Lawsuit: Adjourned Milkcrack v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Milkcrack

Milkcrack

Peasent
Supporter
Aventura Resident
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
donator3
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Messages
393
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Milkcrack
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 11th of January, the president posted a declaration for the election of the President of the Senate. There exists no legal framework for a new election of the President of the Senate to be called, when the sitting President of the Senate has not been removed.

At the time of this declaration, I was still discussing the legality of the election, and decided to declare in order to mitigate potential damages as a new election could be interpreted as a de facto vote of no confidence should it favour a different candidate.

Myself and Unitymaster, both obtained the support of 3 senators meaning that there was a tie. A vote of no confidence requires a supermajority meaning that the vote of no confidence failed and that I remained as President of the Senate.

While I was waiting for the President to announce the results, the vice-president opened a ticket with staff to be added to the congressional discord channel hosting the election. Given the status of the vice-president, staff obliged with the request and added the Vice-president.

Subsequently, the Vice-President declared that he had tied-break in favour of Unitymaster and quickly announced the fact in government-announcements.

The constitution clearly states that the President of the senate can only be removed by resigning or a vote of no confidence. Neither has occurred, in addition to that even if the election was legal the Vice-President had no authority to tie-break as the constitution clearly states the president is responsible for casting a tie-breaking vote in the election for the president of the senate. The Standing orders also clearly state the President is charged with announcing the winner of the election.

I am complaining against the commonwealth of redmont because the commonwealth undertook 3 actions that are contrary to law, any of which makes the election of Unitymaster to the position of President of the Senate and the subsequent announcement invalid.

I. PARTIES
1. Milkcrack
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On the 11th of January approximately 17:27 GMT+1 the president posted an announcement for the instigation of the election of the president of the senate.
2. On the 12th of January approximately 14:35 GMT+1 The President posted an announcement for the senate to vote on the 3 candidates that were declared: Unitymaster, Snowy_Heart and Milkcrack.
3. 3 Senators voted in favour of Unitymaster and 3 senators voted in favour of Milkcrack for President of the Senate resulting in a tie.
4. 3 senators does not constitute a supermajority in the senate and therefore a motion of no confidence did not pass.
5. The vice-president trough staff added himself to the #Senate-president-elections channel on the congressional discord and reacted with an emoji indicating his support for Unitymaster.
6. The Vice-president posted an announcement in #Government-announcements that Unitymaster has been elected as president of the senate.
7. The Law that in part controls Section 4. of the Constitution is the Senate Care Act.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By posting the announcement that the President of the Senate election happened was not in line with section 4 of the constitution,
“In order to remove the ‘President of The Senate’, they must resign from the position or lose to a vote of no confidence from the incumbent Senators (supermajority).”
Click to expand...
There exists no legal framework for the President of the Senate to be removed by simply calling another election. The supermajority requirement needed to oust the existing president of the senate has not been met. Therefore, my removal was therefore illegal and unconstitutional.
2. Accordingly, the vote for the tiebreak was illegal under section 4. of the constitution,
“Should the election for the President of the Senate result in a tie, the President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote.”
Click to expand...
The tiebreaking vote to decide the President of the Senate should have gone to the President, not to the Vice-President. While the Vice-President has the right to tie-break bills, the President of The Senate Election is not a bill and therefore the Vice-President would not have the right to break the tie. Therefore, if claim for relief 1. is insufficient to restore me to the office of President of the Senate, the tiebreaking act of the Vice-President should be undone as it was illegal and unconstitutional.
3. The plaintiff believes that the actions by the Vice-President were criminal and as a victim of these criminal action requests that the commonwealth discharge their duty to hold criminals accountable. The plaintiff asserts that the Vice-President has committed the following criminal actions:

1 - Electoral Fraud
Any player caught rigging/meddling with an election through, but not limited to: the use of alternate accounts, bribery, and or threats.

Per Offence: Courts may order up to $25,000 in fines + issue a temporary or permanent barring from holding public office.

Vice-President Nacho rigged and meddled with the election by abusing his position as Vice-President.

Rigging is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as followed: to arrange or influence something in a dishonest way in order to get the result that you wanted.

Against Section 4. of the constitution, by acting in an illegal and/or unconstitutional manner, Nacho attempted to rig an election through casting a tie-breaking vote in spite of provisions stating that the President breaks the tie in a President of the Senate Election.

Meddling is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as followed;
to become involved in something that does not concern you.

The Vice-President opened a staff ticket with the request to grant himself permission to a channel no vice president has ever had permission to, for the purpose of casting a vote he was not allowed to cast. In the long line of tradition, the Vice-president has never been added to congressional discord channels in order to cast a tie-breaking vote, only on request of the President or the POS has this happened. Therefore it's clear that the Vice-President involved himself in the channel and gained access to information that did not concern him. To benefit themselves.

2 - Corruption
Corruption is defined as follows The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else.

By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves. Vice-President Nacho used his position as Vice-president to gain access to a channel he was not permitted in, and announce a tie-break in favour of his preferred candidate for POS, this action was inconsistent with official duties and the rights of the president to announce the winner.

This action was done to benefit UnityMaster, knowing that his announcement and tie-breaking emoji would prompt staff to give unity the rules. Having the roles and your opponent being removed from their position, by de facto makes the person the POS in practice, although not legally, this is an unfair benefit to UnityMaster.

3 - Treason
The act of a 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.

Vice-President Nacho used his position as Vice-president to undermine the stability of the government of Redmont. Knowing that announcing UnityMaster as POS, would cause instability in the government and senate. This action was done with malice. The purpose of announcing UnityMaster was to send a message to the actual POS Milkcrack, that his ruling on the president's impeachment was not in line with the views of Vice-President Nacho end Senator End. By inflicting this unstable state on the senate it sent a clear message to POS Milkcrack that his actions were not in line with their views.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant::
The President of the Senate election be declared null and void.
The announcement declaring Unitymaster President of the Senate be declared null and void.
The Plaintiff be restored to the position of President of the Senate.
For the court to clarify that the president is charged with casting a tie-breaking vote in the President of the Senate election.
For the court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Department of Legal Affairs to investigate the vice-president for Electoral Fraud, Corruption and Treason.


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 17th day of January 2024
EDIT: Fixed formatting, spelling errors, sloppy wording, etc.
 
Last edited:
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The honourable chief justice and may it please the court.

On the 13th of January the Vice-President announced that Unitymaster had won the President of the Senate Election, in my complaint I explained why this was done wrongfully and illegally. If the Vice-President believed he had a legal right to cast a tie-breaking vote, he should have gone trough the courts which he did not. I ask that the court temporarily suspends the announcement made by the Vice-President until the end of the court-case and allow me to continue my position as President of the Senate as there was no legal reason for me to be removed from this position.
 
Last edited:
REQUEST TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

In order for the court to make an informed decision, prior to the emergency injunction being ruled on, I'd like to request the opportunity to file a (friendly) amicus brief, addressing the use of a writ of mandamus, the legal importance of constitutional convention, the legal importance the peaceful transition of power has to our democracy, and of and the evolution of executive power in the Senate.
 
Last edited:
REQUEST TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

Given the urgent nature of the emergency injunction, I understand if the court is unable to hear the amicus brief until after it has been ruled on. However, I would like to request the opportunity to file an (even more friendly) amicus brief, addressing the legal importance of constitutional convention, the legal importance of the peaceful transition of power, and of the evolution of executive power in the Senate.

While other parties in this case have a direct interest in the outcome of the Senate election, I do not as I am not a sitting Senator. As a long-standing retired politician, I believe that I can speak to the history of how the law has changed.
 
Milkcrack said:
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The honourable chief justice and may it please the court.

On the 13th of January the Vice-President announced that Unitymaster had won the President of the Senate Election, in my complaint I explained why this was done wrongfully and illegally. If the Vice-President believed he had a legal right to cast a tie-breaking vote, he should have gone trough the courts which he did not. I ask that the court temporarily suspends the announcement made by the Vice-President until the end of the court-case and allow me to continue my position as President of the Senate as there was no legal reason for me to be removed from this position.
Click to expand...
Your honours, I respectfully withdraw this emergency injunction. It has been a week since I pointed out this issue and filed the first emergency injunction. It is clear that at this point in time, the court is unable to provide a stop-gap measure. Therefore I request that the defence be summoned, so we can move on with the trial.
 
Both requests to file an amicus brief are accepted and will be heard before a ruling on the emergency injunction. Please file them within 72 hours from now.
 
Thank you, your honour. I come to provide my knowledge as an expert who has been involved in the legislative process for a significant period of time. I have no interest in the outcome of this case as I am not a sitting Senator.

First I want to provide my take on the two clauses in contention.

There are two clauses that tell us about tie-breaking authority within the Constitution.

"The Senate is presided over by the President of the Senate, who is responsible for maintaining the good order and efficient running of the chamber, as well as chairing meetings, facilitating the voting of bills, and ensuring the timely passage of Bills to the President for Approval. The Vice President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote should a tie arise."
[§1.6. Constitution]
Click to expand...
I have highlighted some of the important text in this clause. This is the text that the defence will likely argue provides justification for the Vice President (VP) to break ties in the election of the President of the Senate (POS). However, this clause in the constitution refers to the operation of the chamber and the passage of bills, clearly indicating the relationship of tie-breaking to be for bills and motions.

The Senate shall internally elect a senator to the role of "President of The Senate" whose power it shall be to preside over the Senate. In order to remove the "President of The Senate", they must resign from the position or lose to a vote of no confidence from the incumbent Senators (supermajority). Should the election for the President of the Senate result in a tie, the President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote. The President's of the Senate’s first order of business is to amend or reaffirm the standing orders of the Senate. [§1.4. Constitution]
Click to expand...
As we can see in this clause of the constitution, the highlighted text shows that the focus of this area is the election of the POS. Unlike the previous clause that referred to bills and chamber operations, this portion of the constitution explicitly defines the process for electing the POS.

Even if one clause came after another, it is irrelevant. Both of them are portions of the constitution with different purposes.

Textual Interpretation:
If the court is interpreting the law in the literal sense of its text, then they should interpret §1.4. Constitution as the explicit power granted to the President given it relates directly to "the election for the President of the Senate"

Pragmatic/Contextual Interpretation:
If the court is interpreting the law in terms of the practical consequences or the context of its enactment, then there are some considerations. The decision to confer tie-breaking authority upon the President in the election for the POS, and to limit the VP to only bills could also be seen as aligning with the principle of separation of powers.

For instance, the Speaker of the House tie-breaks bills, but the President tie-breaks Speaker elections. The Speaker doesn't tie-break both bills and the Speaker election. Each tie-breaking responsibility is distinctly separate.

History of the Senate:
Political Context: One side felt the VP should break all ties and chair the Senate, the others felt that the VP should be out of it altogether. Ultimately, after a range of historical changes, a middle-ground was met where VP powers are diminished but still prevalent in the Senate. Below is a rough timeline.
  • The VP was the chair of the Senate, conferring authority to the President Pro Tempore (PPT).
  • Over time, the PPT was phased out for a more independent Senate, getting rid of the VP's constitutional role and establishing a new POS role.
  • The POS was independent for awhile, until there was a push to re-add the VP. There are some key differences from the VP's original constitutional role. Under this new VP-POS system, the VP had less power over the chamber, particularly over the role of chairing the Senate

History of Presidential Tiebreaking
Ever since the creation of the POS, the President has had the authority to hold the POS election and to tie-break in it. In fact, the President has been the only executive official who had access to the senate-pos channel prior to last week. Referring to #government-announcements on the discord, here is a list of all Presidents that have announced the winner of the POS election within the last two years (2023-24):
  • President xLayzur - announced MilkCrack as POS (November 12, 2023)
  • President LilDigiVert - announced Nacho as POS (September 11, 2023)
  • President LilDigiVert - announced Mhadsher as POS (July 11, 2023)
  • President Twixted - announced A__C as POS (May 14, 2023)
  • President Twixted - announced Vanquish as POS (March 12, 2023)
  • President Derpy - announced Void as POS (January 12, 2023)
Precedents Broken, Laws Possibly Violated
While I cannot speak to all of the Plaintiff's claims, I can say that precedents have been broken based on my analysis. The VP went out of their way to break historical precedent and to violate constitutional law by using powers that were explicitly granted to the President only.

There may be political and or personal motivation for the VP to act in this manner. It is out of the ordinary for the VP to tie-break and to request access to the pos-election channel in the first place. It should be noted that the court did once find President Consumer guilty of electoral fraud in a similar case, due to inconsistency over the management of elections.

The court found that Consumer "did not apply the same rule that allowed for him to get elected, resulting in this inconsistency" and convicted him of electoral fraud. This could relate to the government allowing the POS to be elected one way, and then the government changing with the VP deciding to hold POS elections inconsistently.

Finally: some might say whether the President or VP exercise executive power in the Senate should be redundant, but they fail to recognize the importance of this distinction. The President nor VP may always see eye to eye, and its crucial that their constitutional powers are identified. I hope that my analysis has informed the court regarding the severity of this case.
 
AMICUS BRIEF
Thank you for the opportunity to file an amicus brief. I'd like to use this brief as an opportunity to talk to the legal importance of constitutional convention. In the interests of keeping this short and to save me from double tapping what Westray has provided the court, I submit just the following:

Convention
Constitutional conventions are unwritten rules of good political behaviour that are essential for the proper functioning of the constitution. They provide stability and confidence in Redmont's system of government by ensuring that the written text of the constitution is interpreted and applied in accordance with the democratic principles and values that underpin it.

Constitutional conventions are not mere customs or courtesies that can be disregarded or violated at will. They are integral and indispensable components of the constitutional system. To ignore or breach a constitutional convention would be to undermine the spirit and substance of the constitution, and to erode the trust and legitimacy that the people have in the constitutional system.

3 - President of the Senate
(1) The Senate shall internally elect a President Pro Tempore whose only powers shall be to preside over the Senate and to become President in the event that the President, Vice President, and Speaker are all vacant simultaneously. In order to remove the President Pro Tempore’s appointment, the President Pro Tempore must resign from the position or lose to a vote of no confidence from the incumbent Senators (supermajority). Should the election for President Pro Tempore result in a tie, the President shall have the power to cast a tie breaking vote.”

Changes to:

The Senate shall internally elect a senator to the role of "President of The Senate" whose power it shall be to preside over the Senate. In order to remove the "President of The Senate", they must resign from the position or lose to a vote of no confidence from the incumbent Senators (supermajority). Should the election for the President of the Senate result in a tie, the President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote. The President's of the Senate’s first order of business is to amend or reaffirm the standing orders of the Senate.
Click to expand...

The wording of this passage of the constitution extends years into the past, beyond the office of the President of the Senate itself. The wording that defines that the PPT/POS 'must resign from the position or lose to a vote of no confidence from the incumbent Senators (supermajority)' is several years old, which I'd confidently date back to the formation of the office of the President Pro Tempore in March 2021 based on available records. Since the formation of the PPT/POS, there have been approximately 21 elections, where the Senate has elected a new presiding officer at each election. This, by convention, has always been an automatic process. Afterall, the Presiding Officer of the chamber cannot command the will of the chamber if the entirety of the chamber has not provided them with the mandate. One would perhaps consider this as an implied requirement of a new session of Congress, just as the Speakership is automatically vacated.

Our system of government has a long-held history of the use of constitutional conventions in every aspect of government. Without constitutional conventions, the constitution would be rigid, incomplete, and vulnerable to abuse by politicians who may seek to exploit gaps or ambiguities to stay in office or otherwise.

Writ of Mandamus
Perhaps an under-used court order that would be applicable to this scenario, a writ that requires the government, a government agency, corporation, or subordinate court to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty.

This order is a remedy to enforce the rule of law and protect the rights of individuals from arbitrary or unlawful actions by the executive or judicial branches. In the case that the executive has acted illegally or just made an ill-informed interpretation of the law, the courts may consider that a writ of mandamus be executed against the executive and legislature to carry out the elections in accordance with the prescribed process.

The standing orders are an active document that contain the rules of the chamber, primarily for times in which the Senate has no presiding officer. The Standing Orders are extant throughout the changeover period and are only ever updated, never annulled. I concur with Westray that the specific wording of the constitution when read in context only identified law making as a matter to which the VP is patron to tiebreaking. The Standing Orders otherwise outline that the President is the tiebreaker for the electoral matters of the POS. As such, under this situation, the election would be invalid and would need to be rerun.

On all other matters
I would concur with Westray's amicus brief in all but one concept provided. The suggestion that the member of the executive acted with malintent is a significant claim which ignores the possibility that the VP acted out of confusion or improper interpretation. I would offer to the court that there are a number of different legal views in this courtroom about the legality of the matter and that different texts are construed differently by different people.

In Summary
1. It is not in the intent or spirit of the constitution that the POS would remain in office after 50% of the Senate has retired. Convention dictates that the position is vacated and that the former POS does not have a claim on the office.
2. The court has a writ of mandamus court order available to remedy the situation and annul the election/order a new election.
3. The standing orders differ from the process of tiebreaking for bills which may have led to interpretation issues.
4. The election of Unitymaster as POS appears to have not been inline with the LSA, Constitution, nor Standing Orders.

Thank you.
 
Seal_Judiciary.png



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Attorney General is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of the MilkCrack v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 5. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​
 
Last edited:
The allotted 72 hours has now passed, and frankly the Supreme Court is disappointed. Why has the Attorney General responded to a non-witness summons with a simple "I'm present, your honor"? Why was no answer to the complaint filed?

The commonwealth has forfeited its right to file an answer to the complaint filed. I implore the commonwealth to please respond appropriately moving forward, you are in the highest court of the land, act accordingly.




We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 7 days. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.
 
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

Your honours, I would like to request the court issue a writ of quo warranto for UnityMaster to appear before the court and explain by which authority he sits as presiding officer of the senate and has put motions up for a vote even though the standing orders have not passed as they failed to receive the required simple majority.
(as all seats were occupied the simple majority standard would be more than 3 and there exists no legal framework to call the vote before this majority has been reached).

Standing Orders - Standing Orders - 23rd Congress

A BILL To Establish Standing Orders for the 23rd Congress The people of DemocracyCraft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Election...
www.democracycraft.net
 
The Supreme Court would like to express our apologies for the delay in our response in this case, due to vacations and sicknesses we have been unable to adequately tend to it until recently. We assure this will not happen again, and again apologize for the inconvenience.

The Plaintiff may offer their opening at this time, and their petition is granted. During witness testimonials UnityMaster will appear before the court to answer.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to file their opening.
 
Last edited:
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your honours the point of the motion was to temporarily suspend the powers of the person in question not to call them as a witness simply. It's clear this court has no intention of granting a temporary injunction. This case has been going on for almost a month now without any answer from the defence.

Therefore I request that the court simply come to a final verdict as it's clear the facts are undisputed.
 
Last edited:
Your Honor,
The Defense would be okay with summary judgment after opening statements.
Thank you!
Milkcrack said:
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your honours the point of the motion was to temporarily suspend the powers of the person in question not to call them as a witness simply. It's clear this court has no intention of granting a temporary injunction. This case has been going on for almost a month now without any answer from the defence.

Therefore I request that the court simply come to a final verdict as it's clear the facts are undisputed.
Click to expand...
 
Very well your honours, if the Commonwealth doesn't dispute the material facts of the case. I concede that it would be reasonable for them to still present their arguments. So I will present my opening statement prior to the ruling on the motion to summary judgment. In the hopes, it will expedite the process.

OPENING STATEMENTS
Honourable Justices of this esteemed Court,

Nowhere within our Constitution, the Legislative Standards Act, or the Standing Orders exists there a provision permitting the incumbent president to instigate a new election for the office of President of the Senate midway through the term of the current officeholder.

Indeed, the Constitution explicitly delineates the process for the removal of a President of the Senate. Only by means of resignation or a vote of no confidence by the incumbent Senators, can the President of the Senate be removed.

Senator End contends that this unauthorized election was validated through convention beyond constitutional bounds. However, ours is a nation governed by the rule of law. Every citizen retains the right to hold elected office, and the failure of a predecessor to contest an illicit election does not grant carte blanche to the government to deprive me of my right. The law unequivocally stands in my favour.

Furthermore, let us contemplate the practical ramifications. Our nation's framework is predicated on a system where the removal of government officials demands a supermajority vote, a safeguard against governmental instability. The framers of our Constitution deliberately dictated that the President of the Senate can only be removed by such a supermajority within the chamber.

A tied election resolved by a tie-breaking vote does not fulfil this supermajority prerequisite. Previous unlawful elections could be construed as de facto votes of no confidence. Even if we interpret the election as such, a 3/6 vote falls short of the stringent supermajority standard, thus nullifying any mandate to depose the incumbent.

Granting the President authority to arbitrarily call for elections undermines our constitutional framework. What would prevent them from simply appointing a new Chief Justice and displacing the incumbent?

Procedures exist, meticulously crafted procedures delineating precisely how and why an individual may be removed from office. These procedures were not adhered to.


There exists another reason why the result of the election was invalid, however.

The election President of the Senate are entirely hosted by the President. The constitution clearly states the following: Should the election for the President of the Senate result in a tie, the President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote.

This language is specific and unequivocal. Others might argue that the constitution gives the vice president the power to tie-break.

However, in creating the act establishing the general tie-breaking power of the Vice-President, the purpose was to solve the issue of bills and other motions that would otherwise go to the nay go to the VP to tie-beak.

This problem has nothing to do with the President-of-the-senate elections and was never intended to be misconstrued to remove the power of the president to cast such a tie-breaking vote.

The Vice-President exhibited a flagrant disregard for these procedures and the rule of law, exploiting their governmental position to access a channel they were not entitled to and subsequently declaring their favoured candidate as the victor in official government announcements. The vice president holds zero authority over congressional discord and possesses no mandate to declare the winner of Senate Presidential elections regardless of the interpretation of the power of the Vice-President to tie-break.

Therefore, I implore this Court to refer this egregious incident to the Department of Legal Affairs and mandate an investigation into the potentiality of these actions constituting treason, electoral fraud, and/or corruption.
 
Milkcrack said:
Very well your honours, if the Commonwealth doesn't dispute the material facts of the case. I concede that it would be reasonable for them to still present their arguments. So I will present my opening statement prior to the ruling on the motion to summary judgment. In the hopes, it will expedite the process.

OPENING STATEMENTS
Honourable Justices of this esteemed Court,

Nowhere within our Constitution, the Legislative Standards Act, or the Standing Orders exists there a provision permitting the incumbent president to instigate a new election for the office of President of the Senate midway through the term of the current officeholder.

Indeed, the Constitution explicitly delineates the process for the removal of a President of the Senate. Only by means of resignation or a vote of no confidence by the incumbent Senators, can the President of the Senate be removed.

Senator End contends that this unauthorized election was validated through convention beyond constitutional bounds. However, ours is a nation governed by the rule of law. Every citizen retains the right to hold elected office, and the failure of a predecessor to contest an illicit election does not grant carte blanche to the government to deprive me of my right. The law unequivocally stands in my favour.

Furthermore, let us contemplate the practical ramifications. Our nation's framework is predicated on a system where the removal of government officials demands a supermajority vote, a safeguard against governmental instability. The framers of our Constitution deliberately dictated that the President of the Senate can only be removed by such a supermajority within the chamber.

A tied election resolved by a tie-breaking vote does not fulfil this supermajority prerequisite. Previous unlawful elections could be construed as de facto votes of no confidence. Even if we interpret the election as such, a 3/6 vote falls short of the stringent supermajority standard, thus nullifying any mandate to depose the incumbent.

Granting the President authority to arbitrarily call for elections undermines our constitutional framework. What would prevent them from simply appointing a new Chief Justice and displacing the incumbent?

Procedures exist, meticulously crafted procedures delineating precisely how and why an individual may be removed from office. These procedures were not adhered to.


There exists another reason why the result of the election was invalid, however.

The election President of the Senate are entirely hosted by the President. The constitution clearly states the following: Should the election for the President of the Senate result in a tie, the President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote.

This language is specific and unequivocal. Others might argue that the constitution gives the vice president the power to tie-break.

However, in creating the act establishing the general tie-breaking power of the Vice-President, the purpose was to solve the issue of bills and other motions that would otherwise go to the nay go to the VP to tie-beak.

This problem has nothing to do with the President-of-the-senate elections and was never intended to be misconstrued to remove the power of the president to cast such a tie-breaking vote.

The Vice-President exhibited a flagrant disregard for these procedures and the rule of law, exploiting their governmental position to access a channel they were not entitled to and subsequently declaring their favoured candidate as the victor in official government announcements. The vice president holds zero authority over congressional discord and possesses no mandate to declare the winner of Senate Presidential elections regardless of the interpretation of the power of the Vice-President to tie-break.

Therefore, I implore this Court to refer this egregious incident to the Department of Legal Affairs and mandate an investigation into the potentiality of these actions constituting treason, electoral fraud, and/or corruption.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure
Your Honor, The Plaintiff was not instructed to move onto opening statements nor has the motion for

Motion to Stike
The Plaintiff spoke out of turn without being instructed too.​
 
Due to Chief Justice Nacholebraa being named as a party within this case, they have voluntarily recused themselves.

With that, the Defendant now has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
Your Honors,
passage 6 of the constitution states in reference to the president of the senate "

"The Senate is presided over by the President of the Senate, who is responsible for maintaining the good order and efficient running of the chamber, as well as chairing meetings, facilitating the voting of bills, and ensuring the timely passage of Bills to the President for Approval. The Vice President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote should a tie arise."

This contradicts section 4 which states " Should the election for the President of the Senate result in a tie, the President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote. "

The commonwealth recognizes this contradiction in our constitution. Its clear the vice president nacho was under the impression that section 6 should be upheld in this situation and committed no malicious act.
I humbly request that instead of the prayers of relief outlined by the plaintiff, that instead the judiciary offers a judicial review of the constitution and clarifies the contradiction.
.
Thank you,
Your Honors
 
Alright, in a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to charge the Department of Legal Affairs with Contempt of Court. We order the Department of Justice to jail/fine appropriately (this is to go against Snowy_Heart as they are representing the Commonwealth).

With that said, given a Summary Judgement has been approved by both sides and we are now past Opening Statements, we will be going into recess pending a verdict (this too was a 2-0 decision).
 

Verdict


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
MilkCrack v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 5

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff argues that they were illegally removed from their position of President of the Senate.
2. The President of the Senate election should not have taken place given the Plaintiff was not removed from their Senate seat.
3. Former Vice President Nacholebraa did not have the ability to declare who won in a tie breaker as that power lies with the President.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant failed to state an argument on any of the reasons above except for the argument in the next position.
2. Former Vice President Nacholebraa did not have the ability to break a tie within the President of the Senate election.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This case is surrounding on the facts on whether or not the POS elections should have occurred. The below opinion is the opinion that I wrote and Justice Neemfy has signed onto:

This case is pretty clear cut. In the sense that it focuses on the fact of former Senator MilkCrack's removal and the subsequent election allowing UnityMaster to win the President of the Senate election through the former Vice President breaking the tie on the POS election. Let me be completely blunt. The POS election should not have taken place.

There are a few reasons for this however the primary being that the election may only be started should the President of the Senate leave the position at all. This did not occur. Given the former Senator’s seat was not up for election that would mean they stayed within that position unless they resign, are removed, etc. None of which occurred. While I do respect the Constitutional Convention regarding the fact that the POS has always been removed every general election, convention does not equal what is written. What is written clearly states what needs to happen for a new POS to be elected or for the election to even be triggered.

Now for the major part of this case. Whether former Vice President Nacholebraa broke the Constitution. Simply, Nacholebraa was acting as they interpreted the law. This interpretation has been argued over the time of this case and even since the announcement was posted. While an interpretation does not excuse the actions one has done, it does explain where the actions have come from.

There are two interpretations for who breaks a tie within the Senate. Vice President breaks every tie within the Senate, the President breaks the tie for POS and the VP does it for everything else. The interpretation I am going with, is that the President breaks the tie for POS and the VP breaks the tie for everything else.This is also what is listed within the Constitution and as someone who prefers to interpret things as written, that is my interpretation.

So now, did the VP break the Constitution? Looking at the text, yes. Do I believe in charging them? No. Not only were the actions done over two months ago now but also the election from the very start was illegal thus the actions that led to the VP breaking the Constitution fall onto the then President xlayzur for starting a President of the Senate election when it was not needed.

For those who don’t want to read my lengthy opinion: MilkCrack’s removal from POS was illegal, VP’s actions were a result of the President starting the POS election when it was not meant to occur.

"they must resign from the position or lose to a vote of no confidence from the incumbent Senators (supermajority). Should the election for the President of the Senate result in a tie, the President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote." - Section 4: The Senate of the Constitution.
2. To be clear, this is a verdict resulted from differing interpretations and based on what is written within the Constitution.

IV. SENTENCE
1. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff however we will not be granting the full of Prayer of Reliefs.
  • The President of the Senate elections are to only happen when a vacancy within the seat is found or the President of the Senate is to be removed from their position. This is written within the Constitution.
  • The President of the Senate tie breakers shall be done by solely the President and not the Vice President.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top