bharatj
Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Member of Parliament
Department of Justice
Department of Construction
Lawyer
bharatj
MemberOfParliament
In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 01/07/22
Attorney general [ Executive ]
v.
Parliament [ Speaker ]
I. Description of Case
The Government [ Executive ] has found that the speaker announcement, and the follow through, of a previously signed bill that was unconstitutional based on a ruling by the courts previous now is enacted. After a conversation to amend the mistake the speaker decided to continue down an unconstitutional route.
II. Parties
1. Attorney General
2. DoubbleKerius [ Speaker of Parliament ]
III. Sequence of Events
The Prime Minister signed the first voted “The Final Omnibus election Acts”.
Speaking to the speaker, there was noted a constitutional mistake from a previous ruling about voting on constitutional amendments.
The speaker agreed to hold a re vote with the bill with a full house. (Evidence attached)
The new constitutional amendment bill was passed but not yet signed.
The speaker decided to proceed and act on an unconstitutional bill and make an announcement. Though it was signed and then unsigned based on what was discussed, the speaker proceeded to break the law and use a bill that is not applicable.
IV. Claims for Relief
The action by the speaker of parliament regarding the DPM being removed as mayor is unconstitutional.
The Final Omnibus election Acts, is unconstitutional as it states “Section 1 | Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, (D) may not hold the positions of Member of Parliament, Mayor, or Judge while serving as Deputy Prime Minister. If the DPM holds one of these offices, they must vacate the office prior to being sworn in as DPM or face removal from DPM by the Department of State.” This section breaks the constitution as it contradicts the Town Constitutional Amendment Act II in removing a mayor which this constitutional amendment clearly states the process for a mayor being removed.
https://discord.com/channels/267729476438196227/569917895879032842/950748696507740221
This judicial announcement on constitutional amendments states ,“The question raised on this issue is: can a constitutional amendment be passed while only a select number of representation is seated within the Stratham Republic. For Parliament to decide to alter the rules, laws, and procedure that govern the nation of Stratham in particular the Constitution is a major decision. It is the Courts opinion that Vacancies within Parliament do not justify the lowering of such requirements for the passage of Bills and in particular constitutional amendments.” This particular point of the judicial statement is crucial in declaring that any bill that aims is to change the constitution must have a full seated parliament to have a vote.
V. Damages
1. The speaker of parliament continued to take action that was unconstitutional after speaking to the Prime Minister we ask for his action to be undone.
2. We also ask that the Speaker be removed from his position for deliberately breaking the law and acting in such a fashion.
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.
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 01/07/22
Attorney general [ Executive ]
v.
Parliament [ Speaker ]
I. Description of Case
The Government [ Executive ] has found that the speaker announcement, and the follow through, of a previously signed bill that was unconstitutional based on a ruling by the courts previous now is enacted. After a conversation to amend the mistake the speaker decided to continue down an unconstitutional route.
II. Parties
1. Attorney General
2. DoubbleKerius [ Speaker of Parliament ]
III. Sequence of Events
The Prime Minister signed the first voted “The Final Omnibus election Acts”.
Speaking to the speaker, there was noted a constitutional mistake from a previous ruling about voting on constitutional amendments.
The speaker agreed to hold a re vote with the bill with a full house. (Evidence attached)
The new constitutional amendment bill was passed but not yet signed.
The speaker decided to proceed and act on an unconstitutional bill and make an announcement. Though it was signed and then unsigned based on what was discussed, the speaker proceeded to break the law and use a bill that is not applicable.
IV. Claims for Relief
The action by the speaker of parliament regarding the DPM being removed as mayor is unconstitutional.
The Final Omnibus election Acts, is unconstitutional as it states “Section 1 | Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, (D) may not hold the positions of Member of Parliament, Mayor, or Judge while serving as Deputy Prime Minister. If the DPM holds one of these offices, they must vacate the office prior to being sworn in as DPM or face removal from DPM by the Department of State.” This section breaks the constitution as it contradicts the Town Constitutional Amendment Act II in removing a mayor which this constitutional amendment clearly states the process for a mayor being removed.
https://discord.com/channels/267729476438196227/569917895879032842/950748696507740221
This judicial announcement on constitutional amendments states ,“The question raised on this issue is: can a constitutional amendment be passed while only a select number of representation is seated within the Stratham Republic. For Parliament to decide to alter the rules, laws, and procedure that govern the nation of Stratham in particular the Constitution is a major decision. It is the Courts opinion that Vacancies within Parliament do not justify the lowering of such requirements for the passage of Bills and in particular constitutional amendments.” This particular point of the judicial statement is crucial in declaring that any bill that aims is to change the constitution must have a full seated parliament to have a vote.
V. Damages
1. The speaker of parliament continued to take action that was unconstitutional after speaking to the Prime Minister we ask for his action to be undone.
2. We also ask that the Speaker be removed from his position for deliberately breaking the law and acting in such a fashion.
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.
