Lawsuit: Adjourned IAmA_MoronXD v. Government

[IAmA_MoronXD]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 11/27/22

IAmA_MoronXD
Flyingzebra7 representing.

v.

Government
I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
IAmA_MoronXD was illegally removed from his position as SoP and he wasn’t given a vonc trial.
II. Parties
1. IAmA_MoronXD
2. Parliament
3. The DoS

III. Sequence of Events
1. Reppal started a VoNC against IAmA_MoronXD.
2. Before a trial took place IAmA_MoronXD was removed from office and a new speaker election started.
3. Reppal became SoP.

IV. Claims for Relief
1. The constitution states “The Speaker of Parliament or the Deputy Speaker may be removed via a vote of no confidence that receives the support of a majority of Parliament.”
2. The VoNC Refusal/Reformed Act was never followed.

V. Damages
1. 10000kr for missing wages.
2. 5000kr for having rights violated/discouraging government from breaking the law.
3. 500kr for legal fees.
4. 3000kr for emotional damage caused through being accused of many things and not getting a chance to defend himself.
5. He should get his SoP role back.
6. A apology from the DoS and Parliament.

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.

 

[LilSumoVert]

IN THE COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF STRATHAM
SUMMONS

Good Evening, the Attorney General or Speaker of Parliament is hereby summoned to represent the Government in the case of IAmA_MoronXD v. The Government of Stratham. Seeing as this case involves the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, i will ask that the Speaker and the Attorney General work out who is going to represent the government in this case. The Government may elect to have a third party entity represent them, in that case i would need the written consent of both party's agreeing to this person

The Court will allow for 72 hours for an Answer to the complaint or a Motion to Dismiss. If the government fails to produce this, we will move on to a default ruling in the Plaintiffs Favor.

This is a very serious case and i expect the government to participate in this case, needless to say we do not want another repeat of the last 2 cases that the government has been involved in.​

 

[flyingzebra7]

I apologize for the miss communication with posting, I will be further posting and representing @IAmA_MoronXD in this case.

Thank you, that is all.

 

[LilSumoVert]

Reminder

There is a little over 24 hours before we have to move on, I would advise the new Attorney General to respond this this case.​

 

[P. Hunter]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 29/11/22 [date/month/year]

IAmA_MoronXD
Flyingzebra7 Respresenting

v.

Government, [ Speaker and Parliament & DoS ]


I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. The State accepts the sequence of events by the Plaintiff, It is off our belief that correct procedure was not followed in the VONC procedure outlined in the VoNC Refusal/Reformed Act. It is in correct that either Speaker or Deputy Speaker could be removed by a VONC procedure as stated in the constitution and listed by the Plaintiff. A public trial was not held in any capacity what so ever only a vote to remove the speaker which was confirmed by the DoS Minister. There was two failures which the Government would like to recognise and state. 1- Parliament started a VONC procedure that should only have been a motion which would have led to a public trial and then a concluding vote to remove or retain the speaker. The Member who started and other members as a whole Chamber failed to seek or follow correct procedure. 2- The DoS while its vested power is to hold speakership elections failed to give guidance or correct parliament in its dealings. While this isn't fully to blame the DoS for as this Is a clear parliamentary procedure and the Motion Beginner should have taken more care in the execution of such a vital and powerful ability performed by the legislature.

2.
The Government Disputes; 10000kr for missing wages as the former speaker has rarely been in game since his removal and therefor salary is a benefit of in game activity.

The Government Accepts; 5000kr for having rights violated/discouraging government from breaking the law.

The Government Accepts; 500kr for legal fees.

The Government Disputes; 3000kr for emotional damage caused through being accused of many things and not getting a chance to defend himself. While the former speaker did not get a public trial as entitled to via the Act specified, at no point in parliament chat or a public forum has the Speaker called out this process or tried defending himself against the alleged which given evince by the Plaintiff shows what the Plaintiff was accused and will efficient public evidence the back the accessed to which the plaintiff is accused.

The Government Disputes; He should get his SoP role back. but rather we have a fair a public trial held which the DoS will hold and all current office holders of Speaker will be removed until that Hearing is concluded.

The Government Accepts; A apology from the DoS and Parliament and I will personally see to it that these are issued and of not I will ask the court to seek penalties if not issued within five days of the dismissal.

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.

 

[LilSumoVert]

Would the plaintiff like a chance to respond to this motion to dismiss?

 

[LmaozPlayz]

no sir

 

[LilSumoVert]

no sir

I hereby find you in Contempt of Court and fine you 50kr and 15 minutes of jail

 

[LmaozPlayz]

i simply refuse

 

[LilSumoVert]

i simply refuse

I hereby hold you in contempt anf fine you another 50kr and 15 min in jail.

 

[LmaozPlayz]

i refuse

 

[LilSumoVert]

i refuse

I hereby hold you in contempt of court and order you to serve 15 minutes in jail and another 50kr fine.

 

[flyingzebra7]

Your honor, I would like a chance to respond.

 

[LilSumoVert]

Your honor, I would like a chance to respond

You may proceed

 

[flyingzebra7]

Good afternoon your honor, we believe these terms stated above are unfair to the plaintiff and this case should continue. I will not be arguing what the defense themselves agrees with.

First, the defense thinks the plaintiff is not entitled to any money for lost of wages. The defense also makes a baseless statement that “the former speaker has rarely been in game since his removal” he provides no proof of this. Even if the plaintiff was only in game for a tiny bit of time they still would have been making more money therefor they deserve compensation. The defense also states “a public trial held which the DoS will hold and all current office holders of Speaker will be removed until that Hearing is concluded. “ This will allow the executive to overstep its power, it will also hinder parliaments ability and power without a speaker even for a short time. The final problem with this is normally the SoP would keep there role during the trial during this time the SoP would have made a lot more money with there pay.

Finally, the defense believes my plaintiff doesn’t deserve any sort of compensation for being ridiculed “at no point in parliament chat or a public forum has the Speaker called out this process or tried defending himself.” This is simply a ridiculous argument, my plaintiff has been bashed in many channels showed in the images below and he shouldn’t be forced to defend himself as it might incriminate him without a fair trial which was never provided. With all of this I ask you your honor to continue this trial so we all get a chance to expand on our points and give different views on this matter. Thank you.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1046501510906908693/1047496601599479838/IMG_1290.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1046501510906908693/1047496603184922655/IMG_1292.png

 

[P. Hunter]

Your Honour,

I will be travelling to another country in the next couple of hours but I would like the chance the respond to this as I believe there are significant issues with the response that pose a threat to the facts of the case and it’s overall position.

 

[LilSumoVert]

Your Honour,

I will be travelling to another country in the next couple of hours but I would like the chance the respond to this as I believe there are significant issues with the response that pose a threat to the facts of the case and it’s overall position.

I will be overruling this at this time

 

[LilSumoVert]

Good afternoon your honor, we believe these terms stated above are unfair to the plaintiff and this case should continue. I will not be arguing what the defense themselves agrees with.

First, the defense thinks the plaintiff is not entitled to any money for lost of wages. The defense also makes a baseless statement that “the former speaker has rarely been in game since his removal” he provides no proof of this. Even if the plaintiff was only in game for a tiny bit of time they still would have been making more money therefor they deserve compensation. The defense also states “a public trial held which the DoS will hold and all current office holders of Speaker will be removed until that Hearing is concluded. “ This will allow the executive to overstep its power, it will also hinder parliaments ability and power without a speaker even for a short time. The final problem with this is normally the SoP would keep there role during the trial during this time the SoP would have made a lot more money with there pay.

Finally, the defense believes my plaintiff doesn’t deserve any sort of compensation for being ridiculed “at no point in parliament chat or a public forum has the Speaker called out this process or tried defending himself.” This is simply a ridiculous argument, my plaintiff has been bashed in many channels showed in the images below and he shouldn’t be forced to defend himself as it might incriminate him without a fair trial which was never provided. With all of this I ask you your honor to continue this trial so we all get a chance to expand on our points and give different views on this matter. Thank you.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1046501510906908693/1047496599653318737/IMG_1285.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1046501510906908693/1047496600852906085/IMG_1289.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1046501510906908693/1047496601599479838/IMG_1290.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1046501510906908693/1047496603184922655/IMG_1292.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1046501510906908693/1047496603809878066/IMG_1291.png

In this you have used inadmissible evidence as these are privileged chats, you are to remove Images 1, 2 and 5

 

[LilSumoVert]

Motion to Dismiss: Ruling

After carful consideration and thought i will be DENYING this Motion to Dismiss. I feel that as if there is more to be discovered here and i feel that the motion to dismiss misses key points. We will now move on to @flyingzebra7 opening statement, i will allow 24 hours for this.
​

 

[P. Hunter]

Your Honour,

Due to recent events I wish to move to summary judgement