Lawsuit: Adjourned bharatj v. Government of Stratham

[bharatj]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 06/13/25

(bharatj)

v.

(Government of Stratham)

I. Description of Case

With the new Council of Ministers, the requirements to conduct elections is slightly different from what was outlined prior to the creation of the council. The new constitution states that an election must be held every two months. The Council of Ministers was sworn in this March, yet there were no elections held in the month of May. After being pointed out, there does not seem to be an effort to rectify this mistake, but rather a more dismissive attitude about it.

II. Parties

1. bharatj
2. Government of Stratham

III. Sequence of Events

All times are in CST
1. March 2nd 2025 @ 5:18pm | Council of Ministers election declarations begin.
2. March 14th 2025 @ 3:03pm | Council of Ministers are fully elected after several special elections to begin their two month term.
3. April 27th 2025 @ 10:49am | NetPex declares his resignation, leaving his post open and needing to be replaced.
4. May 2nd 2025 | This is the date that the elections should have begun since the Constitution states that the “election of the Council of Ministers shall take place every 2 months and shall be held 12 days before the end of the incumbent Council’s term.” (Section 3.2(a)).
5. May 3rd 2025 @ 11:21pm | NetPex announces that he will continue as DoS minister after there is no interest in a special election (the government stance seems to be that since NetPex resigned and did not begin through an election, he is not the DoS minister, leaving that position vacant).
6. May 12th 2025 | This is the date when the new Council should have taken office.
7. June 12th 2025 @ 12:35pm | I bring up in political discussion that there was no election in May.
8. June 12th 2025 - June 13th 2025 | Comments from Chairman MegaMinerM seem dismissive and do not show an attempt to conduct elections properly.


IV. Claims for Relief

1. 3.2(a) The election of the Council of Ministers shall take place every 2 months and shall be held 12 days before the end of the incumbent Council’s term.

No elections were conducted 2 months after the term began.

1. 3.2(b) It shall be the duty of the Department of State to carry out elections.

The Government does not seem to know who the head of the Department of State currently is, and if they do, the head of the Department of State has not done this duty.

1. 3.2(e) The term of the Council of Ministers ends 2 months from when they’re sworn in.

This segment of the Constitution also clearly defines that a term only lasts two months before another election. It has thus far been over 3 months.

1. 6.1(e) If the Minister of State position is currently vacant, the responsibility to conduct replacement procedures shall be up to the Acting Minister or most senior Department of State employee.

The replacement was conducted by NetPex himself rather than another Acting Minister or senior department official. If NetPex returning gives him the power again to care for DoS responsibilities, why hasn’t he conducted the elections? If the way he announced his return doesn’t give him the authority to lead the department, then why has an acting minister not been appointed or further special elections conducted?

1. Section 4(1) “If two consecutive Ministerial Elections or Special Elections fail to produce a candidate for a specific ministerial position, the Council of Ministers may, by majority vote, appoint one of its sitting Ministers to concurrently serve in the unfilled ministerial role.”

This excerpt is from the “Anti-Government Shutdown Act” which was proposed by our current Chairman. This has received assent and was signed into law. This means that the proper procedure to find NetPex’s replacement depends upon the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution but the same questions still remain. If NetPex retaining his position without running is the special election constitutionally grants him authority over the DoS, why were elections not conducted? If NetPex retaining his position without running in the special election does not grant him authority over the DoS, why was another special election not announced? If that would not have yielded a replacement, why was a vote not conducted for a replacement?

I understand that with this new process there can be confusion, and with real life being busier for many people, things like this can be overlooked. However, I think it’s important that we continue to follow the rule of law and preserve the democratic process that we still have. It’s imperative that the people’s right to choose who represents them in government is not ignored.

V. Damages
Election proceedings should ideally be conducted immediately after the conclusion of this case, if the Court decides in favor of the plaintiff.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

I have cited points in the Constitution within the main argument. I will attach screenshots of the political discussion channel which leads me to believe that the current administration is not taking this breach of our Constitution seriously. I understand that these might be jokes, but I also believe it is important to address the people with a proper answer when they ask important questions.

Thank you.

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.

 

[Cherub54321]

@MegaMinerM is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @MegaMinerM , 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 Cherub54321 Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

The defence has asked for an extension for their response, which I shall be granting. The defence now has an additional 48 hours in which to present an opening statement or motion to dismiss.

 

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 06/13/25

bharatj

v.

Government of Stratham
Nightmare98765 - Attorney General

Hello your Honour,
The defence acknowledges and accepts the requested damages by bharatj. Accordingly, we agree that election proceedings should be conducted immediately following the conclusion of this case, should the court order so. We recognize the importance of adhering to the constitutional timeline for elections and affirm our commitment to carrying out this duty as directed by the Court. The defence also recognize that, in accordance with Section 3.2(a) of the constitution, an election for the Council of Ministers should have been conducted in early May 2025 — approximately one month ago. The defence sincerely apologize for this oversight and the delay in fulfilling the constitutional duty to ensure timely elections.

Thank you.

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.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

The court accepts the defence’s plea, and hereby orders that elections for the council of ministers are to begin within 48 hours of this message. Given that no replacement election in line with the requirements set by the constitution for the replacement of the Department of State Minister Position following netpex’s resignation took place, the most senior member within the department is to conduct these elections. As all current members seem to have roles of equivalent seniority, I have established through forum applications to join the department that the most senior member is @MegaMinerM due to them being the longest serving member of the department. @MegaMinerM shall therefore be the one to run the elections.

The court is now adjourned

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Cherub54321

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Morning,

I have had the following concern raised to me by the council of ministers:

"The Council of Ministers won’t be acknowledging said verdict due to Clause 2.3(j) in the Constitution:

2.3(j) When the Supreme Court hears a case involving a Council Member or Judicial Officer, they may not deliberate if there is a vacancy on the court, nor can the court remove a person from those positions without unanimous agreement."

Due to the fact that, by their own admission, the elections for the council of ministers should have taken place over a month ago, it is my finding that as the current council members have not been elected into their positions, they are not in fact constitutionally considered as such, and so clause 2.3j of the constitution does not apply.

Section 3.2a states that elections for minister positions must be held every 2 months, with the incumbent minister's terms ending 12 days later. Given that our last election was on the 2nd of March, this means that the incumbent minister's terms ended on the 14th of May. This is further supported by section 3.2e, which states that Minister's terms last 2 months from the date that they were sworn in (The current ministers being sworn in on the 14th of March). Hence from that date, as no election has taken place there are no current incumbent ministers. Therefore, as my judgement does not involve or remove any players from positions they rightfully hold, I may continue to make it in line with the constitution.

Due to this finding, I shall also be adding on the following to my judgement:
All actions taken by ministers using their constitutional authority following the 14th of May are to be undone. This includes, but is not limited to, any creation, removal or amendment of bills, any employees appointed or dismissed, and any positions created or removed within their relevant departments. Actions taken by departments following their responsibilities listed within the constitution are not included within this order.

Failure to complete the orders given in this post and the one above shall result in charges of contempt of court. Due to the confusion, I shall be allowing 48 hours from now in which for the orders to have been completed.