In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 04/15/22
ZeketheKaiser
v.
Government
I.Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
Recent evidence has come to light that multiple Members of Parliament (Listed in section 2) are far below the required playtime to hold the office of MP. This is a blatant violation of the Omnibus election act. The specific section of the act the MP's are in violation is section 1.III.B
III. Sequence of Events
1. Evidence came to light of lennonrissi, seanboi, TedHastingsAC_12, and supersuperking all do not meet requirements of holding the office of MP.
IV.Claims for Relief
1. Multiple MP's mentioned above are in direct violation of the Omnibus Election act section 1.III.B.
V. Damages
1. We are asking for the removal of all MP's in violation of the Omnibus Election act as well as compensation for legal fees incurred by this lawsuit.
2. We are also asking for the removal/reversal of all decisions or laws passed by parliament during this lawsuit.
3. We also ask for the removal of all pending bills created by the defendants.
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.
As there are many current events commencing right now, I will see that this trial concludes reasonably faster than most. We will skip opening statements and witness testimony as a whole. I will call all the MPS in question to the court in which they are to make their arguments, we will then move to closing statements, and I will deliver my verdict.
This case is presided by Judge Cooleagles Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!
MPS, if you can find one representative to represent all of you and break it apart from there, that is most welcome; however, if you can not the court will make do with individual testimony.
In The Distinguished Court of the Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 04/16/22
ZeketheKaiser
v.
Government
I. Motion To Dismiss
As the Attorney General, I will be representing the Government in this case.
The Defendants motion to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
The section of the Omnibus election acts referred to by the plaintiff, section 1.III, describes rules to be eligible to run for an election. There is no requirement currently in the law that states a playtime requirement that must be maintained in order to retain the MP position.
The evidence attached is directly from the Omnibus Election Act.
Your Honor, while nobody can deny that a greater playtime is a beneficial aspect of an MP, and disregarding the argument that the qualities of an MP are not determined by ingame activity, the law currently does not have an activity requirement for Members of Parliament to retain their positions after being elected. Therefore, the argument of the plaintiff has no legal basis.
Thank you.
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.
Your honor, i rebut defenses motion to dismiss with the following:
"There is no requirement currently in the law that states a playtime requirement that must be maintained in order to retain the MP position."
The section of the law bharatj referred to says the following under the Parliament changes section:
(b) Section 2 | Election and Replacement of Members of Parliament
(III) No person shall serve as a Member of Parliament without meeting the following requirements;
(A) Having joined the server at least four weeks prior to the start of the election.
(B) At least twelve hours of playtime in the past 30 days.
(C) Being active in-game, forums, and discord.
The subsection which the law in question is in, is titled election and replacement of Members of Parliament. Replacement implies the removal or resignation of elected officials and thus the laws contained in that section does pertain to the removal of MP's. Also, according to the wording of section III, that no person shall serve as MP if they don't meet the requirements listed. Clearly, if an MP fails to meet those requirements that is grounds for replacement.
"the law currently does not have an activity requirement for Members of Parliament to retain their positions after being elected."
The law does have an activity requirement in section C. "(C) Being active in-game, forums, and discord". Clearly, there is an activity requirement to serve as a member of Parliament.
"Therefore, the argument of the plaintiff has no legal basis."
To say this case has no legal basis is to ignore the wording of the bill and hold an extremely narrow view of the law.
I have decided to overrulethe Defense's Motion To Dismiss. The Defense has only presented new arguments to the case in rebuttal to what the Plaintiff has originally said. They have neither proven that the case is inaccurate, the information originally presented is false, or that the case has frivolous nature.
As I said earlier, I would like to keep this case swift for the sake of our government needing its people to run it. However, looking back that may have been a bold step on my half, so I now ask the Plaintiff and Defendant for their approval of such.
If either party wishes to proceed with a normal case, opening statements, witnesses testimony, etc. Now is the time to say so. I leave 24 hours for either party to speak up and say so, if none do, we will move directly to closing arguments.
If any party has any questions, my door is open.
That is all,
Thank you
Your honor, I would like to motion to halt parliament until the end of this case. I think it is unwise to allow parliament to continue to operate when almost half of all MP's have their legitimacy as MP's in question.
Good Evening
I will give 48 hours for the Defense to respond to the motion, if they so choose. If more time is needed, the court only asks that you make it known.
Your honor, due to the defense not opposing your decision to go straight to closing, I have decided to withdraw my motion to halt parliament. This is to help speed up this court process and not waste time as defense has not chosen to extend this trial.
Thank you.
Let it be known, this court is not a fan of starting something for it to be retracted later. That in itself is a waste of the court's time in my opinion and is most not welcome. I will not put full blame on you as this court has no distinguished definition or procedure for motions, something I clearly will be working on once this case concludes.
By the Plaintiff's request, the Motion to halt parliament is rescinded.
Moving on, the 24 hours has elapsed and we will move directly to closing statements.
The Plaintiff is to post their closing arguments within 48 hours
After the 48 hours commences, the Defense may post their closing arguments within 48 hours
Your honor, I will be giving the closing statement. I would like to thank you for taking and presiding over this case.
This case is about 4 MP's who are lacking playtime requirements that are clearly setup in the Omnibus Election act:
(1) Parliament Changes
(a) Section 1 | Powers of Parliament
(I) The Legislative Branch is composed of the Parliament which all legislative power is vested in.
(A) Parliament consists of 9 elected members referred to as Members of Parliament, commonly abbreviated MP.
(B) Members of Parliament are elected to serve for 3 months. Collectively, Members of Parliament are tasked with representing the will of the people.
(b) Section 2 | Election and Replacement of Members of Parliament
(III) No person shall serve as a Member of Parliament without meeting the following requirements;
(A) Having joined the server at least four weeks prior to the start of the election.
(B) At least twelve hours of playtime in the past 30 days.
(C) Being active in-game, forums, and discord.
The law clearly states that these are parliament changes and that MP's must meet these requirements to serve as a member of Parliament. The law also states no one shall serve as an MP without meeting the requirements listed. Claiming this law applies only to elections is like claiming that they only serve during the election when this is obviously untrue. As evidenced above lennonrissi, seanboi, TedHastingsAC_12 and supersuperking are all lacking playtime requirements and are not eligible for the office of MP and are subject for removal. These laws are in place to ensure that MP's must participate in the business craft world to represent it's citizens.
The defense has been trying to claim that these laws only apply during the election however it is only natural to assume that they must maintain the same level of standards throughout their term after they are elected. If we allow the defense to win this case, there will be no law in place to keep MP's staying apart of the community after they are elected. I would also like to add, the section the playtime law is in is titled Election and Replacement of Members of Parliament. If an MP is lacking in the requirements to serve in that office, that is clearly grounds for replacement.
In conclusion, no person shall serve as a Member of Parliament without meeting the following requirements;
(B) At least twelve hours of playtime in the past 30 days. They have clearly not been active for at least 12 hours, as shown in the evidence. Therefore, they are unable to "serve as a Member of Parliament". Thank you your honor for presiding over this case.
I would also like to apologize for the motion I retracted. I understand that that in itself is a waste of the courts time and I will refrain from such motions in the future.
In response to the plaintiff’s rebuttal statement of the section title “Election and Replacement of MPs” pertaining to the removal of Members of Parliament is simply untrue. The wording of the section title refers to the qualifications of a Member of Parliament who is seeking to be elected into the Parliament or for somebody to replace a Member of Parliament who has already left or been removed. With that in mind, allow me to reiterate that section 2 of the Omnibus election acts refers to the qualifications to be elected or to be chosen as a replacement, not a standard to be maintained throughout the term of an MP.
While it may be assumed that MPs should be held to the same standards before and after their election, those standards aren’t held solely within the scope of activity on a single platform, maintenance of standards are judged based on actions and how effectively the people are represented. Making a legal argument on the basis of assumption is a dangerous precedent.
While MPs not meeting standards is a reason for their removal, the removal processes are not covered in the Omnibus election acts, and neither are legal requirements to remain an MP.
The Omnibus Election Acts, as the name implies, is a law meant to lay out the standards and regulations for elections. According to that law, 12 hours of playtime must be seen in the past 30 days to be eligible to run in an election, not to remain as a serving MP. Currently in the law, there is no playtime requirement for a Member of Parliament to remain in office. Additionally, as the plaintiff kindly defined, activity is “being active in-game, discord, and forums.” Arguably, fulfilling the role of an MP is more directed by their involvement in discord and forums than by activity in-game. However, there is no way to objectively track discord or forum activity. Perhaps accounting for this, or perhaps part of a simple oversight, no in-game activity requirement laws for maintenance of the MP position have been created. Perhaps this lawsuit may serve as a stimulus to encourage legislation regarding objective activity tracking to maintain a government position, but expanding an election law to the maintenance of a position could prove a mistake and result in important legal ramifications.
This is going to be a long one, so let's get right into it.
Plaintiff's Arguments -
1. The Defendants have violated the Omnibus Election Act as their playtimes do not meet the 12 hour minimum requirement.
2. Since the law sates, "No person shall serve as a Member of Parliament without meeting the following requirements," the Plaintiff believes that the section retains not only to Elections and Replacement of MPs but also serving as an MP.
3. Since the Defendants violated such a section, their positions as Parliament are illegitimate and they should be removed from such positions.
Defense's Arguments -
1. The Omnibus Election Act is an election bill and resonates solely with the election process, not serving or maintaining office.
2. The section above the disputed clause states, "Election and Replacement of Members of Parliament," which means that the clause is specifically in reference to the election process.
3. There is no current requirement to track the activity levels of an MP once they have been elected.
Verdict:
I have been taught that interpretation of legislation stems from 5 key points. The verbiage of the bill, the intent of the bill's makers, past precedent, the consequences that will erupt from a certain decision, and the morals and ethics behind a certain view. One can argue that those are incorrect, but that is another day's discussion. I found precedent and morals to be irrelevant to this case and ruled them out. I started with society. Inevitably, if I ruled one way there would be a large outburst, losing a large percentage of Parliament, a large amount of progress even. An illegitimate legislator, has illegitimate legislation. Parliament would be in a position much worse than I believe its already in, which would certainly be unpleasant.
Now the intent, I believe, supports that of the Defense. I would agree that the bill is solely meant to solve issues of both Parliament's and the Prime Minister's elections. Additionally, the section in which the disputed clause is written is called, "Election and Replacement of Members of Parliament." There is, however, another point that was not mentioned. If one were to read further in the bill, in regards to the Prime Minister election, it states, "Having a playtime of at least 2 days in the 30 days prior to the beginning of the election cycle and a total playtime greater than 10 days." One of the biggest things that confused me of the disputed section was its lack of description of what "30 days" means. Does it mean 30 days prior to the election date? 30 days monthly? 30 days weekly or daily? In other words, how is one to know when to measure the 30 days? That is the loophole that gave the Plaintiff very strong ground in my opinion. Their argument for it needing to be measured, presumably daily, checks out, as nothing clarifies it. Someone will argue that the bill is still about the election; yet, you could measure 30 days before the election, mid election, or after the election. Taking a step back from the tangent of questions one can travel to understand this bill, the intent is within that line. Obviously, its meant to be measured at the beginning of the election cycle; which, I'm presuming for the sake of not extending this case, all Defendants passed then.
I already began to discuss the actual wording of the disputed clause, so I will keep this point short, but it can be argued in the Plaintiff's view because it is not clear. I would argue it is a very bad loop hole, even poorly written at that point. Additionally, why is the Prime Minister's clarified to perfection, but Parliament's is not. Why is there no, "prior to the beginning of the election cycle," in Parliament's section. One can guess, but I'd rather not.
Now the verdict. I have decided to rule in favor of the Defense. All the reasoning above led to the decision; however, I have a few words to say to each party.
To the Plaintiff,
You were given a difficult time. You are a fairly new lawyer, you are arguing a point that no one agrees with, you are given a difficult case, and are facing large backlash for it. Although there were times, I'm sure, where you retaliated at such backlash, you still did it as a minority. I commend you for that, everything but the retaliating that is. Besides a few holes and tears in which had to get fixed along the way, you brought a solid case. For a brand new lawyer as well, I find that rather impressive. You were one of the least terrible new lawyers I've ever seen. Might not sound like a compliment, but it is. Good work and I hope you have a prosperous law career.
To the Defendants and really all of Parliament,
I'm disappointed. Although not directly within these forums, I am not blind, I read the discord and the amount of ridiculousness is uncanny. There is some kind of civil war, perhaps dying down now but still it existed, between Parliament. The reality is there is no such time for that. In the months you are elected to serve your position, you are elected to make change and act on your agendas. Anybody who is not there to do that, I truly question what you actually are there to do. Then there is those who blatantly dismissed the Plaintiff's claims, claims I believe to be arguable. The bill had a bad loophole. It takes a lot for the Plaintiff to not only notice such a loophole, but to bring it to court and argue it. Additionally, how is parliament going to argue against the plaintiff's interpretation of a bill, and then the next day, make a bill clarifying the same section in which the plaintiff interpreted. Clarifying in a way that almost supports the plaintiff's arguments I would say. Maybe I'm reaching there, but I have a good feeling that the clarity bill would have never came without the Plaintiff bringing forth this case. So what do I leave you with Parliament. I leave you with a message. A message all future Parliament members can take up as well. Get or have your act together. The average citizen, respectfully, does not have the vast amount of knowledge our government officials do. Our government officials are mature people who are willing to make our nation better. Please own up to that standard.
On a much more relaxed note, I would like for Parliament to collect all Constitutional Amendments and put them with the Constitution. Although, this seems out of place with this case, it will help individuals find amendments and have clarity on how our government is run, without having to search a million different sub-sections and bills. I personally would prefer just adding them in order after the constitution; however, as long as it is done, it will suffice. I expect to hear back from Parliament in a week or less, if not, I will fine them.
This has been a journey, and you have all reached the end of it.
Thank you to both parties for their hard work
