Lawsuit: Adjourned xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 69

[End]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Chairman of the Joint Legal Reform Committee breached the LSA by acting without authority to place the JLRC into recess during a hearing.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour, Plaintiff
2. Chairman, JLRC

II. FACTS
1. The Chairperson placed the committee into recess without the correct authority to do so. The chairman is mouthpiece and representative of the committee's will. The chairperson does not have the power to act unilaterally outside their given administrative powers (see #oversight - masked hearing).
2. The Chairperson has actively ignored the Senator and Committee member's concerns that they are not able to act unilaterally and also their motion to remove the committee from recess (see #oversight - masked hearing).
3. Powers of the Committee Chair (LSA):

• Organizing and Chairing Committee Meetings and Hearings.
• Leading Committee Investigations, Reviews and actions.
• Putting Committee ideas and proposals to a vote.
• Updating the public and congress on the actions of the committee.
• Firing committee members.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Chair has acted unilaterally - a power which the Speaker or POS, who serve in similar capacities as Presiding Officers, do not have. The Chairperson is the Presiding Officer of the committee, just as the Speaker and the POS are the Presiding Officers of their respective chambers. To dissolve congress, the Speaker needs the approval of the President. To recess Congress, the Speaker needs the approval of the House and or Senate. To recess the committee, the chairperson needs the approval of the committee.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Committee Chair's unilateral actions are recognised as illegal IAW the LSA and the Chair's roles and responsibilities.
2. The Chair ignoring the committee member's motion is recognised as illegal IAW the LSA and the Chair's roles and responsibilities.

If the claims for relief are met prior to this case, I'd like to place emphasis on the need for Judicial review to ensure this does not occur again in future and to reinforce the LSA.

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 26th day of July, 2023.

 

[Milkcrack]

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

@Dartanman is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves 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
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your honor, we request that the evidence for these claims be submitted, and we receive 48 hours' extension after the evidence is submitted, as we cannot accurately respond to the complaint without knowing the basis for this complaint.

 

[Milkcrack]

Your motion has been denied. If you believe the complaint is incorrectly filed you must file a motion to dismiss. The deadline is not extended.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your motion has been denied. If you believe the complaint is incorrectly filed you must file a motion to dismiss. The deadline is not extended.

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

Your honor, lack of evidence is not a valid reason to dismiss a case, but refusing to provide the evidence in the complaint also creates an unfair trial, as we cannot make any defenses or reference what happened at all, because no evidence has been submitted.

 

[Milkcrack]

Your motion has been denied.

The purpose of a complaint is to make clear what the plaintiff is complaining about, if you believe that it is unclear and you can not file an answer to the complaint you must file a motion to dismiss.

Lack of evidence is not a valid reason for a motion to dismiss because during the trial the required evidence may still be gathered. If it is clear that there is no hope of gathering the required evidence, the case may still be dismissed.

If you don't know or have insufficient information to form a belief about the truth of an allegation/fact you may state so instead of affirming or disputing it. This statement will have the same effect as a denial.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your motion has been denied.

The purpose of a complaint is to make clear what the plaintiff is complaining about, if you believe that it is unclear and you can not file an answer to the complaint you must file a motion to dismiss.

Lack of evidence is not a valid reason for a motion to dismiss because during the trial the required evidence may still be gathered. If it is clear that there is no hope of gathering the required evidence, the case may still be dismissed.

If you don't know or have insufficient information to form a belief about the truth of an allegation/fact you may state so instead of affirming or disputing it. This statement will have the same effect as a denial.

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

I won't go crazy with moving to reconsider after every post, so this will be the last one if it is denied, but I wish to point out the Constitution states:

"
Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.
"
(emphasis added)

It is my understanding that any citizen as well as any criminal as well as any other entity (notice the lack of a comma after "criminal") are entitled to be confronted with the evidence against them. And until that happens, this is an unfair and unconstitutional trial.

 

[End]

Your honour, the filing clearly makes reference to the hearing channel. If required I will screenshot all of it and post it here, although I feel that is unnecessary.

 

[Milkcrack]

Senator,

although you have a right to respond to the motion, I don't want to go into the contents of the first motion until the defence puts in the work to file the correct motion.

Mr. Attorney General,

I must express my deep frustration and disappointment at your apparent disregard for the decency of these court proceedings. We must maintain a sense of order and respect for this court's procedure, your actions seem to suggest you do not share this same mindset.

Your repeated filing of motions is not only a waste of the court's time but also undermines the very principles that uphold our justice system and guarantee the very right you are so confidently quoting.

Instead of flooding the court with multiple inadequate motions, I strongly urge you to invest your time and efforts in crafting a single well-founded motion. This would not only demonstrate your respect for the court's procedures but also allow you to exercise the very right you are seeking to protect more effectively.

To re-iterate your motion has been denied. If you think the complaint does not adhere to the required standards of the constitution file a motion to dismiss. If you are anticipating my verdict on the motion to dismiss to not be aligned with your constitutional right, I'd implore you to wait on filing a motion to reconsider or appeal until after I have posted my verdict on the motion to dismiss.

 

[Dartanboy]

Senator,

although you have a right to respond to the motion, I don't want to go into the contents of the first motion until the defence puts in the work to file the correct motion.

Mr. Attorney General,

I must express my deep frustration and disappointment at your apparent disregard for the decency of these court proceedings. We must maintain a sense of order and respect for this court's procedure, your actions seem to suggest you do not share this same mindset.

Your repeated filing of motions is not only a waste of the court's time but also undermines the very principles that uphold our justice system and guarantee the very right you are so confidently quoting.

Instead of flooding the court with multiple inadequate motions, I strongly urge you to invest your time and efforts in crafting a single well-founded motion. This would not only demonstrate your respect for the court's procedures but also allow you to exercise the very right you are seeking to protect more effectively.

To re-iterate your motion has been denied. If you think the complaint does not adhere to the required standards of the constitution file a motion to dismiss. If you are anticipating my verdict on the motion to dismiss to not be aligned with your constitutional right, I'd implore you to wait on filing a motion to reconsider or appeal until after I have posted my verdict on the motion to dismiss.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT and MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your honor,

I hold only respect for the courts, and as I said previously, I will not be filing another Motion to Reconsider if that final one is denied.

I still fail to understand how a Motion to Dismiss could possibly be valid, as lack of evidence has been shown not to be a valid reason to dismiss for literally years.

Nonetheless, here is our response:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that the Chairperson placed the committee into recess.
2.  AFFIRM that the Chairperson ignored the Senator and Committee member's concerns expressing that they believed the Chairperson is not able to act unilaterally.
3. AFFIRM that the Plaintiff properly quoted the Legislative Standards Act in Fact 3.

II. DEFENSES
1. It is not abundantly clear what "organizing ... hearings" and "leading investigations ... and actions" fully entail. It is entirely possible that what the Chairman did in this case falls under the scope of his authority, but it's also possible that it does not. We hope that the Court will interpret these laws and clarify for both the Commonwealth and the Plaintiff whether these actions are included under such verbiage.

III. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
Although there are differing opinions and conclusions surrounding the facts of this case, it seems that the Plaintiff and Commonwealth are in agreement about what actually happened, and thus the Commonwealth moves for Summary Judgement.

 

[End]

The Plaintiff rests their case, provided the Justice has no further questions.

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PETITION FOR REVIEW

I hereby petition the Supreme Court to review the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court to rule on this issue.

To what extent is this a dispute between government institutions and to what extent does judicial review apply when not made on the basis of a constitutional right?

This court is in recess until a decision has been made by the supreme court.
​

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUPREME COURT RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REVIEW

After reviewing of the petition, the Supreme Court has decided that this is an improper petition to the Supreme Court. As stated under Part II Section 16 of the Constitution of Redmont, the Federal Court will hear all major civil disputes in the first instance. In this, it established what the Federal Court will have original jurisdiction over. The point of this clause is to establish the Federal Courts' role within the Judiciary of Redmont. If the Supreme Court were to respond to this petition, the Supreme Court would set a dangerous precedent where the lower court could ask an appellate court to answer questions laid before the Court and would usurp the power given to the lower court which is to hear a case in the first instance. The role of a Judge is to interpret the Constitution and Acts of Congress through Judicial Review. In that, it is up to the lower court to decide whether the Judiciary can even rule on the subject matter brought before the Court.
Original jurisdiction is a very important power granted to certain levels of the Judiciary, and because of that, the appellate court cannot decide on it until an appeal is made to the appellate court.​

 

[Milkcrack]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 6

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Chairperson of the committee placed the committee into recess without the authority to do so.
2. The chairperson of the committee ignored the plaintiff and committee members' concerns aswell as the motion to remove the committee from recess which is contrary to the law.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. It is not entirely clear what the responsibilities of organizing hearings and leading investigations fully entail.

III. THE COURT OPINION
It's the court's opinion that there must always be a level of judicial restrain applied when it comes to the inner workings of Congress, as Congress is to a certain extent a self-regulatory body with a political process and its separate branch of government.

As the question posted here today is a question of clarification rather than an actual remedy. This court can only answer general statements, however, this does not mean that the court will automatically be able to enforce those statements if non-compliance would occur, this would have to be assessed on a case-to-case basis.

The responsibilities of the chairperson include "Organizing and Chairing Committee Meetings and Hearings." It would not be unreasonable to assume that temporary recessing a hearing to maintain order is part of this responsibility.

Another responsibility is the responsibility to put ideas and proposals up for a vote. So if the chairperson did not do this this would be a failure in their responsibility.

IV. DECISION
1. The Committee Chair's actions in placing the hearing into temporary recess are not recognised as illegal.
2. Disregarding motions from committee members by the Committee Chair constitutes a dereliction of their duties.