P. Hunter
Chief Justice
Chief Justice
Justice
Judge
Department of Internal Development
Department of Construction
Lawyer
Donator
poemhunter
Chief Justice
In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: MM/DD/YY
The People of Stratham
HunterHo LLP, Poemhunter Representing
v.
Department of State of the Republic of Stratham
I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
The election held between the 04/03/2023 to 06/03/2023 is invalid due to two constitutional problems that have sprung from the actions and conduction of the election by the Department of State [ herewith in referred to as DoS ] The election allowed for the only seven qualified candidates to passed into the role as Member of Parliament [ herewith in referred to as MP/MPS ] without the public having a vote. There are complications in denying a public their right in electing officials along with both the Parliamentary election procedure and voting rights along with the second breach of the public losing their ability to exercise their constitutional right of public referendums.
II. Parties
1. Poemhunter [ HunterHo LLP ]
2. Department of State
III. Sequence of Events
1. On 06/03/23 The Prime Minister/ Minister of State [ herewith in referred to as Defendant ] announced that 7/8 declared were allowed to take a seat and sit as an MP. They did not have to go through a public vote. This is a Constitutional Violation in the following grounds:
a) (III) The election of Members of Parliament shall: [(C) The voting period shall be held on the sixth and seventh days of the month and shall lastforty-eight (48) hours.
(D) In the election, voters shall cast up to four(4) votes and the seven (7) candidates with the most votes, at the end of voting, shall be elected to the Parliament of Stratham.
2. Following on from this as a discovery to the unconstitutionally elected parliament Public Referendums on elected officials namely MPs must require the following: (III) For Public Referendums against The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Members of Parliament to pass, The following criteria must be met for Removal from Office:
(A) The amount of votes the Official received in the Election in which they were elected for that position+1 Vote
IV. Claims for Relief
1. On the Election Process: This has allowed members of the public to be denied their legal right to electing their officials as per the constitution along with the matter that no specified section or written text states that there will be an automatically elected Parliament without public voting which has resulted in an illegal unconstitutional action by the Department of State.
2. On Public Referendums: From this point and the election conduction no MP received any votes from the public but was automatically allowed to sit as an elected official. This completely removes and denies the public ability to a constitutional right. One argument can be put forward from the interpretation of the wording that since no member got a vote their baseline would be zero + 1 or one vote to remove the elected official. This creates to many legal concerns meaning at current all Mps can be removed via one vote front the public sending our legislative branch into disarray or two that since the wording of the section states “amount of votes the Official received in the Election in which they were elected” could rule the potential one vote removal by arguing that no member was elected via an voting tally and therefore the standard to be met is non existent as there is a no votes bases from the section to work from which would have been received by the pubic in voting for them which inadvertently means the current MPs are now in a positions of unconstitutionally sitting from not being correctly and officially elected and two being unremovable by the Public which would then therefore mean the public has no say control and has been completely disregarded and undermined within there legal rights as given by the constitution.
V. Damages
1. To correct the Issue, the most efficient means of restoring trust and the integrity of the Constitution a new election must take place and the procedures need to be taken to ensure no constitutional breach.
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.
CIVIL ACTION
Date: MM/DD/YY
The People of Stratham
HunterHo LLP, Poemhunter Representing
v.
Department of State of the Republic of Stratham
I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
The election held between the 04/03/2023 to 06/03/2023 is invalid due to two constitutional problems that have sprung from the actions and conduction of the election by the Department of State [ herewith in referred to as DoS ] The election allowed for the only seven qualified candidates to passed into the role as Member of Parliament [ herewith in referred to as MP/MPS ] without the public having a vote. There are complications in denying a public their right in electing officials along with both the Parliamentary election procedure and voting rights along with the second breach of the public losing their ability to exercise their constitutional right of public referendums.
II. Parties
1. Poemhunter [ HunterHo LLP ]
2. Department of State
III. Sequence of Events
1. On 06/03/23 The Prime Minister/ Minister of State [ herewith in referred to as Defendant ] announced that 7/8 declared were allowed to take a seat and sit as an MP. They did not have to go through a public vote. This is a Constitutional Violation in the following grounds:
a) (III) The election of Members of Parliament shall: [(C) The voting period shall be held on the sixth and seventh days of the month and shall lastforty-eight (48) hours.
(D) In the election, voters shall cast up to four(4) votes and the seven (7) candidates with the most votes, at the end of voting, shall be elected to the Parliament of Stratham.
2. Following on from this as a discovery to the unconstitutionally elected parliament Public Referendums on elected officials namely MPs must require the following: (III) For Public Referendums against The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Members of Parliament to pass, The following criteria must be met for Removal from Office:
(A) The amount of votes the Official received in the Election in which they were elected for that position+1 Vote
IV. Claims for Relief
1. On the Election Process: This has allowed members of the public to be denied their legal right to electing their officials as per the constitution along with the matter that no specified section or written text states that there will be an automatically elected Parliament without public voting which has resulted in an illegal unconstitutional action by the Department of State.
2. On Public Referendums: From this point and the election conduction no MP received any votes from the public but was automatically allowed to sit as an elected official. This completely removes and denies the public ability to a constitutional right. One argument can be put forward from the interpretation of the wording that since no member got a vote their baseline would be zero + 1 or one vote to remove the elected official. This creates to many legal concerns meaning at current all Mps can be removed via one vote front the public sending our legislative branch into disarray or two that since the wording of the section states “amount of votes the Official received in the Election in which they were elected” could rule the potential one vote removal by arguing that no member was elected via an voting tally and therefore the standard to be met is non existent as there is a no votes bases from the section to work from which would have been received by the pubic in voting for them which inadvertently means the current MPs are now in a positions of unconstitutionally sitting from not being correctly and officially elected and two being unremovable by the Public which would then therefore mean the public has no say control and has been completely disregarded and undermined within there legal rights as given by the constitution.
V. Damages
1. To correct the Issue, the most efficient means of restoring trust and the integrity of the Constitution a new election must take place and the procedures need to be taken to ensure no constitutional breach.
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.
