Lawsuit: Dismissed zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


zLost (Represented by The Lovely Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Constitution outlines clear duties to various government departments and agencies, delegating powers specifically to certain institutions. These barriers have been breached when a law regulating public transit fares was passed and signed into law. The Constitution clearly gives the duty to manage fares to the Department of Construction and Transportation, and this power must be restored to the Executive Branch.


I. PARTIES
1. zLost (Plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. Congress
4. The Department of Construction and Transportation

II. FACTS
1. The Congress and former President Twixted passed the Free Public Transport Act (link) on the 23rd of April.
2. This act altered the pricing for public transportation.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Constitution provides that "The Department of Construction and Transport is charged with the... Management of Public Transport networks." Therefore, day-to-day operations such as pricing and fares are within the jurisdiction of the Department of Construction and Transport, and thus the executive branch and not the legislative branch.
2. While "management" is somewhat ambiguous, most public transport systems manage their own fares as part of their general operations, and thus it is reasonable to belief that "Management of Public Transport networks" includes fares and pricing.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Free Public Transport Act to be struck as unconstitutional.
2. The Lovely Law Firm will be assessing $7,500 from the Plaintiff for this case, and thus the Plaintiff requests $7,500 in legal fees.
3. As this significantly reduced tax income coming to the State, the Plaintiff has suffered from the inability of the Commonwealth to provide services it otherwise would with this lost tax revenue. The value and nature of these services are incalculable, and therefore the Plaintiff requests $50 for each day the law has been in effect. This is 445 80 days, and thus we request $222,500 $4000 in damages.

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 24th day of August 2023

EDIT: Added a prayer for relief

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, I mistyped a number due to a math error. The days have been 80 days, so the $225,000 should be $4,000.

 

[Milkcrack]

Could the plaintiff please give their rationale for filing in the Supreme Court?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Could the plaintiff please give their rationale for filing in the Supreme Court?

Your honor, this is a Constitutional question that directly examines the role of the entire legislature. I am happy to refile in the Federal Court if you deem it more appropriate; the lawsuits guide implied the Supreme Court is the place for direct Constitutional questions.

 

[Milkcrack]

Please re-file the case in the Federal Court.