Lawsuit: Dismissed Silent_Majority v. The Government of DemocracyCraft [2020] FCR 7

[Silent_Majority]

Your Honor, my name is Silent_Majority, and I file this case on behalf of the People of DemocracyCraft.

A centerpiece of our Democracy is our Fundamental Rights as citizens. Section Two: Rights and Freedoms. I would like to draw the attention of this court to the third and sixth rights listed. They are;

III. The right to vote a Government official out of his or her office,

VI. Freedom of Political Communication.

Our President wields great power and authority, and yet, the people have no say what-so-ever in the selection of that President. The President currently serves in that office indefinitely, without ever being held accountable to the voters or people of DemocracyCraft.

While Congress has made attempts at Constitutional Amendments, these attempts have been stifled not once, but twice, by the President, as evidenced below by the Speaker of Congress.

The very lacking of the election of the head of our Democracy acts in strict violation of our right to vote a Government official out of office, and stifles our freedom of political communication.

This court holds the power to right this wrong, and to mandate that elections be held, and terms be established. For the sake of our democracy, this is imperative.

Most Respectfully submitted,

Silent_Majority

 

[Mike_Zondernaam]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Case no. 06-2020-02

Silent_Majority

v.

State


WRIT OF SUMMONS


TO: The Governement of DemocracyCraft

You are NOTIFIED about the above named action.
If you fail to Awsner to the complaint within 24 hours the court may enter a default judgement.

DATED: This 15th day of June 2020 17:57 CEST​

 

[End]

Your honour,

Bharatj will be representing the State in this case.

Regards,

 

[Mike_Zondernaam]

The State has asked for and the court has granted an extention of 24 hours due to real life issues.

 

[bharatj]

Greetings your honor,

I would like to start off by mentioning that the server is in its beginning phase and so the link between the administration and the government is required and inevitable. For such a seamless interaction to exist, someone involved in both, most realistically the owner, should have the highest authority both in government and in administration. However, this doesn’t mean that will have to be the case for the rest of the servers future. When that interaction isn’t as vital, then elections for this position can be done as needed and/or determined by the president and Congress.

Although the notion of voting a member out of his or her office guarantees a right to remove an official, it doesn’t guarantee a right to vote them in. They are linked but separate. The right to vote somebody out of office does not imply the right to vote somebody in because the system allows the people to remove members of the government that they take issue with, not vote in all government officials entirely.

The freedom of political communication refers to the inability of the government to make laws abridging the ability of people to speak their mind regarding political issues. Though one may argue that allowing for political opinions to be addressed implies the ability to pick everyone in office in accordance to those opinions, having a voice is not equal to representing it in government.

Additionally, the court has no authority to force an election nor does it have the authority to override a presidential veto. The plaintiff is requesting that the courts mandate elections for the presidential position, yet that is out of the courts jurisdiction.

I understand a lot of this sounds hostile, but it doesn’t have to mean that. Due to the circumstances of the vital link between the administration and the government in the beginning phases of the server, the owner of the server having the highest authority in government allows for the smooth addition of features that will eventually turn DemocracyCraft into a server with its own identity and future.

Thank you.

 

[Mike_Zondernaam]

The court intends to hear oral arguments in this case coming weekend.

We ask both parties which of the following times suit them best.

Sat 20th 10:00 CEST

Sat 20th 22:00 CEST

Sun 21st 21:00 CEST

(We ask parties to reply via discord DM's within the next 12 hours.)

 

[Mike_Zondernaam]

Both parties may make their opening statements within the next 24 hours.

 

[Mike_Zondernaam]

The State has asked for and the court has granted an extention of 24 hours .

 

[Wuutie]

Your Honor, I think Silent_Majority left the server. This case will be dismissed then.

 

[Mike_Zondernaam]

Your Honor, I think Silent_Majority left the server. This case will be dismissed then.

Case dismissed