Lawsuit: Adjourned ZeketheKaiser v Government

[ZeketheKaiser]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 04/14/22

ZeketheKaiser

v.

Government

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
Supersuperking presented vote of no confidence in #gov-announcements and I quote
"Parliament in another majority has decided to initiate vonc proceedings one again against @UnityMaster for Treason, corruption, public distrust, and new evidence coming too light. The channel for the vonc will be created soon. (this one wasn't started by me I swear)"
However, according to the VONC reform bill here in section 4(1). The vonc proceedings must be presented by the Speaker of parliament. With Supersuperking presenting the vonc proceedings, he is acting as Speaker, a position he has no right acting in.

II. Parties
1. ZeketheKaiser
2. Supersuperking or the government

III. Sequence of Events
1. Supersuperking presented the VONC proceedings in gov-announcements as if he was the speaker of parliament.
2. Supersuperking on the 15th started the vonc channel.

IV. Claims for Relief
1. It is important that our government abide by the rules they make. If we allow one slip up, what's stopping the government from continuing ignoring rules set in place.

V. Damages
1. We are asking that the court disallow the vonc proceedings from occurring due to their unlawfulness and the removal of supersuperking from the office of Member of Parliament. We are also asking for compensation for legal fees incurred by this lawsuit.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

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

As this is a case against the government, if Supersuperking elects not to respond himself, a government official or representative may fill in for such place

That is all,
Thank you

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Prosecution motions to halt the current vote of no confidence proceedings due to the direct relation to this case.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Before I respond to this motion, I would like to hear the Defense's side. I ask that within their Motion to Dismiss or Answer To Complaint they speak towards the motion.

Prosecution motions

Also, I would like to make it clear to the Plaintiff that this is not a prosecution as the Prosecutor has not brought forth this case and no criminal allegations have been brought forth.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Seeing the new case presented in which argues the legitimacy of certain MPS, one of those MPS being the Defendant in this case, I have decided to put this case on hold until the conclusion of the other one.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

This lawsuit is now to be resumed.
The Defendant, @supersuperking, is given another 24 hours to respond to the case, if more time is needed please feel free to ask.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Cooleagles2005]

The Defendant has reached out to me asking for an extension of time. They are given an additional 48 hours, a total of 72 hours to respond to the case.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

The proposed reparations being asked of the courts are not justifiable. An announcement that was made not according to the law does not mean that the action being announced is inconsistent with the law. As a Member of Parliament, supersuperking was doing his constitutional duty of representing the people and maintaining a democracy by initiating VoNC proceedings. Although the VoNC has already passed and a new speaker has been chosen, the concept of invalidating an action because of who announced it is absurd. Regardless of the announcement, the VoNC proceedings themselves occurred completely in accordance with the law.

This is not the first time that a Member of Parliament who wanted to initiate a vote of no confidence had to announce it themselves. As of this term, the Speaker has announced zero of the three VoNC cases. This wasn’t because the MP didn’t wait and give a chance for the SoP to do so, the SoP did not make an announcement even though they were requested to. This continued until the MPs had to make the announcements themselves.

Evidence 1: Koalition himself grants supersuperking permission to announce the VoNC proceedings against UnityMaster

Evidence 2: UnityMaster was aware of the VoNC proceedings. If he was aware of the VoNC reform bill, he should have done his duty in announcing the vote of no confidence in a timely manner.

Evidence 3: For the first VoNC against UnityMaster, supersuperking reached out in government channels for the announcement to be made, but was met with inaction from both the SoP and DSoP at the time.

Therefore, he had to continue with the proceedings himself. Before, during, and after the proceedings, the SoP’s responses and involvement was minimal of his own accord. The SoP neglecting to do his constitutional duty should not be a reason for VoNC proceedings against him to cease, nor should removal of his MP status be a punishment for supersuperking’s continuation of the VoNC proceedings despite the inaction of the SoP.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Defense's response is noted; however, as they did not use proper formatting, the Court is unaware of the Defense's actions.
Does the Defense Motion To Dismiss the case or deny the allegations and proceed with the trial?

That is all,
Thank You

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

We intend to proceed with the trial. I apologize for the confusion.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Plaintiff is now given 48 hours to present their opening statement.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor, this is a case about a government official throwing the law to the curb to remove a Speaker of Parliament, who they accuse of breaking the law in such a way that they should be removed from their position of SoP. The law couldn't be clearer: (1) The process begins with Parliament’s joint decision to initiate a vonc against an accused government official being presented by the Speaker. The process is presented by the Speaker of Parliament. At the time, supersuperking was not the SoP but it was Unity. Thus, super had no authority to present the vote of no confidence. This is not a case about whether Unity was in the right or not, the simple fact of the matter is one of our legal processes was ignored and even violated.

This is a great danger to our republic. If supersuperking's actions are justified, legal processes could continue to be ignored for a sense of the greater good. The courts are here to defend the law, not certain political positions. What will happen next when parliament believes someone is morally wrong? Are they then legally justified to ignore the legal processes? Due to these facts, we are asking for the removal of supersuperking from parliament.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Plaintiff's opening statement is noted.
The Defense is now given 48 hours to present their opening statement.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

I agree that this is not a case about whether Unity was right or not. This is a case about the Speaker not fulfilling his constitutional duties, making a Member of Parliament take matters into his own hands. There is no doubt that any breach of a law may not be completely excused and overlooked. However, breaching one clause of a law to fulfill other constitutional duties and obligations should not be treated more harshly than ignoring constitutional duties when it proves unfavorable.

This is not the first time that a VoNC proceeding was not announced by the Speaker. In fact, the Speaker himself has asked another member of parliament to announce VoNC proceedings in the past. The evidence is attached below. Again I ask, does the law promote ignorance of constitutional duties in the name of one clause in a law, or does it justify breaching one clause of a law to uphold the constitution?

While the obvious choice is neither, as both a law and the constitution must be upheld, when both are at odds, does upholding the constitution not take precedence?

As much of a dangerous precedent it would be to allow for a breach in one legal clause, it would be much more of a dangerous precedent to allow the willful ignorance and lack of cooperation from a government official to interfere or block parliament members from fulfilling their constitutional duties.

Allowing a speaker to take no action with a VoNC is allowing them to block it from happening. If a speaker can essentially block the process of holding government members accountable, that is a danger to our democracy.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Defense's opening is noted.

As per procedure, we will now be moving on to witness testimony. If either the plaintiff or defendant has witnesses for the court to hear, they are to make it known within 48 hours. There will be No Exceptions to this. If either party has no witnesses to bring forth, they are to reply by saying so.

If either party has questions, they are more than welcome to ask.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor,

I have no witnesses to call.

Thank you.

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

I would like to call TedHastings_AC12 as a witness.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Before I summon the witness, I would like to remind both parties of our witness procedures. Once the witness marks their presence in court, they will be questioned by the party which called them, in this case, the Defense. Once the direct examination has concluded, the plaintiff will be given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness if they so choose. After the cross, I will allow for one round of redirect/recross if either party feels necessary. I will explain those later if need be.

With all that being said,

@TedHastings_AC12 is required to appear in court as a witness. They are given 48 hours to mark their presence in the court; in other words, they must respond to the thread with a simple "present." Once they have responded, the Defense may begin their direct examination.

That is all,
thank you

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I am present your honour

 

[Cooleagles2005]

The Defense may begin their direct. The witness is reminded that they are under oath, and must answer honestly to the best of their knowledge.

That is all,
Thank you