Lawsuit: Adjourned Snowy_Heart v Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Snowy_Heart (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On September 1st, 2023 the elections for the House of Representatives opened. The Plaintiff decided to declare for the election on September 2nd, 2023. Once declared the Plaintiff started advertising for votes and getting people on their side. After seven days the Polls opened with everything going as intended except, the Plaintiff was told they were unable to run. The reasoning was lack of playtime. At the time of the Polls opening and when declaring the Plaintiff not only had the playtime to run but fulfilled every other requirement to run.

The requirement is 24 hours of playtime. Despite having this Snowy_Heart was told they were unallowed to run due to it needing to be active playtime. This is not stated anywhere inside of the law and the law only states 24 hours of playtime, active and inactive being combined.


I. PARTIES
1. Snowy_Heart
2. Department of State

II. FACTS
1. September 1st, 2023 Election for HoR opened.
2. September 2nd, 2023 Snowy_Heart declares.
3. September 8th, 2023 after the polls opened Snowy_Heart was told they were unable to run mid vote.
4. All votes for Snowy_Heart were removed and Snowy_Heart was removed from the election.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DoS broke not only Constitutional Right 1 which states anyone has a right to run for elected office unless for punishment of a crime.
2. The DoS broke law by disallowing a Citizen with able playtime from running for election. The playtime Snowy_Heart had at the time was 28 hours which is 4 hours above the not only required playtime to run but, higher than the playtime in the last 30 days needed to declare.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $15,000 (15k) for loss of enjoyment in Redmont.
2. A Formal Apology from the DoS.
3. $7,500 (7.5k) in Legal Fees.
4. Clarification on the required playtime.
5. $15,000 (15k) Compensatory Damages for not being able to run in the election.

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 9th day of September 2023.

Act of Congress - Electoral Act

A BILL To Provide for elections The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Short Title and...

www.democracycraft.net

Edit - Only fixed some errors and a fact.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Snowy_heart v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Dartanboy]

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

Snowy_Heart
(Plaintiff)

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
(Defendant)

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that on September 1st, 2023, the declarations for the election for the House of Representatives opened.
2. AFFIRM that on September 2nd, 2023 Snowy_Heart declared she was contesting a seat.
3. AFFIRM that at some point after the polls opened, Snowy_Heart was told they were unable to run mid-vote.
4. AFFIRM all votes for Snowy_Heart were removed and Snowy_Heart was removed from the election, however NOTE that all people who voted for her were contacted and informed they can change their vote. This evidence, however, is classified. (Exhibit 1)

II. DEFENSES
1. The Constitutional Right that states anyone has a right to run for elected office unless as a punishment for a crime is part of the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which also says that these rights are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.”

An Active Playtime requirement is certainly a reasonable limit. Furthermore, it is prescribed by law (Electoral Act), case law ([2021] SCR 12), constitutional law (Electoral Act), and DoS policy.

2. According to a ruling made on a Motion to Dismiss in [2021] SCR 12:

“It is the unanimous opinion that if the only way the Department of State has been able to properly review playtime has been based on /info, and they have applied that requirement to every person in such [an] election equally, the Plaintiff does not retain the right to be included in such [a ballot].”

The /info command has been replaced with /about, but it holds the same function. The Department of State has only been able to properly review playtime based on the Active Playtime statistic given by /about. Given this, and the historic precedent of [2021] SCR 12 (which the Federal Court cannot override), it is clear that the Plaintiff does not retain the right to be included in the ballot for this election.

3. It is well-established that Active Playtime is the only reasonable and accurate metric for playtime, because AFK time is, by definition, not playtime. While the last 30 days “playtime” displays AFK time, the “Active Playtime” metric does not show AFK time.

Furthermore, the law was clearly intended to only allow active players into Congress – not players who AFK to get ahead.

EVIDENCE
Exhibit 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 11th day of September, 2023

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

It appears the Plaintiff and Defense agree on the facts of the case, and only disagree on legal definitions and/or the legality of what occurred. For these reasons, the Commonwealth requests Summary Judgement.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the plaintiff have any objections to a summary judgment?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Does the plaintiff have any objections to a summary judgment?

Your honor, the Plaintiff would like to proceed to opening statements so that we can present our reasoning why we believe the terms should be interpreted the way we advocate for. Once opening statements are presented, summary judgment is acceptable to the Plaintiff.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the defendant have any objection to this arrangement?

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COUNTERSUIT

The Commonwealth would like to add the following Counter Prayer for Relief:

The Defendant seeks the following from the Plaintiff:
1. Legal fees of $4500 (the cost of a Prosecutor defending a lawsuit).

If Summary Judgement occurs after Opening Statements, we are happy to cut that in half.

 

[Dartanboy]

Does the defendant have any objection to this arrangement?

Your honor, we have no objections to this arrangement.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR COUNTERSUIT

The Commonwealth would like to add the following Counter Prayer for Relief:

The Defendant seeks the following from the Plaintiff:
1. Legal fees of $4500 (the cost of a Prosecutor defending a lawsuit).

If Summary Judgement occurs after Opening Statements, we are happy to cut that in half.

Counselor, this is a separate matter from the current case. I cannot allow this arrangement to continue unless the counterclaim is accepted by the plaintiff.

Given that I have made a public comment about a countersuit I understand that there may be a conflict of interest. I leave it to the plaintiff to decide whether or not to motion to recuse. If a motion to recuse is made, I ask that the defendant please file a new case against the plaintiff so that way another judge can be assigned to the matter.

I will continue to preside over the current matter until further notice.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the plaintiff wish to keep the arrangement with the counterclaim, challenge the counterclaim in this court, or have the counterclaim remanded to a new trial?

 

[Dartanboy]

Counselor, this is a separate matter from the current case. I cannot allow this arrangement to continue unless the counterclaim is accepted by the plaintiff.

Given that I have made a public comment about a countersuit I understand that there may be a conflict of interest. I leave it to the plaintiff to decide whether or not to motion to recuse. If a motion to recuse is made, I ask that the defendant please file a new case against the plaintiff so that way another judge can be assigned to the matter.

I will continue to preside over the current matter until further notice.

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

There is precedent from the Supreme Court that a counter prayer for relief can be granted (Lawsuit: Adjourned - The_Donuticus v. GER, as an Organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18). The Federal Court cannot override Supreme Court precedent, so a counter prayer that is based on legal principles such as legal fees must be permitted.

MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

If the Motion to Reconsider is overruled: The Commonwealth does not wish to have a legal battle over this at the current time, and will be happy to dismiss a counter-claim (ideally without prejudice) for the duration of this case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Does the plaintiff wish to keep the arrangement with the counterclaim, challenge the counterclaim in this court, or have the counterclaim remanded to a new trial?

The Plaintiff wholly objects to the counterclaim and would like this matter to stay germane.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Plaintiff wholly objects to the counterclaim and would like this matter to stay germane.

If the plaintiff wishes to respond to the motions prior to the decision, they will have 48 hours to do so. Otherwise, please inform the court that you do not contend the motion and I will come to a decision tonight.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

If the plaintiff wishes to respond to the motions prior to the decision, they will have 48 hours to do so. Otherwise, please inform the court that you do not contend the motion and I will come to a decision tonight.

The Plaintiff does not accept the counterclaim in this suit, your honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Plaintiff does not accept the counterclaim in this suit, your honor.

Counselor the Court understand that is your position. Do you want to add any arguments? Defense Counsel has submitted a motion that is pending that this Court can't ignore. This Court is asking to make sure that your side has a response before making a decision.

If the decision is to allow the counter claim, it will be done in a separate case from this one to keep it germane and prevent a conflict of interest.

 

[Dartanboy]

Counselor the Court understand that is your position. Do you want to add any arguments? Defense Counsel has submitted a motion that is pending that this Court can't ignore. This Court is asking to make sure that your side has a response before making a decision.

If the decision is to allow the counter claim, it will be done in a separate case from this one to keep it germane and prevent a conflict of interest.

Your honor, if it must be filed in a separate case, the Commonwealth wishes to have it dismissed for now, otherwise it could cause a chain reaction of infinite cases.

 

[Matthew100x]

The only reason why this would be its own separate case is so that way it can be assigned its own judge separate from the current thread to avoid confusion. It should not cause a chain of infinite counter counterclaims.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor,

The plaintiff asserts that legal fees are not permissible by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a separate entity that must be treated differently than regular citizens. It does not need the legal fees as the Commonwealth dedicates money for legal causes as it is. Whether or not a counterclaim can be accepted in this Court will not be disputed by the Plaintiff.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Decision on Motion

Counter-Plaintiff's Stance:
1. Wishes to press a counterclaim of $4,000 dollars.
2. That a counterclaim is allowable under SCR 18 [2022].
3. That if the motion is overruled, to continue the case as is and allow the Commonwealth to bring up the issue in the future.

Counter-Defendant's Stance
1. Does not accept the counterclaim.
2. Wishes for the case to remain germane.
3. Legal fees are not permissible for the Commonwealth to collect due to it being a separate entity that dedicates money for legal causes.

The Court's Opinion
1. This matter may be judicable, however, the court declines to comment or weigh in on the merits as it is an issue that requires trying.
2. Due to this court's presiding judge having originally brought up the counterclaim in a public manner, that any counterclaim would have to be done as a separate case under the caption Commonwealth v. Snowy_Heart to avoid a conflict of interest.
3. That the matter of counterclaims typically are handled within a case, however, in instances where a conflict of interest is given due to circumstances, that a counterclaim must be bifurcated from the original claim and handled separately, regardless of the results of the original case.

I trust that this decision resolves this matter. Given that there was no objection to the arrangement and only to the counterclaim, we shall continue with opening statements followed by the summary judgment.

The plaintiff shall have 48 hours to make their statement. Kindly inform this court if you need any additional time for the submission.

 

[Matthew100x]

48 hours have since passed and the plaintiff has not posted an opening statement nor asked for an extension. While Common Law allows for a late submission, I will not be accepting a submission 12 hours after this post.

The defendant shall have 48 hours to make their statement. Kindly inform this court if you need any additional time for the submission.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, this is a case of bumbling bureaucracy. In this case, the Department of State, a bureaucratic organization, bumbled around while enforcing policies, not providing clarity on the enforcement of such. The generic term playtime is just that: generic. Active playtime is often enumerated expressly in policies and statutes as it is a specific subset of playtime. Playtime in and of itself, as a generic term, includes all playtime, whether inactive or active.

When you run /about on someone, it lists two values that describe playtime. The Department of State did not make it clear WHICH one of those values would be used, and assumptions cannot be warranted that active playtime was the intended one. Since they said playtime, they must use the raw definition of 'playtime', which in a gaming sense, means all time spent logged onto a game regardless of how much of that time was spent actively playing. The dictionary is clear, and the law is unclear. Therefore, we must use what we can to clarify the matter. The Court is not in the business of legislating and therefore cannot answer whether or not active playtime would be more prudent or "sensible" as a law; the Court must rule according to how the text is written, as that is how law is accessed and absorbed by the general public. What good is law if we cannot rely on our understanding of the English language to comply with it?

2. According to a ruling made on a Motion to Dismiss in [2021] SCR 12:

“It is the unanimous opinion that if the only way the Department of State has been able to properly review playtime has been based on /info, and they have applied that requirement to every person in such [an] election equally, the Plaintiff does not retain the right to be included in such [a ballot].”

Furthermore, the defense attempted to slip this severely out-of-place clause pulled from a case in which I represented the Plaintiff thinking I would not catch the lack of context. Back then, playtime was displayed much differently as the metrics displayed back then (see /info is an old command) are different than they are now. Further, this ruling did not result in a dismissal and therefore did not set a precedent. The law of the case was never examined, and the case ended with a disagreement regarding the facts of the case. The Department of State was able to see both values the Plaintiff had in their /about, and therefore this citation does not hold water as it relied on a time when one playtime value was hidden from public view and different ones were publicly seen including by the Department.

The Plaintiff argues that active playtime is a reasonable limit. That may be true, but it is not in the business of the Courts to carve out exceptions to rights especially when the term 'active' playtime is nowhere to be found in Department of State policy. The crux of this case is not whether or not that restriction is reasonable, but rather that the Department did not specify that they were seeking active playtime and therefore must have their policy interpreted as it is currently written. I ask the Court to find the Commonwealth liable on all counts of wrongdoing, and to grant a full prayer of relief. Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Due to the decision made in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18 utilizing the Judicial Fix Act, enforcement of this constitutional amendment is in play (see Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18), therefore because this case involves a constitutional challenge, the Federal Court of Redmont can no longer over see this case (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act).

 

[Dartanboy]

Due to the decision made in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18 utilizing the Judicial Fix Act, enforcement of this constitutional amendment is in play (see Lawsuit: In Session - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 18), therefore because this case involves a constitutional challenge, the Federal Court of Redmont can no longer over see this case (see Act of Congress - Judicial Fix Act).

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

Since this case is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, it must be dismissed. The Plaintiff can re-file in the Supreme Court if they still wish to pursue it.

 

[Matthew100x]

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

Since this case is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, it must be dismissed. The Plaintiff can re-file in the Supreme Court if they still wish to pursue it.

Given the current circumstances in the judiciary, I am putting this case on a one week recess.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor, a week has since passed. Is there an update on proceedings?

 

[Matthew100x]

Given the ongoing impeachment is over. I have reviewed the case. Can the plaintiff please inform me whether or not they wish to proceed with this case? Please inform this court within the next 72 hours.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, the Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case.

 

[Matthew100x]

The defendant shall have 48 hours to post their opening statements. Then, as previously agreed upon, we'll move for summary judgment.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor, Opposing Council,

Today we are here because the plaintiff has tried to twist the words of the constitution into a obvious misinterpretation. The constitution states that Has accrued 24 hours playtime and 12 hours of playtime within the last 30 days prior to declaring their intent to contest the election on the forums. The word and is there for a reason, pointing out the differences between the requirements that are needed to be eligible to run in the election. Lets dissect this for a bit,

Has accrued 24 hours of playtime, this is in reference to total playtime the player has on the server active, this is what is referred to on staff applications and department applications when asked how much playtime you have. This is the baseline for the server, this is how much time you actually spend playing the server, not afking and riding the clock like you are at a job you dont like but you need the money. This is the time you are interacting and this is the time that shows the community you are actually here to play, not be a discord warrior.

This time is significantly different then the playtime in the last 30 days, they are diffrent because it encompasses it all. Afk and not. The policy of the Department of State and how it is always been done has been by the Playtime Active and the 12 hours in the las 30 days. They are very different and even the constitution points it out.

Thank you, Your Honor

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defendant shall have 48 hours to post their opening statements. Then, as previously agreed upon, we'll move for summary judgment.

Your honor, the defense would like to remind the Court to post a verdict at its earliest convenience to ensure all parties have a speedy trial.

 

[Matthew100x]

The court have been reviewing over this case for a bit and there is a major issue that I want counsel to argue and resolve. I know that there was an arrangement made, however, due to this issue not being argued, I do not want to make a ruling based off the court's legal research on the questions stemming from the issue without input from counsel on both sides.

The major issue is that there's a discrepancy between the Electoral Act's requirements for the House of Representatives Elections and what the Constitution says on the Constitution Page.

My questions are as follows:

Which law, the Electoral Act or the Constitution, controls and what is the legislative history that makes the distinction between the constitution and electoral act?
Is there any law that is overruling the electoral act's requirements?
In the past, the DOS has used the requirements listed on the constitution and have told the candidates that they are ineligible to run within the election thread, why was the same not done this time?

The Court kindly requests that counsel please submit arguments based on the law utilizing authoritative sources. The Court is seeking an analysis of the legislative history as well as the choice in decision making process in support of your client.

The plaintiff shall have 72 hours to respond. Once the plaintiff responds, the defendant shall than have 72 hours to respond.

 

[Matthew100x]

I am going to post the information here as reference for counsel.

Electoral Act:

6 - House of Representatives
(1) Elections for the House of Representatives shall be conducted through a system of Proportional Representation outlined in this Act.
(2) In order to run for the House of Representatives, citizens need to meet these requirements:

• Has accrued 24 hours playtime prior to declaring their intent to contest the election on the forums.
• Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.

(3) House of Representatives Duration
2 Month Term
(4) House of Representatives Election Months:
January, March, May, July, September, and November

Constitution:

8. Elections for the House of Representatives
(1) Elections for the House of Representatives shall be conducted through a system of Proportional Representation outlined in the Electoral Act.
(2) In order to run for the House of Representatives, citizens need to meet these requirements:

• Has accrued 24 hours playtime and 12 hours of playtime within the last 30 days prior to declaring their intent to contest the election on the forums.
• Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.

(3) House of Representatives Duration
2 Month Term
(4) House of Representatives Election Months:
January, March, May, July, September, and November

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, may I please have an extension? I am very busy with school this week and I do not believe I will be able to complete this by the deadline.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, may I please have an extension? I am very busy with school this week and I do not believe I will be able to complete this by the deadline.

Granted.

 

[Matthew100x]

Given the plaintiff failed to respond, the defendant shall now have 72 hours to respond.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honor I’d like to request a 48 hour extension due to work IRL

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor I’d like to request a 48 hour extension due to work IRL

Granted. You have 72 additional hours.

 

[SumoMC]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

1. The Department of State utilizes both forms of legislation for determining policy for elections. The Constitution overrides federal law when it comes to specifics. The Electoral is the specifics not specified within the Constitution.

1. The Constitution would be the only law overriding the Electoral Act when it comes to specifics.

1. The DOS utilizes the Constitution and Electoral Act to determine requirements for elections. However, informing candidates of ineligibility is not outlined within. The informing of candidates is determined by department policy as the Electoral Act does not specific informing candidates just disqualifying them.
   

 

[Matthew100x]

Alright. The presiding judge is now upset with counsels for both parties.

For the plaintiff's counsel, the failure to respond given the extension is vexing to me. If it is a matter of timing, I understand, but the counsel for the plaintiff is supposedly a large law firm. Why is it then that the lawyers for the case are unable to make any response despite given a week to do so? Where is the communication to the court and to your client that this matter cannot be attended to for whatever reason? The counsel is leaving their client out to dry by not researching into and answering these important questions and potentially jeopardize their case. This case has a lot riding on it for your client and it should be immediately clear that your priorities should be focused on clearing the matters that you started.

For the defendant's counsel, do you think I would not notice the DOS ticket? This presiding judge is a member (or formerly anyways) of the DOS. The questions that I made were specifically asked not to be tossed to the DOS Secretary to answer, but for the counsel to mule over and think of a solution that benefits the defendant. These are the sort of legal questions where a legal theory is needed, not simple answers. These are the kinds of cases that show whether or not someone would be good material to be a judge, because it requires forward thinking on the matter as well as a delicate hand in doing proper research on the history of the issue. The answers given are simply bad. The Electoral Act is a constitutional amendment, it's not a simple law. The constitution explicitly states that the Electoral Act overrides the constitution. So where is the error? Did the constitution get changed or did the electoral act get amended?

Counsel, consider this your warning before I start handing out contempt of court charges. If this issue happens again, I will pull you into court and explain to you the importance of doing this work properly.

I am giving both counsel one week to answer my original questions properly. Please submit them before the deadline. It does not matter if the defendant finishes first, please have your briefs ready by 12:25 pm EST on the date of 11/21/23.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
On behalf of Lovely Law I appologize. Our partner Alexander Love just left the server, although I am opposed to prose representation and also the solicitor general I am the only one left on the plaintiff cousel and have no choice but to represent myself. My appologies for our tardiness in our reply.

It is of my legal opinion that the electoral act would overide the constitution only due to the fact that the constitution refrences the act.

The constitution reads,

"Elections for the House of Representatives shall be conducted through a system of Proportional Representation outlined in the Electoral Act."

My understanding of this portion of the constitution is that even though it outlines specific measures down below that it must coincide with what the. Electoral act dictates that only 24 hours of play time need to occur in order to run for office. Neither one dictates whether the 24 hours is total play time or actual playtime.

After searching the forums I did not find any other law overriding the electoral act nor adding any definitions to election requirements

Further more when look through the recent house of representative election, only one person was ejected from the election due to playtime requirements, TheAirportChoc,was ejected on the 7th before voting started. They were notified on the forums as well which I was not.

My assumptions for why this discrepancy occurred is two fold:

1: DOS policy defines the difference between total play time and active playtime while no distinction is made in law creating confusion and disorder.

2: this confusion led to them to originally presume my total play time Was enough to qualify me for the election due to the guidance from the constitution only to then change their minds and follow DOS policy over the constitution or law after the vote had started and people began to vote for me.

I hope that answers your questions in full, I apologize again for not responding in a timely manner.

Thank you,
Your Honor

 

[SumoMC]

Which law, the Electoral Act or the Constitution, controls and what is the legislative history that makes the distinction between the constitution and electoral act?

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and in the constitution, it is the law that governs us all and to quote my closing statement "The constitution states that Has accrued 24 hours playtime and 12 hours of playtime within the last 30 days prior to declaring their intent to contest the election on the forums. The word and is there for a reason, pointing out the differences between the requirements that are needed to be eligible to run in the election.

Is there any law that is overruling the electoral act's requirements?

The Constitution is what the Department of State abides by when vetting for the requirements to run for office

In the past, the DOS has used the requirements listed on the constitution and have told the candidates that they are ineligible to run within the election thread, why was the same not done this time?

The DoS has used the same process over the course of many elections, they have always done it this way.

 

[Dartanboy]

This case has been re-assigned to me. I will end the recess within 48 hours.

 

[Dartanboy]

Update: Nevermind. I previously represented the Commonwealth in this case. I'll be recusing.

 

[Matthew100x]

I have just come to learn of a situation where the court's clerk has decided to make a fool of the presiding judge by attempting to reassign a case that I am actively working on a verdict for and trying to bounce it to different judges.

Due to this issue, there has been some confusion in this courtroom on who the presiding judge is. I am here to clarify that I am the presiding judge.

I am still working on the verdict and hope to have it out in the next 48 hours. The issue involves a precise balancing of the constitution and figuring out important legal histories that I am reviewing to make sure that this court gets its right.

That being said, I am issuing a writ.

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

@Taelor is required to appear before the court in the case of the Snowy_Heart v Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a contempt of court charge for each hour that this Writ is ignored after the initial 72 hours is up.

Please mark yourself as present, once you have, we are going to figure out a time for you to appear in a stage VC for a public hearing on why you should not remove a presiding judge from their case.
​

 

[SumoMC]

OBJECTION

Your honor this is an extreme breach of procedure, we have motioned and agreed to a Summary Judgment, not your vendetta against the clerk. I ask that we move this along in the spirit of a speedy trial.

 

[Matthew100x]

OBJECTION

Your honor this is an extreme breach of procedure, we have motioned and agreed to a Summary Judgment, not your vendetta against the clerk. I ask that we move this along in the spirit of a speedy trial.

I am going to give you a warning for speaking out of turn. The verdict is being written and this matter is separate from the case at large. True to my words, the verdict will be out soon.

 

[Matthew100x]

I have just confirmed with staff that players have the right to not join VCs. As a result, I am going to be rescinding the Writ of Summons.

That being said, the court clerk's conduct, under American Law, would fall under either Interference with Judicial Proceedings or Contempt of Court. In situations where someone has purposefully or unintentionally interfered with the case, the Judge has every right to call a session to reprimand whomever has caused the issue. Since I stated my issue in #legal and have reprimanded the conduct in that way, I do not see any further need to push this issue further with a long write-up.

The presiding judge now has 38 hours to post a verdict.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Snowy_Heart v Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

1. Defendant broke the plaintiff’s constitutional right in not allowing the plaintiff to run for office.
2. Defendant broke the law by disallowing the plaintiff to run despite meeting the requirements set out in the Electoral Act.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

1. Defendant did not break plaintiff’s constitutional right because the actions were in “reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.”
2. According to case law in [2021] SCR 12, the only way for the DoS to review playtime is through /info, which has been replaced by /about, and the plaintiff does not meet requirements to be on the ballet
3. Active playtime is the “only reasonable and accurate metric for playtime” because AFK time is not playtime.

III. THE COURT OPINION

The court is going to use a long-form style to give this verdict.

To begin with, due to a constitutional issue being raided, a standard must be applied.

In order to understand what a legal standard is, first one must understand the definition of "standard". The Oxford Dictionary's definition is "a level of quality, especially one that people think is acceptable" (standard_1 noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com.). Typically in IRL Courts, a standard is applied to test the validity of a government action or law to see if the action was justified to the constitution. Such examples under American Law, a similar but entirely separate system of law, have standards of review. Such examples include the rational basis test, the intermediate scrutiny test, and the strict scrutiny test. In Redmont, we have the weighted standard test. First applied in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 13, weighs "the government necessity of taking said action against the importance of maintaining individual rights". Under the common law, "any limitation on a constitutional right must be deemed reasonable and properly justified in a free and democratic society, as specifically mentioned in the constitution" (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Bank and Trust of Redmont v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 8). However, before applying the standard, the court must first review a constitutional error. To do this, the Court will be doing a close analysis of the text involved and review of the legal complexities that matter in this case.

The section of the constitution that is in question is Section 8 (see Government - Constitution). The text is below:

8. Elections for the House of Representatives
(1) Elections for the House of Representatives shall be conducted through a system of Proportional Representation outlined in the Electoral Act.
(2) In order to run for the House of Representatives, citizens need to meet these requirements:
Has accrued 24 hours playtime and 12 hours of playtime within the last 30 days prior to declaring their intent to contest the election on the forums.
Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.
(3) House of Representatives Duration
2 Month Term
(4) House of Representatives Election Months:
January, March, May, July, September, and November

This section of the constitution is derived from the Electoral Act (see Act of Congress - Electoral Act). The text is below:

6 - House of Representatives
(1) Elections for the House of Representatives shall be conducted through a system of Proportional Representation outlined in this Act.
(2) In order to run for the House of Representatives, citizens need to meet these requirements:
Has accrued 24 hours playtime prior to declaring their intent to contest the election on the forums.
Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on the forums.
(3) House of Representatives Duration
2 Month Term
(4) House of Representatives Election Months:
January, March, May, July, September, and November

There is a distinctive difference involved. The constitution specifically calls for 24 hours of playtime with a requirement of 12 hours of playtime within 30 days while the Electoral Act only calls for 24 hours of playtime. With an extensive review by both the plaintiff and this Court, we are unable to find any legislative history that might have caused this change in the constitution. The only constitutional amendment that affects this portion of the constitution is the Electoral Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the 12 hours of playtime within 30 days is considered “Original Constitution”, meaning it existed from the beginning, and since has been amended. Given that the Electoral Act has since amended this section of the constitution, the Electoral Act’s language controls. The “Original Constitution” language should be updated and replaced with the language of the Electoral Act to avoid further confusion.

Now that the Electoral Act’s language has been established as controlling, the Court needs to do three separate reviews. First is to establish whether or not the actions conducted by the Defendant was in “reasonable limits”. Second is to analyze the Department of State’s previous conduct when handling these matters to check for policy errors. Third is a review of the definition of playtime to inquire whether or not playtime should fall under the “active” category or “total” playtime.

First, to review for constitutional misconduct, we can finally apply the weighted standard test as mentioned earlier. To begin with, we must weigh the portions of claims vs defenses. The plaintiff contends that they are able to run for office under their I. Right, “The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime”. The defense claims a defense of reasonable limits due to the constitution listing requirements to run for office. Not mentioned by the defense but to their benefits, according to the constitution under the Department Reform Act,the defendant is responsible for “Facilitation of Federal elections (and other elections as requested), including debates” (see Section 4(g) Act of Congress - Department Reform Act). Given that the defendant is calling upon language in the constitution to conduct their review of the election, in accordance with Crazy_Cryo_810 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 4 (seehttps://www.democracycraft.net/threads/crazy_cryo_810-v-the-commonwealth-of-redmont-2021-scr-4.5440/) , the limitation imposed by the Electoral Act, a constitutional amendment, acts a “reasonable limit” to the plaintiff’s I. Right & Freedom.

Second, the defendant has a history of reviewing people’s playtime requirements. As cited in [2021] SCR 12, the /info command, which has been replaced by the /about command, is used equally and applied to all candidates as a measure on whether or not a candidate may run for office. The standard procedure was not specified by the defendant’s counsel, but a review by this court has found that the Department of State typically informs candidates if they are not able to run on the thread of that election (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-may-2023.17159/post-65410, https://www.democracycraft.net/thre...tatives-elections-march-2023.16456/post-62924, https://www.democracycraft.net/thre...tives-elections-january-2023.15654/post-59392). They typically alternate between the reasoning of “Is an active participant in the community, in-game, on discord, and on forums” and “Has accrued 24 hours playtime and 12 hours of playtime within the last 30 days prior to declaring their intent to contest the election on the forums”. Which means that the defendant had been applying the “Original Constitution” language vs. the language within the Electoral Act. However, in this instance, the defendant did not inform the plaintiff that they were disqualified within the election thread (see https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/house-of-representatives-election-september-2023.18417/). Due to not addressing the issue within the election thread, it is unclear which standard, the “Original Constitution” or the Electoral Act, was applied to the plaintiff. It is the Court’s opinion that the defendant has veered from their internal policy in this case.

Third, the Court must review the language applied. In either the definition of the “Original Constitution” or the Electoral Act, candidates for election must have “24 hours playtime”. The defendant argues that this meant that the plaintiff needed to have 24 hours active playtime, since they define playtime as actually playing the server and not being AFK, which is what the statistic “Playtime (Active Total)” shows in /about. Arguing using the language in xlayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 12, the defendant asserts that their definition is correct.

In xlayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 12, the issue revolved around the question of whether or not the plaintiff meet the specified requirements to run for the now defunct position of the Mayor of Hamilton (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - xlayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 12). The requirements were laid out in Executive Order 31/21 - Hamilton Mayor (see Redundant - Executive Order 31/21 - Hamilton Mayor), where a candidate for the position needed to “accrued 192 hours of playtime prior to declaring their intent to contest the election on the forums”. The plaintiff in this case showed their tab playtime (an also defunct feature), which showed a playtime exceeding that requirement, to convince the court on Prima Facie that the plaintiff met the requirement. The Court granted an emergency injunction halting the election until a proper review could be carried out. The defendant in this case successfully dismissed the emergency injunction showing that the Playtime (Active Total) was less than 192 hours. However, while the court agreed to continue the election, they were concerned with “the lack of disclosure by the Department of State, to clarify what type of playtime has been counted, could potentially constitute civil damages over campaigning costs”. The case was dropped by the plaintiff and not continued.

Accordingly, it appears as if the principles of Stare Decisis require that this Court consider the Playtime (Active Total) only. However, since that decision, Congress has changed playtime requirements constitutionally to specifically specify “active playtime” vs “playtime” (see Act of Congress - LDV Presidential Active Playtime Adjustment Amendment).

This creates a new issue, since Congress now has specifically designated what positions need to have “active playtime” vs “playtime”. It leads the Court to believe that any “playtime” requirements do not use the amount specified in “Playtime (Active Total)” but instead whatever total playtime a candidate can show. Likewise, the only time that “Playtime (Active Total)” should be utilized is either when the constitution or law specifically specifies that a candidate is required to have “active playtime” instead of “playtime”. Therefore, the Court has come to the conclusion that any shown “playtime” counts, and since the plaintiff has shown that they have 28 hours of playtime, they have exceeded the requirements needed to run for office and were unfairly denied.

Additionally, the defendant failed to clarify which “playtime” count they used and follow their internal policy. Due to this being an issue in xlayzur v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 12, this Court has found that the evidence meets the requirements necessary for Consequential Damages.

IV. DECISION

The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court is issuing a Writ of Mandamus to the Congressional Clerk to please amend the constitution and replace the language under section 8. Elections for the House of Representatives with the same language in the Electoral Act (see Act of Congress - Electoral Act).

The Federal Court is issuing a Writ of Mandamus to the defendant to make internal policy changes consistent with this court ruling.

The Federal Court is issuing a Writ of Mandamus to the defendant to write an apology letter to the Plaintiff.

The Federal Court is issuing a permanent injunction holding that all requirements for “playtime” use any total playtime and that all requirements for “active playtime” use “Playtime (Active Total)”.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the defendant $50,000 in Consequential Damages for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont and unfine the plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $10,000 in Legal Fees and unfine the plaintiff the same amount.


The Federal Court thanks all involved.