Lawsuit: Adjourned Milkcrack v. The commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 42

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Milkcrack

Peasent
Supporter
Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle Statesman
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
Solicitor
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Messages
393

IN THE FEDERAL 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
A bill has been put up to a referendum, and the people have voted with a majority to pass it. However, the bill has been misplaced as rejected. The Bill in question is the Best Ballot Act which followed and passed all the legislative requirements for a constitutional amendment


I. PARTIES
1. Milkcrack suing as a citizen.
2. The Government

II. FACTS
1. Milkcrack proposed the best ballot act, on April the 23th
2. The best ballot act, passed the house with a supermajority of 5/7 aye's
3. The best ballot act, passed the Senate with a supermajority of 4/5 aye's
4. The bill was granted assent.
5. The bill was put up to referendum and passed referendum with a majority of 18/29 aye's


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. It's the government's job to ensure for a smooth-running democracy. If the people pass a bill it should be enacted.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. An Emergency Injunction commanding the DOS to enforce the bill for all upcoming senate elections for the duration of the lawsuit.
2. An injunction to command the Presiding officer's office to, move the bill to the constitutional amendment section.

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 31st day of May 2022
​

 
Last edited:
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.
 
federal-court-png.12082

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.​
 
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.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
13.14 - Abstentions
a. The quorum when voting shall be dynamic. Where a member abstains from voting, the majority will be decided based on those who have not abstained.
Click to expand...
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:
4 - Rejection / Pass / Quorum of Bills
(c) Quorum: Shall be defined as half of the members of a chamber plus one
Click to expand...

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:

Redundant - 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 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.
"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:
1654387083184.png
Click to expand...
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:

The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.
Click to expand...
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. 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 www.democracycraft.net

I would like to specifically quote the following parts of the verdict:

Chief-Justice End:

Was the Allegiance Act lawful?
The Allegiance Act was signed into law on 21 JUN 2021, passing the House with 9 votes and the Senate with 4 votes. The bill was a constitutional amendment, although, this does not mean it requires a referendum.

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
Click to expand...

A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President: - Changes to the System of Government. - Plugin-related changes. - Changes involving significant staff involvement. - Creation of new towns/cities/urban establishments. - A Rights & Freedoms change.
Click to expand...

The only applicable reason above is a change to Rights and Freedoms. The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society. I am of the opinion that this was not a complex change as it did not change the nature of the status quo. There bill did not make a change to rights and freedoms, it made a reasonable limitation that is justified in a free and democratic society.
Click to expand...
Speaker of the House Mhadsher (Acting Justice)

I support the legality of the Allegiance Act along the rest of the Court; a referendum was not needed because it was not a Rights and Freedoms change.
Click to expand...

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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
1654384908132.png

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:
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:
1654386969775.png


I will change the quote to a picture to make sure, it's clear for everyone.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

"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?"
Click to expand...

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.


"2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?"
Click to expand...

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.



" 3. Flatly, do you believe the Best Ballots Act met the Constitutionally mandated requirements to amend the Constitution?"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
federal-court-png.12082

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.​
 
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 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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.


"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?"
Click to expand...

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.



"2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?"
Click to expand...

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.


" 3. Flatly, do you believe the Best Ballots Act met the Constitutionally mandated requirements to amend the Constitution?"
Click to expand...

"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?"
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
An owner of the server xEndeavour who can speak to whether it was or wasn't a complex change.
Click to expand...
The plaintiff called for a staff member. If you would like a representative you need to summon a representative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Staff Team said:
The plaintiff called for a staff member. If you would like a representative you need to summon a representative.
Click to expand...
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.
 
If you summon a staff member you will get a response from that member in a staff capacity.

If you would like a staff member to respond in anything other than a staff capacity, you need to summon them in any way but a staff member.

This is me drawing the line in the sand between staff and government.
 
2. In the event that a Constitutional Amendment is not a Complex Change, is there any requirement that a referendum be held?
Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:
  • 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.
Click to expand...
Not according to the constitution.
 
Objection Breach of Procedure

Having, xEndeavour testify without me being able to cross-examine him violates a fundamental right granted in almost all democracies. The reason I called the owner of the server was to ask if Westray had approached the owner's team about the best ballot as the constitution would mandate Westray to do for a complex change.

However, Hugebob asked the witness a question about his job as a representative, it is no longer my witness. Hereby Hugebob introduced a new witness so either I should be able to cross-examine him or end's testimony should be stricken from the record.
 
I will be denying this objection as End is the same person. He is not 2 separate people. You already has the opportunity to question End, and it would be a breach of procedure if you had another opportunity. The summons I filed was not in an official format for a reason nor was there a discord summons. This is because End had already been summoned and it was what he wanted me to do before he answered any questions. You have 48 hours from now to cross-examin Hugebobs witnesses. (End is not one of them).
 
Your honour, I requested an official summons. I retract all of my statements.

The court purposely made a misrepresentation that i was legally compelled to respond.
 
A__C only
The defence is trying to argue that because the bill went to referendum, that me and the president both agreed that it was a complex change.
1. During your time as deputy speaker do recall me ever saying that the best ballot act was a complex change?

Both
2. Given the following evidence:
1655990692737.png

If president Westray believed the Best Ballot Act was a complex change would he have violated the following section of the constitution?
SECTION VII - DEFINING KEY TERMS
Complex Change
A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President:

Both
3. Are you familiar with the following text of the constitution. Which was later on "amended" by the socialism amendment?
(1) “Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change or a rights and freedoms change:

  • A Representative must pose a referendum on forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment.
  • A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
  • A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
  • Presidential Assent”

Both
4a. According to the text above, Is it clear if a referendum is required for all types of constitutional changes or just complex changes?
4b. Would you say that all bills before the socialism amendment took into effect and that have been put up for referendum but not got a supermajority are seen as rejected bills?

A__C only:
5. To clarify the socialism amendment changes the process of when a referendum is required. As speaker of the house, would you put the socialist amendment itself up for referendum?

Both
6. The socialism amendment has not been put up for referendum, although there is no time frame of when a bill must be put up for referendum after it is signed. Would you say that a bill that is supposed to have gone to a referendum does not take into effect until the referendum has passed?

Both
7. If the socialism amendment had been taken into effect would you say that the amendment has been properly amended in the constitution.
(1) “Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change or a rights and freedoms change:

  • A Representative must pose a referendum on forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment.
  • A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
  • A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
  • Presidential Assent”

Changes to:

“Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:

  • The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.
  • A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
  • Presidential Assent or Veto Override”
Changing the Constitution
A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process:

  • The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change. Such a referendum must result in at least a supermajority of votes in favor of the amendment to pass.
  • A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change.
  • A super majority is achieved in both chambers of Congress.
  • Presidential Assent or Veto Override.
Depending on answers there might be follow up questions
 
Sorry I am a bit late, I was out all day yesterday and the day before. I also didn't get a notification and did not see there were additional questions.

1. During your time as deputy speaker do recall me ever saying that the best ballot act was a complex change?
Don't recall.

2. Given the following evidence:
If president Westray believed the Best Ballot Act was a complex change would he have violated the following section of the constitution?
Yeah

3. Are you familiar with the following text of the constitution. Which was later on "amended" by the socialism amendment?
Yes. I have not seen it before but I have read it just now.

4a. According to the text above, Is it clear if a referendum is required for all types of constitutional changes or just complex changes?
As I said before a referendum is only required for complex changes, as according to the Constitution.

4b. Would you say that all bills before the socialism amendment took into effect and that have been put up for referendum but not got a supermajority are seen as rejected bills?
No since laws usually do not apply to things that happened prior to it passing.

5. To clarify the socialism amendment changes the process of when a referendum is required. As speaker of the house, would you put the socialist amendment itself up for referendum?
Prior to the passage of the Socialist Amendment: "A constitutional change must satisfy these requirements beyond the normal congressional process when an amendment is in relation to a complex change or a rights and freedoms change" - If it is considered a complex change then it would have needed a referendum.

6. The socialism amendment has not been put up for referendum, although there is no time frame of when a bill must be put up for referendum after it is signed. Would you say that a bill that is supposed to have gone to a referendum does not take into effect until the referendum has passed?
If it was supposed to go to referendum then yes.

7. If the socialism amendment had been taken into effect would you say that the amendment has been properly amended in the constitution.
No because they left the extra line "A supermajority needs to be achieved via public referendum, only if the amendment is for a complex change." - However this was also already listed as "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." so it doesn't make much difference in meaning.
 
Thank you. I would also like to clear up xEndeavour's role here. He was summoned as an Owner by the Plaintiff, who was then not permitted to ask questions as a result of being late. The Defense did not request either xEndeavour as an owner or as a representative, and he was not the Defense's witness. Furthermore, the question asked of xEndeavour was answered from his original capacity, that being as an Owner, that staff cannot speak to whether something is a complex change.

After reviewing the court thread, I have come to the following conclusion: xEndeavour was summoned by a party who was not permitted to ask questions for procedural reasons. Thus it does not matter what capacity he was summoned in, as the fact that there was no examination in the first place negates any need for cross-examination. Therefore, I am striking from the record any questions and answers not made to or by A__C, Milqy, or huney69. xEndeavour is hereby dismissed from this case and will not answer any more questions.

As this is the cross-examination the Plaintiff may ask questions to witnesses who have testified for the Defense. If the Plaintiff has any follow-up questions for those witnesses already named as the Defense's witnesses, not xEndeavour, they may ask them.
 
To the best of my understanding, the only witnesses that were asked questions in that post were A__C (who answered) and "both", or two people. As "both" was not clarified to mean anyone in particular, I assumed it meant xEndeavour, who had just testified, and A__C. Would the Plaintiff explain who was meant by "both"?
 
2. Yes Id say he did violate it as he did not discuss it with the owners. He saw it as a complex change to as he put it to referendum, but did not discuss it with owner end.

4a. It seems to be just for complex changes
4b. Im not sure if I fully understand the question but yes? I think because they still wouldve needed supermajority to pass and if they didnt meet it then they fail.

6. Yes

7. No
 
Closing Statement
The Facts are indisputable, the issue has already been to court and ruled on. The only question today really is if the court is going to uphold that precedent or throw it out and that is the only thing that should be in dispute here today.

Let me first go over what is not in dispute, the aye's to nay's ratio in congress was more than 2/3. As per past precedent, the law and the constitution, this constitutes a supermajority. I already have gone over this point more extensively in my objection to the MTD.

The Bill was granted presidential Assent it is as clear as day. Westray who was the president at the time signed the bill and stated it "may go to referendum". It is my understanding that I and the former president at the time believed that a constitutional amendment may still go to a referendum even if it is not a complex change and does not require a supermajority but only a regular one.
Why would the president claim it was a complex change and not discuss it with the owners?
Which would be a violation of the constitution and an impeachable offence.

Now I still believe that a constitutional amendment requires, a referendum with majority approval. This is because the Socialism amendment was an amendment that was supposed to "Clarify" the constitution. The debate was over whether or not a constitutional amendment required a referendum if it was not a complex change. Hugebob claimed it didn't and that is why the bill says nothing changes however the actual wording of the constitution around complex changes did change. It is my understanding that before the Socialism Amendment had passed there was a referendum requirement for a non-complex constitutional amendment.
The Socialism amendment itself never went to referendum and therefore I do not believe it is enacted yet and the constitution should be amended to not include socialism amened until it passes a referendum. Right now the constitution partially includes the amendment and partially doesn't which leads to the confusion we have here today.

Now, this is the disputed fact in the case, the defence is claiming that the Best Ballot Act was a complex change even tho this issue has been ruled on already. The Supreme Court stated in Hugebob v. commonwealth SCR2 that the Allegiancy act was not a complex change. Even though it barred people that we're serving in a foreign government from running.

The Best Ballot Act bared people that had no prior experience in the role of the following: "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." This is quite an extensive list with one of the roles that fulfil this clause being "Town-council" experience which is not an unknown prerequisite for holding electoral office as it is a practice which has been put as a requirement in town elections already.
So I'd argue that this act would be less impactful to any rights or freedoms than the Allegiancy act and should be put under such "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." As it did have supermajority support in congress, presidential assent and 62% of the people who voted in the referendum to support the law.

I would implore the judge to read my response to the motion to dismiss as this is where I explain most of my legal arguments in more detail.

In conclusion, to decide against this bill would be overturning a supreme court verdict and directly against the will of the people. I ask that the Best Ballot Act will go into effect immediately. I would also like to add that if the courts chose to overturn the Allegiancy Act precedent that the bill will be put up for referendum again as the result of the poll was live as there surely have been people who support the bill and did not bother to vote because they believed it would pass with flying colours, as it did. Thank you reading my long statement.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


MilkCrack
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

Your honour, the Plaintiff's admission that the President did not seek Owner approval for this Complex Change is in itself enough to render the Amendment null and void, even if it had received a supermajority through referendum (which it did not). But that is not the core issue of this case. The core issue is whether or not it is a restriction of your right to participate in and run for elected office to ban you from running for elected office.

If banning you from running for elected office is a restriction upon your right to run for office, then this Amendment is a Rights and Freedoms Change. If it is a Rights and Freedoms Change, then this is a Complex Change. If it is a Complex Change, then the President must have discussed it with the Owner and the Amendment must have been put to a public Referendum and receive more than 2/3 support in favor of the Amendment. Neither did the President seek Owner approval, nor did the Referendum pass by 2/3 support at Referendum. The Plaintiff also mentions that the Rights and Freedoms may be subject to limitations that are reasonable in a free and fair democracy. I agree. That's how we have playtime requirements to vote and to run for office.

But just because the change is reasonable does not mean that it is not a change. For example, it would be entirely unlawful for an Amendment to ban anyone with numbers in their username from seeking public office, even if it received unanimous consent of Congress, the President, the Owner, and at public referendum. However, a restriction requiring that Senate candidates have experience in another Government position is completely reasonable. That is why it would be allowed to have become law in the event that it met the appropriate requirements.

But, it did not. And it would be a radical and dangerous precedent to establish that banning people from running for office does not infringe on their right to run for office. In the event that a precedent like that were established, do YOU trust the Congress not to abuse that? I can tell you right now, if me, Krix, and Dusty were still in power with a precedent like that, we would just ban the other parties. I'm not even kidding is the funny part.

Thank you.

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 7th day of July 2022
 
Last edited:

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Milkcrack v. Commonwealth [2022] FCR 42

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Best Ballot Act does not constitute a complex change, as the Allegiance Act was declared to not be a complex change.
2. It received at least 2/3 of votes that were cast in the House and the Senate, meeting the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendments.
3. The bill was also put up for public referendum, which it passed.
4. The bill thus met all of the requirements for a standard constitutional amendment, and should have been included in the Constitution from that point on.
5. The bill was not included in the Constitution and marked, incorrectly, as rejected.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Best Ballot Act is indeed a complex change, as it restricts the constitutional right to run for public office.
2. The bill received only 5 ayes in the House of Representatives, meaning it did not pass the required supermajority.
3. The bill then went on to receive only 18/29 ayes in the public referendum, meaning it also did not pass the public referendum supermajority mandated by the Constitution.
4. By these virtues the bill was correctly marked rejected.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. The bill in question was a rights and freedoms change. I will elaborate on this further:
- According to the opinion of then-Chief Justice xEndeavour in the ruling on hugebob23456 v. Commonwealth [2022] SCR 2, “I am of the opinion that this was not a complex change as it did not change the nature of the status quo. There bill did not make a change to rights and freedoms, it made a reasonable limitation that is justified in a free and democratic society.”
- The opinion was that the Allegiance Act did not alter dramatically the nature of the status quo. The Best Ballot Act, however, would greatly alter the current state of affairs.
- The Allegiance Act and the Best Ballot Act both seek to establish a higher standard of government, but they go about this in very different ways. The Allegiance Act uses a minor limitation that is solely temporary in nature in order to prevent a direct conflict. The temporality is the important part of this that separates the two Acts. The limitations imposed by the Allegiance Act expire once the individual is no longer holding the office elsewhere. A candidate could be a farmer in Redmont the whole time and then run for President as soon as they are no longer holding said office, since the limit is temporary.
- The Best Ballot Act, by contrast, relies on establishing prerequisite positions to hold before running for certain public office. This is not temporary like the Allegiance Act, and could permanently prevent many individuals from ever running for these public offices. The pool of people who have held or are holding the listed positions that meet the prerequisites is fairly small, compared to the total number of people in Redmont. This by extension drastically limits the number of people who can ever run for the proposed restricted offices.
- By this standard, this bill is a major rights and freedoms change, and thus a complex change.
2. The bill did pass the supermajority in the House of Representatives, as the Legislative Standards Act declares that the quorum will be dynamic to compensate for abstentions. The bill received 5 ayes out of 7 votes cast, meeting the standard for a supermajority.
3. While the bill passed with the required supermajority in the Senate, it failed in the public referendum, with only 18 ayes out of 29 votes cast total. This falls clearly short of the 2/3 supermajority required given that the bill is a complex rights and freedoms change.

IV. VERDICT
I hereby find in favor of the Defendant that the bill was rejected by the standards of the Constitution. The bill will not go into effect.

The Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top