Lawsuit: Adjourned MegaMinerM v. Department of State

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 07/04/25

MegaMinerM

v.

The Department of State

I. Description of Case​

This civil action challenges the Department of State’s failure to enforce Clause 3.3(a) (the Campaign Clause) in the Constitution, which mandates that no person may run in an election for a Council of Ministers position without making a public campaign post before the start of the voting period. Despite this legal requirement, the Department allowed ELITE_ASSASSIN19 to appear on the ballot and run for Minister of Health without ever making a public campaign post. As a result, the election proceeded in violation of the law, and the Plaintiff seeks a redo of the election.

II. Parties​

1. MegaMinerM
2. The Department of State
3. ELITE_ASSASSIN19

III. Sequence of Events​

1. On June 27, 2025, a special election for Minister of Health was announced and declarations were posted in the following thread: Declaration Thread.
2. ELITE_ASSASSIN19 submitted a declaration to run but failed to publish a required public campaign post before the voting period began (see Campaign Forums & Campaign Discord 1-3).
3. Despite this failure, the Department of State included ELITE_ASSASSIN19 on the official ballot posted here: Voting Thread.
4. The election proceeded and concluded with ELITE_ASSASSIN19 on the ballot, in direct contradiction to Campaign Clause 3.3(a).

IV. Claims for Relief​

1. The Department of State violated Campaign Clause 3.3(a), which clearly prohibits candidacy without a public campaign post prior to the voting period.
2. The Department’s failure to disqualify ELITE_ASSASSIN19 constitutes negligence in its duty to uphold electoral law and integrity.
3. The unlawful continuation of the election undermines the legitimacy of the electoral process and sets a dangerous precedent if not remedied.

V. Damages​

1. The Plaintiff requests that the Supreme Court of The Republic of Stratham order a redo of the Minister of Health election and invalidate the results of the Department of Health election.
2. The Plaintiff requests a public apology for their failure to uphold the Constitution.
3. The Plaintiff reserves the right to seek additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

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
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Date: 07/04/25

The Plaintiff requests an immediate halting of the current Minister of Health election for the entirety of this Lawsuit in order to uphold the integrity of the Constitution and our Democracy.

 

[Cherub54321]

@Nightmare98765 is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Nightmare98765 , 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 Cherub54321 Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

In addition, the election for the position of Minister for the Department of Health is to continue until it's voting period ends, at which point the election process for the position shall be halted until the conclusion of this case.

 

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 04/07/25

MegaMinerM

v.

The Department of State
Nightmare98765 - Attorney General
I. Motion to Dismiss

The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:

1. In the case Bharatj v. Government of Stratham, the court rules that: “The most senior member of the Department of State shall conduct the elections”. As a result of this ruling, MegaMinerM, the plaintiff themselves, was put in charge of elections. The Plaintiff publicly acknowledged his role by starting to hold elections, as well as signing their announcements as: “Acting Minister of the Department of State.” This Court-appointed authority transferred all of the election related responsibility, including ballot integrity, campaign verification and constitutional compliance to the plaintiff.

2. It is acknowledged that Clause 3.3(a) of the Constitution, which requires a public campaign post before the voting period begins, was technically violated. However, enforcement of that clause was the direct responsibility of MegaMinerM in his capacity as person in charge of the elections as appointed by this Court in Bharatj v. Government. The plaintiff had the full legal authority and operational control to disqualify, Elite_Assassin19 who failed to meet the requirements, yet he didn't. The failure to enforce the clause, therefore lies not with the Department itself, but with the Plaintiffs own actions, or lack thereof. This lawsuit is, in effect, an attempt to hold the DoS accountable for a procedural oversight the Plaintiff was empowered to prevent.

3. Because the election oversight and any constitutional breach were conducted under the direct authority of the Plaintiff himself, this lawsuit is essentially MegaMinerM suing himself in a different institutional disguise. This is procedurally improper and fails to present a legitimate controversy between two independent parties.

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

Evidence:
https://www.mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/bharatj-v-government-of-stratham.21013/

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

The Plaintiff may now respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[MegaMinerM]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 07/04/25

MegaMinerM

v.

The Department of State


I. Response to Motion to Dismiss

The Plaintiff respectfully submits the following response in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss:

II. Mischaracterization of the Central Issue

1. The Defendant does not contest the core factual claim: that ELITE_ASSASSIN19 ran for Minister of Health without making a public campaign post, a clear violation of Clause 3.3(a) of the Campaign Clause.
2. Instead, the Defendant’s argument focuses solely on administrative responsibility, ignoring the substance of the constitutional violation itself. The Plaintiff submits that no matter who conducted the election, the fact remains that a candidate ran and appeared on the ballot while not legally qualified to do so, rendering the election procedurally invalid.

III. Irrelevance of Administrative Oversight to Constitutional Legitimacy

3. The Defendant attempts to shift responsibility by citing the Plaintiff’s role as Acting Minister of State, arguing that the Plaintiff had the authority to disqualify candidates and failed to do so.
4. However, constitutional compliance is not subject to waiver through inaction, nor does an administrative error erase the violation itself. Whether it was the Plaintiff, the Department of State, or any other official conducting the election, the result remains constitutionally void if a candidate who did not meet the legal criteria was included.

IV. “Suing Oneself” Argument is Procedurally and Historically Unfounded

5. The Defendant claims this suit is invalid because it represents the Plaintiff “suing himself in a different institutional disguise.” This argument fails both procedurally and historically.
6. In the case The Government of Stratham (Poemhunter AG) v. The Department of State (Poemhunter DoS Minister) (2022), the Supreme Court accepted a case in which the same individual occupied roles in both plaintiff and defendant entities. The Court did not deem this a procedural disqualification, recognizing instead the separation of institutional roles despite individual overlap.
7. Therefore, precedent clearly shows that such overlap is not a bar to legal action, especially when constitutional violations are at stake. The Plaintiff, acting in one capacity as a citizen and in another as a temporary election administrator, is entirely within their rights to seek redress for a systemic failure.

V. Conclusion

8. The Defendant’s motion fails to address the legal consequence of a campaign clause violation, relies on procedural deflection, and contradicts established precedent regarding internal government suits.
9. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion to dismiss and allow this case to proceed to a full hearing, where the constitutionality of the election process and its outcome can be properly evaluated.

 

[MegaMinerM]

Your Honor, seen as the voting period for the Minister of Health election has concluded, time is of the essence in regards to the Emergency Injunction. The Plaintiff does not wish to hassle the Court however in order to protect the integrity of the election proceedings, would appreciate a ruling on it as soon as possible.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

The court has already responded to the injunction within the opening message. I shall respond to the motion to dismiss when I get the opportunity.

 

[MegaMinerM]

My sincerest apologies your Honor.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

I shall be overruling the motion to dismiss. As this is a case requiring the use of judicial review, the plaintiff may bring the case against themselves provided that the actions taken for which judicial review is required took place is in a different role to that of the plaintiff. (I.e. as in this case a private citizen can bring a case against a government entity, or one government entity can bring a case against another, however a government entity cannot bring a case directly against themselves). This only applies for cases where the use of judicial review is required, i.e when a government entity is not in a position to resolve it themselves, or where there is concern regarding the constitutionality of a government action.

I shall be looking into creating a separate process for cases involving the use of judicial review, as our current format does not work well for them. However, for the continuation of this case, I ask that the defence now submits an answer to complaint, after which I shall allow for responses (if necessary) and then make my ruling. The defence now has 48 hours in which to present their answer to complaint.

 

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 05/07/25

MegaMinerM

v.

The Department of State
Nightmare98765 - Attorney General
Hello your Honour,

The defense respectfully submits this request in response to the issues raised during this case. We acknowledge that Clause 3.3(a) of the Constitution was not properly enforced during the most recent Minister of Health election, as one candidate was permitted to run without publishing a public campaign post prior to the voting period. However, at the time of this election, the Plaintiff, MegaMinerM, was serving as the Acting Minister of the Department of State, as he has said publicly, and had been appointed by this Court to oversee all election proceedings in the absence of a sitting Minister. Accordingly, the oversight in question occurred under the Plaintiff’s direct authority. While the defense accepts that the election process requires remedy, we respectfully submit that responsibility lies not with the institution, but with the individual who managed and certified the election. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to manage the election process in a timely and constitutionally compliant manner. Elections have been delayed for several days beyond the expected timeframe, and the Plaintiff has failed to properly check candidate requirements — as demonstrated by the oversight in the current Minister of Health case. The first election was not announced on Discord by MegaMinerM, and DoubbleKerius had to announce them. These started on the 23.06. From there on there is a 48-hour time till voting starts. Voting then started on the 27.06, much later than it was supposed to. Special elections also only started at that time. Again, 48-hour time limit till voting starts. On the 2.7, another voting opened — this time for DoPA and DoH (here is where Mega failed to check the needed requirements). Also, the 2nd special election started here. 48-hour time limit again for everything. On 3.7, Mega announced the results from the first voting which was started on the 27. (Again, much later than it was supposed to be.) On the 5.7, Mega announced the results of the DoPA elections which have started on the 2.7. (One day later.) And started another special election.

Therefore, we request that the Court consider the following:
1. That the Plaintiff, MegaMinerM, publicly acknowledge and apologize for his role in the mishandling of the election;
2. That the Court order a redo of the Minister of Health election;
3. That a new, impartial individual to be appointed by the Court to conduct the replacement election and the rest of the elections, in order to restore confidence and integrity to the process.

We believe this course of action appropriately balances constitutional adherence with public accountability, and ensures that future elections proceed without further error or controversy.

Thank you.
Nightmare98765

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

With the defence’s acknowledgment of the failure by the department of state to enforce clause 3.3(a) of the constitution, and by the use of judicial review I do find that election for the position of Minister of Health has been run incorrectly. I therefore strike the result of this election, and instruct the Department of State to restart the election process for the position of Minister of Health.

The constitution requires that, in the absence of the Minister of State, the most senior member of the Department of State should run any elections (as explained in Bharatj vs Government of Stratham). As this is currently @MegaMinerM , they are the one who must run the elections. The judiciary cannot order something that is in contradiction to the constitution, and can therefore not appoint a different individual to run elections. I shall however expect the replacement election to start within 48 hours of this judgement, and to follow the exact procedure stated within the constitution. Failure to do so shall result in charges of contempt of court.

I do not believe in court mandated public apologies, and instead leave it up to the individual to decide if they wish to make an apology or not. An apology ordered by a court has no meaning, and simply humiliates the individual rather than helping them or others bring closure to the situation. An individual choosing to make an apology, on the other hand, shows that they’ve accepted responsibility for their actions and hence has a far deeper meaning to it.

The court is now adjourned

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Cherub54321