Lawsuit: Dismissed ZeketheKaiser vs Government

[ZeketheKaiser]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 04/18/22

ZeketheKaiser

v.

Government

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
Poemhunter, in a recent message in the #vonc-unity channel and calling for a new speaker election. In that message he also apparently came to a verdict as if he we're still a judge. Clearly, this is a gross violation of the constitution. As a minister, he derives his power from the prime minister as allotted in the constitution.

II. Parties
1. ZeketheKaiser
2. poemhunter

III. Sequence of Events
1. Poemhunter posted the message listed in evidence below. In the message they describe their actions of aiding in the removing of the current Speaker of Parliament.

IV. Claims for Relief
1. A minister of the DoS clearly has no power over these matters.

V. Damages
1. We are asking for the removal of poemhunter as minister as well as barring them from holding any public office for 2 terms.
2. We also ask for the reversal of the speaker of parliament decision poemhunter made.

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.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Whilst, I appreciate the Plaintiff's bringing to light of numerous issues and concerns, I am only one individual. This case is halted until the completion of the Plaintiff's other two cases. Additionally, I ask that the Plaintiff refrain from posting any other cases unless they are absolutely dire.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

@ZeketheKaiser , do you wish to continue this case? My apologies that it has been well delayed, but the court is prepared to take on more cases and hear this one now.

Thank you

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor, I do wish to continue this case and I completely understand the delay.

Thank you

 

[Cooleagles2005]

@P. Hunter is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @P. Hunter , 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 P. Hunter elects not to respond himself, a government official or representative may fill in for such a place. Additionally, I will make it known now that I will not be following through with the original damages as months have passed and those conditions are no longer true. However, I will allow the plaintiff to submit a new list of damages if they so choose. I will only allow this one time. I expect this new list within the next 48 hours.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[P. Hunter]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 06/28/2022​

Plaintiff
ZeketheKaiser

v.

Defendant
Poemhunter

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:

1. Under section 3 (VIII) of the Constitution: If the Speakership becomes vacant, parliament will be obligated with electing a new Speaker of Parliament before continuing other Parliamentary tasks. The process for electing a new Speaker is overseen by the Department of State, and is as follows; (A) The Department of State will begin the process by posting in in the #speaker-election channel stating that any Member wishing to put themselves or another Member of Parliament forward for Speaker of Parliament may do so by nominating themselves or another member: “I hereby nominate [Candidates Name] for Speaker of Parliament.” This gives clear jurisdiction to speakership election to be handle by the Department of State.

2. Speaker of Parliament, Today I have been contacted by 8/9 Members of Parliament, this is in regards to a parliamentary procedure breach by the Speaker of Parliament, such breach is Rule I Sub section 2. Having failed to follow correct parliamentary procedure the Speaker has lost faith with all MPs and it is believed he is incapable of doing the duties of the prestigious office The Speaker holds. It is for that reason, I am Calling a fresh Speaker election to which any member may present their name to run for that office. I will open declarations very soon. Thank You Poem, Minister of the State Department. This was taken in regards to me being contacted by all of parliament but the speaker in regards to failures in the Rules for an Underdeveloped Legislature and efficient system (rules) Act They believed it was a failure by the speaker to uphold his duties.

3. This is not BC law but a precedent this court could set within the law of a Statute of Limitations for where a statue prescribing a period of limitation for the bringing of actions of certain kinds. I think this case has far by exceeded its necessity within law as both parties to this lawsuit have moved on and might add the former speaker is now the Current Minister of the Department of Economics serving under the Defendant. The defendant action are vested powers within the law as sated above and as to why this motion should be held and the case dismissed.

4. To not punishments for this case are unrealistic as the position the defendant held at the time of the lawsuit is not longer the position he hold and is irrelevant to his duty and now seeking to have the Minister of Economic restored to his position would in itself be breaking the constitution. Further from a note made in the judges calling to court, the charges being changed would be discriminatory against the defendant as it is not the fault of the defendant to why the circumstances have changed. This case was brought during a time of a previous position and should be held to that account and not alter to fit current times. This had detrimental damaged to the defendant rights of a fair trial.

5. Within points 1 and 2 there was a clear breach and legal route for the Former Minister of State the defendant to take the action that he did at the time he had done it and for that reason the case should be dismissed.

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.

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor,

My new list of damages is the following:
1. Removing the defendant from their current public office and barring them from holding any public office for 2 terms for blatant disregard of the constitution
2. 1000kr for legal fees.

Also, my response to the defendant's motion to dismiss:

1. The Minister of State oversees the elections of Speaker of Parliament but that is only when the position is vacant. The MoS has no power in making that position vacant.

2. Just because the MoS believed that the Speaker of Parliament failed to uphold their duties, it still doesn't give them the right to remove the current SoP.

3. This case is still relevant as it will clarify the law and set precedent for future situations.

 

[P. Hunter]

Your Honour,

I would like to request a short reply to the statement presented by opposing counsel.

also since it’s quite late and I have work, my reply might not be swift just so the court is aware.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Defense may respond whenever they get the chance; however, keep it within 24 hours, no more than 48.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[P. Hunter]

Response to opposing Counsel's Statement:

1. The Minister of State oversees the elections of Speaker of Parliament but that is only when the position is vacant. The MoS has no power in making that position vacant.

I didn't make the position vacant, Parliament members in all but the speaker failed to recognise him as speaker making the position defect vacant.

2. Just because the MoS believed that the Speaker of Parliament failed to uphold their duties, it still doesn't give them the right to remove the current SoP.

I didn't believe, the MPs did.

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor,

Given the light of recent events we will be withdrawing this case. I have never seen an owner completely takeover Government before, showing complete disregard for any laws made. Does the constitution or players rights even matter at this point?

Throughout my many lawsuits I have been unable to achieve real justice. Either the time has run out for my damages to be applicable or, like now, the owner has stepped in and blocked my damages from being applicable. The courts have tried their best but it is clear that time and time again, the opposition that I have faced have used dodgy tactics to avoid justice.

I wont get justice against those who commit corruption, violate rights, violate laws or skip over legal procedures.

It was only in our last case did CoolEagles express how the Owner is not all powerful, but it appears that those who think with a legal mind are wrong. The Owner can be dictator at any point they choose.This inactive owner has taken over and propped up corrupt politicians that are purposefully escaping justice, while banning other politicians that repeated the same actions.

It is a complete miscarrage of justice, one side is harshly punished while the other gets away with their crimes. Mickichu made player models for poems administration, during their election, that could only be taken from Namemc. One of these models includes ThomasBlinders (aka Dusty). If she went onto namemc she would’ve seen that ThomasBlinders was in fact Dusty. It seems like Mickichu also knew about this and proceeded to hide behind staff, like all these people usually do.

In short, we no longer achieve justice under the law, therefore, I see no point in using the courts anymore. The only power left in this server that brings any justice is the use of staff. Perhaps I should go make friends with an admin?

Thank you for reading, I rest my case.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Firstly my apologies for taking so long with a response, as I've been busy.
I apologize that the Plaintiff feels the way they do. I can ensure them though, that Justice is not gone and that the courts have not lost their power. I can ensure them and everyone that these times are not ones to look down but to look up. That goes to anyone and everyone. Continue to speak your minds for every voice is important and together we all collectively shall find the best solution to save this haven and community we all have taken part of.

That is all,
Thank You
Case Dismissed