Lawsuit: Dismissed zLost v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 21

Status
Not open for further replies.
zLost

zLost

Citizen
Legal Affairs Department
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Oakridge Resident
zLost
zLost
eventcoordinator
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
543
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


zLost
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I had signed a petition to remove IncompleteRiver, and after the petition became a referendum, I voted aye on it. I planned on running for Senate if Senator IncompleteRiver was removed, but after the referendum (link) had ended only 78% of the people voted aye (Exhibit A), which the Department of State stated that was too low to remove IncompleteRiver. But, after reading the Constitution, I realized that there only had to be 75% of people that voted aye, as the Constitution states:
"To determine the outcome of the referendum, the official in question is removed from office if the percentage of nays is less than the percentage that represents their seat in Congress. For example, if there are 4 seats in the Senate, each seat represents 25% and therefore fewer than 25% of responses would need to be nay for the official to be removed."

Because when the referendum was held there were only 4 seats in the Senate (Exhibit B), there only had to be less than 25% of people voting nay. Thus, IncompleteRiver should've been removed. I informed the Department of State of this, but they denied this (Exhibit C).


I. PARTIES
1. zLost
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. A referendum was held to remove Senator IncompleteRiver.
2. The Plaintiff planned on running for Senate if IncompleteRiver was removed.
3. The referendum had 78% of people vote aye, which the DOS deemed to not be enough.
4. There were 4 senators during the time of the referendum in the Senate.
5. The Constitution states that the percentage of nays has to be less than the percentage of the seat they hold in that specific chamber, which was 25%
6. The DOS denied this.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. As IncompleteRiver held 1/4 of the seats in Senate at the time of the referendum, only less than 25% of the votes had to be nay.
2. As there were less than 25% of nays, Senator IncompleteRiver should've been removed. But, the DOS denied this.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $100,000 in Consequential Damages as the Plaintiff lost the chance of running for Senate.
2. $25,000 in Punitive Damages.
3. Senator IncompleteRiver to be removed from his seat.

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 1st day of December 2023

1701434963671.png
(Special Elections for 2 Senate Seats started on 20th October)
1701435322943.png


(Senator IncompleteRiver recall referendum started on 23rd October)
1701435405474.png


(Senate special elections ended on 24th October)
1701435449833.png
1701435486071.png

1701435501205.png
 
Last edited:
Seal_SC.png

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

@SumoMC is required to appear before the court in the case of the zLost v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the facts presented.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Your Honor, I made a typo in Exhibit B, I meant to type 24th October above the last screenshot, but I accidently typed 25th October. May I have permission to edit the original post to fix the typo?
 
Your Honor, it has been 72 hours.
 
Your Honor,
The Commonwealth apologizes for the tardiness, and hopes to continue this trial without further interruption.
As I have just been assigned this case, the Commonwealth requests a 48 hour extension to answer the complaint

Thank you,
Your Honor.

DR_EKSPLOSIVE
DLA CLERK
Assistant Prosecutor​
 
The Plaintiff is granted permission to correct the typo they made in regards to Exhibit B of their evidence.

The Supreme Court will also be charging the Defendant with Contempt of Court for their failure to respond to an order by the court.

Finally, the Supreme Court will be granting an extension to the Defendant and will be granting them 24 hours from now to present their answer to the complaint to the court.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The Commonwealth requests that this case be dismissed as it is frivolous. The Plaintiff states that the referendum should have passed in accordance with the constitution, Section 4: The Senate, which states: “To determine the outcome of the referendum, the official in question is removed from office if the percentage of nays is less than the percentage that represents their seat in Congress.” However, the Plaintiff alleges that Senator IncompleteRiver held 25% of the seats in the Senate, which is incorrect, as all seats in the Senate, whether occupied or unoccupied, are counted in voting procedures, as reinforced by these two excerpts from the constitution: “The Senate shall consist of 6 citizens”and “The Senate must have more than 50% of its total seats occupied to approve any motion, bill, or Presidential nomination, with the sole exception of Motions for Special Election”. These excerpts reinforce that unoccupied seats do matter in the Senate, thereby reducing Senator IncompleteRiver’s seats in the Senate from the alleged 25% to an actual value of 16.67%.
2. The Plaintiff’s prayer for damages is thereby invalidated as the referendum was correctly declared failed by the DOS. Even still, The defence disputes the fact that the Plaintiff, zLost, has suffered any form of personal damages. The defence has seen no evidence of any form of campaigning that the plaintiff conducted before the referendum was rejected, and considering that multiple senate elections have followed this referendum, namely the November 2023, November 2023 (Special) and the December 2023 (Special), and the plaintiff’s subsequent absence from these elections means the plaintiff cannot reasonably justify any form of personal compensation. The Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is invalidated as nothing wrong was done by the DOS.
3. The Plaintiff has therefore misunderstood the law and relating acts and bills referring to the proceedings of the Senate, and has filed a court case where there is no legal basis for any of the claims the plaintiff has made, and therefore makes this case frivolous and subject to the Saviour Act.

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 8th Day of December
 
After a unanimous decision by the Justices on this court, the Defendant's motion to dismiss this case is hereby denied. The Defendant did not base their motion on any of the rules listed under the Court Rules and Procedures that would satisfy a dismissal motion.

The Supreme Court will also be striking the statements from the record.

Having delivered this, we will now be moving forward on to the discovery phase of the trial. Due to the requested damages in this case being greater than $100,000, the court will be allowing 21 days for both parties to compile their evidence and witness list and provide it to the court. If agreed upon by both parties this phase may be ended early if nothing further needs to be provided by either side.
 
Your Honor, the Plaintiff wishes to end the discovery trial.
 
Due to the Defense not agreeing to end this phase early, we will continue on with discovery. If an agreement can be reached later on by both sides to end discovery it will be accepted at that point.
 
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Due to the precedence in The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, to prevent IncompleteRiver from doing anymore harm, IncompleteRiver should not be allowed to use any powers granted to a Senator under the constitution and any other piece of legislation.
 
zLost said:
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Due to the precedence in The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, to prevent IncompleteRiver from doing anymore harm, IncompleteRiver should not be allowed to use any powers granted to a Senator under the constitution and any other piece of legislation.
Click to expand...
Objection
Breach of procedure

Your Honor,
The court order guide states that the people who can use an emergency injunction are:

"1. Any party to a case as a part of their complaint or their answer.
2. Anyone who is intend to start a lawsuit."

This lawsuit has already started therefore the plaintiff cannot use section two of this guide.

It is past the complaint and anwer to the complaint, thefore they cannot use section one of the guide.

The emergency injunction does not fulfil either requirements outlined by its usage in the guide.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Your Honor, the plaintiff wishes to consider the emergency injunction null and proposes this instead:
 
INJUNCTION

Due to the precedence in The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, to prevent IncompleteRiver from doing anymore harm, IncompleteRiver should not be allowed to use any powers granted to a Senator under the constitution and any other piece of legislation.
 
zLost said:
INJUNCTION

Due to the precedence in The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, to prevent IncompleteRiver from doing anymore harm, IncompleteRiver should not be allowed to use any powers granted to a Senator under the constitution and any other piece of legislation.
Click to expand...
Objection
Breach of procedure.

Your Honor,
The court orders guide specifies "Injunctions are orders that compel a party in a case to do something or to refrain from doing something." IncompleteRiver is not a party specified in this case. As we can see from section I. from the original complaint filed the parties inside of this case are Zlost and the commonwealth of Redmont.
 
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

IncompleteRiver is the one subject to punishment in this case and is a part of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth consists of the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative. By having the Commonwealth as a party in this case, all members of it are a party. As IncompleteRiver is a legislator, he is a party in this case.
 
zLost said:
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

IncompleteRiver is the one subject to punishment in this case and is a part of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth consists of the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative. By having the Commonwealth as a party in this case, all members of it are a party. As IncompleteRiver is a legislator, he is a party in this case.
Click to expand...
Objection
Breach of procedures

According to the objevtions guide given by the courts:
"The opposing party may answer the objection within 24 HOURS!"

the responding party answered the objection after the 24 hour alloted time frame.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Due to the defenses breach of procudure and their response comming after the alloted time frame, the plaintiff motions to strike the defenses above response to the previous objection.
 
You Honor,
Pardon my intrusion but it has been around 120 hours says ive last objected and nothing has been brought forth by the defendent and no ruling has been made.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
Snowy_Heart said:
You Honor,
Pardon my intrusion but it has been around 120 hours says ive last objected and nothing has been brought forth by the defendent and no ruling has been made.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
Click to expand...
Apologies to @drew_hall for my intrusion, but Snowy, the Supreme Court is deliberating on this. Please be patient.
 
I apologize for my impatience, your honor, but it has been roughly two and a half weeks since the injunction and soon IncompleteRiver's seat will be up for election.
 
Your Honor, it has been almost 2 weeks since discovery ended. When can we expect the trial to continue?
 
Your Honor,
Apologies for speaking out of turn. I recently resigned from the Department of Legal Affairs. This is to notify you that I will no longer be defending the Commonwealth. The Department will reassign this case.

Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
 
Your Honor, I ask that the injunction is ignored as it serves no purpose now that IncompleteRiver is out of office.
 
Since all of these issues seem to have been resolved, we will instead be moving forward to opening statements.

The plaintiff may present their opening statement to the court within 72 hours
 
Your honor,

As the DLA has experienced some turmoil lately, I was just made aware that this case was pending and the previous two prosecutors no longer work for the DLA. I will be taking over this case as Solicitor General.
 
Last edited:
Your Honor, I apologize but I request a 24 hour extension as I was ill for the first 48 hours, not being able to work on the opening statement at all.
 
Your Honor, I would like to motion for a trial by combat.
 
The Supreme Court has decided to sua sponte this case because the subject issue is now irrelevant as well as to preserve the judicial economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top