- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #1
Lawsuit: Adjourned Milkcrack v. The commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 42
- Thread starter Milkcrack
- Start date
- Status
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
Before I file summons and rule on the emergency injunction, I will need proof of both the bill proposal, the votes by the legislative branch, the referendum votes, and proof of presidential assent.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #3
Link to the proposed bill:
www.democracycraft.net
Link to Referendum:
Bill: Rejected - Best Ballot Act
A BILL To Amend the Constitution The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives and Senators 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 - Short...
www.democracycraft.net
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
- Messages
- 655
Your honor, I will be representing the State in this matter as a State Prosecutor. Before you issue a decision on the emergency injunction I would like to bring your attention to a few key facts that could materially influence your decision:
1. The Best Ballot Act did NOT receive the supermajority vote required in the House of Representatives to pass as a Constitutional Amendment. Our House of Representatives has a total of 11 seats, which means a supermajority would require 8 aye votes and the Best Ballot Act achieved only 5. However, there were only 7 total votes cast so it is possible that further deliberation could reveal that the threshold is scaled to the number of sitting Representatives rather than the total number of seats, there is some evidence to support that under the Legislative Standards Act however this is a mere Act of Congress and does not supersede the Constitution. This point would likely be up for debate.
2. The Best Ballot Act did NOT receive the supermajority vote required to pass in the Referendum. The constitution clearly states that for a Constitutional Amendment to pass, "A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change." The Amendment sought to bar people from their Constitutionally guaranteed right to run for public office, and is therefore certainly a rights and freedoms change, which makes it a complex change. Furthermore, there is no requirement for Referendum whatsoever for non-complex changes, therefore the Speaker of the House clearly felt as though this was a complex change, otherwise no Referendum would have been held at all.
3. The Plaintiff is contesting the upcoming Special Election for the Senate and is likely seeking an emergency injunction to bar political opponents from challenging him in the election.
1. The Best Ballot Act did NOT receive the supermajority vote required in the House of Representatives to pass as a Constitutional Amendment. Our House of Representatives has a total of 11 seats, which means a supermajority would require 8 aye votes and the Best Ballot Act achieved only 5. However, there were only 7 total votes cast so it is possible that further deliberation could reveal that the threshold is scaled to the number of sitting Representatives rather than the total number of seats, there is some evidence to support that under the Legislative Standards Act however this is a mere Act of Congress and does not supersede the Constitution. This point would likely be up for debate.
2. The Best Ballot Act did NOT receive the supermajority vote required to pass in the Referendum. The constitution clearly states that for a Constitutional Amendment to pass, "A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change." The Amendment sought to bar people from their Constitutionally guaranteed right to run for public office, and is therefore certainly a rights and freedoms change, which makes it a complex change. Furthermore, there is no requirement for Referendum whatsoever for non-complex changes, therefore the Speaker of the House clearly felt as though this was a complex change, otherwise no Referendum would have been held at all.
3. The Plaintiff is contesting the upcoming Special Election for the Senate and is likely seeking an emergency injunction to bar political opponents from challenging him in the election.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The state is required to appear before the court in the case of the Milkcrack v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
Because there was no supermajority in the house and the referendum, I will be denying this emergency injunction.
The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their response to the case unless HugeBob's post was their response, in which case I ask that they state that HugeBob's post was their response within the allotted time.
The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their response to the case unless HugeBob's post was their response, in which case I ask that they state that HugeBob's post was their response within the allotted time.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
- Messages
- 655
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
MOTION TO DISMISS
The defense move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The bill did not pass by supermajority in the House of Representatives and therefore has failed that requirement to become a lawfully passed Constitutional Amendment.
2. While the bill did pass by supermajority in the Senate, it should have never been sent to the Senate because of failing in the House.
3. The bill did not pass by supermajority in public Referendum as required by virtue of it being a Complex Change due to the fact that it infringes on citizens' rights and freedoms, further corroborated by the former Speaker's claim that the Amendment would have been a Complex Change by posting it for Referendum when there is no such requirement for non-Complex Changes.
4. The Plaintiff likely filed this case with the sole motive to receive the emergency injunction for the duration of the Special Election they are contesting, knowing full well the case was unwinnable since they were the Speaker of the House at the time that this bill was posted for Referendum. We encourage the Courts to consider charging the Plaintiff with filing a frivolous suit.
5. The Courts have already acknowledged that the bill did not lawfully pass in their dismissal of the emergency injunction.
DATED: This 3d day of June 2022
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #10
Objection
Your, honour the defence does not appear to know what a motion to dismiss is for. I filed the case correctly, and there is no reason they shouldn't give a proper response to the case. The whole point of the case is to discuss and prove my facts, dismissing the case outright without having heard a single counter-argument couldn't possibly be just.
During the Trial, I will prove the following:
- The bill did pass a supermajority in the house and was lawfully sent to the senate.
- The bill did not need a supermajority to pass Referendum.
As for argument 4, that is completely and utterly unfounded and false. I had declared my intention to legally prosecute, this case in court before knowing about any senate special election or having any aspiration to run for the senate. One clue to this is that I proposed the bill.
Meaning I'm an advocate for this bill and care about its survival as well as the proper legal process in passing laws. The defence is clearly turning this into a state-sponsored smear campaign against me. So I would like to ask the court, to request that the defence stop using these defamatory statements and answer the case with a normal answer to the complaint.
Your, honour the defence does not appear to know what a motion to dismiss is for. I filed the case correctly, and there is no reason they shouldn't give a proper response to the case. The whole point of the case is to discuss and prove my facts, dismissing the case outright without having heard a single counter-argument couldn't possibly be just.
During the Trial, I will prove the following:
- The bill did pass a supermajority in the house and was lawfully sent to the senate.
- The bill did not need a supermajority to pass Referendum.
As for argument 4, that is completely and utterly unfounded and false. I had declared my intention to legally prosecute, this case in court before knowing about any senate special election or having any aspiration to run for the senate. One clue to this is that I proposed the bill.
Meaning I'm an advocate for this bill and care about its survival as well as the proper legal process in passing laws. The defence is clearly turning this into a state-sponsored smear campaign against me. So I would like to ask the court, to request that the defence stop using these defamatory statements and answer the case with a normal answer to the complaint.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
I will be denying this objection as a motion to dismiss is a proper response to a case, I will rule on the motion to dismiss, however I will give MilkCrack an opportunity to post an official rebuttal on the motion to dismiss before I make a ruling on it.
MilkCrack if you would like to respond to the motion, please post your response within 48 hours, if you would not like to respond please also state that you wouldn't like to respond within 48 hours.
MilkCrack if you would like to respond to the motion, please post your response within 48 hours, if you would not like to respond please also state that you wouldn't like to respond within 48 hours.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #12
Thank you, your honour.
"1. The bill did not pass by a supermajority in the House of Representatives and therefore has failed that requirement to become a lawfully passed Constitutional Amendment."
My rebuttal is that the bill did pass a by a supermajority. 5/7 > 2/3 meaning it passes the supermajority requirement. Unlike the defence is claiming it is not 5/11. I would like to submit the following pieces of evidence:
Source: The Legislative Standards Act which is a constitutional Amendment says the following:
Source: The Standing Orders:
I would also like to offer a precedent of a former constitutional amendment which has passed with 7/10 votes which wouldn't be more than 2/3 if was 7/11.
Source:
www.democracycraft.net
My rebuttal is that the bill did pass a by a supermajority. 5/7 > 2/3 meaning it passes the supermajority requirement. Unlike the defence is claiming it is not 5/11. I would like to submit the following pieces of evidence:
Source: The Legislative Standards Act which is a constitutional Amendment says the following:
Not voting is considered an abstention. That is why there is a quorum requirement of half of the members of a chamber plus one. 11/2+1 = 6,5. Seeing as 7 is more than 6,5 the quorum is met.
Source: The Standing Orders:
I would also like to offer a precedent of a former constitutional amendment which has passed with 7/10 votes which wouldn't be more than 2/3 if was 7/11.
Source:
Act of Congress - Supporting our Judges Amendment
A BILL To Amend the Constitution The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives and Senators 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 - Short...
www.democracycraft.net
"2. While the bill did pass by supermajority in the Senate, it should have never been sent to the Senate because of failing in the House."
Please refer to the arguments presented above.
Please refer to the arguments presented above.
"3. The bill did not pass by a supermajority in public Referendum as required by virtue of it being a Complex Change due to the fact that it infringes on citizens' rights and freedoms, further corroborated by the former Speaker's claim that the Amendment would have been a Complex Change by posting it for Referendum when there is no such requirement for non-Complex Changes."
First of all, under no circumstance, have I ever thought the amendment was a complex change. I'm willing to attest to this under oath. If that is not enough I would have to subpoena multiple discord channels to prove it.
Secondly, the change is not a complex change. The constitution defines a complex change as follows:
The contents of the Best Ballot Act are basically adding the following clause to the senate election requirements:
"Has previously been elected or appointed to the role of Representative, Senator, President, Vice President, Secretary, Deputy-Secretary, Chief of Staff, Mayor, Attorney General, Ambassador, Solicitor General, Town-Council, Judge, Justice, Chief-Justice or any other role that requires senate approval."
It's not a change to the system of government.
It isn't a plugin-related change.
It doesn't require significant staff involvement
It doesn't establish new towns/cities or urban
It isn't a Rights & Freedoms change.
The Defence has tried to argue it's a Rights & Freedoms Change, however, the charter of rights and freedoms says the following:
(1) In order to serve as a Senior Government Official, the office holder must not hold an office as a Senior Government Official in a foreign state concurrently.
This is legally speaking identical to what my bill does.
Source:
www.democracycraft.net
I would like to specifically quote the following parts of the verdict:
Chief-Justice End:
Either hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2 needs to be overturned or the court has to agree it isn't a complex change.
First of all, under no circumstance, have I ever thought the amendment was a complex change. I'm willing to attest to this under oath. If that is not enough I would have to subpoena multiple discord channels to prove it.
Secondly, the change is not a complex change. The constitution defines a complex change as follows:
I would also like to subpoena the president to ask if they discussed it with the owner beforehand.
The contents of the Best Ballot Act are basically adding the following clause to the senate election requirements:
"Has previously been elected or appointed to the role of Representative, Senator, President, Vice President, Secretary, Deputy-Secretary, Chief of Staff, Mayor, Attorney General, Ambassador, Solicitor General, Town-Council, Judge, Justice, Chief-Justice or any other role that requires senate approval."
It's not a change to the system of government.
It isn't a plugin-related change.
It doesn't require significant staff involvement
It doesn't establish new towns/cities or urban
It isn't a Rights & Freedoms change.
The Defence has tried to argue it's a Rights & Freedoms Change, however, the charter of rights and freedoms says the following:
It's the Supreme Court's opinion this is such a reasonable limit prescribed by law. The Allegiance Act adds the following clause to all elected offices.
(1) In order to serve as a Senior Government Official, the office holder must not hold an office as a Senior Government Official in a foreign state concurrently.
This is legally speaking identical to what my bill does.
Source:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION hugebob23456 Plaintiff v. The Commonwealth Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: What is election fraud? Would a state sponsored televised debate open to all candidates which...
www.democracycraft.net
I would like to specifically quote the following parts of the verdict:
Chief-Justice End:
Speaker of the House Mhadsher (Acting Justice)
Either hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2 needs to be overturned or the court has to agree it isn't a complex change.
4. The Plaintiff likely filed this case with the sole motive to receive the emergency injunction for the duration of the Special Election they are contesting, knowing full well the case was unwinnable since they were the Speaker of the House at the time that this bill was posted for the Referendum. We encourage the Courts to consider charging the Plaintiff with filing a frivolous suit.
First of all, this is untrue and I'm willing to testify that I had an intent to contest this case in court before I had an aspiration to run for senate. To prove this I would have to subpoena the President.
First of all, this is untrue and I'm willing to testify that I had an intent to contest this case in court before I had an aspiration to run for senate. To prove this I would have to subpoena the President.
5. The Courts have already acknowledged that the bill did not lawfully pass in their dismissal of the emergency injunction.
Dismissing an emergency injunction is only a ruling on the current facts presented. It isn't a final verdict. Seeing as I presented many convincing counter-arguments the ruling on the emergency injunction should not be binding.
Dismissing an emergency injunction is only a ruling on the current facts presented. It isn't a final verdict. Seeing as I presented many convincing counter-arguments the ruling on the emergency injunction should not be binding.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
- Messages
- 655
Objection, your honor.
The argument the Plaintiff presents under the spoiler titled "Defence's Argument No. 3:" is not just flawed, it is flatly wrong. For starters, and to be fair I am willing to give the Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt in believing this is a formatting error, but the definition of Complex Change he has presented is cut off and does not include the entire definition. I do not believe there is malicious intent behind this because the Plaintiff does reference the relevant portions of the definition outside this excerpt.
The Justices in the case hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2 agreed that the change was not complex because it was deemed necessary in the interests of national security to bar foreign government officials from seeking high office within Redmont. This bill, the Best Ballot Act, directly infringes on the first right that is codified by our Constitution: "I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime." The number of people who would be denied their Constitutionally guaranteed right to participate in and run for elected office, as a direct result of this legislation, is greater than zero. The Plaintiff is correct to note that the Rights and Freedoms section does allow for limitations to be placed on these Rights and Freedoms, which is why it would have been perfectly lawful for this bill to have passed in the event that it received the requisite number of votes at Referendum. In fact, that particular clause that allows for limitations to the rights to be established does not necessarily require that those limitations be codified as Constitutional Amendments. If the Best Ballot Act had been structured as an Act of Congress rather than a Constitutional Amendment, it would have been able to circumvent the Referendum requirement entirely and have passed with mere simple majorities in both chambers. But because it was structured as a Constitutional Amendment, it must meet higher standards. And because it is in direct contradiction with the first of our expressly codified rights as Citizens, it is therefore a Rights and Freedoms change. And because it is a Rights and Freedoms change, it is a Complex Change. And because it is a Complex Change, it must meet a 2/3 supermajority requirement at public Referendum to pass, which it did not.
The argument the Plaintiff presents under the spoiler titled "Defence's Argument No. 3:" is not just flawed, it is flatly wrong. For starters, and to be fair I am willing to give the Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt in believing this is a formatting error, but the definition of Complex Change he has presented is cut off and does not include the entire definition. I do not believe there is malicious intent behind this because the Plaintiff does reference the relevant portions of the definition outside this excerpt.
The Justices in the case hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2 agreed that the change was not complex because it was deemed necessary in the interests of national security to bar foreign government officials from seeking high office within Redmont. This bill, the Best Ballot Act, directly infringes on the first right that is codified by our Constitution: "I. The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime." The number of people who would be denied their Constitutionally guaranteed right to participate in and run for elected office, as a direct result of this legislation, is greater than zero. The Plaintiff is correct to note that the Rights and Freedoms section does allow for limitations to be placed on these Rights and Freedoms, which is why it would have been perfectly lawful for this bill to have passed in the event that it received the requisite number of votes at Referendum. In fact, that particular clause that allows for limitations to the rights to be established does not necessarily require that those limitations be codified as Constitutional Amendments. If the Best Ballot Act had been structured as an Act of Congress rather than a Constitutional Amendment, it would have been able to circumvent the Referendum requirement entirely and have passed with mere simple majorities in both chambers. But because it was structured as a Constitutional Amendment, it must meet higher standards. And because it is in direct contradiction with the first of our expressly codified rights as Citizens, it is therefore a Rights and Freedoms change. And because it is a Rights and Freedoms change, it is a Complex Change. And because it is a Complex Change, it must meet a 2/3 supermajority requirement at public Referendum to pass, which it did not.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #14
Objection
Point 1. If the defence is allowed to keep introducing new facts and arguments, we might as well just move on to opening statements. Or else we will continue with these objections indefinitely.
Point 2. I included the whole definition but I can see the forums are glitched. I quoted the entire section including rights & Freedoms but for some reason, it is glitched mid-way through the sentence. This is what It looks like when you are writing it:
I will change the quote to a picture to make sure, it's clear for everyone.
Point 1. If the defence is allowed to keep introducing new facts and arguments, we might as well just move on to opening statements. Or else we will continue with these objections indefinitely.
Point 2. I included the whole definition but I can see the forums are glitched. I quoted the entire section including rights & Freedoms but for some reason, it is glitched mid-way through the sentence. This is what It looks like when you are writing it:
I will change the quote to a picture to make sure, it's clear for everyone.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
To both of you, this is your only warning not to talk out of turn. I didn't allow either of you to post anything since MilkCrack posted his rebuttal to the motion, however you both did. If you believe that what the other party has said is wrong, or not the full truth you may object on the grounds of relevance, improper evidence, or perjury, however this is not an excuse to post your whole rebuttal to everything the opposing party has said. The next time either of you speak out of turn during this court case you will be charged with contempt of court.
I will be denying both objections as neither of them are proper objections, as you are arguing all of your points instead of objecting to something that happened or someone said. Because of this, I will not take either of them into account when I make my ruling on the motion.
I will be denying both objections as neither of them are proper objections, as you are arguing all of your points instead of objecting to something that happened or someone said. Because of this, I will not take either of them into account when I make my ruling on the motion.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
According to section V of the constitution, A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:
1. 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.
2. A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
3. A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
4. Presidential Assent or Veto Override.
In order for the constitutional amendment to have passed, all four of the above requirements needed to have happened. After further review of the evidence, the Court believes that the proposal received a super majority in both chambers of congress, as well as Presidential Assent. Both requirements 1 and 2 only need to happen if the proposal to amend the constitution is a complex change. In [2021] FCR 92 the Federal court ruled that the Allegiance Act wasn't a complex change. However, while the Allegiance Act may be similar to the Best Ballot act, it is not the same. After all if it was the same, there would be no need for the Best Ballot Act. It all comes down to whether the Best Ballot Act is a complex change. Right now it's not clear, and I think that both parties still have arguments as to whether it is or isn't a complex change that will help the court make their final verdict on this case. Because of this I will deny the motion to dismiss.
1. 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.
2. A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
3. A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
4. Presidential Assent or Veto Override.
In order for the constitutional amendment to have passed, all four of the above requirements needed to have happened. After further review of the evidence, the Court believes that the proposal received a super majority in both chambers of congress, as well as Presidential Assent. Both requirements 1 and 2 only need to happen if the proposal to amend the constitution is a complex change. In [2021] FCR 92 the Federal court ruled that the Allegiance Act wasn't a complex change. However, while the Allegiance Act may be similar to the Best Ballot act, it is not the same. After all if it was the same, there would be no need for the Best Ballot Act. It all comes down to whether the Best Ballot Act is a complex change. Right now it's not clear, and I think that both parties still have arguments as to whether it is or isn't a complex change that will help the court make their final verdict on this case. Because of this I will deny the motion to dismiss.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
On MilkCrack's request to subpoena the President, I will not subpoena him at this point, however later in the case when we get to witness testimonies you may call him as a witness.
We will now move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present their opening statement.
We will now move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present their opening statement.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #18
OPENING STATEMENT
The Facts, of the case, are clear. The people have voted and the Best Ballot Act passed the house and the senate and has been given presidential assent as well.
The Best Ballot act did not need a supermajority to pass on referendum because it wasn't a complex change. The Defence has tried to argue it is a complex change cause it is a rights & Freedoms Change however, there is a Supreme Court precedent that candidate prerequisites are not considered an unreasonable limit to a Rights & Freedoms Change.
The content of the bill is to add as a candidate prerequisite that they must have served in congress, town government, judiciary, cabinet or outer cabinet prior to declaring their intent to run for senate.
The content of the Allegiency act is to add as a candidate prerequisite that they must not serve in a senior position on another server prior to declaring their intent to run for any office.
The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms is subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.
The Supreme court has already ruled that candidate prerequisites are considered to be such a limit. Therefore the Best Ballot act shouldn't be considered a complex change.
The Facts, of the case, are clear. The people have voted and the Best Ballot Act passed the house and the senate and has been given presidential assent as well.
The Best Ballot act did not need a supermajority to pass on referendum because it wasn't a complex change. The Defence has tried to argue it is a complex change cause it is a rights & Freedoms Change however, there is a Supreme Court precedent that candidate prerequisites are not considered an unreasonable limit to a Rights & Freedoms Change.
The content of the bill is to add as a candidate prerequisite that they must have served in congress, town government, judiciary, cabinet or outer cabinet prior to declaring their intent to run for senate.
The content of the Allegiency act is to add as a candidate prerequisite that they must not serve in a senior position on another server prior to declaring their intent to run for any office.
The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms is subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.
The Supreme court has already ruled that candidate prerequisites are considered to be such a limit. Therefore the Best Ballot act shouldn't be considered a complex change.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
- Messages
- 655
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
MilkCrack
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
OPENING STATEMENT
The Plaintiff alleges that the State has rejected a Constitutional Amendment from becoming law on the basis that it has passed the House, the Senate, and a public referendum. This case is the result of a simple misunderstanding of the process for Amendments to pass.
The Constitution DOES allow for law to set limitations upon the rights and freedoms codified within the Constitution, however there are higher standards of support for such Amendments. Rights and freedoms changes fall under the definition of a Complex Change, which requires them to pass by Supermajority in a public referendum.
The Best Ballots Act sought to place a limitation on one's right to run for public office. When these higher requirements to amend rights and freedoms were added to our Constitutional Amendment process, the authors did not intend for those higher requirements to apply only when granting our citizens more rights, those same higher thresholds must also be met when we seek to remove rights from lawful citizens. The simple fact of the matter is that the Best Ballots Act did not meet the Supermajority requirement at public referendum to become law.
WITNESSES
The State wishes to call the following witnesses to the Court for testimony:
-Speaker of the House of Representatives A__C
-President of the Senate huney69
-RBA Chairman Milqy
Each of these officials has a great deal of experience in law and would provide valuable insight into what constitutes a Rights and Freedoms Change. If any of these individuals do not wish to testify before the Court for any reason, they can make that known instead of declaring their presence.
I would like for each of the witnesses to answer each of the following questions:
1. In your opinion, does barring individuals from running for elected office constitute a rights and freedoms change related to the right to run for public office?
2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?
3. Flatly, do you believe the Best Ballots Act met the Constitutionally mandated requirements to amend the Constitution?
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 8th day of June 2022
CIVIL ACTION
MilkCrack
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
OPENING STATEMENT
The Plaintiff alleges that the State has rejected a Constitutional Amendment from becoming law on the basis that it has passed the House, the Senate, and a public referendum. This case is the result of a simple misunderstanding of the process for Amendments to pass.
The Constitution DOES allow for law to set limitations upon the rights and freedoms codified within the Constitution, however there are higher standards of support for such Amendments. Rights and freedoms changes fall under the definition of a Complex Change, which requires them to pass by Supermajority in a public referendum.
The Best Ballots Act sought to place a limitation on one's right to run for public office. When these higher requirements to amend rights and freedoms were added to our Constitutional Amendment process, the authors did not intend for those higher requirements to apply only when granting our citizens more rights, those same higher thresholds must also be met when we seek to remove rights from lawful citizens. The simple fact of the matter is that the Best Ballots Act did not meet the Supermajority requirement at public referendum to become law.
WITNESSES
The State wishes to call the following witnesses to the Court for testimony:
-Speaker of the House of Representatives A__C
-President of the Senate huney69
-RBA Chairman Milqy
Each of these officials has a great deal of experience in law and would provide valuable insight into what constitutes a Rights and Freedoms Change. If any of these individuals do not wish to testify before the Court for any reason, they can make that known instead of declaring their presence.
I would like for each of the witnesses to answer each of the following questions:
1. In your opinion, does barring individuals from running for elected office constitute a rights and freedoms change related to the right to run for public office?
2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?
3. Flatly, do you believe the Best Ballots Act met the Constitutionally mandated requirements to amend the Constitution?
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 8th day of June 2022
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #22
Objection on Witnesses
It is the purpose of the judiciary to be above politics, what relevance must the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate serve besides political one. Inviting these politicians brings no insight to this legal question and does nothing but lobby the judiciary to agree with them.
Being a presiding officer of a chamber doesn't mean you're knowledgeable of the law. So I would also like to ask for their legal background.
As well as remind that these 2 are the heads of the very presiding officer's office, that were responsible for misplacing this bill. They have a vested interest to disagree with the notion that this bill did not pass a referendum.
The Government shouldn't be a witness on a case they themselves are being sued over. The same goes for the Chief of Staff and Senator Milqy.
As for the questions. All of these questions are opinions and not facts. Witnesses should not testify to their own opinions. Especially not if these witnesses have a vested interest in this case. They are not reliable expert witnesses.
This question is too vague, what is meant with "constitutes a rights and freedoms change related to the right to run for public office". Is meant by this that it also constitutes a complex change or that it is such a reasonable limit justifiable in a free and democratic society.
It is also asking for an opinion on a very complex legal matter to one which they can not possibly have all the facts to. If even the judiciary can not speak to the facts of these cases with a simple, yes or no then how can we aspect that these politicians with a vested interest are able to answer this question. With a simple yes or no.
Again, I would like to point out the vagueness of this question. What is meant by this "requirement", is it a constitutionally mandated requirement, a political mandated requirement or simply a requirement out of tradition.
As well as it is asking for an opinion again on a very complex legal matter one to which they can not possibly have all the facts. That specific section of the constitution has been mandated many times, and parts of it were not properly able to be changed to in the constitution, these witnesses can't possibly know the ins and out of the case, so their opinion shouldn't matter. This is not a court of popularity but a court of facts.
The same point about opinion as before.
I would like to ask the court to deny their testimonies as it would hurt the facts of the case instead of add to them. Their testimony could be considerd prejudicial.
It is the purpose of the judiciary to be above politics, what relevance must the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate serve besides political one. Inviting these politicians brings no insight to this legal question and does nothing but lobby the judiciary to agree with them.
Being a presiding officer of a chamber doesn't mean you're knowledgeable of the law. So I would also like to ask for their legal background.
As well as remind that these 2 are the heads of the very presiding officer's office, that were responsible for misplacing this bill. They have a vested interest to disagree with the notion that this bill did not pass a referendum.
The Government shouldn't be a witness on a case they themselves are being sued over. The same goes for the Chief of Staff and Senator Milqy.
As for the questions. All of these questions are opinions and not facts. Witnesses should not testify to their own opinions. Especially not if these witnesses have a vested interest in this case. They are not reliable expert witnesses.
This question is too vague, what is meant with "constitutes a rights and freedoms change related to the right to run for public office". Is meant by this that it also constitutes a complex change or that it is such a reasonable limit justifiable in a free and democratic society.
It is also asking for an opinion on a very complex legal matter to one which they can not possibly have all the facts to. If even the judiciary can not speak to the facts of these cases with a simple, yes or no then how can we aspect that these politicians with a vested interest are able to answer this question. With a simple yes or no.
Again, I would like to point out the vagueness of this question. What is meant by this "requirement", is it a constitutionally mandated requirement, a political mandated requirement or simply a requirement out of tradition.
As well as it is asking for an opinion again on a very complex legal matter one to which they can not possibly have all the facts. That specific section of the constitution has been mandated many times, and parts of it were not properly able to be changed to in the constitution, these witnesses can't possibly know the ins and out of the case, so their opinion shouldn't matter. This is not a court of popularity but a court of facts.
The same point about opinion as before.
I would like to ask the court to deny their testimonies as it would hurt the facts of the case instead of add to them. Their testimony could be considerd prejudicial.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
I will be allowing all of the witnesses to testify because the job or the biases of the witnesses do not prevent them from being able to testify as if they lie at all they will be charged with perjury.
You may object on the specific questions later after the witnesses are summoned because I will ask that the Defendant ask the questions again as they shouldn’t have asked them before.
Lastly if you would like any witnesses to be summoned you have a little under 24 hours from now to tell the court whether or not you would like to have any witnesses.
You may object on the specific questions later after the witnesses are summoned because I will ask that the Defendant ask the questions again as they shouldn’t have asked them before.
Lastly if you would like any witnesses to be summoned you have a little under 24 hours from now to tell the court whether or not you would like to have any witnesses.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #24
Thank, you your honour.
I understand but I would like to point out that specifically their opinions should be taken lightly.
I would like to call the following witnesses:
An owner of the server xEndeavour who can speak to whether it was or wasn't a complex change.
An author of a similar bill and a senior politician Hugebob who wrote the bill about referendums requirements.
I understand but I would like to point out that specifically their opinions should be taken lightly.
I would like to call the following witnesses:
An owner of the server xEndeavour who can speak to whether it was or wasn't a complex change.
An author of a similar bill and a senior politician Hugebob who wrote the bill about referendums requirements.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
A__C, huney69, Milqy, xEndeavour, and Hugebob are required to appear before the court in the case of Milkcrack v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 42 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from council that requested your summons, and may also be cross-examined. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a contempt of court charge.
I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant of the Perjury Act.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
Due to the fact that Hugebob is representing the state and is already active in this case, there is no need for him to state that he is present, however he is still required to answer the Plaintiffs questions after all the witnesses have appeared.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2021
- Messages
- 321
Present
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
End when answering questions please use your regular account, however this is good enough for now.
The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post all of their questions to End and HugeBob only unless the question relies on an answer to a previous question. The witnesses will have 48 hours to answer the questions from when you post them.
The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post all of their questions to End and HugeBob only unless the question relies on an answer to a previous question. The witnesses will have 48 hours to answer the questions from when you post them.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
The Plaintiff has had over 52 hours to post his questions to his witnesses, and has failed to do so. It's the Plaintiffs responsibility to pursue the case that they file, and failing to do that shows disrespect to the Court, the Defendant, and the witnesses. I hereby find Milkcrack guilty of contempt of court and order the DOJ to punish him appropriately.
We will now move on and the Defendant has 48 hours to post all of the questions they have for any of the witnesses.
We will now move on and the Defendant has 48 hours to post all of the questions they have for any of the witnesses.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #33
I would like, to apologise, your honour, I misread the time for me it said 12:07 AM. I thought 12:07 AM would be 7min past midday so in 4 hours. Not 7 min past midnight 8 hours ago. I sincerely apologise for this error, where I'm from we don't use AM/PM but a 24-hour clock.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #34
I understand that contempt of court is a punishment but, this case has been filed not just in my personal interest but in the public's interest. It would be unreasonable to not hear all the facts of such an important case simply because I made a mistake with the time. So is it possible to still post the questions?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
When a Defendant fails to respond to a case after 48 hours, they forfeit their ability to respond to case, which is why those cases often end in a default judgement. When either party fails to post an opening or closing statement, they forfeit their ability to post their opening/closing statement. I think that it should be no different for witnesses. Because you have failed to post your questions for the witnesses within the allotted time, you have forfeited your ability to post questions yo your witnesses. The only general exception when someone doesn't post something within 48 hours is when they have asked for an extension, and in this case, you haven't. Therefore I will not allow you to ask questions to your witnesses, however you will still be allowed to cross-examine the Defendant's witnesses.
Due to the delay, the Defendant has 41 hours from now to post all of their questions to the witnesses.
Due to the delay, the Defendant has 41 hours from now to post all of their questions to the witnesses.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
- Messages
- 655
I would like for all of the witnesses to answer the following questions at their earliest convenience. If you do not feel comfortable answering any of the questions for any reason, simply state that as your response to the question you wish to skip. Thank you.
1. In your opinion, does barring individuals from running for elected office constitute a rights and freedoms change related to the right to run for public office?
2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?
3. Flatly, do you believe the Best Ballots Act met the Constitutionally mandated requirements to amend the Constitution?
4. Do you believe that a Constitutional Amendment that places limitations upon a Constitutionally protected right is a Rights and Freedoms change, regardless of whether it directly amends text within the Rights and Freedoms section of the text, even if the limitation is justified and fair in a democratic society?
1. In your opinion, does barring individuals from running for elected office constitute a rights and freedoms change related to the right to run for public office?
2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?
3. Flatly, do you believe the Best Ballots Act met the Constitutionally mandated requirements to amend the Constitution?
4. Do you believe that a Constitutional Amendment that places limitations upon a Constitutionally protected right is a Rights and Freedoms change, regardless of whether it directly amends text within the Rights and Freedoms section of the text, even if the limitation is justified and fair in a democratic society?
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
- Messages
- 393
- Thread Author
- #37
OBJECTION
All of these questions are opinions and not facts. Witnesses should not testify to their own opinions. Especially not if these witnesses have a vested interest in this case. They are not reliable expert witnesses.
This question is too vague, what is meant with "constitutes a rights and freedoms change related to the right to run for public office". Is meant by this that it also constitutes a complex change or that it is such a reasonable limit justifiable in a free and democratic society.
It is also asking for an opinion on a very complex legal matter to one which they can not possibly have all the facts to. If even the judiciary can not speak to the facts of these cases with a simple, yes or no then how can we aspect that these politicians with a vested interest are able to answer this question. With a simple yes or no.
Again, I would like to point out the vagueness of this question. What is meant by this "requirement", is it a constitutionally mandated requirement, a political mandated requirement or simply a requirement out of tradition.
As well as it is asking for an opinion again on a very complex legal matter one to which they can not possibly have all the facts. That specific section of the constitution has been amended many times, and parts of it were not properly able to be changed to in the constitution, I would be able elaborate on this If I were allowed to call my witness.
The defence's witnesses can't possibly know the ins and out of the case, so their opinion shouldn't matter. This is not a court of popularity but a court of facts.
The same point about opinion as before.
In the case:
www.democracycraft.net
The Supreme court ruled "that serving as a Representative does not show mental capacity" and being a good politician doesn't mean you know anything about the law. I would like to ask the court to deny these questions as it would hurt the facts of the case instead of adding to them. Their testimony could be considered prejudicial.
All of these questions are opinions and not facts. Witnesses should not testify to their own opinions. Especially not if these witnesses have a vested interest in this case. They are not reliable expert witnesses.
This question is too vague, what is meant with "constitutes a rights and freedoms change related to the right to run for public office". Is meant by this that it also constitutes a complex change or that it is such a reasonable limit justifiable in a free and democratic society.
It is also asking for an opinion on a very complex legal matter to one which they can not possibly have all the facts to. If even the judiciary can not speak to the facts of these cases with a simple, yes or no then how can we aspect that these politicians with a vested interest are able to answer this question. With a simple yes or no.
Again, I would like to point out the vagueness of this question. What is meant by this "requirement", is it a constitutionally mandated requirement, a political mandated requirement or simply a requirement out of tradition.
As well as it is asking for an opinion again on a very complex legal matter one to which they can not possibly have all the facts. That specific section of the constitution has been amended many times, and parts of it were not properly able to be changed to in the constitution, I would be able elaborate on this If I were allowed to call my witness.
The defence's witnesses can't possibly know the ins and out of the case, so their opinion shouldn't matter. This is not a court of popularity but a court of facts.
The same point about opinion as before.
In the case:
Lawsuit: Adjourned - Krix v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 7
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Krix Plaintiff v. The Commonwealth of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT Members of this esteemed court, fellow onlookers, politicians, and the people of Redmont. I am here to announce the return of the duly-elected President of Redmont...
www.democracycraft.net
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
I will not allow for a rebuttal.
Despite not citing a proper objection listed in the objections guide, MilkCrack is right about questions 1, 3, and 4. They are all calls for a conclusion, meaning they are opinion questions. Therefore I will sustain the objection to questions 1, 3, and 4.
I will be denying the objection to question 2 as it is not asking for an opinion and doesn't fall into any of the categories for objections listed out in the objections guide.
All of the witnesses (whether you were requested by the Plaintiff or the Defendant) must answer question 2 only. They have 48 hours from now to do so.
Despite not citing a proper objection listed in the objections guide, MilkCrack is right about questions 1, 3, and 4. They are all calls for a conclusion, meaning they are opinion questions. Therefore I will sustain the objection to questions 1, 3, and 4.
I will be denying the objection to question 2 as it is not asking for an opinion and doesn't fall into any of the categories for objections listed out in the objections guide.
All of the witnesses (whether you were requested by the Plaintiff or the Defendant) must answer question 2 only. They have 48 hours from now to do so.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2021
- Messages
- 321
2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?
Staff cannot answer this question.
Staff cannot answer this question.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
@xEndeavour why are you unable to answer this question?
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2021
- Messages
- 500
2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?
As the constitution 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"
Therefore, if the change is not a Complex Change, there is no need for a referendum, as according to the Constitution.
As the constitution 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"
Therefore, if the change is not a Complex Change, there is no need for a referendum, as according to the Constitution.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2021
- Messages
- 321
Its a political and legal matter.
If there is a direct question that is relevant to staff, we can answer in a staff capacity.
i.e. Prequisites to asking ownership for complex changes or server-side requirements.
If there is a direct question that is relevant to staff, we can answer in a staff capacity.
i.e. Prequisites to asking ownership for complex changes or server-side requirements.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
You are not being asked to answer as a staff member, you are being asked because you are a member of Congress End, so I’m requiring you to answer this question as a representative not as a staff member. And this shouldn’t be an issue as multiple other staff members were able to answer this question. So @xEndeavour you have 24 hours to answer this question, or you will be charged with contempt of court.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2021
- Messages
- 321
The plaintiff called for a staff member. If you would like a representative you need to summon a representative.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2021
- Messages
- 904
You were summoned by the Plaintiff as an owner, however the Defendant asked you a question as a representative because it was the same question that was asked as many other congressmen. So please answer this question as a congressman and use the @xEndeavour account. Your roles are separate as a representative and an owner however you are the same person and there is no need to summon your representative self. Just answer the question as a representative. Any further response that isn’t an answer will result in a contempt of court charge as well as not answering within 24 hours.
- Status