a body which reviews the results of disputed elections and referendums.

(1) The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns.​

​

Furthermore, the Supreme Court also interprets the laws as per its constitutional duties.

The‌ ‌Judicial‌ ‌arm‌ ‌of‌ ‌Government,‌ ‌consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌District‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌Federal Court,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌​

interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌ ‌​

This establishes a very thorough body of review. The Supreme Court's recent actions have not been that of review, rather, the Supreme Court has been actively making illegal and unconstitutional court orders against the constitutional duties of other branches of Government. The Constitution provides that, in order for a complex change bill to pass into law, it must satisfy the requirements set out in the Constitution. This constitutionally charges the Speaker of the House of Representatives with being the returning officer to carry out referendums.

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.​

​

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

​

A supermajority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.​

​

Presidential Assent or Veto Override.​

The Supreme Court draws its powers from the Constitution as a body of review and as an interpreter of the law. While I acknowledge convention surrounding court orders in enabling the Supreme Court to fulfil its role, the Supreme Court has overstepped in ordering a constitutional process be 'paused' in Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and then proceeding to charge the Speaker for Contempt of Court for failing to comply.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's integrity has been brought into question through its handling of the Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 case. Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 was originally filed in the Federal Court as Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 87. When the Federal Court ruled against the plaintiff on a number of motions, the plaintiff dropped their case in the Federal Court and refiled it in the Supreme Court. In order to justify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff tacked on a charge of Treason against the Speaker of the House for failing to comply with the Court's unconstitutional orders. The Supreme Court then went on to do the complete opposite of the the Federal Court in denying parties who had been implicated in the case the ability to respond.

The Supreme Court is in breach of the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act in hearing the case, which outlines that Criminal cases are brought on by charges laid by the State or in appeal to the State.

​

(1) The Court of Redmont hears all non-constitutional legal matters in the first instance and is the appellate court for criminal charges and civil actions. It is presided over by a single Judge. Lawsuits are made in the Courthouse forum. Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).​

Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act.

(1) Any new crimes may be cited as to whether they are to be considered a Indictable Offence or a Summary Offence. If the crime is not cited as either respective classification, it is to be automatically assumed as a Summary Offence.​

​

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has effectively allowed the Speaker of the House to be charged with Treason in a civil case by someone other than the state.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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 defence.​

Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf.

​

The department is charged with legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government. The department is charged with the employment of Commonwealth Prosecutors and Legal Officers. The Department of Legal Affairs is to act in the best interests of the Government. The Department will act ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction. The Department oversees Freedom of Information requests. The Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs is the Attorney General and will be referred to in an official capacity as the Attorney General.​

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections for counsel in defending themselves. The Supreme Court assumed that the person implicated sought automatically representation from the State. The reality is, the State is also a defendant in this case, and the State and the Speaker may have different views, therefore it is not in the interest of both parties to share representation.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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 defence.​

This court has been partaking in ex-parte communications. Whether about the case or not, this is evidence of a lack of judicial integrity on one way communications. Coincidentally, they both left VC together very quickly after I got online.

​

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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 defence.​

I have been denied a fair trial in Court.

I have been denied representation in Court on several occasions.

This lawsuit is illegal and has no legal standing as a criminal case.

The Court does not have the authority to issue court orders that prevent another branch of Government's constitutional duties.

This lawsuit does not meet the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

It's time to recognise that the notion of a fair and impartial outcome in this case is far gone.

As a former Chief Justice and long-time lawyer, I am issuing a scathing review on one of the most corrupt, unconstitutional, and politically motivated cases I have ever seen.

If anyone is to be charged with treason in any case, it is the Justices upon this bench.

 

[Krix]

Under the constitution, I have a right to a fair trial.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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.

Thus far I have had a request to respond to the accusation denied in a trial to which I am criminally implicated in.

I have not had the option of defending myself against criminal charges in a lawsuit that I have no representation in, rather the court has assumed that my representation is in the State. The state is here to defend itself against the civil claims for relief. I am here to defend myself from criminal charges.

This lawsuit must be severed into two so that It can be submitted correctly by the prosecuting body as a criminal trial and a civil trial against the state so that I am afforded a fair trial.

If I am not afforded the opportunity to respond, as the returning officer for the referendum I request to file an amicus brief.

Amicus briefs are rarely denied, particularly for parties to a case, and it would be an unreasonable precedent for the court to continue to deny such a request, let alone charge someone for requesting a voice in court proceedings that they are party to.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for responding in this court forum without being summoned.

Under the constitution, I have a right to a fair trial.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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.

Thus far I have had a request to respond to the accusation denied in a trial to which I am criminally implicated in.

I have not had the option of defending myself against criminal charges in a lawsuit that I have no representation in, rather the court has assumed that my representation is in the State. The state is here to defend itself against the civil claims for relief. I am here to defend myself from criminal charges.

This lawsuit must be severed into two so that It can be submitted correctly by the prosecuting body as a criminal trial and a civil trial against the state so that I am afforded a fair trial.

If I am not afforded the opportunity to respond, as the returning officer for the referendum I request to file an amicus brief.

Amicus briefs are rarely denied, particularly for parties to a case, and it would be an unreasonable precedent for the court to continue to deny such a request, let alone charge someone for requesting a voice in court proceedings that they are party to.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for responding in this court forum without being summoned.

AMICUS BRIEF

Since apparently I am not part of this trial where I am being charged with treason, I will file an Amicus Brief.

A democratic system of government with a system of checks and balances is underpinned by the constitution. The constitution is the highest legal document in the country. The constitution sets out three branches of government which all play a unique role in the operation of our government, particularly in elections. This is why the Supreme Court acts as the court of disputed returns, a body which reviews the results of disputed elections and referendums.

(1) The Supreme Court of Redmont is to act as the Court of Disputed Returns.​

​

Furthermore, the Supreme Court also interprets the laws as per its constitutional duties.

The‌ ‌Judicial‌ ‌arm‌ ‌of‌ ‌Government,‌ ‌consisting‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌District‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌Federal Court,‌ ‌and‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court,‌ ‌​

interpret‌ ‌the‌ ‌law‌ ‌as‌ ‌written‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌legislature‌ ‌and‌ ‌administered‌ ‌by‌ ‌the‌ ‌Executive.‌ ‌​

This establishes a very thorough body of review. The Supreme Court's recent actions have not been that of review, rather, the Supreme Court has been actively making illegal and unconstitutional court orders against the constitutional duties of other branches of Government. The Constitution provides that, in order for a complex change bill to pass into law, it must satisfy the requirements set out in the Constitution. This constitutionally charges the Speaker of the House of Representatives with being the returning officer to carry out referendums.

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.​

​

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

​

A supermajority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.​

​

Presidential Assent or Veto Override.​

The Supreme Court draws its powers from the Constitution as a body of review and as an interpreter of the law. While I acknowledge convention surrounding court orders in enabling the Supreme Court to fulfil its role, the Supreme Court has overstepped in ordering a constitutional process be 'paused' in Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 and then proceeding to charge the Speaker for Contempt of Court for failing to comply.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's integrity has been brought into question through its handling of the Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 case. Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 20 was originally filed in the Federal Court as Matthew100x & xLayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 87. When the Federal Court ruled against the plaintiff on a number of motions, the plaintiff dropped their case in the Federal Court and refiled it in the Supreme Court. In order to justify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff tacked on a charge of Treason against the Speaker of the House for failing to comply with the Court's unconstitutional orders. The Supreme Court then went on to do the complete opposite of the the Federal Court in denying parties who had been implicated in the case the ability to respond.

The Supreme Court is in breach of the Constitution and the Judicial Standards Act in hearing the case, which outlines that Criminal cases are brought on by charges laid by the State or in appeal to the State.

​

(1) The Court of Redmont hears all non-constitutional legal matters in the first instance and is the appellate court for criminal charges and civil actions. It is presided over by a single Judge. Lawsuits are made in the Courthouse forum. Lawsuits can be either civil cases (a dispute between two parties, usually seeking compensation) or criminal cases (an appeal to the state against a charge, or a case filed by the state regarding a criminal act).​

Treason is a summary criminal offence as provided by the Crime Severity Act.

(1) Any new crimes may be cited as to whether they are to be considered a Indictable Offence or a Summary Offence. If the crime is not cited as either respective classification, it is to be automatically assumed as a Summary Offence.​

​

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has effectively allowed the Speaker of the House to be charged with Treason in a civil case by someone other than the state.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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 defence.​

Constitutionally, the Department of Legal affairs is the only entity permitted to prosecute on the Government's behalf.

​

The department is charged with legally defending, investigating, and prosecuting on behalf of the Government. The department is charged with the employment of Commonwealth Prosecutors and Legal Officers. The Department of Legal Affairs is to act in the best interests of the Government. The Department will act ethically and lawfully at the President’s direction. The Department oversees Freedom of Information requests. The Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs is the Attorney General and will be referred to in an official capacity as the Attorney General.​

An adversarial legal system relies on the constitutional protections for counsel in defending themselves. The Supreme Court assumed that the person implicated sought automatically representation from the State. The reality is, the State is also a defendant in this case, and the State and the Speaker may have different views, therefore it is not in the interest of both parties to share representation.

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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 defence.​

This court has been partaking in ex-parte communications. Whether about the case or not, this is evidence of a lack of judicial integrity on one way communications. Coincidentally, they both left VC together very quickly after I got online.

View attachment 29368​

​

IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speedy and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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 defence.​

I have been denied a fair trial in Court.

I have been denied representation in Court on several occasions.

This lawsuit is illegal and has no legal standing as a criminal case.

The Court does not have the authority to issue court orders that prevent another branch of Government's constitutional duties.

This lawsuit does not meet the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

It's time to recognise that the notion of a fair and impartial outcome in this case is far gone.

As a former Chief Justice and long-time lawyer, I am issuing a scathing review on one of the most corrupt, unconstitutional, and politically motivated cases I have ever seen.

If anyone is to be charged with treason in any case, it is the Justices upon this bench.

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for responding in this court forum without being summoned.

In total the Department of Justice is hereby ordered to charge xEndeavour with 3 counts of contempt of court collectively.


Contempt of Court Fine Summary
50 Contempt of Court Violations
7 - Speaking without being called upon to do so
43 - hours having failed to follow the Court authorised injunction and Order to provide screenshots of voters to the SCR.

The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont hereby orders the Department of Justice to fine Speaker @xEndeavour the following amount and sentence him to following jail time.
Total Fine Amount: 122,000
Jail Time: 1 hours

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

Matthew100x & xLayzur
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 1

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

The Commonwealth moves that the section of the complaint that makes reference to xEndeavour in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Constitution lists the following as a citizens rights “IX. Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and 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.” and “XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.”

2. Both of these rights, in allowing for a fair trial and equality before and under the law, give a citizen the right to represent their own interests in a court of law. By unilaterally making this suit against the Commonwealth and xEndeavour the Plaintiff is denying xEndeavour their rights as xEndeavour cannot represent their own interests when this suit is made against the Commonwealth.

3. Furthermore by binding xEndeavour’s treason charges to this case the court is also denying the rights of the Commonwealth to a fair trial as well. Myself as Attorney General represents the Commonwealth as a whole, not the individuals in government for their own personal legal issues. Thus unless these charges against xEndeavour are removed from this suit the court is mandating that one individual be forced to represent the interests of another.

4. The original filling for this case was made in the Federal Court, however when the judge would not grant the emergency injunction it was quickly closed and the Plaintiff rushed to the Supreme Court and tacked on the Treason charges to grant jurisdiction. Thus once again the Commonwealth is being denied a fair trial by the Plaintiff due to this vendetta against xEndeavour.

Thus respectfully the Commonwealth asks that the Court removes the charges against xEndeavour from this suit and ask the Plaintiff to refile those charges as a separate suit.

DATED: This 25th day of October 2022

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 2

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

In the case that previous Motion to Dismiss is accepted, the Commonwealth moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. This complaint was originally filed in the Federal Court, and when the Judge would not do as the Plaintiff wished the Plaintiff tacked on the charges mentioned in the previous Motion to Dismiss to give it jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, thus without the charges referencing the xEndeavour the jurisdiction of this case belongs in the Federal Court and should be dismissed and refiled there.

2. Further to the point that this case should be dismissed without the charges referencing xEndeavour, because of those charges this case has been tainted and the Commonwealth not granted a fair trial due to the chaos around this case due to this fact. Thus respectfully the Commonwealth alleges a mistrial and asks for the opportunity to do this case properly.

DATED: This 25th day of October 2022

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 3

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

In the event that the second motion to dismiss is not accepted the Commonwealth moves that the sections of the complaint referencing undoing of the changes by the ‘Department Reform Act’ in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. At the time this case was filed in the Supreme Court as far as I am aware all of the changes outlined in the ‘Department Reform Act’ had either not been implemented or rolled back if they had. This is due to the fact that the Commonwealth & xEndeavour realized the mistake and set about rectifying it.

2. Thus the Plaintiff is asking for a Relief that has already been done. Therefore in asking for this there is no legal intent to this Relief and thus it is frivolous.

DATED: This 25th day of October 2022

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 4

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

In the event that the second motion to dismiss is not accepted the Commonwealth moves that the first Prayer for Relief in this complaint be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The first Prayer for Relief states that ‘1. The Department Reform Act should be declared unconstitutional.’, however as the court has pointed out “The Department Reform Act will not be reversed as it has satisfied 2 out of the 3 requirements needed for passage and to be put into effect.”. Therefore essentially the Court has already ruled on this matter in acknowledging that the Act will not be reversed as the referendum was underway, if the court has already stated it will not be reversed there is no need to further argue this point.

DATED: This 25th day of October 2022

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 5

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

In the event that the first, third and fourth motions to dismiss are accepted the Commonwealth moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. There are no remaining Prayers for Relief. The goal of the lawsuit, that the Government follow the legal procedure, has been achieved. Well done.

As a final note the Commonwealth would like to highlight that while the Plaintiff might feel the need for there to be some level of punishment to be made for this mistake, whether they are right or wrong, this Court is not the place to do it. The House has already passed a Censure in the Speaker xEndeavour and any further actions it might want to take should be made there - not in the Court.

DATED: This 25th 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 25th day of October 2022

Supreme Court Review of Motions to Dismiss
1. The Supreme Court agrees with the defense that Speaker xEndeavour should indeed be afforded the opportunity to choose his own representation or represent himself in court as the constitution outlines in XI. The Supreme Court therefore hereby strikes down any charges made against Speaker xEndeavour from this case being in: Claims for Relief 6. and Prayer for Relief 4. Should the Plaintiff wish to pursue these charges against Speaker xEndeavour they must do so by filing a separate case.

2. The Supreme Court recognizes the argument brought forward by the defense, however does not believe that the case should be declared a mistrial as court proceedings have been followed and neither party has delivered their opening statements, therefore Instead the supreme court has determined it best that this case be contined in the Federal Court as the charges against Speaker xEndeavour no longer require it to be heard in the Supreme Court.

3. The Speaker was directed via court authorized injunction to halt the referendum for the Department Reform Act mid voting. Due this directive from the Supreme Court having been failed to be carried out by the Speaker, the Supreme Court has no way of knowing who voted after the point the injunction was granted, therefore the Referendum on the Department Reform Act must be declared invalid and reheld following the conclusion of court proceedings.

4. 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, Additionally this referendum will not be carried out until the conclusion of court proceedings as to ensure all facts regarding the constitutional question are addressed before the Supreme Court.

5. The Supreme Court will allow the Federal Court to rule on this as it hears constitutional challenges in the first instance.

Therefore the Supreme Court is rejecting this motion to dismiss and ordering the plantiff to refile this case in the Federal Court with an updated claim and prayer for relief.

 

[End]

I will not comply with paying fines:

1. This was a frivolous case filed in the Supreme Court which had no legal grounds to be filed in the Court. Therefore, the court cannot make judgement on it. The court itself agreed that it was an illegal filing and that my constitutional rights were violated in hearing this trial without representation.

2. I will not pay a fine where I did not get the opportunity to be recognised or represented,

3. The Supreme Court cannot interrupt the constitutional duties of the Speakership.

4. All Justices are required to post their verdict.

I will be posting another referendum under protest, not because the Supreme Court has ordered it, but because I am committed to passing the bill in the path of least resistance and in the quickest time.|

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Attorney General would strongly urge the court to reconsider its position in its belief that the Attorney General has committed perjury, a disbarrable offense. This case, which is a simple open and shut one, has turned into a circus and now the court is contributing to that circusry. This is a pathetic case with no legal standing that can be Motioned to be Dismissed for 3 different reasons, however the Attorney General has not been able to do so because I’ve had to deal with this circus, both in this court and outside of it. Additionally to that we expect the Supreme Court to be the mediators in the room, however now they are destroying the good faith and belief that I have in them by charging me for a crime that I did not commit, and one I take very, very seriously indeed. I cannot perform my Constitutional duty to represent the State in these conditions - having to double guess every sentence in this case, or any case henceforth, in case the court decides that I am intentionally lying to them when making a simple statement I believe to be fact, the Court today has opened Pandora’s Box and they have a very finite window in which to try and close it again.

1. The crime of perjury is stated as ‘Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government shall be considered Perjury.’

2. The statement made by myself "none of its changes have been implemented" is factually correct to the best of the knowledge of the Attorney General.

i) To the best of my knowledge, no ‘Foreign Officer’ positions in the DoS have been advertised or recruited.

ii) To the best of my knowledge, no ‘Recruits - Trainee Officers’ in the DoJ have been changed.

iii) To the best of my knowledge, the DEC is still the existing government Department in name on Discord and on the Forums, no Department of Education has formally been created and no Secretary appointed to that role.

iv) To the best of my knowledge, the DPA has not formally changed the job title of Media Adviser to Media Officer and have not yet given up their responsibilities with archiving and touring.

v) To the best of my knowledge, no ‘Logistics Manager’ positions in the DoI have been advertised or recruited.

vi) I know for a fact that none of these changes have been implemented within the DLA.

vii) The constitutional document has not been updated with the proposed changes.

3. To implement something means to do it, all the government has done - once again to the best of my knowledge - is announce that the changes were going to be implemented, however on being made aware that the process was not legally followed the Government halted any implementation. Announcing something is going to happen is not implementing it, if I had a plan to put a pickaxe through someone's skull and announced my intentions to do so I have not implemented the plan to put that pickaxe through someone’s skull, because me stating I want to do that does not compel the pickaxe of its own free will to find a skull to embed itself in.

4. No changes as prescribed in the ‘Department Reform Act’ have been implemented, to the best of my knowledge. This court cannot prove that I knowingly lied to them, because I have not. A post stating the changes does not equal implementation as far as I believe. Perjury is a criminal charge, one that can cause a Lawyer to be disbarred, and therefore must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not thrown around like candy.

I urge you, end this circus now and let me get on with doing my job. I will stress that my good faith in this court is being tested, but I will forgive a misunderstanding in the language I used and return to that position of good faith to bring this sorry affair to a close.

DATED: This 23rd day of October 2022

Your honors, you have not ruled on this motion to reconsider made nearly a week ago. I have given you 24 hours after you ruled on the case out of consideration but now I believe you have forgotten about it.

 

[Krix]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Attorney General would strongly urge the court to reconsider its position in its belief that the Attorney General has committed perjury, a disbarrable offense. This case, which is a simple open and shut one, has turned into a circus and now the court is contributing to that circusry. This is a pathetic case with no legal standing that can be Motioned to be Dismissed for 3 different reasons, however the Attorney General has not been able to do so because I’ve had to deal with this circus, both in this court and outside of it. Additionally to that we expect the Supreme Court to be the mediators in the room, however now they are destroying the good faith and belief that I have in them by charging me for a crime that I did not commit, and one I take very, very seriously indeed. I cannot perform my Constitutional duty to represent the State in these conditions - having to double guess every sentence in this case, or any case henceforth, in case the court decides that I am intentionally lying to them when making a simple statement I believe to be fact, the Court today has opened Pandora’s Box and they have a very finite window in which to try and close it again.

1. The crime of perjury is stated as ‘Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government shall be considered Perjury.’

2. The statement made by myself "none of its changes have been implemented" is factually correct to the best of the knowledge of the Attorney General.

i) To the best of my knowledge, no ‘Foreign Officer’ positions in the DoS have been advertised or recruited.

ii) To the best of my knowledge, no ‘Recruits - Trainee Officers’ in the DoJ have been changed.

iii) To the best of my knowledge, the DEC is still the existing government Department in name on Discord and on the Forums, no Department of Education has formally been created and no Secretary appointed to that role.

iv) To the best of my knowledge, the DPA has not formally changed the job title of Media Adviser to Media Officer and have not yet given up their responsibilities with archiving and touring.

v) To the best of my knowledge, no ‘Logistics Manager’ positions in the DoI have been advertised or recruited.

vi) I know for a fact that none of these changes have been implemented within the DLA.

vii) The constitutional document has not been updated with the proposed changes.

3. To implement something means to do it, all the government has done - once again to the best of my knowledge - is announce that the changes were going to be implemented, however on being made aware that the process was not legally followed the Government halted any implementation. Announcing something is going to happen is not implementing it, if I had a plan to put a pickaxe through someone's skull and announced my intentions to do so I have not implemented the plan to put that pickaxe through someone’s skull, because me stating I want to do that does not compel the pickaxe of its own free will to find a skull to embed itself in.

4. No changes as prescribed in the ‘Department Reform Act’ have been implemented, to the best of my knowledge. This court cannot prove that I knowingly lied to them, because I have not. A post stating the changes does not equal implementation as far as I believe. Perjury is a criminal charge, one that can cause a Lawyer to be disbarred, and therefore must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not thrown around like candy.

I urge you, end this circus now and let me get on with doing my job. I will stress that my good faith in this court is being tested, but I will forgive a misunderstanding in the language I used and return to that position of good faith to bring this sorry affair to a close.

DATED: This 23rd day of October 2022

The Supreme Court is hereby rejecting the defences motion to reconsider.

as Attorney General you do not represent yourself but the Government as a whole and when you speak on behalf of the Government there is an expectation that you are aware of the facts of the case.
This includes government announcements your superior the President makes, the announcement was made publicly and there is an onus on you as the representative of the government to know the facts of the case and the actions of the government to avoid giving false information to court.

 

[Krix]

I will not comply with paying fines:

1. This was a frivolous case filed in the Supreme Court which had no legal grounds to be filed in the Court. Therefore, the court cannot make judgement on it. The court itself agreed that it was an illegal filing and that my constitutional rights were violated in hearing this trial without representation.

2. I will not pay a fine where I did not get the opportunity to be recognised or represented,

3. The Supreme Court cannot interrupt the constitutional duties of the Speakership.

4. All Justices are required to post their verdict.

I will be posting another referendum under protest, not because the Supreme Court has ordered it, but because I am committed to passing the bill in the path of least resistance and in the quickest time.|

I hereby find Speaker @xEndeavour guilty of contempt of court, and hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him the proper amount. This is for responding in this court forum without being summoned.

 

[Krix]

The Supreme Court is hereby rejecting the defences motion to reconsider.

as Attorney General you do not represent yourself but the Government as a whole and when you speak on behalf of the Government there is an expectation that you are aware of the facts of the case.
This includes government announcements your superior the President makes, the announcement was made publicly and there is an onus on you as the representative of the government to know the facts of the case and the actions of the government to avoid giving false information to court.

RECONSIDERATION
The Supreme Court has convened and collectively agreed to sustain your motion to reconsider on the perjury charge issued against the defendants representation.

OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Court came to this decision as it wishes to establish the precedent that perjury must first be brought before the court through an objection from the opposing party.

In addition to this supposed “false information” given to the court as the grounds for charging perjury must be presented to the court in the objection or Already exist in evidence.

The evidence must have been known to the person accused with having committed perjury. Direct proof must be provided aswell (a screenshot of a reaction or a response elsewhere acknowledging the existence of the evidence). If there is not proof of this and the party accused pleads ignorance due to perjury stating; “Giving knowingly incorrect testimony to the Government shall be considered Perjury.”
The Court may request testimony from the party accused and make their rulling following this to determine if the information was known to the party accused, additional evidence may be submitted at the discretion of the presiding judge.

The other instance of perjury additionally stands, this is where an individual contradicts a previous statement they have made in court.

The Court apologises for any inconvenience, have a nice day.