Lawsuit: Adjourned stinkycow v. Government of Stratham

[stinkycow]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Date: 2/6/22

stinkycow

v.

The Stratham Republic

I. Description of Case

Your Honor,

I bring before you three legal violations the government has made today, the 6th of February, in regards to the creation of a parliament committee.

Violation 1:
The Committee was not put to a vote.

The Parliamentary Committee Standards Act, Section 4. Process, Step 2, states that "The Speaker will then put the said committee to a vote to the Members to form/Re open the said Committee and if a majority of approval is passed the committee is then formed/re opened."

The Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee was not put to a parliament vote before its formation.


Violation 2:
The Committee was not requested by the correct party.

The Land Acquisition Act, Section 5. Acquisition Process, Step 3.b, states that "If an agreement of compensation cannot be reached, the landowner or Prime Minister can choose to put forward a request to Parliament to review the IAL and determine just compensation in exchange for the land. Parliament will then determine just compensation through the creation of a Land Acquisition Committee (LAC)."

According to Dusty, the Committee was "made from the request of the Chief of Staff" (LAC1.png)
The Chief of Staff is not the landowner in this situation, nor the Prime Minister, meaning that this Committee was not requested by anyone legally approved to do so.


Violation 3:
Committee gave itself more power through an internal vote.

As you can see from the dialogue in LAC1.png, after realizing the Committee was only created for Lashgaming, Dusty motioned to include all other requested cases from the Chief of Staff in the already created Committee.
A Committee cannot just grant themselves the power to make more "legally binding" (Land Acquisition Act, Section 5. Step 3.b) decisions through an internal vote.


II. Parties

stinkycow
Dusty_3

III. Sequence of Events

1. The Chief of Staff requests the creation of a Land Acquisition Committee
2. Dusty officially requests the creation of "the Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee"
3. Dusty puts out the expression of interest announcement for said Committee
4. Committee is created
5. Dusty sends list of cases to be discussed
6. I point out that the Committee was only created for Lashgaming
7. Dusty holds an internal Committee vote to include other cases

IV. Claims for Relief

1. The Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee must be disbanded, requested, and created properly.
2. Every other LAC cases must be requested (by the Prime Minister or Landowner), approved, and formed separately.
3. A public apology must be made, from the legislative branch to the potentially effected landowners (Lashgaming, _PastelGhost_, HistoriaOrangie, and Tracefais.)

V. Special Requests

1. I am requesting that any decision made by the Land Acquisition Committee in question is halted until this case concludes.

 

[Dusty_3]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 02/07/22

Stinkycow
Represented by Himself.

v.

Government of Stratham
Represented by Dusty_3

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

"The Committee was not put to a vote."

A committee vote seen above

"The Committee was not requested by the correct party."

Krix requesting a committee be made for this individuals property
Further, the Chief of Staff was acting on behalf of Krix to give the Speaker of Parliament further information

"Committee gave itself more power through an internal vote."

The internal vote doesn't count as its not a process in the committee act. A separate committee will be made for those who aren't included in the initial title.

This is sufficient evidence to get this case dismissed. A committee was voted upon, a committee was requested by the relevant party, and I agree that there are no motions the committees can bring forth, however, I urge my fellow MPs to amend the law to include motions.

Further I request the courts look into Stinkycows Claim for Relief. "A public apology must be made, from the legislative branch to the potentially effected landowners (Lashgaming, _PastelGhost_, HistoriaOrangie, and Tracefais.)" He is not representing these individuals, he cannot have claims of relief on their behalf if he is not representing them.
He is violating the "Refusal to Represent in Court" Act which states that 3rd parties must be informed when part of a case. While they are not included as parties to this case, stinkycow is making a claim of relief on their behalf so unless he has evidence of representation, he is committing Contempt of Court.

Thank you, your honor

 

[stinkycow]

Your Honor,
I would like to submit the following evidence based off the claim that the Committee was put to a vote.
In the creation of previous Committees a message like FormationVoteExample.png was posted.
The Messages in DustyFormation.png and Members.png are the next step in the Committee creation process. "The Speaker will then post asking which members would like to join the said committee and MPs can react to that announcement. Once all MPs are in that committee they then select a chairman by simple majority vote (50% of MPs rounded up)."

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor
I simply moved to a more efficient system, the MPs are welcome to nay the post, that's why the option is there. And the post is titled "Formation of Committee".
The plaintiff is cherry picking to make a case, but there are no cherries. I present the option for MPs to reject the formation of a committee, which the law requires me to, and I also ask who'd like to be on the committee. The law does not state the exact words i use, it only outlines that there must be a vote, which there clearly is, and that there must be a request to who'd like to be on the committee which I did. I apologize for this back and forth, and in support of not wasting anymore of your time:

I rest my case

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Morning,

I am going to be overruling the Motion to Dismiss. Although the committee was set up initially to deal with Lashgaming's properties, from the plaintiff's screenshots it does look like it was motioned by Dusty to include other land acquisitions that it had not been set up to determine. It is my belief that this point alone is enough for the case to continue, and I would like both parties to address it further in their opening statements.

We will now be moving on to opening statements, the defendant first then the plaintiff. In these opening statements, I ask that you present all arguments you have in favour of your claims along with its evidence. I will be giving both parties 36 hours to write their opening statements, if more time is required please say.

 

[Cherub54321]

Following a discussion with my fellow Judge, I will be recusing from this case and passing it on to Judge @Cooleagles2005.

 

[Dusty_3]

Hello your honor,

To update the committee has been finalized and no internal powers were used as they don't exist in law.

I think that should dismiss the issue? I don't see any merit to this case if the committee finalized and only discussed a verdict for Lashgaming.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

As both parties know I am only now being brought into this case, so forgive me as I am picking up the stones that have already been thrown. I am not going to hear out the Defense's recent post as it neglects a factor mentioned in the original filing of this case, one that the previous Judge should have ruled on. I am specifically referring to this quote here,

V. Special Requests

1. I am requesting that any decision made by the Land Acquisition Committee in question is halted until this case concludes.

So since this ruling has not been made previously, I am going to sustain the injunction. Therefore, I ask that any decisions, announcements, or any information posted/shared about this committee's vote as the Defendant priorly mentioned, be undone and halted. I will not be putting forth any contempt of court charges as this was not something Judge Cherub made note of earlier. That is not anyone's fault either, so let's not take things out of proportion. If either party would like to argue against my decision they are more than welcome to present such an argument before opening statements. Moreover, the Defense is more than allowed to argue my decision to sustain this injunction so late within the trial, within reasonable grounds of course.

I am going to now ask that the Defense present their opening statement, I am going to be supplying them 48 hours to do so. I will be lenient if additional time is needed, but let's not make this a year-long case.

That is all for now,
Thank you

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor

This case is a simple open and shut.

I ask the plaintiff quite clearly, for the third so called violation, is there any evidence the committee gave itself more power? Or was there simply just a motion proposed that has later been recanted?

That's it, the other violations don't hold any merit as clearly with the evidence presented; the PM did ask for the committee, and the committee was held to a vote.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I will be considering that as the Defense's opening statement. I also suggest that the Defense watch their tone throughout the rest of this trial, as they are beginning to inch into something the court will not find appealing.
Moving on, I now ask that the Plaintiff provide me with their opening statement, which I highly suggest speaks to the Defense's most recent post and claims. Since there has been such a large amount of unrest, I will revisit the idea of dismissing this case, following the Plaintiff's opening statement. If the court feels that this case still holds merit, the court will continue and will not be revisiting the idea of dismissing the case again.

The Plaintiff is given 48 hours,
Thank you

 

[stinkycow]

Your honor,

In the conversation following the statements in my evidence, Dusty showed every intent to proceed with all 4 cases. I cannot bring pictures as I no longer have access to the Land Acquisition Committee Thread. If I were able to get access to said thread I could back my claims.

Now, speaking to Dusty's claim that this Committee had been put to a vote, I would like to ask that the Judiciary note the wording of the Committee Standards bill. The use of the word "then" insinuates that they are separate actions and should not have been performed together.

 

[Dusty_3]

Your honor,

The committee is over, and the only plot that got acquired is Lashgamings which is the law.

Stinky is now arguing that I need to put separate posts for the committee, however that's not what I read at all. It says I need to put the committee to a vote, then I need to post asking which members would like to be apart of it. Put and post do not mean the same, I could put the committee to a vote in game, I could put the committee to vote in real life, so long as there is a record of myself putting the committee to vote then that's the law. This law is not specific that I need separate posts for the committee, and I do allow the MPs to vote on the committee seen here:



I ask the defendant: what line in the law am I violating if I put the committee to a vote and a made a post asking which MPs would like to be apart of it? What line in the law am I violating if Lashgamings plot was the only one voted on as the others had yet to be requested by the PM?

I can answer this your honor, its clear no law was violated and I guess the only reason for this case was that stinky did not like the final vote on Lashgamings plot.

Stinky has a record of suing the Government for any reason under the sun. The law was followed in this committee

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I firstly want to get one thing quickly said so that we all have a mutual understanding. The Defense provided no such rebuttal to my sustention of the Plaintiff's original request for the committee to be halted. Therefore, the request is still true in this court and will be true until the end of this court. In other words, what you have stated above is incorrect. I am specifically referring to this,

The committee is over, and the only plot that got acquired is Lashgamings which is the law.

I stated previously, all decisions, announcements, and information was to be reversed and properly halted. To conclude my little side note, the committee is not over, and no plots were decided on and/or acquired by the government (at least in regards to the committee's formation). As soon as this case concludes, you may vote on the process again, as long as it works congruently with what is decided in this case.

Moving on, I stated before I would reconsider dismissing the case, and that is exactly what I am about to discuss. The Plaintiff came to the court with 3 main arguments,
1. The Committee was not put to a vote
2. The Committee was not requested by the correct party.
3. The Committee gave itself more power through an internal vote.

For the second argument, I believe the Defense has supplied the court with adequate and substantial evidence to prove their favor of the argument. The one piece of evidence the Defense submitted earlier on, the message from the Prime Minister (shown below), suggests that it was their original idea for a committee to be started; therefore, I believe that the proper party did request for such a committee to be made.

On the contrary to argument 2, this court does not believe the Defense has supplied adequate and substantial evidence to prove arguments 1 and 3.

I will begin with the more simplistic one, argument 3. Take note, whenever I mention evidence in regards to this argument, I will be referring to the following,


As is seen in the evidence, an internal vote was attempted. Now perhaps if an actual vote was never made/attempted, and it was just an idea to include all 4 of the cases, the Defense would probably take the win in this argument. However, a vote was attempted, and as the Defense stated themselves, "I agree that there are no motions the committees can bring forth."

Now, moving on to argument 1. Take note that the evidence I will be referring to is the following,

From all the presented evidence, the court does not believe the committee was ever put to a vote. The evidence presented by the Defense appears to be Dusty_3 asking the members who wish to join. There are many reasons why this does not qualify to be a vote, all referring to the verbiage used.

1. "We have formed a committee." This indicates that the committee has already been formed. If the committee has already been formed then there is no possible way that the vote presented was a vote to create the committee.
2. "Who would like to be a part of it" This is not asking who is in favor of the committee's creation, it is asking who wants to be a part of it; who wants to join it.
3. "A maximum of 5 people can say Yes." A vote to form a committee is opened to all of the parliament to vote on and then from those results, an action is gone about. If this actually was a vote to create a committee, then all of the parliament could theoretically say yes and aye the vote; however, this sets a limit on who can aye a vote. It is clear, that this is really saying, only 5 people can say yes to agreeing to join the committee; in other words, the committee will hold a maximum of 5 members.

This court believes the Plaintiff has met their burden and will be ruling in favor of the Plaintiff. The court will now discuss the relief requested by the Plaintiff originally.
1. The Lashgaming Land Acquisition Committee must be disbanded, requested, and created properly.
2. Every other LAC cases must be requested (by the Prime Minister or Landowner), approved, and formed separately.
3. A public apology must be made, from the legislative branch to the potentially affected landowners (Lashgaming, _PastelGhost_, HistoriaOrangie, and Tracefais.)

The court will only be rewarding the first claim of relief, for the following reasons. The court finds the second claim unnecessary; moreover, the court has no issue with parliament taking on multiple LAC cases in one committee, the court only enforces/asks that all those LAC cases be mentioned in the creation of each committee. The third claim of relief will not be rewarded because, as the Defense claimed earlier, the Plaintiff is not representing the other individuals and cannot speak for them and their wants/needs.

To summarize, this court asks that if the committee is needed to make a ruling on the current LAC case and any future ones, it be made with a proper vote, according to the findings in this case and the law.

I would like to thank both parties for their constant work and effort in this court case. My apologies that this case went on for so long, and that there was a lot of improper procedure/messy moments. I was thrown into already bloody water, with two sharks beside me, so forgive me for off-beat areas.

That is all, Thank you very much
Court Adjourned

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Cooleagles