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 According to case law in [2021] SCR 12, the only way for the DoS to review playtime is through /info, which has been replaced by /about, and the plaintiff does not meet requirements to be on the ballet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.
www.democracycraft.net
