Lawsuit: Adjourned _pet_blobfish_ vs. Government ti

[Nightmare98765]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 06/01/22​

_pet_blobfish_

Nightmare98765

v.


Krix


I. Description of Case


On the 6th of January the previous DoJ minister Windows_Dog resigned from his position due to personal reasons. After Window's resignation Krix took control of the department stating that he was standing in as minister until a replacement is found. As per the first cabinet integrity act any minister to fill a vacant position must be nominated by the PM (no official nomination/vote has taken place). Additionally, the bill states that a player who already holds a cabinet position may be nominated but a non cabinet replacement must be found within 14 days. More importantly though, the second cabinet integrity act states that any minister of any department must have been employed by the department within the last year, which Krix has not been.


II. Parties


1. _pet_blobfish_

2. Nightmare98765 (attorney)

3. Government


III. Sequence of Events


1. Windows resigns

2. Krix assumes minister of justice.

3. Cherub points out he cannot do this due to cabinet integrity act

4. Krix states he will get himself nominated.

5. Mxzxpredatorzx states that due to the 2nd cabinet integrity act and cherub points out Krix still cannot nominate himself due to him not being in the DoJ within the last year.



IV. Claims for Relief

1. As per the First and Second cabinet integrity acts Krix cannot legally define himself as the minster of the DoJ. https://www.mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/cabinet-integrity-act.14717/ and https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/second-cabinet-integrity-act.14732/



V. Damages

1. Krix to be removed from DoJ minister (a position he is not entitled to) and a suitable player nominated for the position, as well as all changes made during his period as minister retracted

2. The court to recommend to parliament for Krix to be VoNC'd for his blatant attempt to take over a government department illegally


Evidence:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928769640530841620/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928769842000056340/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928769992177119242/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928771631281737768/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928771753189187624/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928771886891028530/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928772027823824946/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928772178017681478/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928772347664691220/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928772573372751902/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928772635301642280/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928772742868787200/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928772811001036871/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928772945248153680/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928773031235563571/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928773125343174696/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928773198194024518/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928773406478966854/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928773494794252388/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928773564113489930/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/927302819889942549/928773965147684874/unknown.png


In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

@Dusty_3 is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Dusty_3 , does not acknowledge the case as a reply in 2 days, the case will close in the Plaintiff's favor.

Court is in Session

This case is presided by Judge Cooleagles Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[Dusty_3]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 01/08/22

Plaintiff
_pet_blobfish_

Nightmare98765
(Plaintiff’s Attorney)

v.

Government

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. The first Cabinet integrity act does not restrict Krix's ability to fulfill the duties of a Minister in the event of a Minister vacancy. As stated in the act "This also prevents a PM from claiming all cab positions". Legally Krix can fulfill the duties of a Minister if there is a vacancy without nomination. Also, Krix is the Prime Minister, he is the head of Government, it would be extremely odd if the head of Government is legally not allowed to cover for an employee vacancy.



2. The second Cabinet integrity act does not restrict Krix's ability to fulfill the duties of a Minister in the event of a Minister vacancy. The act only applies to those who are nominated for the role of Minister, Krix is simply just covering the duties of the DoJ Minister as the first integrity act allows him to for 14 days.



3. This case should be immediately thrown out as none of these laws presented by the plaintiff restrict the Prime Minister from rightfully claiming their own Cabinet vacancy for 14 days.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I am going to be overruling the Motion To Dismiss. So far, it is to my understanding the defense presents this idea that the Prime Minister is not replacing previous DoJ Minister Windows, but fulfilling the duties and responsibilities until a new minister can be found. They further argue that because of this, the laws do not apply. Although that is a sound argument, I think it can still be argued that the bills require a nomination for this to take place. Additionally, I also don't feel there is much truth to that statement. Looking back at the evidence and announcements throughout the server, it appears the Prime Minister has taken some big steps, one can even say steps the department doesn't fully support. Therefore, I think it is important that this case continue, as both parties can further argue the Prime Minister's intentions and also how the bills apply along with those intentions. I have further thoughts on the defense's Motion To Dismiss but do not want to share them at this moment as I do not want to add my own arguments to this case. I will leave that job to both parties.

We will be moving on to opening statements, the defendant first and then the plaintiff. In these opening statements, I ask that you present all arguments you have in favor of your claims along with its evidence. There will be time for a debate session in which you may argue the opposing side, but the fundamentals must be laid out first.

I will give each party 36 hours to post their opening statements, the plaintiff's time will start after the defendant's post. If more time is required please feel free to say so.

That is all for now
Thank you.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor,
I will need more time, I had work today, and I have work tomorrow. Can you give me 48 hours from now, and then ill be able to write a response?

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Your request for 48 hours is accepted. I will also grant the plaintiff 48 hours following your post.

That is all,
Thank you.

 

[Dusty_3]

The first Cabinet integrity act does not restrict Krix's ability to fulfill the duties of a Minister in the event of a Minister vacancy. As stated in the act "This also prevents a PM from claiming all cab positions". The word claiming is not the same as nominating. As the bill is written, it is the understanding that the PM can claim minister positions as Head of the Government. Legally Krix can fulfill the duties of a Minister if there is a vacancy without nomination.

In the constitution Krix is the Chair of Cabinet, he has the power to override a ministers decision, and is elected by the people. The reason Ministers go through nomination is because they have not been elected by the people, and require the peoples Government to vote them in. Krix has already been elected by the people to lead the Government, it would be an absurd precedent to hold Krix to the same standard as an unelected Minister.

The second Cabinet integrity act does not restrict Krix's ability to fulfill the duties of a Minister in the event of a Minister vacancy. The act only applies to those who are nominated for the role of Minister, Krix is simply just covering the duties of the DoJ Minister as the first integrity act allows him to for 14 days.

Krix is allowed to assume 1 cabinet position at a time, as the first Cabinet integrity act allows, and must nominate a minister within 14 days. Does the plaintiff really suggest that Krix, the Prime Minister elected by the people, cannot cover for their own cabinet vacancy for 14 days until they find a replacement?

This is an absurd claim.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The plaintiff may present their opening statement, their 48 hours start now. I will then allow for any rebuttals and witnesses statements either party may like to bring to the court.

 

[Nightmare98765]

Your Honour. Due to irl reason i will have to step down as the lawyer in this case. MxZxPredatorZx will be the lawyer in this case from now on.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Thank you for informing the court of such. The plaintiff's lawyer has already messaged me saying they had a response, so that shall be expected soon.

Thank you,
that is all

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Your Honour,

I shall begin by process of analysis on the statement from the defence. Please see below,

The Defence states - "The first Cabinet integrity act does not restrict Krix's ability to fulfill the duties of a Minister in the event of a Minister vacancy. As stated in the act "This also prevents a PM from claiming all cab positions". The word claiming is not the same as nominating. As the bill is written, it is the understanding that the PM can claim minister positions as Head of the Government. Legally Krix can fulfill the duties of a Minister if there is a vacancy without nomination."

In response to this statement, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the law. " A 14 day grace period is provided in case of resignation
Bill: Players may only hold one cabinet position at once. In the case of a resignation, the PM may nominate and parliament may approve a dual-serving player for 14 days until a suitable replacement is sourced."

This statement clearly says, there is a 14 day grace period provided in case of resignation followed by a semi colon to signify the following points. Players may hold one cabinet position at once. The PM may nominate and parliament may approve a dual serving player for 14 days until a suitable relationship is sourced.

This act was put in place to prevent the PM from claiming all cab positions, and so that Cabinet members can focus all their effort on their individual positions.

In fact, in Topte's official Act of Parliament forum post, https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/cabinet-integrity-act.14784/ , "In a vote of 5-0-2 Parliament has resolved that:

Players are only allowed to occupy one cabinet position at one time. "

I believe that statement itself is self explanatory.

Furthermore, in relation to the comments about the second cabinet integrity act, the defence claims Krix is simply covering the duties of DoJ Minister until a suitable replacement is found. I can refute those claims with one screenshot. Please see attached. In this image, you can clearly see Krix has stated he will be fulfilling the role of DoJ Minister, without nomination I might add, and expects the period to last from 1 - 2 weeks.



Your Honour, I believe the above statements I have provided in analysis to the defence's statements are more than adequate.

Thank you for your time your honour.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

My apologies for the slightly delayed response. At this time, I will allow for each party to rebut the other party's statements, as well as present any witnesses they may or may not have at this time.

The defense may present their arguments and witnesses
That is all, Thank you

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor,

The Prime Minister is the Executive. Unitary executive theory. The Prime Minister has the power to control the whole executive branch, which means Krix has the constitutional power to run any department regardless if the Minister is vacant or not. This power is established through the constitution:

- The Prime Minister is the Head of Government, and the Chair of Cabinet
- The Prime Minister can appoint and dismiss members of Cabinet
- The Prime Minister has final say on all cabinet maters

- The Prime Minister can override a Ministers decision

- Ministers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister


Currently the DoJ Minister position is vacant. To suggest the Prime Minister, elected directly by the people and has the above constitutional powers, cannot cover this position is ignoring what is written in the constitution. If the plaintiffs arguments are to stand, Departments will end up unorganized and the Prime Minister will have its powers reduced. The Prime Minister can constitutionally cover his own Cabinet vacancy while he looks for a suitable replacement.

"The Cabinet consists of all Ministers who collectively enforce all laws and run all government departments and thus the server."

The plaintiff has stated Krix is a member of Cabinet, and if that is the case, what department does he run? He runs all departments, but appoints Ministers to be his advisors. Ministers are the middle management, they are not required but are helpful. This line further establishes the Unitary Executive Theory as a present government system in our Constitution.

This form of Government System allows the Prime Minister to make decisions for Ministers, which is not only constitutionally sound, but also logically. The Prime Minister is the chair of cabinet, he is the elected head of Government.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I think the Defense argues some very decent points. I ask the plaintiff for their rebuttal now but I ask them to focus on this idea of "Unitary Executive Theory." They may of course present additional arguments, but I would like to hear a rebuttal that prioritizes that idea.

That is all, Thank you

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Although, by constitutional definition the Prime Minister is the head of Government, and the chair of the cabinet, the Cabinet Integrity Acts were put in place to stop a Prime Minister claiming all Ministerial positions. If this law is to be ignored for sake of constitution then one must ask why the law was made in the first place? I actually believe this law was partially created to reduce the Prime Ministers power in recognition of the fact that we do have ministers, and they are responsible for the upkeep and running of departments as well as enforcing the laws of that department and making any changes that need to be made.

There are times, where the constitution or parts of it may be outdated by a change in law, such as the integrity acts that partially amend the constitution where the prime minister claiming all departments is concerned. A change that, quite clearly is not reflected as of yet in the constitution.

In response to the paragraph about me stating that the Prime Minister is a member of the cabinet, I believe the defense has also stated that himself when he has stated that the Prime Minister is the Cabinet Chair, and therefore to then ask questions such as what department does he run is ludicrous.

I also find the suggestion that Ministers are not needed, is quite funny. Could one imagine what potential carnage would unfold if the departments went about their daily business with a prime minister overseeing them and no one else? That is a lot of laws to enforce, upkeep to manage, and changes to be made.

Perhaps whilst we are here your honor, we might discuss how the prime minister actually has suitable candidates already in the DoJ such as Deputy Minister Nightmare, who could take over as minister at any point provided he is nominated, but wont be nominated yet because, and in the words of the prime minister himself, "because he doesn't know how to do all this the way I want it done". Now if you ask me, that sounds very much like a prime minister keeping the power to himself, so that he can make changes, that he has not consulted the department on, let alone the seniors of the department, and therefore, could be argued that actually, what the Prime Minister is doing at present is not even in the publics best interest, but his own, because he wants it done the way he wants it.

I stand by the points I have made whether the case is adjourned in my favor or not your honor. You said yourself at the start during the overruling of the dismissal, "I think it can still be argued that the bills require a nomination for this to take place. Additionally, I also don't feel there is much truth to that statement. Looking back at the evidence and announcements throughout the server, it appears the Prime Minister has taken some big steps, one can even say steps the department doesn't fully support."

At the end of it all, the Unitary executive theory is exactly that, just a theory, used by the defense to try and create a solid argument for the Prime Ministers behaviors of late. It is my strong belief that the court is governed by laws not theories, and therefore, the Integrity Act laws are what are expected to be followed, not some theory drafted in at the last minute by the defense because they are clutching at straws.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your Honor,

The plaintiffs rebuttal here is full of holes, and it just goes to further prove the unified executive form of government exists. The laws of cabinet integrity acts, in the words of the plaintiff, reduce the powers of the Prime Minister. You cannot follow a law that conflicts with the constitution. If the Prime Ministers powers are to be reduced it must require a Constitutional Amendment. If this case is in favor of the plaintiff, it sets the precedent that we no longer require constitutional amendments to change the powers of the Government.

"the integrity acts that partially amend the constitution where the prime minister claiming all departments is concerned". This statement from the plaintiff shows the acts cannot be enforced on the Prime Minister, these bills are not amendments to the constitution. They are creations as specified.




In this court, it does not matter who the Plaintiff considers a suitable replacement. The paragraph stating that Nightmare is a suitable replacement carries no weight, how does that effect whether or not Krix violated the above acts?

Most of the plaintiffs argument is emotion, not fact. In a court of law, only facts matter.

These acts conflict with the constitution, to punish Krix for covering a position that he has power over, and to consider these acts changes to the Government system opens up horrible precedents. If you rule in the favor of the plaintiff, Parliament can change the powers of whatever Government branch without making a constitutional amendment.

The Unified Executive Theory is in the constitution. Krix must be allowed to cover his own cabinet vacancies.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Your honour,

If the theory suggested by the defence is in the constitution perhaps they should make an amendment to name it as such. However, it is not named so as of now it is just a theory.

If the constitution is to be followed at all times, then why your honor, is the constitution not as detailed as some of the acts or amendments that change it I wonder? For example, in the constitution it states “Parliament can remove Ministers, Judges & The Speaker of Parliament via a vote of no confidence, which requires a supermajority (2/3rds, rounded up) to pass” however it does not state how a vote of no confidence is to be operated. To find that information one would look at the vote of no confidence acts/laws.

the same applies in this situation, the constitution states “

• Parliament is responsible for confirming or denying Prime Ministerial nominations for Cabinet and Judicial Positions”

But to find out the process for this, one would look at the integrity acts o follow the procedure. A procedure that clearly states any ministerial position must be filled by a nominated candidate. Krix, albeit the prime minister, was not elected by PARLIAMENT to fill the position of DoJ minister.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor,

As this case has now begun going in circles, at risk of repeating myself my simple response to the plaintiff is:

1. These acts would limit powers of the Prime Minister that are given to him in the constitution. It is not like other acts that outline processes, these acts directly limit specific PM powers.

2. The Prime Minister does not need to be nominated to a position where he is the boss. He holds all the powers of the DoJ, and every other department and chooses to appoint middle management, in most cases, to make the Government run efficiently. The Prime Minister is the executive, he is the Head of Government, all members of Cabinet serve at his pleasure, he is elected directly by the people to run the Government.

I rest my case.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Your Honour,

The defence, in his point one is exactly right. These acts do restrict the powers of the Prime Minister, as intended with the line stating that the act stops the Prime Minister from claiming all departments.

The act exists so that ministerial positions must be nominated, as per constitution as well. Parliament nominates or does not nominate the candidates suggested by the PM.


I rest my case.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The following verdict I'm going to deliver is going to be messy at points, and even perhaps confusing. I have a very specific opinion on this case, one that I feel offers not only the best verdict within the law but also by the people. If either party has any questions following this verdict, they may of course reach out to me.

Plaintiff's Summary:
The plaintiff has brought Defendant to court today arguing that The Prime Minister has illegally taken the position of the DoJ Minister following the resignation of former minister Windows. They argue this by directing the court to the First and Second Cabinet Integrity Acts. The first one states that players can only hold one cabinet position at a time. However, in the cases of resignation one player may serve two positions for a 14-day period, granted the Prime Minister has nominated the individual and parliament accepts the said nomination. The second act follows the first one in further stating that any player to be nominated must have served in the department in the last year. The plaintiff has also brought evidence to the court that presents the kind of behavior and leadership the Prime Minister has shown during his time as taking this position.

Defendant's Summary:
The Defense entered the courtroom originally with an MTD arguing that the laws do not apply to the Prime Minister as he is one the Head of Government/Chair of Cabinet and two because he simply is just filling the role/covering the duties. This was denied by my belief that it could be further argued whether or not the Prime Minister applied to such laws and also based on my belief that the Prime Minister has shown a behavior that doesn't quite sit well with someone "covering the duties". The Defense then further argued these points by referring back to the constitution and what it states about the Prime Minister position; moreover, stating that our government follows the idea of Unitary Executive Theory.

Verdict:
I will flat out state it to limit the amount of suspense this case already upholds, I will be ruling in favor of the Defense. This does not necessarily mean that I will be forgetting the words of the plaintiff. As I stated above, I believe my verdict will not only be fair to the law but also to the people. Those people are of course including the same people on both sides of this courtroom.

Unitary Executive Theory -
I want to begin discussing the idea of Unitary Executive Theory. Although it was only given its title at the end of the case, I do believe our government has followed this theory and will certainly continue following it. It is very important though, that we understand how it works amongst our government for the theory itself sets the powers of the Prime Minister in relation to the rest of the Executive Branch. Therefore, the rest of the case will be discussing any limitations on this theory revolving around these two laws.
Second Cabinet Act -
Now that we have an understanding of this Unitary Executive Theory, which I will call UET for the following of this case, we need to understand the limitations (if there are to be any) on this theory. With this new theory and specifically this line from the constitution, "The Prime Minister (commonly abbreviated to PM) is the head of government and the chair of the cabinet," I believe that the Prime Minister is already a member of each Department. I believe that although he may not have a title within each Department, his being the Prime Minister and chair of the cabinet grants him the overall position. One can think of this as a company. The Prime Minister is the CEO of the company, and the Department's Ministers are other Executive Members of said company. The CEO is a fellow executive but also holds slight power above the other executives. Therefore, the Prime Minister is already a member and this act does not apply to the Prime Minister specifically.
First Cabinet Act -
The first cabinet act is a bit different in my opinion. Although the Ministers work congruently and slightly below the Prime Minister, I believe that they should also be allowed to work independently. No individual needs their boss creeping over their neck to get a job done, especially if the boss wants the job done a certain way. I find the Prime Minister's excuses to the DoJ quite unappealing and not to my appetite. One example, being the Prime Minister hiring himself simply to keep the position. One it shows that the Prime Minister to some degree believed in the standard of that law, as he was prepared to go to measures to ensure he was not breaking it; however, we have already discussed my opinion on the law and we will not be going back. Secondly, it shows a tad of arrogance to me. The only person to do the job was himself, not even someone who has worked in that field a lot longer. Another example is from one of the pieces of evidence (which I will repost below), where he states, " I want the Department in a position where I feel comfortable handing it over to someone else when the support systems are in place and other organization stuff is done." What exactly happens when that position is handed back over? The Deputy Minister gets the role and tries to undo everything you do? You give it to someone else who doesn't know a thing about the department because you consulted no one on these changes? Whilst, I respect The Prime Minister's attempts to help the department, if this behavior of conflict continues to happen between both sides, there will not be a Department to help. Therefore, I will be asking the minister for the rest of his time as a temporary Minister to ensure that he is fully improving the department, with the Department's assistance. When the Prime minister steps away, that sense of independence will reappear with the new minister. Therefore, if they don't understand what the Prime Minister wants or simply don't agree, issues arise, conflict arises. This leads to my final opinion, the first cabinet act. I think for the prevention of abuse of powers as well as the independence of each Department, this law shall apply to the Prime Minister. Similar to other players, the max amount of departments the Prime Minister can hold at once is two. Additionally, I do believe there needs to be a sense of independence; therefore, the 14 days shall apply to the Prime Minister when he fills the spot of Minister. The defense even agreed to this themselves when they started, " Krix is simply just covering the duties of the DoJ Minister as the first integrity act allows him to for 14 days."

Legal Summary:
- UET does apply to the Government, therefore the Prime Minister is already a member of each Department.
- Because of UET, the Second Cabinet Act Does not apply to the Prime Minister
- The First Cabinet Act, besides the need to be nominated, applies in its entirety to the Prime Minister.

Case Summary:
- The Prime Minister is to vacate the DoJ Minister position by Friday, January 21st, 2022, which is the rest of the 14 days plus a day for organizational reasons.
- The Prime Minister is to finish his time as DoJ Minister by informing other members of decisions as well as by preparing a proper successor.

As I stated above this is a very confusing case as it discusses new ideas to the government. It is cases like these where we have to stop and consider what is best for all parties. Of course, the laws are quite important, but when it comes to government the relationships everyone has with each other are just as important. If we are to build a nation for all, we must do it with all voices.
I thank each party for its time and if any questions arise on this verdict, they may of course message me.

Thank you,
Case Adjourned.

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Cooleagles