Lawsuit: Adjourned Prodigium & Partners at Law v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 1

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION


Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Hello, your honor, my name is Matthew100x from Prodigium & Partners at Law and I am here to launch a lawsuit against two constitutional amendments that failed to satisfy all requirements to become a constitutional amendment. The Whoopsie Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act of December 2020 were both government changes that did not have a referendum attached to them. According to the s.V of the constitution "Any amendment to the Democracycraft Constitution, in order to protect the Constitution, must satisfy these requirements" with one of the requirements being "An absolute majority (50%+1) needs to be achieved via public referendum, if the amendment is for a Government Change or a Rights and Freedoms change". However, because there was no referendum attached to these bills, they did not satisfy that requirement. Therefore the amendments should be considered unconstitutional and be removed from the constitution.

This issue was brought to me by Dusty and Krix who made me aware of this issue after I had won Prodigium & Partners at Law vs the Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 01-2021-16]. After reviewing the evidence, it's clear that multiple parties in the legislative branch and executive branch made a mistake when working through these amendments. No party I believe is truly at fault, however, now that the mistake has been identified, it should be rectified by the Judicial Branch.

I. PARTIES
1. Prodigium & Partners at Law
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. The Legislative Branch created the Whoopsie Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act of December 2020. Both bills received a supermajority and were passed (Vanquished was no longer in the senate for the Whoopsie Act).
2. The Executive Branch gave Presidential Assent to both bills.
3. These amendments were not posted to the referendum page and the people were not given 5 days to assent to the amendment.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the constitution, "Any amendment to the Democracycraft Constitution, in order to protect the Constitution, must satisfy these requirements."

1. A 'Bill: Draft' proposing changes to the constitution is made public.
2. A Representative must then start a referendum on forums where citizens, over the course of 5 days, will vote on the proposed amendment.
3. A super majority in both chambers of Congress.
4. An absolute majority (50%+1) needs to be achieved via public referendum, if the amendment is for a Government Change or a Rights and Freedoms change.
5. Presidential Assent.​

2. Requirement 2 and most importantly 4 were not satisfied because the government failed to make a referendum.
3. The amendments are therefore unconstitutional because they did not satisfy all requirements laid out by the constitution.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Both Bills should be declared unconstitutional.
2. That a recount of the election be held to determine who can continue holding their seat. This is because both the Senate and the House of Representatives got expanded by the Constitutional Amendment Act of December 2020. If the act is no longer constitutional, then that means some people will no longer be able to be in Congress because their seats would no longer exist.
3. That the old way of determining Class A and Class B Senators should be reinstated.


DATED: This 22nd day of January, 2021

 

[Nacho]

IN THE COURT OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Case No. 02-2021-07

The court hereby summons Defendant, The Commonwealth of Redmont, to the Supreme Court of The Commonwealth of Redmont. If they do not respond within 24 hours, a default judgment will be made in favor of the plaintiff.

Spoiler: Note from the Supreme Court

In accordance with the "Chief Justice Quickfix Amendment Act", the Judiciary has elected Associate Justice Nacholebraa to chair the case.

- Presiding Justices -
[Acting] Chief Justice Nacholebraa
Associate Justice Matt_S

 

[Matthew100x]

Requesting Motion to revise Opening Statements. I would like to amend the prayer for relief.

 

[Nacho]

Motion Approved

 

[Matthew100x]

Revised Prayer of Relief
1. Both Bills should be declared unconstitutional.
2. That a recount of the election be held to determine who can continue holding their seat. This is because both the Senate and the House of Representatives got expanded by the Constitutional Amendment Act of December 2020. If the act is no longer constitutional, then that means some people will no longer be able to be in Congress because their seats would no longer exist.
3. That the old way of determining Class A and Class B Senators should be reinstated.

1. The use of the bills prior to the referendum should be declared unconstitutional since they were not amendments of the Constitution until ALL requirements of the amendment process were met.
2. Since the Constitutional Amendments have since been passed and because there was a set date as to when both the House and the Senate were expanded, there should be no need for a recount, nor should there be a need to remove sitting Representatives or Senators from office.
3. That going forward, class A and class B senators should follow the specifications of the Whoopsie Act.

 

[Nacho]

The Defendant may now propose an opening argument.

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont( Represented by The Attorney-General - Milkcrack)
Defendant

Case no: 02-2021-07

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1.Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph one of the complaint.
2.Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph two of the complaint.
3.Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph three of the complaint.

II DEFENCES
1. The Legislative Branch created the Whoopsie Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act of December 2020. Both bills received a supermajority and were passed (Vanquished was no longer in the senate for the Whoopsie Act).
2.The Executive Branch gave Presidential Assent to both bills.
3. Both Constitutional Amendments have been put to a referendum on the 22nd of January and both have received an absolute majority.


DATED: 8th day of February 2021

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON PLEADINGS

Prodigium & Partners at Law
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont( Represented by The Attorney-General - Milkcrack)
Defendant

Case no: 02-2021-07

I MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON PLEADING
The defence asks the supreme court to speed up trial proceedings and move to a direct verdict on the grounds that the defence agrees with the prayer for relief and there are no more disputed issues except for fact 3 but the plaintiff revised this in his prayer for relief.

DATED: 8th day of February 2021

 

[Nacho]

​

Verdict

Case No. 02-2021-07



I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

1. Plaintiff claims, The Commonwealth of Redmont has failed to follow proper procedure for a constitutional amendment.
2. Plaintiff claims, the following amendments, "The Whoopsie Act" and the "Constitutional Amendment Act of December 2020" were both government changes that did not have a referendum attached to them.


II. DEFENDANTS POSITION

1. Admits to the fault for not following the defined process, established within the constitution.
2. Defendant implies the legislative was justified on the grounds a supermajority was in effect for both mentioned bills.
3. Defendant claims, The Executive Branch provided presidential assent to both bills.
4. Defendant claims, both bills have passed were placed to a public referendum and received an absolute majority.


III. THE COURT OPINION

1. Common practice shows that posting a bill to referenda happens within 24-48hrs after presidential assent.
2. At the time the bills were being enforced as unconstitutional acts being improperly actioned by both branches.
3. The elected individuals are not to be blamed rather the ones who came before who have failed to follow the described process within the constitution. Resulting in a significant gray area within the very foundation of this government.
4.It would be unfair to those who come next to allow these unconstitutionally elected individuals to remain in their chairs.
5. The representatives and senators should be removed from their chairs, and allowed to run in the upcoming house and senate elections, should they choose to run again.

Spoiler: Opinion of Associate Justice Matt_S:

The creation of this suit shone a light on a serious err made by Congress. I am of the opinion that at the time the lawsuit was filed, the amendments made were unconstitutional. I praise both the Legislature and Executive for their efficient liaising to ensure minimal disruption. Arguments had been presented through channels that as long as a referendum happened, at some time, the amendments were not unconstitutional. I am not convinced that those making these suggestions believed such claims, as it was decided that those legislators who were sitting in the ‘extra’ seats provided by the amendments were to abstain from any voting. I praise the decision-makers who took this initiative - I believe this was the correct approach to take when faced with this situation.

The facts of this case should not arise again, least not in such a way that could have as significant consequences. I would hope that lessons have been learned by all that the procedure laid out in the Constitution must be followed and regularly confirmed that all necessary steps have been performed. It is of my opinion that a referendum must be ‘launched’ within 48 hours of a Constitutional amendment receiving Presidential Assent; failing to do so would void any such amendment. I do, however, acknowledge the decision of my honourable colleague to provide a definitive verdict in this case.

- Associate Justice Matt_S

IV. DECISION

The Court hereby adjourns this case in favor of the Plaintiff. After looking into the situation the Supreme Court has notice irregularities within the actions taken by the legislature. It is the purpose of the Judiciary to ensure the law is being properly enforced, even when the ones who are writing the law are breaking it. Within the case, the Legislative has been found to be performing an unconstitutional act by not following the proper procedure of applying changes to the constitution. Following the conclusion of this case, the court has decided to remove the elected officials that were improperly elected to both chambers. The Representatives being removed would be Olefante, Icypenguin79. The respectable Senators would be JoanM999, DavidxOssoff.

The courts do not feel the amendment is an issue it does in fact meet all requirements needed for a constitutional amendment. The removal of the 4 individuals shall removal the unconstitutionally elected person from office to ensure the proper running is resumed. The courts would like to thank both the defendant and plaintiff for the patience displayed with this lengthy verdict.