Lawsuit: Dismissed Milkcrack v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 9

[Milkcrack]

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

On the 11th of January, the president wrongfully posted a declaration for the election of the President of the Senate. This election was unwarranted and illegal. I was still dicussing the legality of this fact and had to declare in order to mitigate potential damages as required. After the senate came into a tie, the vice-president cast a tie-breaking vote in favour of UnityMaster. The VP is not the person with the authority to cast a tie breaking vote. In the case of the election of the POS it's the President's power to cast a tie-breaking vote.

I. PARTIES
1. President of the Senate Milkcrack
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On the 11th of January approximately 17:27 GMT+1 the president posted an announcement for the instigation of the election of the president of the senate. Exhibit A
2. The constitution says the following:
The Senate shall internally elect a senator to the role of "President of The Senate" whose power it shall be to preside over the Senate. In order to remove the "President of The Senate", they must resign from the position or lose to a vote of no confidence from the incumbent Senators (supermajority). Should the election for the President of the Senate result in a tie, the President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote.
3. President of the Senate Milkcrack did not resign nor lose to a vote of no confidence, therefore they are not removed and continue to be the president of the senate.
4. The instigation of a new president of the senate election can only be done where there is a vacancy in the office. There was no vacancy at the time of posting the election.
5. A tie occured for the election of President of The Senate.
6. The Vice-President does not have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote in the election of the president of the senate
7. The Vice-President was added by someone to the congressional channel of the President of the senate election. The Vice-President has never been added before and this action is unprecedented.
8. The Vice-President Declared Unity had won in the senate president of the senate election channel.
9. The Vice-President abbused permisions in order to announce that UnityMaster had become President of the Senate.
10. The President is in-charge of hosting the election and announcing the winner. Therefore the announcement itself was also invalid.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Currently, our nation is being threatened by an unlawful actions which imply that seats that are currently occupied can simply be re-filled by starting an unwarranted election or nomination process. Action by the court must be taken to restore order and justice to the president of the senate and the senate chamber as a whole.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. For the falsely instigated election for the role of president of the senate to be stricken and declared null and void.
2. For me to resume my position as president of the Senate as is legally just.
3. For the DLA to investigate and sue nacho for corruption and treason.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 13th day of January 2023.

 

[Milkcrack]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
I ask that the announcement that was posted by Vice-President Nacho is immediatly stricken down as null and void and I am given back my roles. It appears that staff have removed my roles and gave them to Unitymaster instead, following the announcement.

Furthermore I ask that the Court pause the election of the president of the senate for the remainder of this case.

 

[Milkcrack]

Additionally I have updated the prayer for relief to ask the DLA to investigate and sue Nacho for Corruption and treason

 

[Nacho]

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

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

1. As previously established by the court within [2023] FCR 76 (Link), the court found that more modern amendments to the constitution shall be deemed to be upheld over older amendments to the constitution when two portions provide conflicting results. I've attached the two amendments that are of conflicting nature. (Dismiss-1, Dismiss-2, Dismiss-3)
2. Rule 5.4 (Original Jurisdiction) - The case requests that an individual within public office be removed on the grounds that the Federal Court does not have the authority to remove an individual from office.

Amendment Milk is quoting: Act of Congress - Senate Care Act (Signed 1/16/22)
Amendment the state is quoting: Act of Congress - Vice Presidential Reform Amendment Act (Signed 6/18/22)

DATED: This 13th day of January 2022

 

[Nacho]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

The Plaintiff has amended their complaint in violation of Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint). The commonwealth asks that the section be struck and requests that the plaintiff amendments in accordance with the rules established by the court.

Attached is the rule for reference.

 

[Milkcrack]

MOTION TO STRIKE
Your honour the defence has no authority to make a Motion To Dismiss before being summoned, I ask that these comments be stricken from the record and not considered in a verdict on the emergency injunction. In addition, Nacho has provided no proof of representation.

Here is one of the numerous examples in which comments by the defence prior to being summoned are stricken from the record.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Lex404 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 57

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Lex404 Plaintiff v. Commonwealth Of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On the 4th of February, the Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed into law by President Derpy. This...

www.democracycraft.net

 

[End]

REQUEST TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

Prior to the court potentially making an uninformed decision on the injunctions to interrupt the Senate, I'd like to request to file an amicus brief.

Speaking as a friend of the court and as a several term Senator, former POS, and several term representative, I'd like to speak on the claims put forward, particularly relating to convention and how the actions were supported by law and the constitution.

 

[RelaxedGV]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
I ask that the announcement that was posted by Vice-President Nacho is immediatly stricken down as null and void and I am given back my roles. It appears that staff have removed my roles and gave them to Unitymaster instead, following the announcement.

Furthermore I ask that the Court pause the election of the president of the senate for the remainder of this case.

After careful consideration, the Emergency Injunction will be rejected given the stability of the Senate Chamber. Should I grant this, the trial can be extended for a period of time given one of the Prayer for Relief's is to place the Plaintiff within the Position in question. With that I cannot in good faith grant the Injunction knowing this. Instead, the position will be heavily limited to only putting up Motions and Bills for the duration of the case.

MOTION TO STRIKE
Your honour the defence has no authority to make a Motion To Dismiss before being summoned, I ask that these comments be stricken from the record and not considered in a verdict on the emergency injunction. In addition, Nacho has provided no proof of representation.

Here is one of the numerous examples in which comments by the defence prior to being summoned are stricken from the record.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Lex404 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 57

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Lex404 Plaintiff v. Commonwealth Of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On the 4th of February, the Violent Offences Amendment Act was signed into law by President Derpy. This...

www.democracycraft.net

The Motion to Strike will be sustained given that the Motion to Dismiss and Objection should take place following a summons which will happen in a separate message to this. I will also ask that the Plaintiff not edit their filing unless motioned and granted by the Presiding Officer. Given it has already occurred I will just leave it as a warning.

REQUEST TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

Prior to the court potentially making an uninformed decision on the injunctions to interrupt the Senate, I'd like to request to file an amicus brief.

Speaking as a friend of the court and as a several term Senator, former POS, and several term representative, I'd like to speak on the claims put forward, particularly relating to convention and how the actions were supported by law and the constitution.

Senator xEndeavour you may provide an Amicus Brief, please provide one within 72 hours.

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@IncompleteRiver is required to appear before the court in the case of the MilkCrack v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Nacho]

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

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

1. As previously established by the court within [2023] FCR 76 (Link), the court found that more modern amendments to the constitution shall be deemed to be upheld over older amendments to the constitution when two portions provide conflicting results. I've attached the two amendments that are of conflicting nature. (Dismiss-1, Dismiss-2, Dismiss-3)
2. Rule 5.4 (Original Jurisdiction) - The case requests that an individual within public office be removed on the grounds that the Federal Court does not have the authority to remove an individual from office.

Amendment Milk is quoting: Act of Congress - Senate Care Act (Signed 1/16/22)
Amendment the state is quoting: Act of Congress - Vice Presidential Reform Amendment Act (Signed 6/18/22)

I ask the court to reference my previous post as the site is not letting me upload files - OR I can submit them to your honor separately.

DATED: This 14th day of January 2022

 

[RelaxedGV]

Plaintiff has 72 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

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

1. As previously established by the court within [2023] FCR 76 (Link), the court found that more modern amendments to the constitution shall be deemed to be upheld over older amendments to the constitution when two portions provide conflicting results. I've attached the two amendments that are of conflicting nature. (Dismiss-1, Dismiss-2, Dismiss-3)
2. Rule 5.4 (Original Jurisdiction) - The case requests that an individual within public office be removed on the grounds that the Federal Court does not have the authority to remove an individual from office.

Amendment Milk is quoting: Act of Congress - Senate Care Act (Signed 1/16/22)
Amendment the state is quoting: Act of Congress - Vice Presidential Reform Amendment Act (Signed 6/18/22)

I ask the court to reference my previous post as the site is not letting me upload files - OR I can submit them to your honor separately.

DATED: This 14th day of January 2022

The images may be sent in Discord dms to both me and the Plaintiff and the images only. Once the ability to post photos has returned they are to be posted here again.

 

[Milkcrack]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honour section 13 of the constitution clearly states, that

"Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

Your suggestion that I would stall this trial, to extend my position is a violation of this right. Every citizen is equal before the law, despite any preconceived notions you may have of me.

The only reason provided for denying my emergency injunction is 'given the stability of the senate'. Currently, the Senate is in a deadlock and unable to vote on any bills or standing orders until order is restored by the court. Denying my emergency injunction will cause direct and irreparable harm to the stability of the Senate as well as the future of our commonwealth.

Your honour currently an illegal announcement has been actioned by staff. If the emergency injunction fails to immediately declare the announcement void and null, the announcement will become true in practice even when it's illegal, making Unitymaster defacto POS. Meaning the Federal Court will no longer have jurisdiction of this court case.

The court must decide on whether or not to recognise the announcement.

I would also like to point out that the court has not considered my arguments made in the complaint. Specifically, the POS-election itself is invalid in the first place, as there exists no constitutional framework allowing for the early removal of the POS by simply calling a new election. The constitution clearly says that the POS can only be removed by resigning or losing to a vote of no confidence.

As well as the argument that the announcement is invalid as no Vice-President under the current system has been able to announce the POS and goes directly against the standing orders.

Standing orders of the 22nd senate:

1 - Election of the President of the Senate
(1) Nomination Period. The nomination period lasts 24 hours, or less with the consent of all Senators.
(a) The President of Redmont is to assume the chair of the Senate and ask for those who wish to be elected President of the Senate to nominate themselves or others.
(b) Should only one member be nominated then they shall be declared President of the Senate at the end of the nomination period.
(c) Should two or more members be nominated, all members are to vote for the President of the Senate in the voting period.
(2) Voting Period. The voting period lasts 24 hours, or less once a majority has been reached and declared by the President.
(a) The ballot is to be conducted through instant runoff voting.
(b) In the event of a tie, the Vice President will cast a tie-breaking vote.
(3) Announcement Period. The President will announce the winning Senator from the instant run-off as the President of the Senate.
(a) Once announced, the winning Senator is to assume the authority of the Presiding Officer of the Chamber.
(b) The Presiding Officer becomes the custodian of these Standing orders and calls the Senate to order.

 

[Nacho]

The images may be sent in Discord dms to both me and the Plaintiff and the images only. Once the ability to post photos has returned they are to be posted here again.

Your Honor,

I have submitted the images to both you and the plaintiff.

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honour section 13 of the constitution clearly states, that

"Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

Your suggestion that I would stall this trial, to extend my position is a violation of this right. Every citizen is equal before the law, despite any preconceived notions you may have of me.

The only reason provided for denying my emergency injunction is 'given the stability of the senate'. Currently, the Senate is in a deadlock and unable to vote on any bills or standing orders until order is restored by the court. Denying my emergency injunction will cause direct and irreparable harm to the stability of the Senate as well as the future of our commonwealth.

Your honour currently an illegal announcement has been actioned by staff. If the emergency injunction fails to immediately declare the announcement void and null, the announcement will become true in practice even when it's illegal, making Unitymaster defacto POS. Meaning the Federal Court will no longer have jurisdiction of this court case.

The court must decide on whether or not to recognise the announcement.

I would also like to point out that the court has not considered my arguments made in the complaint. Specifically, the POS-election itself is invalid in the first place, as there exists no constitutional framework allowing for the early removal of the POS by simply calling a new election. The constitution clearly says that the POS can only be removed by resigning or losing to a vote of no confidence.

As well as the argument that the announcement is invalid as no Vice-President under the current system has been able to announce the POS and goes directly against the standing orders.

Standing orders of the 22nd senate:

The Motion to Reconsider will be overruled for several reasons, firstly the Emergency Injunction was not rejected due to the complete delaying of the trial. It was an argument that it could happen not a statement saying it will happen. I considered as many outcomes as I could conceive before ruling and this was one of them. I do the same with every injunction and this is no different.

Regarding the moving of the Senate, UnityMaster has posted the Standing Orders that are up to vote currently thus nullifying the entire point. Whether allowed given the validity of the POS Election we will see through the trial.

Regarding the POS-Election, those were not taken into Consideration given I was not ruling on the case as a whole and rather an injunction pertaining to removing the current POS and replacing them with the Plaintiff which is not a power of the Federal Court and awarded to the Supreme Court thus I could not even grant the Injunction in the first place.

I have granted an amended Injunction Pertaining to the POS position of not being able to use any of the powers awarded to it beside putting up bills and motions to keep the Chamber moving. Any other powers have been prohibited by the Injunction and that is where it will stay.

Until we are at a verdict (whether that is after Motion to Dismiss is Granted or after Closing) I will not rule on the Claim, Prayer, or other of the case itself given this is a Motion to Reconsider on an Injunction.

 

[End]

AMICUS BRIEF
Thank you for the opportunity to file an amicus brief. I'd like to use this brief as an opportunity to talk to two points:

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

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

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

Changes to:

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

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

Without constitutional conventions, the constitution would be rigid, incomplete, and vulnerable to abuse by politicians who may seek to exploit gaps or ambiguities to stay in office or otherwise.

Law Changes
The law concerning the Vice President's involvement with the Senate has been a forever evolving political issue.

The Standing Orders from the previous Congress - which, by convention, remain active noting:
a. They are only ever reconfirmed or amended, not re-proposed.
b. They contain instructions for the period of office where there is no functioning Senate (Presiding Officer Elections).
State that the President exercises executive power in the POS elections.

The complication here is that the intent of the Vice Presidential Reform Amendment Act was to reintroduce the Vice President as the member of the executive who exercised executive power in the Senate. In doing so, it could be argued that the amendment to the Constitution outweighs the Standing Orders.

There is no clean interpretation of this legal conflict. The pathway of least legal damage and interference in the governance of the Senate would be by way of a legislative change to the Constitution and Standing Orders to better define who exercises Executive power in the Senate. Historically, this has almost always been the VP.

At the end of the day, whether the President or Vice President exercise executive power in the Senate should be redundant. The Vice President is the President's offsider and has wide-ranging executive power and frequently represents the Administration. If the Vice President and President are at odds with the decision of one another, then there is an argument that it is an executive issue to be resolved internally.

Thank you, I hope my submission was friendly enough

 

[Milkcrack]

MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

Your honour, seeing as the court is condoning the illegal announcement thereby making Unitymaster defacto President of the Senate. This court no longer has the authority to decide this case. Section 19, sub-section a of the Judicial Standards Act says the following:

19. Powers‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Supreme‌ ‌Court‌ ‌
(a) The‌ ‌Supreme Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌has original jurisdiction over‌:
(i) Removal of officials from Public Office (Judicial Officers, Members of Congress, Members of Cabinet)
(ii) Resolving‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌between‌ ‌Government‌ ‌Institutions

I request that the court, move this case to the supreme court.

 

[Nacho]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

The plaintiff has filed an improper motion within the court, and it should be struck. Should the individual wish to change venue, he should be required to withdraw the case against the state and then re-file in the appropriate court. The plaintiff has further failed to provide the court with a properly defined motion within the court procedure.

 

[Milkcrack]

MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI
If this will make the process go faster.

Your honour, I would to request that this suit will be dismissed without prejudice, so I can re-file the case in the Supreme Court.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Very well, this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice at request of the Plaintiff.