Lawsuit: Adjourned Office of the Attorney General v. Parliament of Stratham

[ColonelKai]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CONSTITUTIONAL DISPUTE (Constitution §3.2c)
Date: 03/01/2023

Office of the Attorney General
AG Colonel_Kai

v.

Parliament of Stratham

I. Description of Case
The Parliament of Stratham has proposed, voted upon and passed the Constitutional Amendment titled ‘The Voting Amendment Bill’, ID /17876/ without posting in the #bill-channel as ordained by the Constitution (§1.4.V.A).

II. Parties
1. Office of the Attorney General, Prosecutions Office
2. Parliament of Stratham

III. Sequence of Events
1. On Feb 10, 2023, the aforementioned Amendment is proposed to the appropriate subforum. No link is posted to the bill creation channel on discord.
2. On an unknown date, the amendment is voted by the members of parliament.
3. On Feb 17, 2023, the bill gains assent from the Prime Minister.

IV. Claims for Relief
1. For the aforementioned amendment to be struck from law.

V. Damages
The prosecution seeks no damages.

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.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

@flyingzebra7 is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @flyingzebra7 , 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 yourusername Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

As this case involves parliamemt. Any member may respond, But must have been nominated to answer by the rest of parliament in order to do so.

 

[flyingzebra7]

Your honor,
I am present at this time.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Your honor,
I am present at this time.

Thank you for responding.

I now ask that you provide your response to the claims brought against Parliament.

Judge T.Taps

 

[flyingzebra7]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 3/1/2023

Office of the Attorney General
AG Colonel_Kai

v.
Parliament of Stratham
flyingzebra7 Representing

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. The Plaintiff has filed this case because a Constitutional Amendment has passed without being proposed in the #bill-creation channel on the BC discord server, the amendment titled ‘The Voting Amendment Bill’. Nowhere in the constitution does it state a bill has to be posted in #bill-creation before it can be put onto the forums for voting, and/or passed/approved at all. It does however state that a bill can be posted in #bill-creation, but again nowhere does it say a bill has to be posted in #bill-creation. (Proof below)

That is all at this time Your honor.

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.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I will now give the Plaintiff 48 hours to answer to the Motion to Dismiss. @ColonelKai

 

[ColonelKai]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
RESPONSE TO MOTION
Date: 2/3/2023

The provision in question is as follows;

(A) Proposals for amendments will be made on Discord under #bill-creation and in the Parliament subforum.

Which can be grouped as the following;

(A) [Proposals for amendments] will be made [on Discord under #bill-creation] and [in the Parliament subforum].

So, deriving from the clearly stated provision, it is stipulated that the proposals for amendments will be made BOTH on the aforementioned channel AND the parliament subforum. It is clear as day. As per the "process" as titled by the constitution, these are to be done prior to the voting.

In no part pertaining to the issue at hand does the constitution use language that would allow the bypassing of the first step in the process of constitutional amendments nor ability to choose between posting on the subforum and using the discord channel.

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.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Thank you for your reply. I will be overruling the motion to dismiss and ask the defence @flyingzebra7 to make statement opening their defence. I also ask that he provides a screenshot of the vote tally for the constitutional amendment.

 

[flyingzebra7]

Your honor,
Before I begin with my statement I would like to point out I do not have proof of the vote tally for the constitutional amendment. The previous Speaker of Parliament has removed the vote off of the bill post, for reasons I do not know.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Your honor,
Before I begin with my statement I would like to point out I do not have proof of the vote tally for the constitutional amendment. The previous Speaker of Parliament has removed the vote off of the bill post, for reasons I do not know.

Interesting... okay, proceed with your defence

 

[TeddyTaps230]

The defence has requested an extension. I therefore grant them a further 24 hours.

 

[ColonelKai]

Your honour, the extension has expired. Considering the circumstances of the case, The prosecution seeks summary judgement.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

The defense still has a further 1 and a half hours unless they request a further extension

 

[TeddyTaps230]

As the defense has requested an extension, I hereby grant them an extra 12 hours. This means that a Reply will be due by 12.24 am GMT.

 

[flyingzebra7]

Your honor,

Below is a statement poemhunter (creator of 'The Voting Amendment Act') wanted me to post as my testimony.

STATEMENT FROM POEMHUNTER

"On the matter of the Bills presence in bill creation within the BC Discord on mistake from posting I must have forgot to link the bill to said channel after posting on forums. Looking to the date which was 9th of February, which was a Thursdays and I was working and judging from the time of posting with the time finished work I say I must have just been too exhausted and forgot.

On the matter of the voting being removed this is all new to me I haven’t the foggiest in to how that happened once the poll was made I would then send into MPs to vote once voted sent to the Prime Minister"

After Parliament votes on bills and they pass with a majority (E.G. 4/7), they are sent to the Prime Minister to be Approved or Vetoed. This bill had passed parliament vote, which means the bill was sent to the PM. The PM could have very easily Vetoed the bill as it wasn't following the constitution of having to be proposed in the #bill-creation channel of the BC discord.

As a solution to the standing problem of this bill as it was unconstitutionally signed into law, 'The Voting Amendment Act' can be taken down and reproposed in the correct way as stated in the constitution, revoted on, and the PM can Approve or Veto the bill again.

That is all.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

@flyingzebra7 So to clarify. You are pleading that the bill was illegally signed in to law by the Prime Minister and therefore needs to be taken down as it was unconstitutionally signed into law, and reproposed and done correctly?

 

[ColonelKai]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Request for Action

Your honour, the defense has not replied within 24 hours and considering the parliament will be changing hands within the next 3 days, the Prosecution once again asks for Summary Judgement.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Request for Action

Your honour, the defense has not replied within 24 hours and considering the parliament will be changing hands within the next 3 days, the Prosecution once again asks for Summary Judgement.

The defence has messaged me to state they will be replying soon and as per standard they are not required to reply within 24 hours. 48 is the limit. I beg the plaintiff to appreciate the meaning of patience and thank him for his comment.

 

[ColonelKai]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Change of Representative

Due to issues of conflict of interest, and conflicts of position, the case will be handed to the Assistant Prosecutor from the OAG Prosecutions Office, @Irongolem_lawyer.

For the knowledge of the honourable court.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Change of Representative

Due to issues of conflict of interest, and conflicts of position, the case will be handed to the Assistant Prosecutor from the OAG Prosecutions Office, @Irongolem_lawyer.

For the knowledge of the honorable court.

Thank you for this, however this is no longer necessary.

Due to the time now lapsing for the defendant to reply, a summary judgment is to be made.

Summary:
The Office of the Attorney General has brought a case against Parliament for passing a bill without following proper procedure.

As far as it goes from the Defence, they have partially admitted fault in this case through statement provided by the sitting speaker at the time the bill was passed.

Summary statements from the judges:

As this is a case where a bill has been passed unconstitutionally, I have requested judgments from my two colleagues as well as myself to ensure that we are all agreed the law was unconstitutionally, passed and therefore is unconstitutional in itself.

Cooleagles: "I believe that the constitution is as clear as day when it states under Section V a, "Proposals for Amendments will be made on discord under #bill-creation and in the Parliament subforum." Note that the constitution does not suggest but rather instructs Parliament on this process. It is also clear as the Defense themselves have admitted that this process was broken, and agreed with the plaintiff that it was unconstitutional. Therefore, it is my opinion that the bill is stricken from the law; however, Parliament may properly repropose it."

Bharatj: "Since the law states that a bill must be posted on forums and in bill-creation, it is my opinion that both steps are important. Furthermore, I believe the lawmakers intent with that process is to ensure further transparency and visibility with bills, and to allow for public input for legislators to account for. By not posting a bill in bill-creation, the former SoP (although seemingly unintentionally) has violated the constitution, and so the bill should not be valid until re-voted on."

Teddytaps230: It is in my opinion that this bill has not been passed in a constitutional way, and actually, the PM at the time should have taken better care in reviewing the bill before granting assent to it. If this had happened I believe that no such case would have been required to have been brough to the court as the biggest illegality here, other than the bill not being proposed correctly in line with the constitution is that there is no official vote tally presented to anyone for this bill, and therefore there is no indication that this bill was passed with a parliamentary SUPERMAJORITY as required by the constitution to pass a constitutional amendment.

Overall Ruling:

It is the decision of this court, that the bill in question (The Voting Amendment Bill) is to be stricken from law due to it being unconstitutionally proposed and given assent without any official showing of how many votes the bill received.

This decision is final within this session however parliament may appeal this decision if they do so wish.

I am also issuing a fine in the way of FlyingZebra for failing to reply to the court in a satisfactory time even though he informed the presiding judge by DM that he was working on a reply and would have one posted before the time is up. This will be a first time offence of Contempt of court, which the DoJ will enforce when you are next online. (@Ryan_88 )

The court is now Dismissed

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Teddytaps230