In order to prevent further irreparable harm, specifically the unwarranted addition or removal of senators in the Redmont Senate and to curb potential political misconduct within the Redmont Senate, the following measures are requested:
1. The freezing of the 5th senate seat until the resolution of this matter. Freezing entails that neither the Senate nor any other government branch may nominate or declare a special election for this seat during this period.
2. Alternatively, reinstatement of Senator xEndeavour to Senate seat five (5) until the conclusion of this ongoing case that will determine whether the Senate had the authority to remove him.
The case presented to the court raises concerns about the wrongful removal of Senator xEndeavour, influenced by political motives. It also questions the legality surrounding the removal of Senators from office without specified reasons declared in the law. These critical issues will undergo thorough examination during the legal proceedings.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
xEndeavour (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On February 18, 2024, at 10:34 AM EST, Senator Vernicia of the Redmont Senate moved to remove Senator xEndeavour from his senate seat. The listed reasons for this motion were: consistent harassment of other chamber members, behavior unbecoming of a congressman, speaking out of turn, disturbance of peace in the chamber, and political use of press releases. The Redmont Senate's decision to remove Senator xEndeavour was not based on valid grounds but rather driven by political motives within the Senate chamber. The removal of Senator xEndeavour is deemed unconstitutional and appears to be a clear, politically motivated attack, as the stated reasons for removal lack validity, and numerous senators in both current and past chambers engage in similar behavior without facing consequences. Senator xEndeavour was denied the opportunity to present his case or participate in a hearing to assess whether the alleged actions warranted impeachment. The complete removal of Senator xEndeavour breached the constitution and laws established by preceding policymakers.
I. PARTIES
1. xEndevour (Plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. The Redmont Senate (Members)
II. FACTS
1. Senator Vernicia unlawfully posted the motion to remove Senator xEndeavour on the Senate floor at 10:23 AM. (Exhibit A)
2. Senator xEndeavour was unjustly denied the opportunity to address his actions or the motion before the voting process.
3. At 10:34 AM on the same day, the motion was illicitly subjected to a vote. With 4 affirmatives, the Senate unlawfully ousted Senator xEndeavour from the Redmont Senate. (Exhibit B)
4. The Senate's decision to remove Senator xEndeavour was driven by politically motivated reasons rather than genuine concerns regarding his term as a senator.
5. The timing of the removal, occurring post-presidential election, during a lawsuit against another senator, and for speaking out against corruption, coupled with the absence of substantive reasoning, underscores the political motivations behind the removal.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Senator Vernicia's posting of the motion to remove Senator xEndeavour violates Part 12, Section 2 of the Electoral Act. This section explicitly states, "If a Senator is no longer fit for office, they can be removed from Congress early by the relevant presiding officer with the consent of all members of their chamber (excluding the individual in question)." Since Senator Vernicia is not the presiding officer of the Senate, she lacked the authority to initiate the motion.
2. The illegal removal of Senator xEndeavour from office has inflicted significant emotional distress and sleep insomnia upon the plaintiff. Notably, at the time of the motion, the plaintiff's local time was 2:23 AM. The Senate strategically targeted this specific time zone to cause emotional harm and impede Senator xEndeavour from defending himself to the best of his ability.
3. In the formulation of the Legislative Standards Act, the Senate carefully phrased it to declare, "Congress should however only exercise this power where the circumstances are appropriate (e.g. the representative has been censured several times)." This wording necessitates consideration in a legal context. The present scenario unequivocally does not align with the judicious application of this motion. The senator in question has never faced censure for the issues in question, and with no prior warnings and insufficient justification, it is evident that this is a politically motivated attack on the Senator, demonstrating a disregard for the law that stipulates the necessity of appropriate circumstances for such actions.
4. The Senate's assault on Senator xEndeavour was politically motivated, aiming to tarnish his leadership in Redmont. This attack represents a willful violation of the law, intending to vacate another seat to consolidate power in the hands of the current Senate members. This calculated act of tyranny seeks to stifle a senator who was outspoken about pertinent issues, silencing a valuable voice and manipulating the Senate's decisions by removing a crucial vote. The repercussions of this attack extend beyond Senator xEndeavour, affecting the people of Redmont by consuming time and energy from the plaintiff's office and voters. Ultimately, this tyrannical behavior negatively impacts the entire nation, causing political stress that should not be tolerated by the citizens of Redmont.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Consequential Damages:
a. The Plaintiff seeks $30,000 for emotional distress resulting from the illegal removal of a senator from office.
b. The Plaintiff seeks $25,000 for mental and physical exhaustion caused by efforts to defend and speak out against Senate members, especially during the early hours of the day when the unjust removal occurred.
2. Punitive Damages:
a. The Plaintiff seeks $500,000 in punitive damages due to the illegal motion and removal of a senator from the Redmont Senate.
i. The motion initiated by Senator Vernicia constituted an illegal removal under the Electoral Act, which explicitly designates the presiding officer as the authority to make such motions. This removal contravened the Redmont Constitution, addressing removals from office under the Electoral Act, and was a clear violation of established laws.
ii. The substantial amount is requested to address the gravity of the illegal removal from the Redmont Senate. The removal of the Senator not only violated the Electoral Act but also breached the constitutional duty of senators to uphold the laws. In this situation, they failed to do so, directly violating the laws set forth by the Redmont Constitution.
3. Reinstatement of Senator xEndeavour:
The entire removal of the Senator violated the Constitution and was a politically motivated attack by the current Senate members to gain more control over the Senate. We ask that Senator xEndeavour be reinstated to the Redmont Senate with removal immunity until the end of his term by the Senate (meaning he may still be removed by other methods, including the courts, but not by the Senate). This is to prevent further political attacks toward Senator xEndeavour by the current sitting Senate members.
4. Legal Fees: 20% of the awarded amount: The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for legal fees incurred during the pursuit of justice in this matter.
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.
I request that your honors not allow MilkCrack to submit an amicus brief. This individual is an integral part of the ongoing proceedings, and he will have the opportunity to present his perspective when called upon to testify.
The definition of an amicus brief is as follows "a legal document supplied to a court of law containing advice or information relating to a case from a person or organization that is not directly involved in the case"
Allowing MilkCrack to file an amicus brief in this situation would afford him the undue influence to shape the trajectory of a case in which he is already directly involved. Such an allowance has the potential to further impinge upon the rights of my client, who is already engaged in a legal battle with this specific Senator.
Respecting the principles of fairness and impartiality, I urge the court to consider the inherent conflict of interest and the potential for prejudice that may arise from allowing MilkCrack or any other senator to submit an amicus brief in this particular case.
The plaintiff, xEndeavour, urgently petitions this Honorable Court for an expedited trial of the instant matter. The case involves the unconstitutional removal of Senator xEndeavour from his senate seat, a matter of critical significance to both the plaintiff and the Commonwealth of Redmont. The imminent decision on the emergency injection adds to the urgency, as it holds implications for the rights and protections of elected officials and citizens. Timely resolution is essential to prevent further harm to Senator Endeavour's reputation and the democratic process itself. The preservation of constitutional rights, the public interest in upholding the rule of law, and ensuring accountability and transparency in government are compelling reasons for expeditious consideration.
The citizens of the Commonwealth deserve swift judicial redress for any violations of their constitutional rights. In light of these factors, the plaintiff respectfully seeks the court's prioritization of this case on the docket and an expedited trial to safeguard the democratic principles and rights at stake.
Your honours, I was illegally removed from my Senate seat over a week ago and I had my lawyer file a case with the SCR a week ago now.
Each day that passes without this injunction seen to has the potential for harm to the government in making irreversible decisions.
Congress should however only exercise this power where the circumstances are appropriate (e.g. the representative has been censured several times).
The original intent of this law was to prevent the legislature from removing minorities from their seats without due cause. Therefore, when I wrote this law, I added an authoritative statement which required this action to be the last resort.
I was removed for political reasons to which Senator Vernicia regrets and this is not a lawful reason to remove someone from a democratically elected position. Removing a Senator for political purposes is not an appropriate circumstance.
Please see to this case at your earliest convenience.
This court cannot address your concerns. The method for removal was legal, regardless of how distasteful it may have been. There are only two relevant claims for relief, 1. and 3.
The argument that the relevant officer should have been the one to put up the motion is insufficient because the relevant officer did put the motion up for a vote (and agreed with it). Allowing only the relevant officer the ability to put up the motion is almost pointless, since they still need to put up the vote and agree to the motion for a senator to be removed. In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court cannot act on this claim.
The other argument is a demand that an indication of an obligation should be treated as an absolute obligation. We cannot accept this argument. "Should" does not create the mandatory requirement of law as the words "shall," "will," "need," "must," and so forth. I explained this in a simple example to former Justice Dartanman. If I tell you that you should eat an apple, it is your choice to eat the apple. If I tell you that you must eat an apple, you are being commanded to eat an apple. Under the law, Congress should have an explanation, but not must have an explanation.
The other claims for relief unfortunately do not support reinstating the plaintiff to the Senate. Therefore we cannot hear this case.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
