In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
APPEAL
Date: 01/27/22
APPEAL
Date: 01/27/22
wdeerman, representing himself
v.
The Government of Stratham
I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
Appeal to the dismissal of wdeerman v. The Government of Stratham due to the fact that there is room for discussion as to what the correct interpretation of what “The Cabinet consists of all Ministers who collectively enforce all laws and run all government departments and thus the server” means. Also, even though the Pruning Tax Act is called a “tax” in the legislation, there is room for discussion as to if the “tax” is still a punishment which would require the Act to comply with the Law Officiation Bill.
II. Parties
1. wdeerman
2. The Government of Stratham
III. Sequence of Events
1. wdeerman v. The Government of Stratham is filed
2. Motion to dismiss is filed by the defense
3. Motion to dismiss is sustained
IV. Claims for Relief
It is important to note that the following two arguments are independent. The determined validity of one does not affect the validity of the other.
Argument regarding the DoE’s ability to enforce laws under the constitution:
“The Cabinet consists of all Ministers who collectively enforce all laws…”
This excerpt from our constitution has been interpreted by the defense as that each Minister has an equal ability and equal authority to enforce all laws passed by Parliament. At face value, this seems to make sense, however, there is some missing context.
The entire phrase states, “The Cabinet consists of all Ministers who collectively enforce all laws and run all government departments and thus the server.”
In order to maintain the consistency of the sentence, if we choose to apply one interpretation to the enforcement of laws portion of the sentence, we must also apply that same interpretation to the running of government departments portion of the sentence. This interpretation as a whole, according to the defense’s argument about the authority of Ministers to enforce laws, brings the complete interpretation of this line in our constitution to: each Minister has an equal ability and equal authority to enforce all laws passed by Parliament, and each Minister has the equal ability and equal authority to run all government departments.
This interpretation is not consistent with the fact that each minister is given authority over their prospective departments. Furthermore, ministers without portfolio are called advisers in the Constitution which implies that they have no authority over the individual running of each department.
These inconsistencies shown between the Defense’s arguments and the actual wording of our Constitution give cause for there to be more discussion about this topic.
Argument regarding the Law Officiation Bill:
Due to the fact that the wording of the Law Officiation Bill does not state that the punishments need to be related to criminal law, it is safe to assume that any law that contains a punishment needs to comply with the Law Officiation Bill in order to be legally enforceable.
The definition of punish according to Marriam-Webster is: “To impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation. The definition of punishment according to Britannica is: “The infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed (i.e., the transgression of a law or command).”
According to these definitions, there are two conditions for something to qualify as a ‘punishment’;
- Some wrongdoing (eg. misdeed, breaking of law, offense, violation etc.)
- Some loss as the result
While the Pruning Tax Act does not include the word “punish” or “punishment”, it is clear that the law is designed to act as so. The law was made to discourage players with large balances from being inactive by seizing their assets if they did so. There is wrongdoing which is described as being inactive for greater than 6 weeks, and there is a prescribed loss as a result of the wrongdoer’s action which is to have their assets seized by the government. Therefore, the enforcement of the Pruning Tax Act is a punishment and needs to comply with the Law Officiation Bill.
Furthermore, there are many different forms of taxation and many different types of taxes. One type of tax is a “penal tax”. The definition of penal tax according to Law Insider is: “A tax imposed as a penalty for failure to perform an act required by or under a tax law.”
Wdeerman failed to perform the requirement of staying active under the Pruning Tax Act, and had a “tax” imposed upon him due to that failure. This connection shows that the Pruning Tax Act is a penal tax which is also a form of punishment.
Finally, I think it is important to point out that letting legislation define itself solely based on its name is a dangerous thing to do. This could open the door to allowing future legislation with ill intent to define itself as something it is not in order to receive a desired treatment in the courts.
V. Damages
1. Damages filed in original case
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.
