Lawsuit: Adjourned Teddytaps230 v. The Government of Stratham

Status
Not open for further replies.

TeddyTaps230

Citizen
Banned
Executive Office
Department of Justice
Lawyer
Donator
TeddyTaps230
TeddyTaps230
Special Advisor
In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 11/20/22

Teddytaps230

v.

The Government of Stratham

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
The Law Officiation bill was passed and states that the DoJ Minister is in charge of amending the rules and laws thread, however this is a direct contradiction of the constitution which states that it is the speaker's job to update the Rules and Laws page as well as the Constitution within 48 hours of a bill being given assent.

II. Parties
1. Teddytaps230
2. The Government of Stratham

III. Sequence of Events
1. The Law Officiation bill was passed
2. The Constitution was entirely rewritten overruled this bill, but the bill was not removed

IV. Claims for Relief
1. The Bill is unconstitutional and therefore needs to be stricken
2. …
3...

V. Damages
1. The Bill be stricken from record
2. Parliament should be ordered to clear out these old laws that clearly violate our constitution and yet still stand face as accepted bills that are non removed/Outdated/Invalidated



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

Former PM
Banned
Lawyer
Donator
LilSumoVert
LilSumoVert
Lawyer
CourtSeal.png
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 Teddtaps230 v. The Government of Stratham. Seeing as this case involves the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, i will ask that the SoP and the AG work out who is going to represent the government in this case.

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.
 

LilSumoVert

Former PM
Banned
Lawyer
Donator
LilSumoVert
LilSumoVert
Lawyer
I would like to remind @IAmA_MoronXD and @bharatj that there is less then 24 hours left to reply to this case. The government doesn't want to fail to respond to yet another legal proceeding.
 

LilSumoVert

Former PM
Banned
Lawyer
Donator
LilSumoVert
LilSumoVert
Lawyer
Good evening, we are seeing an all too common theme with these cases. The government has failed for the 2nd case in a row to not have representation to this case. This is completely unacceptable. Not only have you disrespected the courts and disru[ted the proceeding, but your gross negligence has also hurt the people of this server. You were elected and appointed with a mandate to serve the people of this server, what is this showing the people? Time and time again this court has allowed this behavior to go unchecked, I will not.

I hereby hold both the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General in contempt of court and hereby sentence them both to 15 minutes of jail time and a 50kr fine each. I hope that this will act as a deterrent in the future, although as it seems to be going I am not confident this is enough.

Now onto the case at hand. As it seems, the bill in question is a bill that was made over a year ago. Now according to the constitution Section 1, Subsection 3 point 2.b the Speaker of Parliament is responsible for these duties, not the DOJ Minister. I hereby strike down the bill as it contradicts the constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. The DoJ Minister shall stop further edits to the rule and laws page and the Speaker shall resume these duties.

Furthermore, I will also direct parliament to open an inquiry into all of the other laws that contradict the constitution and throw them out as well so its not a whole load of court cases saying the same thing. With that this case is adjourned in favor of the Plaintiff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top