Lawsuit: Dismissed Poemhunter v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 23

Status
Not open for further replies.

Poemhunter

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
poemhunter
poemhunter
attorney
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
85
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION

Poemhunter & xLayzur
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Certain aspects of our Government should be separate from the President and their Administration. The Constitution defines this as an Executive Office, however it does not actually define which Departments are Executive Offices.

The Department of State should be impartial because it manages elections, which could be politically influenced by the President. The Department of Legal Affairs should be impartial because they may have to prosecute the President. The Department of Education should be impartial because they take a front line role with the education new players and could be politically influenced by the President to their advantage. The Department of Justice must lawfully execute the laws and ensure the good order of the server, which could be politically influenced by the President - especially if they have to arrest them.

I. PARTIES
1. Poemhunter
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. xLayzur

II. FACTS
1. The Constitution defines an Executive Office as:
“Executive Officers are members of the cabinet who each lead executive offices, it is the Executive Officer's responsibility to oversee the efficient operations of their office and to create and amend office policy in conjunction with the Government's direction. They appoint and dismiss employees of their respective departments. Executive Offices and Officers are required to remain unbiased, impartial and are required to defend the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth over the will of the current administration and president.”

2. The Constitution does not define which Departments are Executive Offices and which are Departments.

3. The Department of State, The Department of Legal Affairs, The Department of Justice, and The Department of Education would all be defined as Executive Offices due to the fact that they should be unburned by the political aspirations of the current administration.

4. The Constitution defines the role of the Vice President as: “The Vice President is second to the President and acts as their sole adviser.”

5. Derpy has been nominated to head the Department of Education.

6. Here is a graphic that outlines how each department is directly affected by the definition of Executive Offices:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Constitution implies that the President can run a Department, however they clearly cannot run an Executive Office by virtue of it needing to be independent from the current administration.

2. The Department of Education, as an Executive Office, cannot be headed by Derpy while they are Vice President due to the fact that an Executive Office must be independent from the administration.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The Court affirms that the Department of State, Department of Legal Affairs, Department of Education, & Department of Justice are Executive Offices.
2. The Court does not allow the sitting President or Vice President to run either the Department of State, Department of Legal Affairs, Department of Education, & Department of Justice as they are Executive Offices. Therefore, because we are asking the court to not allow the VP to run the DoE, we are asking the court remove Derpy_bird from the position of Secretary of the Department of Education.

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 18 day of November 2022
 

Attachments

  • case.png
    case.png
    300.1 KB · Views: 59
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION I am requesting an emergency injunction as Vice President Derpy has cast a tie breaking vote to affirm themself as Secretary of Education. I am requesting that Vice President Derpy be temporarily removed from the role of Secretary of Education until such a time as it is determined if it is legal to be Vice President and Secretary of Education as the Department of Education is an Executive Office, due to the requirement of an Executive Office being impartial from the Administration having the Vice President be Secretary would cause untold damage.
 
Last edited:
MOTION TO RECUSE
I request that the Justice Nacholebraa be recused from this case by the presiding Judge, as per the ‘Judicial Standards Act’ and ‘Motions Guide’, due to the following conflicts of interest:

1. As per the ‘Judicial Standards Act’ “Bias/appearance of bias” exists as a Conflict of Interest, Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State, a role which will have to “remain unbiased, impartial and are required to defend the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth over the will of the current administration and president” if the DOS is found to be an Executive Office. This could prejudice Nacholebraa in his decision because, as he is Deputy Secretary of the DOS, he may have previously breached the constitution by acting in a biased or partial manner towards the will of the administration. Essentially Nacholebraa is biased towards this case because there is a possibility he may have been biased in his role previously (in the DOS), which would violate the argued interpretation of the constitution.

2. As per the ‘Judicial Standards Act’ “Interest” exists as a Conflict of Interest, Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State, a role which will have to “remain unbiased, impartial and are required to defend the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth over the will of the current administration and president” if the DOS is found to be an Executive Office. The nature of Nacholebraas role in the DoS will change if it is found to be an Executive Office as he would then have to act impartially from the administration by law, which is possible that he currently does not.

3. As per the ‘Motions Guide’, which exists as an extension of Court Procedure, “Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it” exists as a Conflict of Interest. Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State appointed by GoldBlooded who is Secretary of the Department of State. This implies on some level Nacholebraa has a relationship with the Secretary. As the role of the Secretary will dramatically change due to the ruling in this case, in the same ways that the role of Deputy Secretary will change, there exists a Conflict of Interest.

4. As per the ‘Motions Guide’, which exists as an extension of Court Procedure, “Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer” exists as a Conflict of Interest. Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State which is both a background and experience with the issue in contention. If the Department of State is an Executive Office Nacholebraa could have violated the Constitution if they have acted in any way that shows a bias towards the current administration during their background or experience in the DOS, as the Courts ruling on this would be retroactive therefore they would be essentially ruling on themselves.
 
supreme-court-seal-png.8642


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

The Commonwealth of Redmont is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Poemhunter v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 23


Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
MOTION TO RECUSE
I request that the Justice Nacholebraa be recused from this case by the presiding Judge, as per the ‘Judicial Standards Act’ and ‘Motions Guide’, due to the following conflicts of interest:

1. As per the ‘Judicial Standards Act’ “Bias/appearance of bias” exists as a Conflict of Interest, Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State, a role which will have to “remain unbiased, impartial and are required to defend the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth over the will of the current administration and president” if the DOS is found to be an Executive Office. This could prejudice Nacholebraa in his decision because, as he is Deputy Secretary of the DOS, he may have previously breached the constitution by acting in a biased or partial manner towards the will of the administration. Essentially Nacholebraa is biased towards this case because there is a possibility he may have been biased in his role previously (in the DOS), which would violate the argued interpretation of the constitution.

2. As per the ‘Judicial Standards Act’ “Interest” exists as a Conflict of Interest, Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State, a role which will have to “remain unbiased, impartial and are required to defend the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth over the will of the current administration and president” if the DOS is found to be an Executive Office. The nature of Nacholebraas role in the DoS will change if it is found to be an Executive Office as he would then have to act impartially from the administration by law, which is possible that he currently does not.

3. As per the ‘Motions Guide’, which exists as an extension of Court Procedure, “Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it” exists as a Conflict of Interest. Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State appointed by GoldBlooded who is Secretary of the Department of State. This implies on some level Nacholebraa has a relationship with the Secretary. As the role of the Secretary will dramatically change due to the ruling in this case, in the same ways that the role of Deputy Secretary will change, there exists a Conflict of Interest.

4. As per the ‘Motions Guide’, which exists as an extension of Court Procedure, “Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer” exists as a Conflict of Interest. Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State which is both a background and experience with the issue in contention. If the Department of State is an Executive Office Nacholebraa could have violated the Constitution if they have acted in any way that shows a bias towards the current administration during their background or experience in the DOS, as the Courts ruling on this would be retroactive therefore they would be essentially ruling on themselves.
The official position of Deputy Secretary of the Department of State is simply an elevated management position within the department. The title comes with no authority within the cabinet. While it is a common misconception that the position holds authority, it officially does not, as the secretary, which is a constitutionally recognized position that is nominated and confirmed by the Senate, as explained in Section 3 subsection 28 of the constitution, states, “Secretaries & Executive Officers are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate, continuing to serve at the pleasure of the President.” As the position of Deputy Secretary is an employee-level position of a department and is not a nominated position by the President, I feel that this does not suffice the needed requirements to recuse from the case.

My position within the department of state has no interests where my person would benefit from an impartial ruling. As previously stated, the position of Deputy Secretary is that of a management position at an employee level of leadership. The current workings of the administration cannot be held against an employee but rather that of the secretary. As previously stated, the constitution clearly defines the requirements of the executive officers & secretaries. While it may not be that of a laughable moment, I will address the fact I uphold the constitution regardless of my position within this commonwealth, as well as remain unbiased in all situations.

Correction to your statement, I was hired within the Department of State as an auditor and was later promoted to the management level within the department. While an argument can be made off the definition of where the rule of law stands, the piece of text you are referencing is not written within the Judicial Standards Act. Nor is the text excerpt able to explain that a relationship is a valid recusable offense. The legal terminology dictating that a person cannot hear a case is unrealistic based on the demographic of simply communicating or developing a professional relationship with persons outside of the courtroom. While a relationship can be considered to be irresponsible and improper, the burden of proof falls to that of the accuser to provide an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove that a relationship is of an irresponsible nature, and that leaves no doubt or question a member of the judiciary has to recuse themselves from a case.

To be rather frank, I do not follow how my working history as a lawyer connects to my positions within the Department of State. While I have worked on many cases and drafted countless articles of legal documents. Nowhere within my position as deputy secretary was I connected to the subject matter of the case. The filed case before the court is calling into question the work of Vice President Derpy_Bird as well as whether a Vice President can hold a secretary position. For this reason, I cannot accept the motion to recuse as it fails to properly.

Together the court has previously upheld the virtue that it is the responsibility of the accuser to prove that, without a doubt, a conflict exists on the subject matter. While yes, the department I work for is mentioned, the position in specific is not specifically called into question, nor would it alter my role and or title within the department as a whole. The Judicial Standards Act clearly lists the specific requirements for an individual to be recused from a case. The accuser, in this instance, under my review of written and previously determined understanding of the requirements of recusal, does not meet the requirements for this motion of recusal to be accepted. For the above-defined reasons, I will have denied the motion to recuse.
 
MOTION TO RECUSE
I request that the Justice Nacholebraa be recused from this case by the presiding Judge due to the following:

In Nacholebraa’s first paragraph he states the position of Deputy Secretary is simply just an elevated management position, and he only should be regarded as a DOS employee. I agree, I have not stated otherwise. Any employee in the DOS (and DOE, DOJ, DLA) has an interest in this case because: this case is arguing the DOS is an executive office. If the courts rule that the DOS is an executive office, every employee would be affected in the DOS, including Nacholebraa. As I previously stipulated, the difference is that an executive office requires that its employees as well as its secretary be completely separate and impartial to the current administration. In essence, that means Nacholebraa, as an employee of the DOS, would legally have to be impartial to the current administration or face charges of violating the constitution. Therefore Nacholebraa does in fact have a direct conflict, bias, and interest in this case, and should be recused.

For Nacholebraa’s second paragraph he argues that he would not benefit from an impartial ruling in this case. That does not change the fact that Nacholebraa has bias in this case. Nowhere does it state that a judge can only be recused if they benefit from an impartial ruling. It is quite clear in the Judicial Standards Act (which one would hope a Supreme Court Justice would be well aware of when ruling on a motion to recuse) that simply the appearance of bias is enough to merit a recusal. It appears that there is bias.

Nacholebraa even states that if he were biased, it would not affect his ruling which would be unbiased. Your honors, Nacholebraa’s argument on the nature of a conflict of interest is a threat to the impartiality and integrity of our judiciary. The Judicial Standards Act does not concern itself with biased rulings, it concerns itself with biased judges. The reason for this is because our biases leak into everything we do, whether we know it or not, being recused from a case is not a black mark on a judge but just an acknowledgement that your ruling would possibly be unfair on the participants of the case. Nacolebraa’s ruling would likely be biased due to his role in the DOS, therefore he must be recused.

Nacholebraa writes in his third paragraph: “Correction to your statement, I was hired within the Department of State as an auditor and was later promoted to the management level within the department.” This statement is extremely confrontational, especially for a judge, and a very nitpicky argument which does not actually correct any statements made by myself as I never said that he was not promoted from a position as auditor. In my original statement I did not wish to publish Nacholebraa’s entire CV and merely stated what was relevant, how he got to the position of Deputy Secretary is irrelevant to the fact that he holds it and therefore would be biased towards this case.

Nacholebraa states “To be rather frank, I do not follow how my working history as a lawyer connects to my positions within the Department of State.” this is actually insulting. I honestly believe that Nacholebraa has not even taken the time to read my motion properly and instead just automatically jumped to try and argue he should not be recused. I never said that his working history as a lawyer connects to his position within the DOS. I did however quote the motions guide which states “Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer”, keyword there being ‘such as.’ I then quickly followed that up with “Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State which is both a background and experience with the issue in contention.” It is obvious in my initial motion to recuse that I was not suggesting Nacholebraas experience as a lawyer creates a conflict of interest for his verdicts in this case, I was quite explicit in stating that his experience in the DOS does create a conflict. It is evident that Nacholebraa has clearly not given the motion the time of day that it deserves, and by ignoring or neglecting what I initially said, Nacholebraa has proven that he cannot deliver a fair trial in this case. He must be recused for the integrity of this court.

Nacholebraa has claimed in his final paragraph that the accuser must prove without a doubt that a judge has bias. This is just blatantly false. The judicial standards act is quite clear that even the appearance of bias can merit a recusal. Appearance of bias does not equal beyond a doubt, nor does it equal the balance of probabilities; even a hint of a conflict of interest is enough to recuse a judge, and I have proven more than just hints in both my original motion (that Nacholebraa appears to have skimmed) and now in this response. Nacholebraa must be recused for the integrity of these courts and of this case.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Poemhunter & xLayzur
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS ‘II. FACTS 1.’
2. The Commonwealth DISPUTES ‘II. FACTS 2.’ - Instead the Commonwealth would argue that the definition for Executive Offices is just vestigial writing that should have been removed ages ago but has been left in by ineffective lawmakers, it does not apply to any of the Departments because they are just that - Departments.
3. The Commonwealth DISPUTES ‘II. FACTS 3.’ - See ‘I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 2.’
4. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS ‘II. FACTS 4.’
5. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS ‘II. FACTS 5.’
6. The Commonwealth DISPUTES ‘II. FACTS 6.’ - None of the information on this graphic is relevant because all the listed Departments are Departments. There are no indicators that they are meant to be Executive Offices and every indicator they are meant to be Departments, chiefly the fact they all are called “Department of”
7. The Commonwealth AFFIRMS ‘III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 1.’
8. The Commonwealth DISPUTES ‘III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 2.’ - The Department of Education is not an Executive Office.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Commonwealth DISPUTES ‘IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1.’ - As explained the description for Executive Offices is vestigial writing, while it is in the Constitution it does not refer to anything else in the Constitution and exists in a vacuum. The listed Departments are clearly meant to be Departments otherwise they would be called ‘The Executive Office of Education’ for example. The description for Executive Offices is redundant, like the appendix. Executive Offices are the appendix of our Government - this lawsuit is the appendicitis.
2. The Commonwealth DISPUTES ‘IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2.’ - See ‘II. DEFENCES 1.’

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 23rd day of November 2022
 
MOTION TO RECUSE
I request that the Justice Nacholebraa be recused from this case by the presiding Judge, as per the ‘Judicial Standards Act’ and ‘Motions Guide’, due to the following conflicts of interest:

1. As per the ‘Judicial Standards Act’ “Bias/appearance of bias” exists as a Conflict of Interest, Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State, a role which will have to “remain unbiased, impartial and are required to defend the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth over the will of the current administration and president” if the DOS is found to be an Executive Office. This could prejudice Nacholebraa in his decision because, as he is Deputy Secretary of the DOS, he may have previously breached the constitution by acting in a biased or partial manner towards the will of the administration. Essentially Nacholebraa is biased towards this case because there is a possibility he may have been biased in his role previously (in the DOS), which would violate the argued interpretation of the constitution.

2. As per the ‘Judicial Standards Act’ “Interest” exists as a Conflict of Interest, Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State, a role which will have to “remain unbiased, impartial and are required to defend the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth over the will of the current administration and president” if the DOS is found to be an Executive Office. The nature of Nacholebraas role in the DoS will change if it is found to be an Executive Office as he would then have to act impartially from the administration by law, which is possible that he currently does not.

3. As per the ‘Motions Guide’, which exists as an extension of Court Procedure, “Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it” exists as a Conflict of Interest. Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State appointed by GoldBlooded who is Secretary of the Department of State. This implies on some level Nacholebraa has a relationship with the Secretary. As the role of the Secretary will dramatically change due to the ruling in this case, in the same ways that the role of Deputy Secretary will change, there exists a Conflict of Interest.

4. As per the ‘Motions Guide’, which exists as an extension of Court Procedure, “Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer” exists as a Conflict of Interest. Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State which is both a background and experience with the issue in contention. If the Department of State is an Executive Office Nacholebraa could have violated the Constitution if they have acted in any way that shows a bias towards the current administration during their background or experience in the DOS, as the Courts ruling on this would be retroactive therefore they would be essentially ruling on themselves.
MOTION TO RECUSE
The Supreme Court hereby accepts the Plaintiff's motion to recuse Justice Nacholebraa.

The recusal is based on the fact that Justice Nacholebraas position within the Department of State as Deputy Secretary.
The outcome of the suit could alter the limitations of the Department if it was deemed to be an executive office, therefore the Supreme Court believes Department of State employees have an inherent interest in this case, Justice Nacholebraa as a member of the Department of State therefore has an interest. Although Justice Nacholebraa may not act upon these interests it is in the interest of upholding the integrity of the court that questions of impartiality be resolved through recusal.
 
MOTION TO RECUSE
I request that the Justice Nacholebraa be recused from this case by the presiding Judge due to the following:

In Nacholebraa’s first paragraph he states the position of Deputy Secretary is simply just an elevated management position, and he only should be regarded as a DOS employee. I agree, I have not stated otherwise. Any employee in the DOS (and DOE, DOJ, DLA) has an interest in this case because: this case is arguing the DOS is an executive office. If the courts rule that the DOS is an executive office, every employee would be affected in the DOS, including Nacholebraa. As I previously stipulated, the difference is that an executive office requires that its employees as well as its secretary be completely separate and impartial to the current administration. In essence, that means Nacholebraa, as an employee of the DOS, would legally have to be impartial to the current administration or face charges of violating the constitution. Therefore Nacholebraa does in fact have a direct conflict, bias, and interest in this case, and should be recused.

For Nacholebraa’s second paragraph he argues that he would not benefit from an impartial ruling in this case. That does not change the fact that Nacholebraa has bias in this case. Nowhere does it state that a judge can only be recused if they benefit from an impartial ruling. It is quite clear in the Judicial Standards Act (which one would hope a Supreme Court Justice would be well aware of when ruling on a motion to recuse) that simply the appearance of bias is enough to merit a recusal. It appears that there is bias.

Nacholebraa even states that if he were biased, it would not affect his ruling which would be unbiased. Your honors, Nacholebraa’s argument on the nature of a conflict of interest is a threat to the impartiality and integrity of our judiciary. The Judicial Standards Act does not concern itself with biased rulings, it concerns itself with biased judges. The reason for this is because our biases leak into everything we do, whether we know it or not, being recused from a case is not a black mark on a judge but just an acknowledgement that your ruling would possibly be unfair on the participants of the case. Nacolebraa’s ruling would likely be biased due to his role in the DOS, therefore he must be recused.

Nacholebraa writes in his third paragraph: “Correction to your statement, I was hired within the Department of State as an auditor and was later promoted to the management level within the department.” This statement is extremely confrontational, especially for a judge, and a very nitpicky argument which does not actually correct any statements made by myself as I never said that he was not promoted from a position as auditor. In my original statement I did not wish to publish Nacholebraa’s entire CV and merely stated what was relevant, how he got to the position of Deputy Secretary is irrelevant to the fact that he holds it and therefore would be biased towards this case.

Nacholebraa states “To be rather frank, I do not follow how my working history as a lawyer connects to my positions within the Department of State.” this is actually insulting. I honestly believe that Nacholebraa has not even taken the time to read my motion properly and instead just automatically jumped to try and argue he should not be recused. I never said that his working history as a lawyer connects to his position within the DOS. I did however quote the motions guide which states “Background or experience, such as the Judge’s prior work as a lawyer”, keyword there being ‘such as.’ I then quickly followed that up with “Nacholebraa is Deputy Secretary of the Department of State which is both a background and experience with the issue in contention.” It is obvious in my initial motion to recuse that I was not suggesting Nacholebraas experience as a lawyer creates a conflict of interest for his verdicts in this case, I was quite explicit in stating that his experience in the DOS does create a conflict. It is evident that Nacholebraa has clearly not given the motion the time of day that it deserves, and by ignoring or neglecting what I initially said, Nacholebraa has proven that he cannot deliver a fair trial in this case. He must be recused for the integrity of this court.

Nacholebraa has claimed in his final paragraph that the accuser must prove without a doubt that a judge has bias. This is just blatantly false. The judicial standards act is quite clear that even the appearance of bias can merit a recusal. Appearance of bias does not equal beyond a doubt, nor does it equal the balance of probabilities; even a hint of a conflict of interest is enough to recuse a judge, and I have proven more than just hints in both my original motion (that Nacholebraa appears to have skimmed) and now in this response. Nacholebraa must be recused for the integrity of these courts and of this case.
Strucken from the record, Recusal requests must not be amended in response to a denial.
 
The Supreme Court calls upon the planting to deliver their opening statement within the next 48 hours.

I’d like to personally apologize for the delay in court proceedings I was unavailable largely this week due to real life issues
 
The Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that the plantiff has no intention of fighting this case due to the frolonged delay in any manner of engagement, having made their last statement nearly a month ago.

Therefore the Supreme Court hereby dismisses Case SCR- 23 poemhunter v. The Commonwealth of Redmont in favour of the defence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top