Lawsuit: Dismissed xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 22

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
This lawsuit seeks Judicial review of the legality of the House of Representatives dissolution on the 3rd of December 2023.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2
Absence of a request in messages between xLayzur and the Speaker.

Exhibit 3
Potential Duress

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
3. xLayzur
4. Krix

II. FACTS
1. An announcement was made stating that the House was dissolved.
2. An announcement was made where the Speaker claims to have been made to make an announcement that the House was dissolved under duress.
3. Evidence of Krix threatening the Speaker has surfaced.
4. No evidence of the Speaker requesting the dissolution has been made apparent.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. There is credible evidence that suggests that the dissolution was not made lawfully.
2. There is credible evidence that suggests that the dissolution was made under duress.
3. I would offer that under a contract law construct that without an offer and acceptance, an agreement could not be formalised.
4. I would also offer that under the contract law construct that acceptance could not be achieved due to the offer not being made in the correct format expected of government communication for such formal uses of power and that there was no legality under duress.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. A determination on whether the dissolution was lawful.

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 3rd day of December 2023

 

[End]

EMERGENCY INJUCTION
I request that the Court place a hold on the election for the vacancies until such time that the Court is able to review the validity and legality of the dissolution.

 

[drew8716]

 

[End]

If it may please the court, In the interests of ensuring a speedy trial I am willing to work with the commonwealth for a quick summary judgement once all evidence is on the table.

 

[End]

If it may please the court, I have been provided with additional evidence. I have attached this evidence below.

As you can see, this action appears to have been a pre-meditated goal of the Executive to dissolve the Congress for political gain. I put it to the Court that the executive is seeking to interrupt the impeachment vote that had been occurring and is now trying to sway the seats in Congress. This is a complete breach of the separation of powers between the institutions of Government.

If the House of Representatives was dissolved under duress and the requirements to request dissolution were not met, then the House of Representatives must be reinstated. The safest option for the Court is to reinstate the status quo until it can determine the legality of the dissolution. If the Court allows the election to go ahead after an unlawful dissolution, then it cannot correct the wrong post-election.

Under a contract law construct, there must be the following to satisfy an agreement (CLF Act):
Offer: The offer appears to have not originated from the Speaker, contrary to the requirements of law.
Acceptance: The executive appears to have provided acceptance to an offer which was not made.
Consideration: There is a clear indication of duress in the exchange.
Capacity: The President did not have the legal authority to make the offer.
Legality: The agreement was not legally formed.
Legal intent: There was no legal intent for the house to be dissolved.
Format: There is no verifiable request made in an acceptable format.

I would compel the court to consider this matter urgently.

Additional Evidence:

Exhibit 4:

Exhibit 5:

Exhibit 6:
I am told that this is the first message in the group chat (which the speaker has been since removed from)

Exhibit 7:

 

[End]

Your honours, this case has sat without reply for over 72 hours. There is a question before the supreme court within its original jurisdiction seeking judicial review for the improper removal of members of government and disagreement between government as to whether there was a lawful request for the house to be dissolved. I request that you address the matter urgently as the election is currently under way.

 

[Matthew100x]

Mr. End, I assure you we are reviewing the case and deliberating at great length. One cannot rush the process of justice.

Please refrain from speaking out of turn or you may be held in Contempt of Court.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided to dismiss this case. As a majority, it has decided to dismiss this case with prejudice.

The Supreme Court has authored two opinions: a majority opinion written by Justice Matthew100x and signed by Chief Justice Drew_Hall as well as a concurring opinion written by Justice Dartanman.

Majority Opinion: Authored by Justice Matthew100x, signed by Chief Justice Drew_Hall.

The Court has decided to not hear this case for several reasons.

To begin with, the implied original jurisdiction as you have proposed under the constitution due the removal of congressional members implies an action that we decide on. We disagree. The dissolution of the House differs from the removal of Congressional Members. The distinction comes from the fact that the constitution explicitly allows this action as well as is that removal is done for cause where the dissolution can be done without cause.

Second is the intense nature of this case. The Supreme Court is supposed to be an apolitical body. The Supreme Court as a majority does not feel comfortable deciding on a case that has major ramifications within the House of Representatives. While we do not disagree that we may have the power to do so in certain circumstances, as we set out in reason one, we do not believe we have the power in this instance. If we were to make a decision it would immensely swing politics one way or the other. This goes against our apolitical creed, thus we're deciding this case in favor of the people to let them decide.

Third is the nature of the automatic process of the dissolution of Congress. The language that we're interpreting is very precise and automatic, "The President also has the power to dissolve the House of Representatives if requested by the Speaker" (see Act of Congress - Dissolution Amendment). What the plaintiff is arguing is focused on whether or not the dissolution was actually requested by the speaker. This is a very political argument and we'll essentially be deciding on semantics and language to undo an already done action since the dissolution of Congress is automatically done when the speaker's request is accepted by the President.

Fourth is a standing issue. the plaintiff is suing on the behalf of themself to reinstate the House of Representatives, a body that they were not a part of, and arguing on the behalf of Bezzer, whom they do not represent. This violates Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and as a result the plaintiff's complaint does not meet the standards required under Rule 3.1 to pursue this case (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures). We cannot allow this case to move forward under these circumstances.

As a result, we're choosing to dismiss this case. Since the election will be over in less than 24 hours, we will be dismissing this case with prejudice so that Redmont can choose its future and move forward.

Concurring Opinion: Authored by Justice Dartanman

I do not believe the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over this case. This case is not: a) a dispute between Government institutions, b) removing a public official from office (rather, it seeks to keep anyone from being elected and/or prevent removal), or c) an appealed FCR case. Because this case lacks the prerequisites to be a SCR case, I am in agreement with Justice Matthew100x and Chief Justice Drew_Hall that this case should be dismissed.

That being said, original jurisdiction is the only reason I see that this case should be dismissed.

One of the reasons my fellow colleagues have decided to dismiss this case is that this is a case of “intense nature” that “would immensely swing politics one way or the other.” I whole-heartedly disagree with this decision. Firstly, while this case is surrounded by politics, it is not permeated with politics. What I mean is that a legal question is still at the center of this case: “What qualifies as a request in the language of the Dissolution Amendment?” and then following “Did the Speaker make a request to the President to dissolve the House?”

Yes, this is an intense case that would have immense political backlash either way, but the Court is an a-political institution – and this is precisely why the Courts should be the body deciding on this case. I have the utmost trust in the people of Redmont, but the public as a whole is, by nature, political.

Another reason my colleagues have decided to dismiss this case is “the nature of the automatic process of the dissolution of Congress” and that the argument that there was no request would result in the Court “deciding on semantics and language to undo an already done action since the dissolution of Congress is automatically done when the speaker’s request is accepted by the President.” Frankly, this reasoning is absurd. If there was no request (which there may or may not have – that’s what this case would have been about), then the President did not have the power to dissolve Congress. This is not automatic. It requires action from both the Speaker and the President – actions which, in this case, were not proven in a court of law.

The Court decides on semantics and language often. In every case, we interpret the law – a task that is impossible without semantics and language.

The final reason is the issue of personal standing. The majority opinion claims that xEndeavour lacks the personal standing to sue in order to reinstate the House of Representatives. I disagree, as Congress is the only branch of Government that directly represents the people. Thus, anything that directly affects Congress also directly affects the people, meaning any citizen of Redmont could be injured by an injury against Congress.

Thus, if it were up to me, I would dismiss this case without prejudice and request it be re-filed in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court thanks everyone for their time, this Court is now dismissed.