Lawsuit: Dismissed Dartanman v. Government (2)

[Dartanman]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 10/26/22

Dartanman

v.

Government

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
Parliament is trying to pass an Unconstitutional bill, the Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill.

II. Parties
1. Parliament
2. Dartanman, a citizen aggrieved by Parliament's overreach.

III. Sequence of Events
1. Parliament is attempting to pass an Unconstitutional bill

IV. Claims for Relief
1. This particular act gives power to Parliament while taking it away from both the Executive and Judicial branches.

a) It removes Executive power and gives more Legislative power by removing this:
May create, amend, and remove government departments & their powers as well as the positions within them. This can only be done through a constitutional amendment.
and adding this:
May create, amend, and remove government positions & departmental powers as so long as they are not constitutionally protected. If they are constitutionally protected, Congress may, within reason, create additional powers or responsibilities and remove said power or responsibilities by law.

b) It removes Judicial power and gives more Legislative power by removing this:
May not give itself power over or take powers away from other branches of government.
and adding this:
May create, amend, and abrogate Judicial Policy with law, overriding Judge made policy.

2. Given that the part being removed is currently in the Constitution, they are passing a bill that directly takes power for the Judiciary and Executive and gives it to the Legislative.

V. Damages
1. The Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill be deemed unconstitutional and not allowed to be signed into law.
2. HALT THE BILL FOR THE DURATION OF THIS CASE

Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill: https://www.mcbusinesscraft.com/for...l-constitutional-correction.17260/#post-70199

Constitution: https://www.mcbusinesscraft.com/for...-of-the-republic-of-stratham.3051/#post-19692

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.

 

[Dartanman]

I have edited the Claims for Relief to clarify the difference between the removal of Judicial Power and the removal of Executive Power, and also formatted it with some colors to clearly show what is being removed and what is being added.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

@Matthew100x is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Matthew100x , 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!

Additionally, I will not be halting the bill. I will, however, be halting Parliament's ability to act on it. I believe that stopping the bill is more detrimental than it is played out to be. If it is stopped, then all of the current acts which are brought into question because of it, stay in that position. Whilst, if it is not halted, but rather Parliament is, those important various bills are still in effect but new ones can not be made.

Therefore, this court here prohibits Parliament from creating any bills regarding either the Executive or Judicial Branch until the conclusion of this case.

If either party has any questions, feel free to ask.
That is all,
Thank You.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Additionally, if Parliament wishes to not represent itself, they may elect another Government Official or the Attorney General to do so for them.

Thank You.

 

[Dartanman]

Additionally, I will not be halting the bill. I will, however, be halting Parliament's ability to act on it. I believe that stopping the bill is more detrimental than it is played out to be. If it is stopped, then all of the current acts which are brought into question because of it, stay in that position. Whilst, if it is not halted, but rather Parliament is, those important various bills are still in effect but new ones can not be made.

Therefore, this court here prohibits Parliament from creating any bills regarding either the Executive or Judicial Branch until the conclusion of this case.

Your honor,

I implore you to reconsider this decision.

If this bill is allowed to be signed into law, it WILL become part of the Constitution, making it by definition constitutional. Right now, however, the bill is not in the Constitution, and therefore can still be struck down due to being unconstitutional. When it comes to Constitutional amendments, it is of utmost importance that legal challenges be made before it is signed into law.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I will halt it for right this moment, I would like to hear Parliament's response to this though and from that may or may not reconsider.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Matthew100x]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 10/30/22

Datranman


v.

Government

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. Parliament has the power to change the constitution without regard to the other branches (see 1a). Under the plaintiff's interpretation of the constitution and any reasonable further interpretation of the constitution, Parliament's only recourse for making changes to other branches is to make a constitutional change, so we have to make one..
1(a)
(C) May amend the constitution through a Constitutional Amendment,
(D) May create, amend, and remove government departments & their powers as well as the positions within them. This can only be done through a constitutional amendment,


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.

 

[Dartanman]

Good day, your honor. The Defendant has ignored your request for a response and instead posted a Motion to Dismiss. This communicates that the Defendant is in agreement that the bill should be halted for the duration of this case.

As for the motion, May I have the opportunity to respond?

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good evening,

Firstly, my apologies for such a late response.

Secondly, yes, the Defense may respond to the Motion.
Additionally, I will continue thinking about the decision of halting the bill, which it should be as of right now, and whether or not it will pertain to the rest of the trial, granted we move forward. I do still ask the Defense to make a statement in regards to this decision as if their motion is denied, I will move right to openings and make a decision without their consideration. I also wish to remind the Plaintiff that even if the bill is put into law by Parliament, it can still be struck as unconstitutional, along with any bills they make during the duration of its legality.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Dartanman]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss has failed to show that this case is based on inaccurate facts, is a frivolous case, or anything else that is worthy of dismissal.

The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss seems to have no purpose in this case. Especially since I, the Plaintiff, agree that Parliament has the power to make Constitutional amendments. However, this does not mean that Parliament has sweeping power to make any Constitutional amendment. Throughout this case, I will prove the following:
1. Parliament’s power to enact laws, including Constitutional amendments, is limited.
2. The Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

This is a clear case for litigation and to dismiss it would set the precedent that if any element of an action is legal – but some elements are (potentially) illegal – then you cannot sue for that action.

Frankly, I do not believe there is more that needs to be said. I can bring forth evidence proving the two claims I made above, but I think that is better suited for the Opening Statement.

 

[Dartanman]

I will move right to openings and make a decision without their consideration.

Apologies, your honor, but I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. Do you want me to post my Opening Statement now?

Additionally, I would like to note that the Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill has been vetoed by the Prime Minister, however, I would like to continue this lawsuit in order to set precedent for what is/is not allowed in a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I have decided to overrule the motion to dismiss; therefore, we will move on with this trial. I offer the Defense one more opportunity to respond to the following motion made by the Plaintiff.

Your honor,

I implore you to reconsider this decision.

If this bill is allowed to be signed into law, it WILL become part of the Constitution, making it by definition constitutional. Right now, however, the bill is not in the Constitution, and therefore can still be struck down due to being unconstitutional. When it comes to Constitutional amendments, it is of utmost importance that legal challenges be made before it is signed into law.

Thank you.

The Defense has 24 hours to respond to the motion, otherwise, I will make a decision without their input.

We will move on to openings after I make a decision about whether or not to entirely halt the bill.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Dartanman]

Good day, your honor.

It has been well over 24 hours, but in the interest of giving the Defense a fair trial, I request that we wait until the new Parliament is inaugurated, and the new Parliament may choose someone to represent them in this case.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I could not agree more.
Parliament, now sworn into their office, is given 48 hours to obtain some representative for this case. For simplicity, I will halt the amendment in question and any similar forms of legislation.
Therefore, once Parliament has its representative, I ask that they make themselves known to the court. From there, we will move to the Plaintiff's opening statements.

If either party has any questions, please feel free to ask.
That is all,
Thank you

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I am giving Parliament 24 hours to have a representative respond to this case; otherwise, I will judge based on the facts presented thus far.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

First of all, I want to express the major disappointment I have in the legislative branch's actions. On the occasions when the government is called into this court, they are expected to act at a much higher standard than a normal Defendant. They are representing not only themselves but their actions and performance done on behalf of the entire republic of Stratham. Therefore, not responding to a case as other delinquent defendants would, is simply not acceptable. The circumstance does not matter. I asked Parliament 2 weeks ago to get representation, if that task could not have been done, all they had to do was say so. I didn't even ask them to post any arguments, I only asked them to get representation and inform the court. I essentially asked them to say "hello" in court, that is all. I find it ridiculous and certainly unprofessional that they have managed to fail the simplest of tasks.
Additionally, understand that I am no saint, I admit it. I myself have taken a long to respond to cases, and there is no excuse for such. However, I take, or at least certainly try, to take responsibility for my actions. Every time I am late, I have always stated so and always apologized for my own unprofessionalism. As members of a government, we must remember we set an example. I demand Parliament and any government official, in any case, at any point in time, that this example never be set again in these here courts.

Now, onto the case. To make a ruling surrounding the constitutionality of the bill in question, The Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill would require 3 Judges, the whole Judicial Branch, as per the Constitution. Therefore, the court would need a 3rd Judge to make such a ruling. The process to do so, although not explicitly stated but can be inferred, is to vote upon a Magistrate in Tempore. This is described in the Constitution as a process to replace a Judge who is recused from a case and has no replacement; however, the process is still to replace a Judge, so one can assume it is for replacing a Judge no matter the circumstance. Additionally, the original bill, before it was added to the Constitution, supports that statement as well.
To the actual point though, this process requires Parliament to vote on the replacement; however, that would also be a conflict of interests as this case has Parliament involved. Therefore, rather than trying to work around this process or make up a new one on the spot, I have elected to dismiss this case without prejudice. This essentially means, that the case is dismissed but the Plaintiff can retry the case in the future. I doubt that they will have to as the bill was vetoed and Parliament has shown no sides of overriding or rewriting the bill; however, the option is there for the Plaintiff.

Let it also be known that the Judicial has already spoken with Parliament, who hopefully will work together to simplify this process and avoid these issues in the future.
If either party has any questions about the ruling, please feel free to ask.

That is all,
Thank You