Lawsuit: Adjourned Nacholebraa v. Town of Oakridge

[Nacho]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Nacholebraa
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's complaints against Defendant are as follows:

The town council has passed legislation that violates Oakridge's constitution. The fundamental document explains and lays out the structure of the Oakridge Government. Article 3 of the Oakridge constitution clearly explains that any bill seeking to modify this constitution must receive unanimous consent from the town council. We know that the bill proposed by former mayor Martytje1234567 did not meet the defined requirements of the constitution and needs to be struck down as unconstitutional and removed from the town constitution.

I. PARTIES
1. Nacholebraa
2. Oakridge Council
3. Oakridge Legislature

II. FACTS
1. On 6/2/22 @ 1:34 pm EST, a bylaw was “passed” changing the mayor's requirements to run for office (Exhibit A)
2. The bill's vote total resulted in five ayes and one nay (Exhibit A)
3. The requirements for a bill to change the Oakridge constitution define within article 3 of the Oakridge constitution “Amendments to this Constitution Any bill which seeks to modify this Constitution must receive unanimous consent from the Town Council.” (Exhibit B)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. As defined within the Oakridge constitution, it lays forth very clear requirements for a bill to be deemed acceptable as a constitutional change. Failing to meet these requirements provides grounds that this bill is understood to be passed under the false presents of being an adequately proposed bill.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff seeks the following from Defendant:
1. The bill and any amendments to the original bill be struck down as unconstitutional.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 27th day of July 2022

 

[JoeGamer]

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided to move this case to the District Court. The Federal Court does not have original jurisdiction over this case as it does not meet the requirements per the Constitution of Redmont.​

 

[Rurge]

Your honor, I will be representing the town in this case as the current acting mayor of Oakridge.

As the town currently does not wish to contest or argue any of the facts of the case, I wish to motion for a summary judgement. I apologize if this is of improper stature and was unsure of how to go about this process as I have not encountered this type of case before.

 

[Kanne]

The Defence has 48 hours to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or file a motion to dismiss. @Rurge for the next time, remember that speaking a priori of a court summons can lead to contempt of court.

 

[Rurge]

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


Nacholebraa
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Oakridge
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Town of Oakridge does not dispute this fact.
2. The Town of Oakridge does not dispute this fact.
3. The Town of Oakridge does not dispute this fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. There is no defense, as the Town of Oakridge does not dispute any of these facts

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 July, 2022

 

[Rurge]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Justification for Summary Judgement:
The Defense disputes none of the facts presented by the Plaintiff.

DATED: This 31st day of July, 2022

 

[Kanne]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Nacholebraa v. Town of Oakridge [2022] DCR

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Bylaw was “passed” changing the mayor's requirements to run for office, without the unanimous approval needed to amend the town’s constitution.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1.The Defense disputes none of the facts presented by the Plaintiff.

2.The Defense files a Summary Judgment Motion.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The bill does not meet the constitutional requirements to be approved, since there is no unanimity in its approval.

IV. DECISION
1.I declare the bill and any amendments to the original bill unconstitutional.

2. Consequently, the bill is annulled and without effect.

The District Court thanks all involved.