Lawsuit: Dismissed xEndeavour v. Commonwealth [2024] FCR 6

[End]

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

With less than 10 hours to go until the Senate retires, the Senate President has taken it upon themselves to interpret their duties to include denying motions which they deem to be unconstitutional. I put it to the Court that the President of the Senate intended to vote nay on the motion and that they are aware that the motion has enough support to pass, which is against their political interests.

The Senate President does not have the authority to withhold a motion which they deem personally unconstitutional and I request that the Court compel:
a. the Senate President to post the motion to end the impeachment trial; and
b. for the Senate to stay in session until the vote on the motion has been voted on.

The Senate President is not the judge jury and executioner, they are the steward of the will of the Senate and this action goes against the duties legally prescribed to them.

Political remedies are not appropriate in this instance noting that the President of the Senate can be VONC'd, but then requires a new election orchestrated by the President.

Case to follow upon granting of injunction.

Evidence 1: Constitutionality has not been interpreted by the court.
The LSA outlines what the purpose of a motion is and does not specify that the Presiding Officer has discretion over whether they believe the motion is constitutional. This matter is extremely politically charged and arguments regarding its constitutionality vary and are extremely subjective.

(1) A motion is moved in Congressional channels. It is simply a message seeking the approval or disapproval of Congress such as:
I move a motion of no confidence against xEndeavour for...
I would like to move a censure motion against xEndeavour for...
Motion: Appoint xEndeavour as the replacement representative for VeryBadRepresentative42069.
a. Motions will be allowed to be re-voted on twice in case of tie or rejection, otherwise a period of 14 days will need to elapse before it can be put forward again.
d. Any member of the public, at any time, may request the ayes, nays, and abstains of a non-classified Congressional motion, which the Office of Presiding Officers shall be obligated to provide. This shall not apply to motions on which votation is ongoing.

Evidence 2: Its not within the spirit of the Presiding Officer's role.
The President of the Senate's role is codified in the constitution, albeit vaguely. The President of the Senate, by convention, has been a first among equals as the representative of the will of the chamber. At no stage should they, as the steward of the chamber, obstruct a question of a Senator to the chamber. Exceptions exist of course, as an unlawful question would not be in the spirit of the law, but the

6. President of the Senate
The Senate is presided over by the President of the Senate, who is responsible for maintaining the good order and efficient running of the chamber, as well as chairing meetings, facilitating the voting of bills, and ensuring the timely passage of Bills to the President for Approval. The Vice President shall have the power to cast a tie-breaking vote should a tie arise.

Evidence 3: Motion made and denied.

I am not asking the court to do anything but allow the Senate to do it's job and decide on the motion. Any question of law beyond that may be decided in a court of law.

 

[End]

Evidence 4: The President of the Senate is actively avoiding placing motions relating to the senate's ability to decide.

The President of the Senate has been online while these motions are made (reference activity in the previously filed case) and has actively obstructed the Senate in fulfilling their political interests.

 

[Neemfy]

The Constitutionality of both the motion proposed and the rejection of putting up the motion are still in question. However, if the President of the Senate believes the proposed motion to be unconstitutional, the prevention of it coming to vote could mitigate damages caused by them in the future while it is to be determined before this Court, which aligns with the Constitutional clause of “…maintaining the good order and efficient running of the chamber…” Furthermore, it could mitigate further violations of rights before they can be ruled upon.

Despite the claim of not putting the motion up violating the Defendant of the impeachment trial’s rights, the question of constitutionality regarding the motion violating a fair trial conflicts between them. While it is difficult to make the decision, the least damage will be caused by not allowing the motion and allowing a judgment to be made at the end of this case.

This Emergency Injunction is denied.

The plaintiff has approximately 2 hours to file the lawsuit.

 

[End]

I will be withdrawing the case.

This decision is extremely detrimental to the future of Congressional motions.

A motion is a question to be put to the chamber and the Presiding officer is ought to facilitate such process. If we allow the Presiding Officer to make determinations on the Constitutionality of a motion where the legality of the motion is not clear, then we are placing the Presiding Officer in a position of executive power where they are able to override the chamber that they represent without allowing them a voice.

The Presiding Officer has clearly used their position to benefit their political beliefs and is blocking the Senate from expressing its collective opinion. The Presiding Officer has used their office for their own political benefit and the Court is complicit in allowing such action.

The least damage in this situation was to allow the legislature to express itself in accordance with its constitutional duties and to allow it to exercise its accountability measures.

 

[Neemfy]

Case dismissed at the request of the plaintiff.