Lawsuit: In Session DoubbleKerius VS BC Constitution

[DoubbleKerius]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CRIMINAL ACTION
Date: 06/15/2024

The Republic of Stratham
DoubbleKeirus

v.

BC Government

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant: Currently are judicial system is very limited to who can and wish's to be a judge, and who is a judge, this limits cases within the courts and allows a loophole in the system to be abusable.

II. Parties
1. DoubbleKerius (Prosecutor)
2. BC Government (Defendant)

III. Sequence of Events
1. As of current are constitution states:
3.2(a) No person shall be appointed to the position of Justice or Judge without meeting the following requirements;

1. Holding a minimum of 12 hours of active playtime.
2. Holding a minimum of one week's total playtime.
3. Having completed a minimum of 3 court cases under the laws of the Republic of Stratham.

3.2(b) Judicial Officers shall be appointed by the Prime Minister with consent from the majority of the Parliament.
3.2(c) Judicial Officers serve for life tenure and may be removed by the Parliament through a supermajority vote.

Additionally in 3.3(e) The Supreme Court shall have the power of Judicial Review in which the use of such power shall require a majority. The power of Judicial Review can strike any government decision deemed unconstitutional or unlawful.

Lastly in 3.3(k) When the Supreme Court hears a case that an Executive Officer, Judicial Officer, Member of Parliament, or Speaker of Parliament is to be removed, 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.

2. For many months we have only 1-2 presiding judges, and often only one in both types of court (Supreme and Circuit court)
IV. Charges
1. Failure to place 3 judges in the Supreme Court
2. Failure to place 2 judges in the Circuit Court
3. With this, Certain cases and judicial reviews may not be properly done, which leads to a conflict in the Judicial system to move forward with high end cases

V. Sentencing
1. Removal of 3.2 (a) 3. requirements
2. Removal of court majority for judicial reviews
3. A clause allowing chief justice to make verdicts on cases that fall under 3.3(k) incase if vacancy's are not fillable
3. Require the current Executive to work towards appoint new Judges to the Supreme and Circuit courts

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.

 

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
Writ of Summons

Good Morning,

@Ryan_88 is hereby summoned to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Stratham, and must appear in the court in the following 48 hours starting at the time of this summons sending. If the defendant fails to adhere to the conditions of the summons hereby set, the court will move forward with a default judgement.

 

[Ryan_88]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 06/16/24
The Republic of Stratham
DoubbleKeirus

v.

BC Government

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:

1. The filing of this case is a criminal case where the government is the plaintiff, doubblekerius has no authority to represent the government.

2. The Supreme Court has no authority to remove clauses from the constitution and replace them with something else. The court additionally has no authority to compel the executive branch to excercise a power that is typically used as discretion of the Prime Minister.

3. I ask this court to charge doubblekerius with frivolous lawsuit as this case is absolutely ridiculous. The case title does not match the actual filing and everything else about this case is frankly almost seems like a bad joke.

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.

 

[MegaMinerM]

Good evening,

Before I rule on the motion to dismiss, could I get a response from the plaintiff?

 

[DoubbleKerius]

Good evening,

Before I rule on the motion to dismiss, could I get a response from the plaintiff?

I request 24 hours to submit a response due to irl obligations

 

[MegaMinerM]

I request 24 hours to submit a response due to irl obligations

Granted

 

[DoubbleKerius]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 06/18/24
The Republic of Stratham
DoubbleKeirus

v.

BC Government
I. Response to the Motion To Dismiss
1. The filing of this case is a criminal case where the government is the plaintiff, doubblekerius has no authority to represent the government.
- Understandably there is confusion here, with the "Republic of Stratham" in the template which I admit copying and pasting, The Republic of Stratham is not solely meant to be a phrase for the government of BC, In the Cambridge English Dictionary the definition of Republic reads a country without a king or queen, usually governed by elected representatives of the people and a president.

I also share the constitution of Attorney General
Section 1.5 The Office of the Attorney General
1.5(a) The Office of the Attorney General shall hereby be established as an independent office of government under the executive branch. It shall be headed by an Attorney General who is subject to the direct authority and control of the Prime Minister.
1.5(b) The Attorney General shall be responsible for representing the national interests of the Republic of Stratham in all cases in which the government holds interest. The Attorney General shall provide legal counsel to the Cabinet when requested.

I am not representing the Government side of this lawsuit, I am however representing the Public side.

2. The Supreme Court has no authority to remove clauses from the constitution and replace them with something else. The court additionally has no authority to compel the executive branch to exercise a power that is typically used as discretion of the Prime Minister.
- While this area has good arguments, the suggested Outcome of this case is purely that, a suggestion, the Judge presiding has the right to put a verdict as they seem fit and change the suggestions, while they may or may not hold to power to change the constitution itself as the constitution does not fully state either or, I do believe taking this case to court was necessary to point out the effects of having limitations on the courts and how it impacts the republic of Stratham.

3. I ask this court to charge doubblekerius with frivolous lawsuit as this case is absolutely ridiculous. The case title does not match the actual filing and everything else about this case is frankly almost seems like a bad joke.

- I find this extremely disrespectful, for one this is not proper behavior in court calling it "Absolutely ridiculous" and a "Bad joke", two the case title is not required to be placed as the filing,