Lawsuit: In Session zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 10

zLost

zLost

Citizen
Public Affairs Secretary
Public Affairs Department
Education Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
3rd Anniversary Grave Digger Change Maker Popular in the Polls
zLost
zLost
Event Manager
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
697

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL 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:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defence has appointed an individual who does not meet requirements laid out by Executive policy to the position of Public Affairs Secretary. The Plaintiff believes this appointment to be illegal, and wishes for the courts to undo it.
Click to expand...

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

II. FACTS
1. On 24th June 2025, incumbent President Kaiserin_ nominated player xDarkkex to the position of Public Affairs Secretary to the Senate (Exhibit A).
2. On 26th June 2025 at 7:25 pm EST, the nomination was approved by the Senate and xDarkkex was appointed to Public Affairs Secretary (Exhibit B).
3. As of 27th June 2025 at roughly 10:29 am EST, xDarkkex had 1d 23h 37m 45s of playtime, and therefore had less than 48 hours of playtime when he was both nominated and appointed (Exhibit C).
4. Department of Public Affairs policy, and to an extent Executive Policy (as all Departments at the time of when xDarkkex was appointed followed this same policy), under Application Information (link) states:
These requirements are standard across all government positions and are non-negotiable.
  • Minimum of 48 hours of playtime.
  • You need to have and be available on Discord.
  • You need to show in your application why you are best suited for the position.
  • You must be able to work effectively and efficiently in a team with all members of the department. (Exhibit D)
5. The position of Secretary is a government position.
6. xDarkkex fails to meet the requirements for a Secretary, and therefore was illegally nominated.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. xDarkkex had less than 48 hours of playtime as shown in Exhibit C, and therefore didn't meet the requirements set out by the Executive shown in Fact 4.
2. A government position by definition is a position which is in Government. A secretary is a part of the Government, and therefore is a government position.
3. As precedented in SCR 14 [2021] (link) and multiple Federal Court cases (while Federal Court precedence is non-binding on the Supreme Court, it's precedent can serve as a good reference for interpretations of the law), such as FCR 27 [2023] (link), the Executive is required to follow the policy set out by them so long as it abides by law. Therefore, department policy cannot be arbitrary and the President cannot violate it by appointing someone against that policy.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Removal of xDarkkex from the position of Public Affairs Secretary
2. All actions taken by xDarkkex as Public Affairs Secretary to be reversed.
3. $5,000 in legal fees

Timezone in picture: GMT+5

1751921378992.png
Timezone in picture: GMT+5

1751921421758.png
Timezone in picture: GMT+5. Individuals identity hidden for privacy reasons.
1751921527015.png
1751921582908.png

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 July 2025.

 
Last edited:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff believes it is of utmost importance to halt xDarkkex's power as Public Affairs secretary, given that they have been making radical change in the Department, such as removing the leaderships ability to vote on applications, dissolving the payment system, etc. The Plaintiff requests the following injunctions to be granted:

1. All actions taken by xDarkkex since he became Public Affairs Secretary to be ineffective for the remainder of this case.
2. xDarkkex's powers as Secretary of Public Affairs be halted for the remainder of this case

OR (to allow the normal functioning of the DPA for the remainder of this case)

2. The previous Public Affairs Secretary (lucaaasserole) be appointed as a temporary Secretary for the Department of Public Affairs, as the courts have done similarly in the past, as in SCR 5 [2025] (link).
 

Writ of Summons


@Attorney General's Office is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 10.

Failure to appear within 72 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.

 
The Supreme Court of Redmont will be granting a modified Emergency Injunction.

Secretary xDarkkex is temporarily restrained from changing any policy within the Department of Public Affairs for the duration of the case or until further orders of this Court. This will not prevent any day-to-day operations or the use of any current policy. The plaintiff may refile for additional emergency limitations if proven necessary.
 
The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.
 
You have 48 hours to present your Answer to Complaint
 

Answer to Complaint


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

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on 24th June 2025, incumbent President Kaiserin_ nominated player xDarkkex to the position of Public Affairs Secretary to the Senate.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that on 26th June 2025 at 7:25 pm EST, the aforementioned nomination was approved by the Senate and xDarkkex was appointed to Public Affairs Secretary.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that as of 27th June 2025 at roughly 10:29 am EST, xDarkkex had 1d 23h 37m 45s of playtime, and therefore had less than 48 hours of playtime when he was both nominated and appointed.
4. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Department of Public Affairs policy, and to an extent Executive Policy (as all Departments at the time of when xDarkkex was appointed followed this same policy), under Application Information (link) states:
These requirements are standard across all government positions and are non-negotiable.

  • Minimum of 48 hours of playtime.
  • You need to have and be available on Discord.
  • You need to show in your application why you are best suited for the position.
  • You must be able to work effectively and efficiently in a team with all members of the department.
5. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the position of Secretary is a government position.
6. The Defendant DENIES that xDarkkex fails to meet the requirements for a secretary, and therefore was illegally nominated.

II. DEFENCES
1. Departments are bound by their own department policies, insofar as they are in line with law, however the President is not a part of the Department of Public Affairs and is therefore not bound by Public Affairs department policy.
2. A position of Secretary is a Government position, but the statement in the DPA's department policy that "These requirements are standard across all government positions and are non-negotiable" refers only to regular employment positions within departments, and not all government positions across the government. If it were to refer to that, this statement would be unconstitutional and therefore invalid. §8.(2) of our Constitution states that in order to become a Representative in the House of Representatives, which is a position within the government, a player needs to have accrued 24 hours of active playtime. 24 hours is less than 48 hours, and it is therefore by the constitution impossible for there to be a minimum requirement of 48 hours of playtime on every single position in the government. Rather, this requirement is true for regular employment positions within the Department of Public Affairs which are made through a regular application on the forums.
3. The precedent in SCR 14 [2021] and FCR 27 [2023] refers to actions taken within Departments, which indeed have to follow the policy set out by them so long as it abides by law. Neither of these cases refer to actions taken by the President, who is not a part of any Department but an entity separate and above any one Department.
4. It is by no means reasonable to reverse all decisions taken by xDarkkex as Public Affairs Secretary. This will cause tremendous uncertainty, unclarity and complete chaos.

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 twelfth day of July 2025

 

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your Honor, the Defendant moves for a summary judgement and in support thereof respectfully alleges that there are no disputed facts. The only fact posed by the Plaintiff that has not been affirmed by the Defendant is " xDarkkex fails to meet the requirements for a Secretary, and therefore was illegally nominated." which is not a fact, but rather a legal interpretation that is to be made by the Court and which the entire case revolves around. As none of the actual facts posed by the Plaintiff are disputed the Defendant moves for a summary judgement as to not drag this case out unnecessarily.

 
The motion for summary judgement is granted. This case is now in recess pending verdict.
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Plaintiff asks that summary judgement be reconsidered, due to the fact that this will set horrible precedent and is not how summary judgement is intended to be used.

A motion for summary judgement has basically never been accepted in the Supreme Court without consent from the opposing counsel, unless the opposing counsel has failed to represent themselves or has no defense. For example:

SCR 1 [2025]
SCR 5 [2024]
SCR 14 [2023]
SCR 21 [2022] (the presiding officer denies summary judgement due to the opposing counsel disagreeing)

Imposing a verdict when the Defence has made claims that the Plaintiff won't be able to argue against, without going to Discovery for the Plaintiff to provide further evidence or witness testimony, without any opening or closing statements, all without the Plaintiff's consent is insanity.

This precedent would allow the Defence to just affirm all facts, even if they don't necessarily agree, to end a case before it even starts.

Not only that, the Defence has not even actually affirmed all facts, denying one fact. If only absolute facts are counted for summary judgement, this would allow almost every case to end before opening statements. A majority of cases do not have any absolute facts that the Defence disagrees with.
 
The Motion to Reconsider is granted. We will now be moving onto Discovery, which will last 24 hours starting from this moment.
 
Your Honor, I wish for an extension of 48 hours to discovery. The Plaintiff needs more time to compile evidence and a list of witnesses, especially since I am currently travelling and have very limited access to my laptop.
 
zLost said:
Your Honor, I wish for an extension of 48 hours to discovery. The Plaintiff needs more time to compile evidence and a list of witnesses, especially since I am currently travelling and have very limited access to my laptop.
Click to expand...
Extension granted.
 
Aladeen said:
The Supreme Court of Redmont will be granting a modified Emergency Injunction.

Secretary xDarkkex is temporarily restrained from changing any policy within the Department of Public Affairs for the duration of the case or until further orders of this Court. This will not prevent any day-to-day operations or the use of any current policy. The plaintiff may refile for additional emergency limitations if proven necessary.
Click to expand...
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Plaintiff believes that restricting the change of any further policy alone is not sufficient to prevent unrecoverable harm. Secretary xDarkkex along with Acting Secretary juniperfig who is in acting in his stead have been threatening actions and taking actions against multiple members of the department, using previous policies set by them and other absurd reasons as justification for these warnings/fires.

If it turns out that xDarkkex's appointment was illegitimate, and they were fired illegally due to the illegitimate appointment, it would result in long and lengthy legal battles such as in RaiTheGuy07 v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR 21. Not only that, the damages that the individuals would face would not be able to be compensated through monetary gain, given that they would miss out on the ability to host events during a peak time of the year (summer) for hosting events.

Therefore, we ask that the courts grant both or at least one of the following emergency injunctions along with what has already been injunctioned:
1. Policies and firings by xDarkkex or anyone acting in his stead before this case to be ineffective for the remainder of this case.
2. Removal of the DPA Secretary's ability to fire any employees for the remainder of this case.

1752521397692.png
1752521591964.png
1752521617687.png
1752522018767.png
 
The emergency injunction is granted, the court finds it neccesary to expand the current limitations set by the original EI in order to prevent potential harm. Secretary xDarkkex and any Acting Secretaries are temporarily prohibited from terminating or disciplining DPA employees for the remainder of this case or another Court order.
 
Your Honor, apologies for speaking out of turn, but I wish to ask if those who have been fired will remain fired for the remainder of this case.
 
zLost said:
Your Honor, apologies for speaking out of turn, but I wish to ask if those who have been fired will remain fired for the remainder of this case.
Click to expand...
Those who have been already yes
 
The Plaintiff wishes to submit the following witness list:

ItsKatto, former DCT Secretary
 
zLost said:
The Plaintiff wishes to submit the following witness list:

ItsKatto, former DCT Secretary
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, the Defendant does not see how testimony of a former DCT secretary is related to the case at hand in any way.

 
zLost said:
The Plaintiff wishes to submit the following witness list:

ItsKatto, former DCT Secretary
Click to expand...
What is the relevance of a former DCT Secretary in a trial related to the DPA?
 
Aladeen said:
What is the relevance of a former DCT Secretary in a trial related to the DPA?
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff wishes to question the former DCT secretary about how they treat DCT policy in regards to evictions and if they can arbitrarily change it to fit eviction requirements.
 
zLost said:
The Plaintiff wishes to question the former DCT secretary about how they treat DCT policy in regards to evictions and if they can arbitrarily change it to fit eviction requirements.
Click to expand...
Could you clarify specifically the connection between DCT policy and the matter at hand?
 
Discovery has now concluded, the validity of the witness is pending and will be determined once the plaintiff clarifies the relevance of their testimony to the case.
 
Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are given 72 hours, running simultaneously to present opening statements.
 
Aladeen said:
Could you clarify specifically the connection between DCT policy and the matter at hand?
Click to expand...
Deep apologies for the late response, your honor. As the Plaintiff stated earlier, I have been busy IRL and therefore this response has been delayed.

Given that the Plaintiff is arguing that the Executive cannot arbitrarily choose to not follow or follow their policy when needed, we believe it would help our case if a former DCT secretary affirms in court that they cannot arbitrarily change their departmental policy to fit a certain eviction.
 
Aladeen said:
Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are given 72 hours, running simultaneously to present opening statements.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, may I ask why opening statements are being given simultaneously?
 
They are being given simultaneously in order to keep the case moving within the timeline given by the Court Rules and Procedures. Both parties are still given the 72 hours allotted.
 
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your Honor, the Defendant does not see how testimony of a former DCT secretary is related to the case at hand in any way.

Click to expand...
Objection sustained. This court does not believe that the testimony of a former DCT Secretary regarding eviction policy has sufficient connection between the case concerning the DPA. The witness is struck.
 
Aladeen said:
They are being given simultaneously in order to keep the case moving within the timeline given by the Court Rules and Procedures. Both parties are still given the 72 hours allotted.
Click to expand...
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMOWNEATLH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

What timeline in the Court Rules and Procedures, your Honor? The Court Rules and Procedure state that the Plaintiffs Opening Statement is given first and then the Defences Opening Statements are given.

There is no guarantee for this by having both opening statements be given simultaneously, and it's inherently unfair for the Defendant, if they are waiting for the Plaintiff to give their opening statement. They will most likely have less than 24 hours to respond to the Plaintiffs argument. The Plaintiff can simply wait until the last minute to not allow the Defendant to give an opening statement.

The Plaintiff asks that the courts reconsider making both counsels give their opening statements simulatenously, and restart the 72 hour counter. The Plaintiff has spent the limited time they have (in real life due to circumstances) on this motion to reconsider instead of the opening statement.

If this motion to reconsider is denied, the Plaintiff wishes to ask for a 48 hour extension on opening statements due to the reasons above.
 
The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present their Opening Statement. Immediately after it is posted, the 48-hour timer for the Defendant will begin.
 
The defense will be given the same extension time of 48 hours to present opening statements.
 
Apologies for not giving an opening statement your honor, I didn't have time in real life to make it within the timeframe given, but as I do not want to extend this case too long nor did I believe it would be accepted, I did not ask for an extension.

I will accept a contempt of the court charge if the courts believe it to be appropriate to charge me with it.
 
The Defendant chooses not to file an opening statement and requests we move on to closing statements.
 
The plaintiff has 72 hours to present Closing Statements, after it is posted, the 72-hour timer for the Defendant will begin.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

The Defence argues that the President is not bound by policy made through the Department of Public Affairs given that they are not in the Department of Public Affairs, however, the Plaintiff believes this to be untrue. The Constitution states:

(1) Authority. Cabinet derives its authority through delegated Presidential executive authority.

Therefore, policies made by Departments are through the delegated powers of the President, and it's possible for the President to be bound to Department Policy. To support this fact, the Attorney General, in their answer to complaint, affirmed that the policy in question is to an extent executive policy, implying that they agree with this interpretation.

The Defence also agrees with the Plaintiff that Departments have to follow the policy set out by them as long as it follows the law, but argues that since the policy is not set by the President, but by the Department, the President does not have to follow it. The counterargument to this argument is the same as above, which is that department policies are made through delegated powers of the president, and therefore the President cannot violate such policy, since it is, to an extent, their own policy.


The Defence also argues that the policy is unconstitutional if it referred to all government positions, since Representatives and Senators have different playtime requirements as stated in the constitution. However, the Plaintiff does not believe this makes the policy unconstitutional.

For the positions of Representative, Senator, Judge, Justice, etc., their required playtime is mentioned in the Constitution and/or legislation. Therefore, the policy does not have jurisdiction over their playtime requirements. However, in regards to Government Employees and Secretaries, there is no legislation to the knowledge of the Plaintiff which specifies their playtime, and therefore this policy has jurisdiction over deciding their playtime requirements.


The Defence expresses concerns over reversing all actions taken by xDarkkex throughout his term, which the Plaintiff has grown to agree with. The Plaintiff would be more than content to reverse all actions which would be non-detrimental to the DPA if reversed (such as hirings, firings, department policy changes, etc.), rather than every action.


The Plaintiff believes that nominating xDarkkex to be Secretary without meeting the requirements in the stated department policy would be a violation of Constitutional Right 13, which states:

(13) Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.

Department policies are extensions of the law, as they are made through delegated Presidential Authority, which is granted by the law. Therefore, this right also applies to departmental policies. The Plaintiff believes that creating an arbitrary exception for xDarkkex would violate this right as it gives him extra benefit of an extension of the law.

 
@gribble19 you have around 53.5 hours to present closing statements.
 
Case is now in recess pending verdict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top