Lawsuit: Dismissed Hunter ( HDS Law Firm ) v Government/Parliament

[P. Hunter]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 11/11/21

Poemhunter
(Represent by self)

v.

Government/Parliament of The Republic of Stratham

I. Description of Case
A bill passed back in September named the “Political Party Proposal” has a unconditional section related to an unenumerated right given to the people as a personal freedom. The section in question is section 4 of the New Proposal section of the bill this states “Political party “jumping” is also not allowed, especially during a served term within elected office. Once an individual has officially been given a position in the legislative, judicial, or executive, they are not allowed to change political parties until the term is over. If terms are back to back, the individual must announce they are running under the new party during their campaign for the upcoming term.” this section of the bill is unconstitutional when it comes to a person individual freedom of association, by not allowing a person to make a change and restricting the time frame or when they can change affiliation of political) party breaches there right to choose.

I would also like to note that the wording within this section in particular “Once an individual has officially been given a position in the legislative, judicial, or executive, they are not allowed to change political parties until the term is over.” There should be no party affiliation when entering the judiciary, this is in breach of both separation of powers within the state and also judicial independence.

II. Parties
1. Hunter ( plaintiff & lawyer at HDS Law Firm )
2. The Government/Parliament of the Republic of Stratham



IV. Claims for Relief
1. I believe this case to be one of unintentional constitution breach of an unenumerated right given to a person liberty of freedom of association.

V. Damages
1. For the section of the bill to be struck from the law.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MWg55Yysn4fAgSBk4xrT-IRTPdM69d_C49NI-itjMJk/edit


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]

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

 

[Topte]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 11/11/21

Poemhunter
(Represent by self)

v.

Government/Parliament of The Republic of Stratham

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. The Stratham Republic does not have "unenumerated rights". There is no legal precedent to suggest otherwise.

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 will allow for the plaintiff to make a rebuttal to the defendant's motion to dismiss. Following, myself and fellow judge @MxZxPredatorZx, will both discuss and come up with a final ruling on the MTD. The plaintiff is given 48 hours.

Thank you, that is all for now.

 

[P. Hunter]

Your honor,


There is legal precedent that suggests we have unenumerated rights on BC, and right now you have the opportunity to make this clearer.

Currently we have precedent established in cases Blacksyth v. Dwerpy and The People V. Topte & Squifot, that allow us to use real life law to supplement our arguments. We are not arguing the creation of these unenumerated rights, as by definition they already exist. We are arguing as to why these rights exist.

Unenumerated rights are legal rights inferred from other rights that are implied by existing laws, such as in written constitutions, but are not themselves expressly coded or "enumerated" among the explicit writ of the law. Alternative terminology sometimes used are: implied rights, natural rights, background rights, and fundamental rights.


The Australian legal system uses unenumerated rights, such as the right to political communication. This right is established from this court case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Capital_Television_Pty_Ltd_v_Commonwealth: with the court deciding that a right to freedom of political communication is essential to the system of representative government provided for in the Constitution. Because the Australian constitution has a representative government outlined within it, it is essential that the right to political communication exists or it is not possible to have a representative Government.


The same can be applied to BC law. The laws on BusinessCraft (such as the Political Party Enactment which allows for Political Associations) allow for individuals to choose who they align with when they run for elected offices. Currently the law stands that an individual can choose to associate freely when in a Government position. The Political Party Enactment has political associations outlined within the law, it is essential that the right to association exists or it is not possible to have the option to choose who you align with. Section 4 of the Political Party Enactment has yet to come into effect, and due to the fact that we currently have the unenumerated right to freedom of association, it is imperative this section is struck from the bill in order to protect our right to choose.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The court thanks both the Plaintiff and Defense for their arguments. The judicial will now go and discuss the following and come to our verdicts. If that verdict happens to be tied, the DoJ Minister @Zzz_King, will be asked for their own verdict as the SoP has a conflict of interests. Please allow a few days for such processes.

Thank you, That is all for now.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I'd firstly like to apologize for the wait, both myself and Judge MxZxPredatorZx wanted to ensure our individual verdicts were honest to the law and the people.
In a unanimous ruling, both of us have decided to rule in favor of the Defense and sustain the Motion to Dismiss. Although certain aspects are being asked of the Defense to ensure both judicial integrity and that cases like this do not arise again.

Judge Cooleagles' Ruling ~

Spoiler: Judge Cooleagles' Ruling

The plaintiff has come to court to argue the legality of the "Political Party Proposal" due to, existing "unenumerated rights" that They argue that lay within the law itself. They also make note that the use of the word "judicial" in section 4 of the bill suggests breaches in the judicial branch. The defense now presents a Motion To Dismiss to the court, and leads with the sole reason that the Republic of Straham does not consist of "unenumerated rights" and no legal precedent to suggest otherwise. The plaintiff rebuts by saying that legal precedent found in both "Blacksyth v. Dwerpy" and "The People V. Topte & Squifot" allows the usage of real-life law in cases. Furthermore, they argue that similar to the Australian legal system, unenumerated rights have been established before and can be here as well.

Verdict: It is in my opinion, that such "unenumerated rights" do not exist and should not exist. The idea of unenumerated rights, in my opinion, supports the idea of assuming something about law, when in reality it is nowhere written at all. In this case, it appears to me that the plaintiff's arguments assume the right to freedom of association. This government has the power to further edit the constitution with amendments, it is seen more and more as well. Although it is done within other nations, such as Australia, it seems to be something that could lead to future issues. Such as an individual claiming they have an unenumerated right to some law to avoid having to follow the law. Overall it's something that I can't see myself accepting today in this here courtroom or the following. I do, however, highly suggest parliament consider adding such a right to our constitution. It is also in my opinion, very irregular to have such a law without the said given right to protect it. People should be allowed to choose who they associate with freely and uninterrupted; however, that is not what we are arguing today.

In regards to the plaintiff's argument regarding the judicial aspect of the "Political Party Proposal" I do agree that the judicial branch should not be affiliated with any political party, as it does create questions of doubt and bias. Our Judicial branch is already missing the important aspects needed to prevent breaches in judicial integrity; furthermore, this addition will simply do more damage than good. All judicial aspects of this bill are to be removed and/or rewritten to ensure that proper justice is delivered in the courtrooms.

Summary: The Motion to Dismiss is to be sustained; although the judicial aspects of the bill are to be removed immediately.

Judge MxZxPredatorZx's Ruling ~

Spoiler: Judge MxZxPredatorZx's Ruling

After reading the facts of this case, my verdict is as follows: it is, in my opinion, that the enumerated rights the plaintiff claims exist, do not exist in Stratham Constitution. I have re-read the constitution many times trying to get my head around this claim and cannot infer these rights anywhere in the constitution. This case is a prime example of why I am not looking to follow the claimed legal precedent in this case. Enumerated rights leave far too much to the imagination of the citizens, who could interpret the enumerated rights differently to the way the plaintiff has today. I am a firm believer in following the statement: if it’s set in stone, then one must follow. Enumerated rights are not set in stone, they are an inference of an individual or group of individuals that could be inferred differently by another set of individuals. In regards to the argument about the judicial aspect of this bill, I stand with my fellow judges when I say this part of the bill must be removed to avoid judicial integrity disintegration.
In Summary, the motion to dismiss is to be sustained. Although the judicial aspects of the bill are to be removed immediately. I would also like to see a report from the government passed to the court judges within 15 days of this case adjourning that shows the court specifically what rights citizens do have, and the possibility of the creation of a Stratham citizen bill of rights, that is separate to those rights mentioned in the constitution, a bit like the EU bill of rights, better known as the Human Rights Act, to prevent these sorts of cases occurring again in the future.

Conclusion
The Motion To Dismiss is sustained.
As mentioned in both verdicts, Parliament is to do the following,

• Remove all mentions of the Judicial Branch from the "Political Party Proposal" Bill as it endangers Judicial integrity and the unbias status of judges.
• A formal report sent to the Judicial Branch, highlighting the rights of citizens. The creation of a separate Bill of Rights, than that found in the Constitution, will also be discussed at that time to recognize the demand for it.

I thank both parties for their efforts and participation in this groundbreaking case. I think many catch sight of the mistakes and loopholes our constitution may or may not consist of; especially, as new law is passed through our legislative body. It is important that we work in unison to fix these issues and create a system that works best for our great Republic known as Stratham.

That is all for now,
Case Dismissed

Court Dismissed

This case was presided by Judge Cooleagles