Lawsuit: Adjourned IAmA_MoronXD v. Government

Status
Not open for further replies.

IAmA_MoronXD

Citizen
Lawyer
Donator
IAmA_MoronXD
IAmA_MoronXD
Lawyer
In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 9/29/22

IAmA_MoronXD

v.

Government

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
Mickichu has violated the constitution many times and should be removed from office. The constitution states "(V) The requirements for serving as Prime Minister are as follows:
(A) Having at least 2 days of playtime in the 30 days preceding the start of the election cycle and a total of more than 7 days of playtime.
(B) Maintaining at least two days of active playtime (as seen in /bcseen) during their tenure as Prime Minister." Mickichu is violating section "(B)" by having less than 2 days of /bcseen playtime. The constitution also states "The courts consist of 3 appointed members. Judges are nominated by the Prime Minister and approved by the Parliament with a 50% rounded up majority vote." Mickichu not appointing 2 more judges and not showing any effort of fulfilling this is a violation of the constitution.


II. Parties
1. IAmA_MoronXD
2. Mickichu
3. The government of Stratham

III. Sequence of Events
1. Mickichu was sworn in on 09/10/22.
2. As of 09/29/22 Mickichu does not have enough "/bcseen"playtime to remain in office according to the constitution.
3. Mickichu has made no effort since being elected to nominate 2 citizens for judge despite it being her duty in the constitution.

IV. Claims for Relief
1. The constitution was broken twice.

V. Damages
1. Mickichu should be removed at once since she's doing an ineffective job as pm according to the constitution shown by her bcseen playtime.

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.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-09-29 at 3.59.10 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-09-29 at 3.59.10 PM.png
    28.5 KB · Views: 32

Cooleagles2005

Citizen
Lawyer
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
Lawyer
@Mickichu is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Mickichu , 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, seeing as this is a case against the Government, Mickichu may elect the Attorney General or any government official to represent them.
Thank You,
That is all.
 

Cooleagles2005

Citizen
Lawyer
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
Lawyer
Good Evening,

The Defense has requested and I have accepted a 12-hour extension. That extension started roughly 20 minutes ago.

Thank you,
That is all
 

bharatj

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Department of Justice
Department of Construction
Lawyer
bharatj
bharatj
Constructor
In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 10/02/22

IAmA_MoronXD

v.

Government [ Mickichu ]

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

1. Claim:
A) Having at least 2 days of playtime in the 30 days preceding the start of the election cycle and a total of more than 7 days of playtime.(B) Maintaining at least two days of active playtime (as seen in /bcseen) during their tenure as Prime Minister." Mickichu is violating section "(B)" by having less than 2 days of /bcseen playtime.

The plaintiff states that Prime Minister Mickichu is in violation of section (B) of the Constitution, the maintenance of 2 days of playtime on /bcseen. Using this as the only evidence of a player's activity is a dangerous game, as it only provides part of the story. /bcseen also doesn’t take into account the work done on discord, where arguably most work that is a Prime Minister does is carried out. The section in question also raises the word "tenure," relating to the time the Prime Minister is in office. This is currently a four month period, and so in accordance with that, the Prime Minister has four months to ensure she has 2 days of /bcseen time. *Maintaining* 2 days could be another interpretation of that law but since the law was left vague, counter interpretations are not invalid. A player cannot be punished for an aspect of the constitution that was left vague. Additionally, Mickichu has already stated internally that she is taking a small break for real life reasons, which would inevitably lead to a lower playtime. While the Deputy Prime Minister would normally take over in such circumstances, the sudden departure of the late DPM has forced Micki to return as Prime Minister sooner than she had expected. For those two reasons, we wish to dismiss the charge of a low /bcseen.

2. The constitution also states "The courts consist of 3 appointed members. Judges are nominated by the Prime Minister and approved by the Parliament with a 50% rounded up majority vote." Mickichu not appointing 2 more judges and not showing any effort of fulfilling this is a violation of the constitution.

(I) The Judicial Branch is composed of Judges which all Judicial power is vested in. The courts consist of 3 appointed members. Judges are nominated by the Prime Minister and approved by the Parliament with a 50% rounded up majority vote.

While the Constitution states that the court may consist of up to 3 members, it does not state that all 3 positions must be filled. Historically speaking, there has rarely been a time where all 3 judge positions are filled. To become a judge, a player must have significant legal and constitutional knowledge, which not everybody has. If the provision was to be that all 3 positions must always be filled, we would no longer be able to maintain the quality of judges we've always had. The Constitution does not compel that there must be three sitting judges at any moment in time, nominating judges is at the discretion of the Prime Minister. For that reason, we wish to dismiss this charge as well.

We would ask the judge to dismiss this case based on the preceding grounds.

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

Citizen
Lawyer
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
Lawyer
Good Evening,

If the Plaintiff wishes to respond to the Motion To Dismiss, they have 48 hours to do so.

That is all,
Thank You
 

IAmA_MoronXD

Citizen
Lawyer
Donator
IAmA_MoronXD
IAmA_MoronXD
Lawyer
In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Response to motion to dismiss

Your honor the attorney generals claims are invalid for these reason:
(When referring to playtime during this it will mean /bcseen time)
1. First of all the attorney general states "The plaintiff states that Prime Minister Mickichu is in violation of section (B) of the Constitution, the maintenance of 2 days of playtime on /bcseen. Using this as the only evidence of a player's activity is a dangerous game, as it only provides part of the story. /bcseen also doesn’t take into account the work done on discord, where arguably most work that is a Prime Minister does is carried out." This part of the constiution is only talking about playtime in game. It wouldn't be an overstatement to say the Prime Minister DOES in fact need to do work in game. This is not related to work in discord in any way. If we're considering the intent of the constitution this is only used to keep the Prime Minister active in game and there directly violating that.

2. The attorney general also states "The section in question also raises the word "tenure," relating to the time the Prime Minister is in office. This is currently a four month period, and so in accordance with that, the Prime Minister has four months to ensure she has 2 days of /bcseen time. *Maintaining* 2 days could be another interpretation of that law but since the law was left vague, counter interpretations are not invalid. A player cannot be punished for an aspect of the constitution that was left vague." Maintaining playtime means keeping the playtime throughout there tenure. This is not vague and very easy and simple to understand. The Prime Minister has to maintain it so they don't just have to get this playtime by the end of there term. Once again if we're considering the intent of the constitution it wouldn't make any sense for the prime minister not to play for the entire term then just get this playtime by the end of there term.

3. Furthermore the attorney general states "Additionally, Mickichu has already stated internally that she is taking a small break for real life reasons, which would inevitably lead to a lower playtime. While the Deputy Prime Minister would normally take over in such circumstances, the sudden departure of the late DPM has forced Micki to return as Prime Minister sooner than she had expected. For those two reasons, we wish to dismiss the charge of a low /bcseen." The Prime Minister has made no effort to communicate she will be taking a break to the public and it makes no sense for the Prime mInister to just tell the Prime Ministers cabinet she's taking a break than stop playing. Its unreasonable for the Prime Minister to be exempt from the constitution just because the Prime Minister said there taking a break.

4. The attorney general states "While the Constitution states that the court may consist of up to 3 members, it does not state that all 3 positions must be filled. Historically speaking, there has rarely been a time where all 3 judge positions are filled. To become a judge, a player must have significant legal and constitutional knowledge, which not everybody has. If the provision was to be that all 3 positions must always be filled, we would no longer be able to maintain the quality of judges we've always had. The Constitution does not compel that there must be three sitting judges at any moment in time, nominating judges is at the discretion of the Prime Minister. For that reason, we wish to dismiss this charge as well." This is a great chance to set a precedent to have more judges as many people are qualified. I won't ask for the Prime Ministers removable based on this (I still will for the low /bcseen time) but its a chance to make the courts significantly faster and better.

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

Citizen
Lawyer
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
Lawyer
Good Evening,

The court finds it would be beneficial to hear more arguments in regards to the /bcseen allegations. I will allow 48 hours for the Defense to respond to the Plaintiff's points regarding the /bcseen allegation.

That is all,
Thank You
 

bharatj

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Department of Justice
Department of Construction
Lawyer
bharatj
bharatj
Constructor
I apologize for delaying the case, but may I have a 24 hour extension to reply? It’s been a very busy week for me with irl commitments. Thank you.
 

bharatj

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Department of Justice
Department of Construction
Lawyer
bharatj
bharatj
Constructor
Your honor,

Regarding /bcseen, the plaintiff has stated that “this part of the constitution is only talking about playtime in game.” That is exactly what the problem is. The constitution is only talking about playtime Ingame. The constitution does not consider the activity and time spent on forums or discord, where from experience as a cabinet member and even as an acting Prime Minister, most of the work is actually done for that position. To measure activity based on work done in an area that is reasonably fit for that position, such as communication on discord and announcements of progress would be more accurate than to measure activity on an arguably unrelated or irrelevant metric purely because it’s quantifiable. Let’s take your honor for example. A judge is reasonably expected to be active in analyzing and trying cases, which means in forums and maybe discord. To measure eligibility to maintain the status of judge off of playtime ingame purely because playtime is a quantifiable metric isn’t an accurate measure of how active a judge is for that position. I would argue that the intent of the constitution with activity requirements is to ensure that a publicly elected or appointed individual is satisfactory in maintaining proper activity that is reasonably expected and required for that position. While ingame time was used as a metric to determine that purely because of its quantitative ability, this does not best serve the intent of the constitution as it doesn’t take into account what is reasonably required of a certain role.

Thank you.
 

Cooleagles2005

Citizen
Lawyer
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
Lawyer
Good Evening,

Although unordinary, I believe that I am actually ready to make a verdict along with the ruling of the Motion To Dismiss. I thought I would state this now and give both parties a window to state whether they would be alright with going directly to a verdict, or would rather see through the rest of the case.
I will give both parties 24 hours to respond if they would rather go directly to a verdict or the rest of the case (witness testimonials + closing statements). If no one responds within those 24 hours, I will assume both parties are alright with going to a verdict, and I will post it within the next few days.

If anyone has any questions, they can feel free to reach out.
That is all,
Thank You
 

IAmA_MoronXD

Citizen
Lawyer
Donator
IAmA_MoronXD
IAmA_MoronXD
Lawyer
Good morning your honor, I’m happy to go to the verdict but if I could have one more statement in response to the defendant I’d be delighted. The statement will be short and I will need no more then 6 hours. Thank you.
 

Cooleagles2005

Citizen
Lawyer
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
Lawyer
Good Evening,

Feel free to post your statement. Since there is more than 6 hours remaining in the 24 hours, do try to get it posted within that frame; although if you need longer, just ask.

That is all,
Thank You
 

IAmA_MoronXD

Citizen
Lawyer
Donator
IAmA_MoronXD
IAmA_MoronXD
Lawyer
Good Morning,

The arguments of the defense have just been sugarcoating the truth. Bringing up activity in discord is pointless in this case, the prime minister MUST be active in-game and they have directly violated that. If the defense wins this game it will render the constitution pointless and the prime minister won't have to be active in-game for the entire term. Don't be fooled by the defense points as they're not related to this case at all. Sure, the prime minister has to be active on discord but its extremely difficult for the constitution to account for that though and have a standard that must be followed. That's my argument your honor make the right choice. Thank you.
 

Cooleagles2005

Citizen
Lawyer
Cooleagles
Cooleagles
Lawyer
Good Evening,

My apologies for the long delay in the verdict, life has been very chaotic and busy for me recently. Nonetheless, I am ready to give my judgment

The Plaintiff argues the following:
-
The Prime Minister has broken the constitution by not having and maintaining at least 2 days of /bcseen playtime.
- The Prime Minister has broken the constitution by not appointing 2 more judges to the Court
- Discord and out-of-game activity is pointless as the verbiage of the Constitution clearly states the requirements for in-game playtime.

The Defense argues the following:
-
The verbiage is unclear as to whether the 2-day /bcseen requirement must be maintained throughout the tenure or by the end of the tenure.
- The /bcseen requirement neglects to address activity outside of the game, which is where the Prime Minister's duties primarily take place.
- Whilst the Constitution states there can be 3 Judges, it does not state that there have to be 3.
- Historically, for the most part, there have not always been 3 Judges ruling at the same time.

Verdict:
I am going to start with the easy one here, the 3 Judges on the court argument. The verbiage of the constitution is as follows,
"The courts consist of 3 appointed members. Judges are nominated by the Prime Minister and approved by the Parliament with a 50% rounded up majority vote."
In regards to these arguments, I side with the Defense as nowhere within that line, nor any other line, does it state that the court must be fully packed. I also believe what the Defense has stated to be very true, to take up a position like mine, one must have a great understanding of the law. For without it, we have decisions being made without proper thought and consideration. In certain cases, I'd argue cases like these where the stakes are very high, it is dangerous to have inexperienced people in those roles. I would rather have one, tired but trying to keep up Judge, than 3 Judges where 2 don't know what they are doing.

Now, I am going to move on to the much more messy argument, the /bcseen discussion. The verbiage of the Constitution is as follows,
"Maintaining at least two days of active playtime (as seen in /bcseen) during their tenure as Prime Minister."
Firstly, I want to talk a little bit about what I look for when making these types of decisions. I've learned over time that there are many aspects to consider when making such rulings: the verbiage, what is physically written, the intent, what the author most likely meant when writing said verbiage, morals, what is the most ethical and humane side, and the effect, how my decision will affect the people. I tend, and I do believe most of my previous cases will back me up, to rule with the verbiage in the forefront of my mind. The intent, despite being a very important category, is not as important as the verbiage in my mind. I could say that I want to paint a wall red, but how I actually go about painting that wall will change everything if that makes sense. When it comes to relief, that is when I tend to lean towards morals and effect.

so, with that all being said. I side with the Plaintiff in regards to the 2-day /bcseen requirement. The word(s) "maintaining" and "during their tenure" suggests that this requirement is something that needs to be met throughout the duration of tenure. Despite, my siding with the Plaintiff, however, I still do believe the Defense made some key points in their arguments. Points that I believe Parliament should look into and perhaps consider adapting the Constitution. In regards to the intent of this line, I'd argue that it wasn't written specifically to make sure Prime Ministers are active in-game, I feel as though it was written with a broader sense, that Prime Ministers should be active in general. This goes back to my on-the-spot red paint analogy. The intent is to keep Prime Ministers active; however, there are many ways to go about enforcing that, or many ways to paint the wall. With that being said, I do believe that the verbiage should be more aligned with that and should be more aligned with the idea that government work takes place mainly on Discord and forums. I can speak as a Judge and for myself, about 90% to 95% of my job, as is described in the constitution, is on the forums. I obviously am not saying it is similar for the Prime Minister, but the point stands. I just think it might be worth a look by Parliament.

Relief:
With all my rambling being said, let us now get into the relief. As mentioned, I lean more towards morals and the effect a certain side will have on people when making my judgment. In my opinion, removing Mickichu from her position would only cause damage. The process to replace and restructure/organize would be devastating for the government, in my opinion. Especially with all the changes and future comings that are constantly being worked on. Additionally, it is quite apparent now that every time we have a constitutional case against a government official, removal is the number one priority for damages, in this case, it is the only one (Please note that this is not in any way me targeting the plaintiff, I am only pointing out a trend I have seen). I want to remind people to fully consider what they ask. Prosecutors have guidelines to follow when pursuing a criminal, but in these cases there are none, it is just the sheer mind of the people. Although we do not have it as one of our rights, look at the 8th amendment. Is the punishment too harsh? Does it truly benefit the people to remove someone from office for one little thing? With all that being said, I will not be rewarding the relief as requested by the Plaintiff.

I understand that I have said a lot here. Please feel free to ask any questions about what I have said, that goes for any individual, not just the parties involved. I broke down judgment, in my perspective, a lot more than I usually do in this case; therefore, I encourage legal people who wish to make an uprising to read it and build from it, whether you agree or disagree with what I've said.

That is all,
Thank you very much to all parties involved
Court Adjourned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top