Lawsuit: Adjourned stinkycow v Government of Stratham

[stinkycow]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Date: 1/4/21

stinkycow

v.

The Stratham Republic

I. Description of Case

The SoP, Dusty_3, has recently posted an announcement in the government announcements channel on the discord (DustyGovAnnoucements.png). In this message he is making the claim that, my (stinkycow), term as PM was illegitimate and unconstitutional. Dusty does not have the power to declare any action made by the government as unconstitutional, according to (Judicial Branch: The Court; section 3) that power is only invested in the courts. The SoP claims that the courts gave the go ahead on this announcement but evidence suggests that the courts only agreed to begin the process to look into it, not to declare unconstitutionality (DustyAgreement.png, MxDecision.png).

The SoP has used the power of Judicial review and has even admitted that the Judges did not agree on the constitutionality of this decision.


II. Parties
1. stinkycow
2. Government

III. Sequence of Events
1. Dusty asks courts to give opinion on course of action for an "ongoing situation"
2. Dusty is given approval to announce this course of action
3. Dusty declared my PM term as "Unconstitutional"

IV. Claims for Relief
We ask that the court uses judicial review to declare this action unconstitutional.

V. Special Requests

If all judges must recuse themselves from this case I request we skip the SoP in the temp judge succession as they are 1. the main accused in this case 2. the government prosecutor. The DoJ minister would be next.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

@Dusty_3 is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Dusty_3 , 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 MxZxPredatorZx Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor,

The plaintiff's sequence of events have truth to them. As many are aware, I made an announcement regarding a line in the constitution and how that impacted upon Stinkycow's PM term. I have been amending the constitution, writing up changes that benefit Stratham, and while writing up changes to the Executive branch i came across a line that reads: "A candidate may also run alone (so without a Deputy Prime Minister) and later nominate the DPM; however this nominee must meet the same requirements as mentioned above in order to be confirmed for the position and must not have been a part of the Prime Ministerial election (their name name must not have been on the actual election poll)." I bought this line to the attention of Judge Cooleagles to discuss how to handle it.

Through lots of brainstorming and talking, we came upon a decision that Cooleagles would get the other 2 judges to make an interpretation upon that line in the constitution. According to Cooleagles, one judge interpreted it as it only applies to elections, while the other agreed with me that it would apply to any vacancy.

In the constitution it states: The courts have the power of judicial review and may declare a government decision unconstitutional. The majority opinion will be seen as the opinion of the entire court.

On face value, the plaintiff would be correct in stating that the declaration is unconstitutional as 2 judges interpreted the line as it only applies to elections. However, while 2 judges interpreted it this way, Cooleagles allowed the opinion of outside Heads of Government. Cooleagles then chose to accept the opinion of the PM and SoP, and decided this action was unconstitutional. Cooleagles may not have agreed with the interpretation of 1 judge, the PM and the SoP, but he agreed to declare the action unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that states Judges cant get outside opinions. This means, constitutionally, that a majority is reached in the courts as Cooleagles accepted the opinions of others and made the decision that stinkycow's term was unconstitutional.

Whether or not the courts choose to retract their decision on declaring Stinkycow's term as unconstitutional is up to them, however, the actions that lead to the announcement are constitutional.




Furthermore the announcement was given the go ahead by Cooleagles, which means I was only the messenger and did not personally judicial review a Government decision as I do not have that power.

 

[Dusty_3]

I also request that all 3 Judges recuse themselves on the basis that it was their decision that is being questioned. They have major conflicts, and I agree with stinkycow that it should fall to the Ministers as they haven't already given their opinion on this matter.

 

[stinkycow]

Your Honors,

I do not mind if all 3 judges recuse themselves from this case but I do have concern with recusal under the pretense that it is “their decision that is being questioned” this is not an attempt to appeal a court decision, this case relates to the actions of Dusty_3, I will post my rebuttal once the question of who the judge of this trial is has been answered.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Under basis of the plaintiffs comment. I shall not recuse myself at this point as, as stated, it is not the judges decision they made that is being questioned here, but the actions of the defendant himself.

However if at any point this changes. I will of course recuse myself immediately. Unless the defendant @Dusty_3 can name any other reason I should recuse myself at this time?

Failing the refusal of a satisfied reason I should recuse myself, @stinkycow your rebuttal please

 

[stinkycow]

Your Honor,

I will start by noting that the constitution nor any subsequent bill has stopped the Judicial from taking opinions, however, nothing allows the Judicial Branch to take official opinions that hold any weight from anyone outside of the courts. Cooleagles himself has stated that "I did not agree with Dusty's interpretation" and "The judicial branch always ruled in favor of the original interpretation." (CoolEaglesStatement.PNG)

The PM and SoP's opinions, whom a lone member of the Judicial Branch used to make his decision are invalid. According to Cooleagles, the judicial itself had agreed on the original interpretation, with two members siding with the original. The constitution says that on cases of Judicial review "The majority opinion will be seen as the opinion of the entire court." (Judicial Branch: The Court, Section 3)

Whether or not the SoP had ill intent or permission, they, as well as the PM, have influenced the courts in an official capacity, against the majority vote of the court. They may argue that the other 2 judges have biases but this does not change the fact that the head judge whom they were readily conferring with was against their opinion.

Additionally, Dusty says that "I was only the messenger and did not personally judicial review a Government decision as I do not have that power." He is correct, at least in that he has no power to perform judicial reviews. He is incorrect however, in saying he did not personally do so. Cooleagle clearly states that he had used his and Krix's opinions to make this decision (CoolEaglesStatement.PNG) and Dusty himself later confirmed this fact. (DustyHeads.png)

The swift removal of this unconstitutional government announcement is the only course of action from this point.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor,

If I may add, the announcement was never acted upon, and as confirmed by Cooleagles the decision was revoked by the Judiciary Branch, meaning this announcement carries no weight.

The official decision was made by Cooleagles to declare the government decision unconstitutional "So if that is everyone's final opinion, then Dusty's interpretation will be the one that is considered. therefore technically making Stinkycow's leadership as a DPM and PM unconstitutional." As you can tell, Cooleagles made his decision based off of the opinions of others, which he has every right to do.

The Government did not act upon the decision in the Government Announcement. It would've violated the constitution had the Government removed past Government decisions by declaring them unconstitutional without the Judiciary's say. We never removed any past Government decision by personally declaring them unconstitutional.

I ask the plaintiff, what line in the constitution have I broken if: the most senior judge told me to announce a judicial review decision, the Government never acted upon the judicial review decision and the courts later retracted their decision to judicial review?

 

[Dusty_3]

I also ask that the presiding judge recuse themself on the basis:

MxZxPredatorZx: I initiated a VoNC against MxZxPredatorZx, prior to this case, that is currently in process. I don't not feel as thought this judge can provide me with a fair trial.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I understand your request to recuse due to a VoNC against me, however I did not know that you started this process. In fact I did not even know a VoNC had been started against me until after this announcement in question was made. And at no point before this case started did I know you were responsible for this. So that argument point is not a valid one to claim I would be biased in my judgment.

I have also checked this with the two other judges and they have said I can continue with this case.

I have also checked my eligibility to take this case with the other judges. To which they have said they are happy for me to proceed with the two ministers.

On a second note to that. Myself and two ministers, of which the ministers are deliberating as to which two it will be, will be called to read through the case and make their judgments. This decision is not solely mine. The biased ness is therefore fully ruled out.

@stinkycow please proceed with answering the defendants question

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Following a discussion with the other two judges. I have decided to do as requested from herewith and recuse myself although I must stress I was given the go ahead by both senior judge and level ranking judge to take this case in the first instance.


I summon the DoPA minister @IsaacSpill , Minister of State @Tracefais and the minister of agriculture @Mickichu to take over from herewith.

 

[stinkycow]

Your Honor,

To answer the prosecutor's question: The announcement made in the government announcements channel of the discord is clearly not approved of by the Judicial branch, whether or not they retracted prior approval is irrelevant. This message has remained up, and is the only official government message on this situation. My request is that this announcement, which does not reflect the actual opinion of the Judicial branch, is removed from government announcements or a second message is made to amend this folly.

 

[stinkycow]

Your Honors,

As this seems to be dragging out and the intended results of my lawsuit are quite simple, I am requesting we continue with this case through judicial arbitration.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honors,

Me and the plaintiff have agreed to a settlement for this case.

The Public announcement has been edited to say "This decision has been revoked due to improper process"

Thank you for your time, your honors.

 

[Mickichu]

COURTS VERDICT

Good evening,

It appears that both the plaintiff and the defendant have reached a settlement. Before the court is adjourned, I would like to present an idea for a bill to when to consider the term as unconstitutional to the parliament.

MY BILL PROPOSAL

Stinkycow vs the Government Act

A
Bill
To

When to consider the term as unconstitutional.

The Parliament of Stratham enacts:

Section 1. Short Title
(1) This Act is the Stinkycow vs the Government.

Section 2. Commencement
(1) This bill shall be enacted upon it being passed

Section 3. Reasoning
(1) Once a player has finished a prime minister term, they are often met with being busy due to other commitments or leave the server. This bill is called to state that there will be a small time-frame calling the prime minister in the last term as unconstitutional.

Section 4. Bill
(1) Once a term has been finished, the prosecutor can take up to 14-days with the Judge's discretion to announce the term as unconstitutional, where a court case can take for the former Prime Minister to defend themselves. After the 14-day time-frame has been passed, the term will legally be considered constitutional.

With this being said, the court will be adjourned!