Lawsuit: Dismissed Dartanman v. Government

[Dartanman]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 10/04/22

Dartanman

v.

Government

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
Parliament passed the Stratham Bar Association Act, which as it stands, is an unconstitutional act. Although I agree that the SBA is a good and very important entity to be created, it must be done in a constitutional manner.

II. Parties
1. Parliament

III. Sequence of Events
1. Parliament passed the Stratham Bar Association Act
2. It was approved by the Prime Minister and became law

IV. Claims for Relief
1. This particular act adds a new responsibility to the Department of Justice, particularly here:
(c) The Minister of Justice shall assist in the administration of the [Stratham Bar Association] by executing the following;
(i) The Minister shall oversee all elections of the House of Delegates and Executive Committee.
(ii) The Minister shall create rules and qualifications for the election of the House of Delegates and Executive Committee.
(iii) The Minister shall oversee a vote of the General Membership on proposed by-laws, and any proposed amendments.

2. The Constitution outlines the responsibilities of the Department of Justice in Subsection 3, Clause VI:
(E) Department of Justice, commonly abbreviated DoJ, is responsible for maintaining peace and order of the server by enforcing laws. The Department of Justice also offers a security detail to senior government officials, such as the Prime Minister. Police Officers are a part of this department.

3. Since the Constitution does not provide this responsibility to the DoJ, it cannot be expected to require the DoJ to perform this task. Thus, the Stratham Bar Association Act is unconstitutional.

V. Damages
1. The Stratham Bar Association Act be deemed unconstitutional and be struck.
2. Recommend that Parliament amend the Constitution to allow for the SBA to be created and overseen by the DoJ.

Stratham Bar Association Act: https://www.mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/stratham-bar-association-act.15691/
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.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

@Ryan_88 is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Ryan_88 , 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!

I have elected to summon the DoJ minister as this case is directly related to their position; however, since this is a government case, the government may elect any representative to reply.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Matthew100x]

Your Honor,

I have just reviewed this case and I see that Parliament is a named party in this case. As temporary Speaker of Parliament and as an lawyer, I request that the government representative be myself. I have publicly informed @bharatj, the Attorney General, of my intent to be the Government's legal representative for this case.

Please allow me 24 additional hours to respond to this 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.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I firstly would like to correct myself, reading through this case once more I see that Parliament is the actual listed and relevant party in this case. Therefore I withdraw my summons of @Ryan_88 and do summon the speaker of parliament, in which the interim has already marked their presence.

Due to this error, I will give the Defense another full 48 hours to prepare their response to this case.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Dartanman]

Good Evening,

I firstly would like to correct myself, reading through this case once more I see that Parliament is the actual listed and relevant party in this case. Therefore I withdraw my summons of @Ryan_88 and do summon the speaker of parliament, in which the interim has already marked their presence.

Due to this error, I will give the Defense another full 48 hours to prepare their response to this case.

That is all,
Thank You

Good evening your honor,

I just have one question in hopes of clearing up some confusion:

You said, "another full 48 hours." Does this mean 48 hours from the time you posted that (Friday 5:24 PM CST), or 48 hours in addition to the original 48 hours (Saturday 1:41 PM CST)?

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

That is 48 hours from my most recent post. In other words, the Defense should have their response posted by Friday 6:24 PM EST.

Hope that clears everything up.
Thank You

 

[Dartanman]

Good afternoon, your honor.

The Defendant's counsel has reached out to me and informed me they will be "fixing the Constitution" in order to make the Act and many others legal.

If this does occur, I see no need to continue this case.

For this reason, I do request that this case be put on hold for 1 week, and then either be dismissed due to settlement out of court or continued if the Defendant has failed to reasonably pursue this settlement.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I am alright with those conditions. This case is hereby put on hold for one week unless a settlement is reached.
I do ask that both parties keep the court updated.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Did both parties end up reaching an agreement?

 

[Dartanman]

Good afternoon, your honor.

Yesterday, this was the brief conversation between myself and the opposing counsel:



I'm not sure if it is possible for me to fact-check this claim. If you're okay with it, I request one final 72 hour recess before continuing this case if it is necessary.

 

[Dartanman]

Your honor,

I have seen the bill that supposedly fixes these issues. The bill is an absurd overreach of power by the legislative branch.

I request to continue this lawsuit immediately.

Additionally, I request the court order this bill does not go through for the duration of this case, as this lawsuit specifically addresses the power over the Executive that Parliament is attempting to seize.

 

[Dartanman]

Additionally, the bill coming up allows Parliament to override Judicial decisions, essentially turning Parliament into the all-powerful overlords of Stratham.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I believe a good solution here is to conduct Judicial Arbitration. I believe that if Parliament and the Plaintiff work together since for the most part both do agree that a bill is needed, there would be a much more successful result. I will halt the bill in question, The Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill for 72 hours.

Please read the following carefully,

Within the first 24 hours, that is the 24 hours after this message is posted, I require both parties to answer whether or not they wish to pursue Judicial Arbitration. If they do, then the next 48 hours will be spent doing so (additional time granted if progress is made). If they do not, we will discuss the further actions to be taken then.

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

 

[Dartanman]

I wish to pursue Judicial Arbitration

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, based on a loose interpretation of the constitution, the law that allows you to do Judicial Arbitrations is constitutionally suspect.

Therefore it's imperative to not delay the constitutional amendment to amend this error made by previous governments.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Defense does make a good point in that technically Judicial Arbitration, or specifically, the law that codifies it would be suspect to unconstitutionality or legitimacy due to this scenario.

Additionally, understand why I proposed Judicial Arbitration in the first place. If we are speaking in the realm of technicality, this case and its primary issue are solved through the creation of the Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill. The Plaintiff said so themselves,
"The Defendant's counsel has reached out to me and informed me they will be "fixing the Constitution" in order to make the Act and many others legal.

If this does occur, I see no need to continue this case."
Whether or not the bill is an overstep of parliament's powers or constitutional is a separate argument. In other words, it would be improper of me to strike and/or halt the bill for the reasons the Plaintiff listed. Those reasons require their own trial, their own arguments, and their own ruling. It was my thought that halting the bill and allowing for it to essentially act as a settlement for this case would kill many annoying birds with one stone. Despite the simplicity of this, I find the Defendant's point to be very convincing. It would also be improper to carry out a "questionably illegal" process, knowing so as well, just to try and cut corners.

So I will be dismissing this case as the issue has been solved. The bill is no longer halted and may continue the legislative process. Whether it is to the plaintiff's liking or not, it has been solved. I urge the Plaintiff to make a new case to discuss their issues with the verbiage of the amendment. I would even accept a loose submission of the complaint format, just so that it gets created with haste.

Let the following be known, so no one gets confused with what I have and have not stated throughout this case.
- I have not struck any bill unconstitutional throughout this case, I can not do such an ability without 2 peers alongside me. Therefore, any bills made prior to the Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill have not been affected in any way by Judicial Power. I presume the Amendment will have a policy for those bills when enacted.
- I have not declared the Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill, unconstitutional. Once again, I can not do such ability without 2 peers alongside me.
- I did state that the bill does answer the plaintiff's original concerns in this case; therefore, giving merit to my dismissal of this case.

Once again, if the Plaintiff chooses, they may make a case regarding their points about the Emergency Legal Constitutional Correction Bill's constitutionality. From there, 3 Judges will rule on such points and declare the bill constitutional or not.

I understand this may have gotten confusing. I tried to clarify my inner brain's workings, but if it is unclear. Especially to both parties of this case. They are more than allowed to ask questions.
That is all,
Thank You

CASE DISMISSED