Lawsuit: Adjourned xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 3

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution establishes a Representative Democracy through a robust proportional representation electoral system - a system whereby citizens delegate their sovereignty to representatives through a defined electoral process. Our electoral system is designed to emphasise and empower diverse representation in Congress.

Herein these questions are raised with the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth; questions of ethics and law, where laws in the Constitution are contrary to one another through interpretation:
- Does the democratic will of the people, through the prescribed electoral process in the Constitution, prevail over the right to recall?
Furthermore, is the following law against the notion of proportional representation, as mandated by the constitution:
- Is the power vested in Representatives and Senators to remove one another from office against the spirit of the democratic nature of a representative institution?

This is not a case of politics, this is a legal question where two laws conflict with each other. This is a case of overturning a persuasive precedent set in prior cases that found a right to recall. While a legislative amendment can overturn the law, it cannot overturn a persuasive precedent. I recognise the Court cannot strike these laws down as they are ratified amendments to the Constitution, however a precedent exists which recognises a Right to Recall in the Constitution which should not be.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. The Commonwealth

II. FACTS
1. Plaintiff claims there is a Constitutional question as to whether the Right to Recall is consistent with the electoral system of proportional representation.
2. Plaintiff claims there is a Constitutional question as to whether the Motion of Removal is legal - with exception to issues of server nature.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The ability for Representatives and Senators to remove their fellow colleagues from Congress, as well as the right to recall, is fundamentally undemocratic in relation to the electoral process we have established and defined in our constitution. The democratic values of this nation - with exception to unavoidable issues of server nature such as inactivity - are undermined by a process whereby the majority is able to coerce Representatives and Senators from office. Proportional representation is at the mercy of the majority. The representation of the minority is at the whim of the majority of the day.
2. The motion of removal, contained within the electoral process, enables the majority's ability to coerce the proportionally elected from office. The interpretation of the Constitution that "The right to vote a Government official out of his or her office" establishes a justification for the right to recall is improper. The right to recall is a dangerous mechanism that is an enabler to majority dominance in the institution that is designed to represent many opinions and perspectives. The ability to vote a Government official out of his or her office is contained within the electoral process.

e.g. A Representative is elected with 5 votes. Perhaps they aren't the most popular representative, but they were still elected to represent the views and perspectives of 5 constituents. Provided the votes of one of those constituents can be influenced, the Representative can be recalled and removed from office, therefore providing no representation to the remaining 4 constituents who elected them through proportional representation during the election. This then becomes an issue of majority dominance, whereby the Speaker and or majority party in power may influence their replacement.

3. The constitution is clear in it's intent to ensure proportional voting - a system that prioritises diversity over popularity. The amendment that was made to the Constitution that allows for the Right of Recall is based on popularity. Ultimately, the Right of Recall is fundamentally against the principles of the electoral system.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Supreme Court:
(1) The Recall Constitutional Amendment Act is deemed to be in contravention of the democratic nature of the electoral process within the Constitution.
(2) The ability for Representatives and Senators to remove each other is deemed against the nature of a representative democracy - with exception to issues of server nature.
(3) A landmark precedent is made that overturns Prodigium & Partners at Law vs the Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 01-2021-16].

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 21st day of April 2021

 

[Westray]

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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.​

 

[bubbarc]

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

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: 04-2021-21-2

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alledges:
1. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional due to it unto itself defining constitutionality
2. The court does not have the power to decide whether or not something in the constitution goes against the fundamental principles of democracy
3. The plaintiff is a representative and could easily make a bill attempting to remove the recall through other means
4. This case was tried before on the date of April Fourteenth and was dismissed as well (case link: Lawsuit: Dismissed - xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 03-2021-17] | DemocracyCraft )
5. This is not in the place of the supreme court to decide as established in the case linked under point number four



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 twenty-second day of April 2021

 

[End]

OBJECTION

The Defendant has made the following false and or misleading claims:

1. The constitution cannot be unconstitutional due to it unto itself defining constitutionality
This case brought before the court does not seek to rule something unconstitutional, rather it seeks the supreme court's interpretation of two conflicting notions within the constitution. The word 'unconstitutional' is not mentioned in the case.

2. The court does not have the power to decide whether or not something in the constitution goes against the fundamental principles of democracy
The Constitution defines the Judiciary's role as to interpret the law, as written by the legislature and administered by the Executive. The Supreme court is therefore well within it's rights to hear a case against the interpretation of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution also states that the Supreme Court of Redmont hears all Constitutional challenges.

3. The plaintiff is a representative and could easily make a bill attempting to remove the recall through other means.
A Representative can legislate a new law, correct. What a Representative cannot do is change persuasive precedent. Consider this an appeal to the case presented to the Court of Redmont (Prodigium & Partners at Law vs the Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 01-2021-16]) Whereby the Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff, claiming there was a right to recall.

4. This case was tried before on the date of April Fourteenth and was dismissed as well (case link: Lawsuit: Dismissed - xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 03-2021-17] | DemocracyCraft )
Several amendments have been made to the case put forward and there are no limitations on how many appeals can be submitted to the Supreme Court if the case has not had a verdict handed down.

DATED: This twenty-third day of April 2021

 

[bubbarc]

Apologies, I had assumed this to be a direct copy of the case, may I rewrite my motion with this in mind

 

[Westray]

The Supreme Court of Redmont has unanimously ruled to reject the motion to dismiss.

This case outlines a different prayer for relief than referenced in point 4 and 5 under the motion to dismiss. Additionally, whereas Congress is not bound by persuasive precedent, it is possible that such persuasive precedent may place an indirect impact in the consideration of any change. We are open to hearing arguments on such matters.

The defence may now present their opening statement.

 

[bubbarc]

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


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: [04-2021-21-02]

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. the Commonwealth does not believe that the right of recall nor the motion to remove inherently goes against the democratic nature of the constitution

II DEFENCES
1. Proportional representation was implemented to ensure party diversity in congress, not popularity, yes, this is true, however recall in it's current state requires even the person in question's own party to disapprove of them, if this happens it means they are willing to give up a seat in congress in order to get rid of a troublesome member who clearly would have been doing something bad if it got to that point
2. The motion of removal is in a way that it would require all members of one chamber of congress, (elected representatives of the people,) to go against a specific one, wouldn't that be representative democracy working?
3. Another way to think of points one and two, Jack is a Senator, Jack keeps trying to censure random people for "witchcraft" randomly and refuses to vote on bills, Jack is failing his position and making a mockery of it in the process, the people almost unanimously want him out, they have two options in the current system, recall where they'd do it themselves, or through the medium of their local senators they press a motion of removal, if both were stricken as against the nature of democracy there would be no option to remove somebody like this, damaging the chamber and making a mockery of it in the process, I realize that this specific situation will likely never happen, but motion of removal has had to have been used in the past due to exigent circumstances in the form of the M_Lasai removal

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 twenty-seventh day of April 2021

 

[Westray]

Thank you. The court would like to thank both the plaintiff and the attorney general for the arguments they have presented here.

Was there any witness testimony or evidence that either party wished to present before we proceed to closing statements?

 

[bubbarc]

I feel witnesses and evidence don't really apply in this situation

 

[Westray]

I feel witnesses and evidence don't really apply in this situation

Whereas I understand that some may believe evidence or testimony may not apply in this instance, I am following the appropriate court process. Witnesses and evidence could be applied in the sense expert witness testimony and so forth. If neither party feels the need to present such, that is reasonable enough, and we can proceed to the closing statements.

Given the defence seems to have indicated they wished to proceed, did the plaintiff have any witness testimony or evidence to present before we proceed to closing arguments?

 

[bubbarc]

Apologies for the misunderstanding, it wasn't meant as an objection it was merely meant as an indication that I didn't feel the need to call anybody in

 

[End]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: [04-2021-21-02]

The Plaintiff does not wish to call upon witnesses or offer additional testimony.

I would like to remind the court that the Constitution currently establishes an electoral system that enables a representative democracy. Through elections citizens are able to vote their representatives in and out of office.

The verdict in Prodigium & Partners at Law vs the Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 01-2021-16] found an implied right to the right of recall. The notion of a recall goes against the spirit of a representative democracy and the electoral system that we use. The constitution currently establishes a proportional electoral system for citizens to delegate their sovereignty through. On the contrary, a representative can also be removed from office by their colleagues; or, they can be removed by a popular majority. This establishes a gross contradiction and loophole in the electoral system and has the potential to destabilise the Government, therefore I am appealing this decision.

When a candidate is voted into the House of Representatives or the Senate, they hold a representative capacity within the Government. It is absurd to consider that they can be removed by a fellow representative. Regardless of how many representatives are required to effect a removal, it is still removing a select group of representation from the house. The election system established in the Constitution is to empower diversity, however the ability to recall and remove empowers the majority.

One's representation should not impinge on another's representation. Representatives are there for the people, voted in by the people, to work for the people's views. Representatives are not voted in to be political judges.

While only one recall has been successful, there have been many kneejerk recall attempts, including one for the entire Government which is only a few signatures away from referendum.

Therefore, this passage does not establish a right to recall in the context of the electoral system and system of Government. It has been interpreted wrongly by the lower courts.
III. The right to vote a Government official out of his or her office.

This case begs the questions:
- Does the democratic will of the people, through the prescribed electoral process in the Constitution, prevail over the right to recall?
- Is the clause within the congressional process which allows for the peer removal against the notion of proportional representation, as mandated by the constitution?
- Is the power vested in Representatives and Senators to remove one another from office against the spirit of the democratic nature of a representative institution?


I rest my case.

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 twenty-eighth day of April 2021

 

[Westray]

Given that the Plaintiff appears to have made their closing statement in resting their case - the Defence may now proceed with their closing statement.

 

[HugeBob]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: [04-2021-21-02]

The plaintiff is claiming that the processes we have codified within our constitution are antithetical to the concept of a proportionally representative democracy. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it holds no legal basis. The plaintiff even acknowledges such as their Prayer for Relief requests only a symbolic declaration from the Court agreeing with their political opinion with no binding effects.

Since this case seeks no binding relief, it is the opinion of this Government that this lawsuit is frivolous and should be dismissed immediately and the plaintiff charged the relevant $60 fee for filing a frivolous suit and wasting the time of the Courts and the Government. The plaintiff has no intentions of reaching a legal outcome, as no legal reprecussions are requested. The plaintiff is using this courtroom as a place to hold a debate of political nature.

Thank you.

 

[Westray]

The Supreme Court would like to thank both parties for their time and arguments presented here.

We will be in deliberation for the next few days to determine a verdict on this case.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Case No. 04-2021-21-02

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, xEndeavour, alleges that the ability to internally remove or recall a member of Congress is undemocratic in relation to the electoral process defined in the constitution.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the interpretation of subsection 3 of the Rights & Freedoms from the previous case of Prodigium & Partners at Law v. Commonwealth of Redmont is improper.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, the Government of Redmont, claims that sections of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional since they define the constitution.
2. The Defendant alleges that the case is frivolous, as it seeks no binding relief.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is the unanimous opinion that it is not within the scope of the court's power to strike down properly ratified constitutional amendments. This would include offering a verdict that would effectively be doing that, by considering a section of the constitution to be unconstitutional.
2. It is the unanimous opinion that the persuasive precedent of Case No. 01-2021-16 is a non-binding verdict that has posed no stance on the recall issue - rather ruled that the legislature should resolve a "gray area".
3. It is the unanimous opinion that the plaintiff should not be charged with a frivolous case as alleged by the defence.

Remarks from the Hon. Westray:

Whereas I believe an interesting argument has been brought to the courts - I don't believe that the court can strike down or deem a section of the constitution that has been properly ratified as unconstitutional. The plaintiff has brought to question an interesting point - has the case of Prodigium v. the Commonwealth impacted the opinion on recalls to Congress? If so, I believe that Congress should not be pushed by the courts to support or oppose such. Instead, the ruling should be interpreted as stated in its verdict, to specifically resolve the "gray area" surrounding subsection 3 of the Rights & Freedoms. It's up to the elected legislature to determine a solution to that "gray area", not the courts, through an amendment.

If the Plaintiff believes that recall and removal go against democratic nature, it is a legislative matter, that they should seek to resolve via an amendment. The court is not a political tool, and I don't believe it should be used as such either. Regardless of this verdict, I would implore the legislature to establish any sort of system they feel is reasonable, and not to be dissuaded by previous verdicts.

- Chief Justice Westray

Remarks from the Hon. Matt_S0:

It is of my opinion that it is not this Court's place to strike down properly implemented Constitutional amendments. I recognise that the plaintiff is also aware of this, and has asked the court to rescind it's previous persuasive precedent. A persuasive precedent is just that, persuasive. That said, Congress may feel stymied by the ruling in Prodigium.

I do not feel that the majority of the prayers for relief requested by the plaintiff are justifiable, as the plaintiff is requesting that the court places itself above Congress and the people in rescinding a ratified amendment. It is, to me, irrespective whether a conflict exists between these two rights - this court of three should not impose its will over Congress. If a conflict does indeed exist, it has been created by Congress and therefore should be settled by Congress.

I would like to reinforce that the precedent set in Prodigium is persusavive, but if Congress feels it necessary to clarify and amend the Constitution to remedy any perceived conflict, this Court should not stand in its way.

- Judge Matt_S0

Remarks from the Hon. Eleray:

As has already been stated in the Plaintiff's previous case on this matter, the court is unable to strike down lawfully ratified Constitutional Amendments. I thank the Plaintiff for understand this legal boundary of the court, and for editing his prayers for relief to respect those boundaries.

However, it is of my opinion that what those prayers were changed to are still not within the boundaries of the Judiciary's power. The Judiciary is meant to be the sole apolitical branch, and as such, it has no place issuing a political statement. This is exactly what the Plaintiff is asking the court to do in his first and second prayers for relief, by deeming an amendment in contravention with other articles of the Constitution.

The third prayer, however, simply cannot be granted, seeing as the court cannot just proclaim that a precedent is overturned. A precedent exists due to a decision in regards to a case, and because the first and second prayers cannot be granted due to the reasons stated above, there is no grounds for the court to create a new precedent.

As such, this case must be adjourned in favor of the Defendant, however I see no reason to fine the Plaintiff for a frivolous case, as the Plaintiff did possess a legitimate concern in regards to the Constitution.

- Judge Eleray

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court hereby unanimously adjourns this case in favour of the Defendant.

Thank you to both parties for their time in presenting these arguments.