Lawsuit 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!