Lawsuit: Adjourned xstarpro v. Department of State [2022] FCR 51

[xstarpro]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xstarpro
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Department of State, as established by the Modern Legal Board Act, is charged with the carrying out of all elections for the Redmont Bar Association. This includes special elections administered upon the success of votes of no confidence in sitting Councilors or Chairpersons. RBA officials are legally unable to carry out these elections themselves.

Upon the resignation of a string of RBA officials, a situation that would obviously entail a swift special election, the Department of State delayed their action by weeks and only acted after being requested to do so by the sitting Chairperson. The Redmont Bar Association is unable to function at its full potential without a full council and the failure of the Department of State to administer special elections that would once more fill its council in a timely manner ensured the RBA's inactivity.

I. PARTIES
1. xstarpro
2. Department of State
3. Redmont Bar Association
4. Milqy, Chairperson

II. FACTS
1. As established by 6.1 of the Modern Legal Board Act, the Redmont Bar Association shall include a four member council of elected barristers or attorneys whose term in office is two months.
2. Further established by 6.5 of the Modern Legal Board Act, all elections pertaining to the aforementioned position of Councilor are to be managed in full by the Department of State in a fair and impartial manner.
3. Additionally established by 9.1 & 9.2 of the Modern Legal Board Act, the Department of State is charged with the execution of special elections in the event of votes of no confidence in either sitting Councilors or the Chairperson.
4. The Redmont Bar Association currently consists solely of 1 Councilor with the final date of activity in either #council-floor, #council-chat or #record-of-motions represented in the following table:

Milqy	Active
RelaxedGV	Active
Avelanie	7/04 (Removed from council after switching professions while still a sitting councilor.)
Krix	7/02 (Formally resigned after becoming a Judge.)
Greenish9	6/26 (The plaintiff is unaware of the pretenses for Greenish's early departure from the council.)

5. Following this string of resignations or removals from the council, declarations for a special election were not called for until 7/11(16 days after Greenish9's last activity and 9 days after Krix's formal resignation).
6. The subsequent declarations for a special election were called for by Chairperson Milqy and Councilor RelaxedGV, not at the behest of the Department of State who would have been charged with handling such an election.
7. Without this action by the Chairperson, it is foreseeable that the Department of State would have abstained from the administration of any special elections until the nominal councilor term in office had expired on 7/20.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant, the Department of State, failed to administer special elections of RBA Councilors following the resignation and removal of three quarters of the sitting council in a timely manner.
2. Under the Modern Legal Board Act, only the Department of State could administer such elections and their inaction left the Redmont Bar Association with only one councilor on a council mandated to be of 4 members for more than a full week, with some councilors being absent for much longer.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Assurances by the Department of State that upon inevitable future absences, resignations, firings, or other form of removal of Councilors or Chairpersons, special elections for the fulfillment of these roles will be administered in a timely manner.
2. Improved oversight by the Department of State into the Redmont Bar Association in a way that makes IV.1 possible; including better channels of communication with DOS officials regarding the departure of RBA Councilors and/or more active monitoring of the RBA's procedures by DOS officials in a way that allows said DOS officials to recognize resignations or removals in a timely manner.

Lastly, the Plaintiff brings this case to the court in hopes that its ruling may clarify the validity of the assumption that under the current Modern Legal Board Act, the Department of State is obligated to oversee the special election of RBA Councilors and/or Chairpersons as seen in the Modern Legal Board Act's 9.1 & 9.2.

The Plaintiff is aware of new legislation currently being drafted that may prevent similar issues in the future but is seeking civil action regardless in hopes of addressing the alleged misconduct by the Department of State.

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 12th day of July 2022.

 

[Banana]

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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xstarpro v. Department of State [2022] FCR 51.

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.​

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO DISMISS

xstarpro
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. This is not a matter for the courts to decide. While the Defendant has its sympathies for the Plaintiff, this is a legislative matter to be settled in the halls of Congress, not in this court. There should be an amendment of the Modern Legal Board act to include protocol for vacancies in the RBA such as resignation, however it is not the Court’s ability to make law and to debate something within a law that does not exist. It is the responsibility for Congress to debate a law, or an amendment thereof, that does not exist yet. That’s the whole point of the legislature. If this is allowed to be settled in court and not in the legislature, it will set the precedent that the Commonwealth of Redmont is, in effect, a monarchy with the judiciary at its head, and no longer is a republic in which the citizenry are allowed to create laws through their elected representatives in Congress. The Plaintiff is asking the court to demand the Defendant do something in which they are under no legal obligation to fulfill. It would, in essence, be an amendment to the Modern Legal Board Act, which only Congress should be allowed to do. It would be a violation of the separation of powers ordained in our constitution.
2. The current Chairman of the RBA, Milqy, is also a Senator and is currently writing legislation which also includes protocols for vacancies in the RBA, as the Defendant has in his prayers for relief. That bill that is being written nullifies any need for this case to be heard in court as it is already being settled in the appropriate manner, which is the legislature, and not the courts.
3. There is already a special election in process, which was called for by Milqy. This already has set the precedent that the RBA Chairperson can call the DoS to implement a special election for vacancies in the RBA Council. This again nullifies a reason for this lawsuit to be filed and heard in this court.

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 12th day of July 2022.

 

[xstarpro]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS: REBUTTAL

xstarpro
Plaintiff

v.

Department of State
Defendant

In response to the defense's motion to dismiss:
1. The Plaintiff feels the need to note to the courts that although the halls of congress are capable of setting about future disputes in this regard, the Department of State's inability to, in a timely manner, hold special elections upon the vacancy of several RBA councilors is not a matter for the legislative. Rather, this issue needs to be argued in court and the Department of State is more than liable for a lawsuit.

2. Although the Plaintiff is aware of possible upcoming legislation that may address future events, as stated prior, Plaintiff is suing as a result of the Department of State's inaction and mishandling of the situation according to the responsibilities that the Modern Legal Board Act set about for them. The Plaintiff also feels the need to note that in spite of personal confidence in Chairperson Milqy's ability to draft and pass this bill, there are no firm guarantees of it's passing, and as such, the Plaintiff's prayers for relief remain of merit.

3. The special election currently underway is not the target of this suit. Instead, the undue delay of it's initiation by the Department of State is the Plaintiff's target. Furthermore, the Modern Legal Board Act only establishes that the DoS may initiate and manage elections, not the Chairperson. There is not set precedent for such an event to Plaintiff's knowledge at the time of writing, and if the court were to rule in favor along such a notion, the current special election would have been called for by a party unauthorized to do as such. The Plaintiff believes that this line of reasoning clearly indicates the need for further litigation on this issue.

It is my hope that this rebuttal clearly demonstrates the need for this case to continue past a motion to dismiss and that the courts may see to this end.

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 13th day of July, 2022.

 

[Banana]

In light of the fact that this case is about the administration of a particular clause of a law, this is about the interpretation of a law. Given that that is the constitutional duty of the judiciary, this case falls within the proper jurisdiction. Potential future legislation is also not grounds to dismiss a case. I will be denying the motion to dismiss. With that said, the Plaintiff may now present their opening statements.

 

[xstarpro]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

It is the goal of this civil action to prove, as set about by the Modern Legal Board Act, the Department of State needlessly and negligently delayed its administration of special elections for the position of Councilor in the Redmont Bar Association in a way that worked to the direct detriment of the Redmont Bar Association.

As denoted in the original filing of this case, only the DoS is authorized to hold such special elections by the Modern Legal Board Act and their inaction, depending upon whose councilor's resignation you choose- ranged in length from 9 to 16 days. It is also of note that special elections were only held after this period at the direct behest of the Chairperson, Milqy, and not initiated by the DoS themselves.

Furthermore, during this period where the RBA's council was undermanned purely as a result of the Department of State's failure to recognize the resignations of several councilors and administer special elections in a timely manner, the RBA took note of the conduct of a specific unnamed lawyer and voted to disbar this individual. Although they simply needed a majority, with only one councilor and the Chairperson, the motion lacked nominal legal weight and the door was left open for the lawyer who was disbarred to sue.

Not only did the Department of State's negligence impact the already negative public reception of the RBA, cause the RBA to immediately and verifiably drop in activity with only a single councilor, but it may be argued that it left them liable for a lawsuit that may have been prevented had they held the special elections in a timely manner and a full council voted in favor of the aforementioned lawyer's disbarment.

Plain and simply, the Department of State was mandated with a duty to:

(5) The Department of State shall manage the elections for the Council and the Chairperson in a fair and impartial manner.

and a further duty to:

(2) A councilor of the RBA may be recalled by the Board should at least ⅔ of all voting lawyers agree to this removal. A special election to fill the vacancy shall take place immediately, administered by the Department of State.

The Modern Legal Board Act gives no other parties the explicit authority to call for or administer special or general elections.

The Modern Legal Board Act gave the Department of State a job to do within the Redmont Bar Association, at which it has utterly and demonstrably failed; causing arguably preventable lawsuits, rampant inactivity and a loss of trust in the Redmont Bar Association as an institution- through no fault of its own. The Department of State must be held liable for their actions, or rather, lack thereof.

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 14th day of July, 2022.

 

[Banana]

Thank you. The Defense may now present their opening statements.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT



Good evening, your Honor, opposing counsel. I would like to first respond to the Plaintiff’s rebuttal.

Although opposing counsel feels that it needs to be argued in court, his feelings have no bearing on legislative matters and court procedures. The separation of powers is a fundamental aspect of a democracy that, once corrupted, disintegrates the fabric of a democratic system. The sacred nature of the separation of powers trumps not only the feelings of opposing counsel, but of everyone’s feelings in this court. The fact is, the opposing counsel is attempting to write in full amendments to laws by bypassing the correct procedure. The correct procedure should have been for opposing counsel to request the Chairperson call a special election in a timely manner. In addition to that, opposing counsel could have requested the Chairman of the RBA Council to put in a motion to have this issue be voted on by Congress. opposing counsel could have even drafted the proposed amendment to give to the Chairman of the RBA to present to Congress to vote on in order to expedite the amendment of the legislation in support of special elections held in a timely manner after a Council member’s departure.

Let us dissect opposing counsel’s argument in their opening statement. I will use the format of quoting each of opposing counsel’s paragraphs and responding to them.

“It is the goal of this civil action to prove, as set about by the Modern Legal Board Act, the Department of State needlessly and negligently delayed its administration of special elections for the position of Councilor in the Redmont Bar Association in a way that worked to the direct detriment of the Redmont Bar Association.”

The Department of State is under no obligation to hold special elections for the RBA unless set out in section 9.1 and 9.2 in the Modern Legal Board Act. Nowhere in the act does it mention special elections outside of those two very specific scenarios. This, however, does not prohibit the holding of special elections at the Department of State’s discretion outside of those two specific scenarios. The legal definition of negligence is:

“A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances.”

To prove negligence in this circumstance, one must prove that the Department of State has not fulfilled its obligations under the Modern Legal Board Act. The Plaintiff has not fulfilled that. There is nothing within the Modern Legal Board Act that requires the Department of State hold special elections in the event of resignation or loss of attorney role by an RBA Council member or RBA Chairman. The Plaintiff alleges that the Department of State “needlessly and negligently” delayed the holding of special elections when they were under no obligation to hold special elections under these circumstances in the first place.

Milqy, the Chairman of the RBA, requested that the Department of State hold special elections to fill the vacant seats in the RBA Council. This is not prohibited. Section 6.5 of the Modern Legal Board states:

“The Department of State shall manage the elections for the Council and the Chairperson in a fair and impartial manner.”

This section of the law does not prohibit the Department of State from holding elections for any reason. To give an example, the Department of State could hold an election for the honorary role of “Everyone’s Favorite Lawyer” at any time and they would not be prohibited from doing so. Section 6.5 gives the Department of State the freedom and ability to hold elections at its discretion, unless required to do so under the Modern Legal Board Act. The circumstance laid out by the Plaintiff does not require the Department of State to hold any election. The Chairman of the RBA, Milqy, requested that the Department of State hold special elections for the purposes of filling vacant roles. This is not prohibited as he, himself, did not hold elections. He went through the appropriate avenue of holding elections, which is getting the Department of State to hold them.

“As denoted in the original filing of this case, only the DoS is authorized to hold such special elections by the Modern Legal Board Act and their inaction, depending upon whose councilor's resignation you choose- ranged in length from 9 to 16 days. It is also of note that special elections were only held after this period at the direct behest of the Chairperson, Milqy, and not initiated by the DoS themselves.”

The time in which there were vacancies in the RBA Council is unfortunate, however it is not the Department of State’s responsibility to fill those vacant seats in this circumstance. Milqy, as previously stated, requested that the Department of State hold an election. As it is the Department of State’s sole responsibility to hold elections, Milqy could not hold the election himself, however requesting the Department of State was the appropriate avenue of filling these vacant positions. It is not illegal or prohibited in any way for the Department of State to hold this election. Any random person could have asked for the Department of State to hold this special election, and the Department of State could or could not follow the request as it is up to them. In this case, the Department of State followed Miley’s request. Milqy’s position in the RBA has no bearing on whether or not the request was valid, and whether or not the election that came from that request was not valid. This matter is not touched on by the Modern Legal Board Act. It does not prohibit the Department of State from holding an election outside of what is the explicit responsibility of them, and the Modern Legal Board Act also does not prohibit requests being sent to the Department of State for elections to be held.

“Furthermore, during this period where the RBA's council was undermanned purely as a result of the Department of State's failure to recognize the resignations of several councilors and administer special elections in a timely manner, the RBA took note of the conduct of a specific unnamed lawyer and voted to disbar this individual. Although they simply needed a majority, with only one councilor and the Chairperson, the motion lacked nominal legal weight and the door was left open for the lawyer who was disbarred to sue.”

This paragraph has no bearing on this case as we are discussing the Department of State’s lack of responsibility over special elections in the event of a vacancy not due to sections 9.1 and 9.2 in the Modern Legal Board Act. The actions that the RBA Council and Chairman took during the vacancies within the RBA Council has no relevancy whatsoever, at all, in this case. This matter has been argued in another case, specifically Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association. [2022] FCR 49. This case has essentially been nullified with the reversal of disbarrals under Milqy’s Amendment to the Modern Legal Board Act with the verdict given out in the case of Hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 48. I recommend that opposing counsel allow the attorneys in charge of other cases argue the merits and critical points of their own case instead of arguing them here, as that is a waste of the Court’s time.

“Not only did the Department of State's negligence impact the already negative public reception of the RBA, cause the RBA to immediately and verifiably drop in activity with only a single councilor, but it may be argued that it left them liable for a lawsuit that may have been prevented had they held the special elections in a timely manner and a full council voted in favor of the aforementioned lawyer's disbarment.”

Again, this has no bearing on this case whatsoever and is being argued in another lawsuit.

“The Modern Legal Board Act gave the Department of State a job to do within the Redmont Bar Association, at which it has utterly and demonstrably failed; causing arguably preventable lawsuits, rampant inactivity and a loss of trust in the Redmont Bar Association as an institution- through no fault of its own. The Department of State must be held liable for their actions, or rather, lack thereof.”

The Modern Legal Board Act indeed bestowed upon the Department of State a great many responsibilities, however, the Plaintiff has not proven a single responsibility that the Department of State has failed to fulfill. The Plaintiff has failed for prove that anything prohibited and/or illegal, as laid out by the Modern Legal Board Act, has taken place. The only party to have demonstrably failed to fulfill their responsibility is that of opposing counsel as they have failed their responsibility to prove that the Department of State has done anything wrong under the Modern Legal Board Act.

DATED: This 14th day of July, 2022.

 

[Banana]

If either party wishes to call witnesses, please post the names in a list so that all summons can be made at one time, or declare that they do not wish to call witnesses.

 

[Admin23]

Your Honor, I do not wish to call any witnesses as the facts are laid out and clear without any witnesses required.

 

[xstarpro]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully requests the testimony of Secretary of State GoldBlooded.

 

[Banana]

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

@GoldBlooded is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xstarpro v. Department of State [2022] FCR 51 as a witness.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act​

 

[GoldBlooded]

Present, your honor.

 

[xstarpro]

Sorry about my slight delay in sending this, I was away from home for a bit.

Plaintiff's questions to Secretary GoldBlooded are as follows:
1. To the best of your ability, approximately what date were you personally made aware of the vacancies of any RBA councilors?
2. In your expert opinion, approximately what window of recognizing a vacancy in an office whose elections are handled by the DoS and administering an election for said office is appropriate?
3. In your expert opinion, was the administration of special elections for RBA Councilors done in a manner you consider timely, appropriate or typical?
4. To your knowledge, based on the most recent special election for RBA Councilors, has the Department of State taken any action to streamline their response to RBA Councilor vacancies and hold special elections?

Finally, the Plaintiff thanks Secretary GoldBlooded for his time in this matter.

 

[GoldBlooded]

1. To the best of your ability, approximately what date were you personally made aware of the vacancies of any RBA councilors?

I was notified of the Council vacancies by RBA Chairman Milqy on, I believe, July 9th or 10th. I unfortunately cannot recall the exact date the ticket was opened requesting special election be held for the vacant councillor positions.

2. In your expert opinion, approximately what window of recognizing a vacancy in an office whose elections are handled by the DoS and administering an election for said office is appropriate?

Appropriate timing for the Department of State to be notified of an occurred vacancy within the Redmont Bar Association by the RBA Chairperson would be a window of approx. three days.

3. In your expert opinion, was the administration of special elections for RBA Councilors done in a manner you consider timely, appropriate or typical?

I, as the Secretary of State, would prefer to be notified of a vacancy as soon as possible by the Chairman of the RBA. Given it took two weeks for the Dept. Of State to be notified of such vacancies, I believe the initial request of the Councilor elections was incredibly delayed and atypical. However, the administration following the request was conducted in a timely and appropriate manner by one of my Electoral Officers.

4. To your knowledge, based on the most recent special election for RBA Councilors, has the Department of State taken any action to streamline their response to RBA Councilor vacancies and hold special elections?

Administration of RBA elections, including Councillor and Chairperson elections, are typically timely in nature as long as the Department of State is notified in a swiftly manner of any occurred vacancies by the incumbent RBA chairperson.

 

[xstarpro]

Thank you for your time Mr. Secretary,

The Plaintiff has no further questions.

 

[Banana]

The Defense may now cross-examine the witness.

 

[Admin23]

Defendant’s question for GoldBlooded:

1. Within the Modern Legal Board Act, is the Department of State legally required to automatically start a special election upon a vacancy in the RBA Council due to resignation or the loss of a Council member’s attorney role, without the RBA Chairman’s request?

 

[GoldBlooded]

The Department of State is not legally required to automatically start a special election upon the vacancy of any elected position within the Redmont Bar Association.
The Modern Legal Board Act does not mention or use the word "automatically" in facilitation of elections regarding the RBA.

The Department of State must legally initiate and administer the election process for any occurring vacancy within the RBA immediately once requested at the behest of the incumbent Chairperson.

Under Section 6 sub-secion 5 of the modern legal board act puts the Department of State in charge of managing the elections of the RBA Council and Chairperson.

6 - The Council and Chairperson
(5) The Department of State shall manage the elections for the Council and the Chairperson in a fair and impartial manner.

However, no where in the bill does it specify *how* we are to be informed of these elections, therefore the Department of State relies on the request of the chairperson to swiftly and immediately administer an election.

 

[Banana]

Does the Defense have any further questions?

 

[Admin23]

No, your Honor.

 

[Banana]

Thank you. We will now be moving onto the final statements. The Plaintiff may present their closing arguments.

 

[Banana]

As the Plaintiff has failed to provide statements within the allotted time, we will move on. The Defense may present their closing arguments.

 

[Admin23]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

xstarpro
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of State
Defendant


CLOSING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, your Honor, opposing council.

The Plaintiff is attempting to use the Modern Legal Board Act to make the judiciary enforce something that does not exist within the Modern Legal Board Act. That is not within the jurisdiction of the court, as you are not allowed to argue over a law that does not exist. Courts may not interpret a law that does not exist. In court, we argue over laws, in whole or in part, that have been created, voted on, and approved of by Congress, and which have received the Presidential signature. The Plaintiff is attempting to argue in this court over something that has not gone through any of those procedures and expects this court to do Congress’ job. As previously mentioned, the Plaintiff’s proper avenue of settling this issue is finding a Senator (such as Milqy), or a Representative to discuss this matter with and to help them to create a new law (or amend the Modern Legal Board Act), which solves these issues.

The Plaintiff has consistently been proven wrong on every statement he has made within this court.

There has allegedly been gross negligence and mishandling of elections that are allegedly within the Department of State’s scope of responsibility. There is no such responsibility assigned to the Department of State by the Modern Legal Board Act. Additionally, once Milqy requested that the Department of State hold special elections, the proper procedures were followed in a timely and professional manner.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that the Department of State is not allowed to hold elections outside of what is required within the Modern Legal Board Act. This is false. There is no such limitation. There are certain elections which must be held by the Department of State, and consistently they have been held. There are also elections which are not required to be held, but are also not prohibited from being held, such as the special election previously mentioned. It seems the Plaintiff does not understand the fine line between these two points.


DATED: This 22nd day of July, 2022

 

[Banana]

Thank you. This court is now in recess.

 

[Admin23]

It’s been about 30 hours since the court has been in recess. Do we have an estimated time in which we will have a verdict?

 

[Banana]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
xstarpro v. Department of State [2022] FCR 51

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Department of State (hereafter DOS) is responsible for holding elections in the Redmont Bar Association
2. In this case, there were several open spots and the DOS failed to hold an election
3. The DOS left a mandated 4-person council down to one person by their own negligence
4. This severely crippled an organization and is a severe failure to uphold the duties of the DOS

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The DOS is not mandated to hold an election when there is a resignation, only when there is a recall of either the Chairperson or the Council
2. The Chairperson can request that an election be held, but the DOS is under no obligation to do so before that point
3. By this standard the DOS met its requirements by holding a special election when the Chairperson requested one

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. The Modern Legal Board Act does not require that the DOS hold a special election under the conditions of a resignation of a councilor
2. It is the responsibility of the Chairperson, not the DOS, to lead the Council of the RBA
3. Part of this responsibility is ensuring that the Council is compliant with laws, including the Modern Legal Board Act
4. The DOS upheld their duties by holding an election in a timely manner when the Chairperson notified them of the need for one

IV. VERDICT
I hereby find in favor of the Defendant.

The Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is now adjourned.