Lawsuit: Adjourned stinkycow v. The Stratham Republic

[stinkycow]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: MM/DD/YY
stinkycow

v.

The Stratham Republic

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:

I believe that the Property Tax Act is invalid due to an illegal clause in the commencement section of the bill and that all of those who have been unfairly fined by this bill should be compensated.

II. Parties
1. stinkycow
2. Government of Stratham
3. All those financially effected by the invalidity of this bill

III. Sequence of Events
1. Parliament Member LazyGraepe proposes the Property Tax Act
2. The Act Passes Unanimously

IV. Claims for Relief
1. The Clause in Question reads as follows "Section 2. Commencement... 2. Upon commencement, this bill shall be removed only by a unanimous vote by the Parliament, upon the Prime Minister’s request."
2. This clause gives this bill an almost unappealable status that is not supported anywhere by the constitution.
3. Section 2.2(b) of the constitution states that "The Parliament can create, amend, or remove bills.", by requiring approval from the Prime Minister to remove this bill it is infringing on any future parliament's powers invested to them by the constitution.
4. Furthermore, Section 2.2(f) of the constitution states that "The Parliament shall have the sole authority to levy taxes upon the people of Stratham by a majority vote." Although the wording of this section is not precise I would argue that the "by a majority vote" phrase would apply to creation, amendment, or removal of taxes. Requiring the Prime Ministers assent and the additional "unanimous vote" would infringe on Parliament's powers in this way too.
5. According to section 2.2(l) of the Constitution "The Parliament can not give themselves power or take away power from another branch of government." If parliament is allowed to add clauses like these to any bill it would bolster that specific Parliament's power and effectively reduce the power of subsequent parliaments by making it harder to remove the legislation they passed.
6. Your Honor, clauses like this are clearly unconstitutional and best and dangerous to our government system at worse, they should not be allowed to exist.

V. Damages
1. I am asking for the this bill to be deemed unconstitutional and invalidated.
2. I am asking for those who have paid property tax as a result of this bill to be compensated the full amount they have paid.

Constitution of the Republic of Stratham

The Constitution of the Republic of Stratham Preamble: Power of the Constitution We, the citizens of the Republic of Stratham, in our aim to form a nation bound on justice and integrity and to ensure the natural tranquility of our people's security, welfare and liberty within law and...

mcbusinesscraft.com

Bill: Accepted - Property Tax Act

Property Tax Act The Parliament of Stratham enacts: Section 1. Property Tax Act 1. This Act is the Property Tax Act. Section 2. Commencement 1. Provisions shall come into effect upon the 1st of the month after necessary plugin implementation. 2. Upon commencement, this bill shall be...

mcbusinesscraft.com

 

[MegaMinerM]

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

 

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 05/11/2024
stinkycow

v.

The Stratham Republic
(Nightmare98765 - Attorney General)

1. The Plaintiff's claims: The Plaintiff's primary contention is that the bill requires a unanimous parliamentary vote for the repeal of the Property Tax Act, upon the Prime Minister's request, is unconstitutional. While the Defendant acknowledges the concerns raised, we propose a compromise solution that addresses the constitutional issues while preserving the intent of the legislation. The Defendant suggests amending the disputed clause to remove the requirement for the Prime Minister's request. This would allow for the repeal of the Act by a simple majority vote of Parliament, thereby aligning with the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty. By modifying the clause in this manner, the Defendant believes that the concerns regarding the infringement of future Parliaments' powers and the potential for unconstitutional power-grabbing are adequately addressed. This solution maintains the stability and predictability of the tax law while respecting the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

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.

 

[MegaMinerM]

The plaintiff may respond

 

[stinkycow]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 05/11/2024
stinkycow

v.

The Stratham Republic
(Nightmare98765 - Attorney General)

1. Your Honor, as far as I am aware there has never been an example of the court striking down a specific clause in a bill under this constitution. Section 3.3(e) of the constitution states that "The Supreme Court shall have the power of Judicial Review in which the use of such power shall require a majority. The power of Judicial Review can strike any government decision deemed unconstitutional or unlawful." The court is not given the power to amend bills only to strike them.

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.

 

[pet_the_fish]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 05/11/2024

stinkycow


v.


The Stratham Republic

(Nightmare98765 - Attorney General, pet_the_fish representing)

Your honor I wish to make a statement

 

[MegaMinerM]

You may proceed.

 

[pet_the_fish]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic

CIVIL ACTION
Date: 05/11/2024


stinkycow



v.



The Stratham Republic


(Nightmare98765 - Attorney General, pet_the_fish representing)


I would like to bring to the courts attention that the judge presiding this case is a member of the Department of Economy (Sr. Economy Secretary). Normally this wouldn't cause an issue however as this bill directly relates to the Department of Economy I would like to suggest a change of judge to ensure total impartiality.

 

[MegaMinerM]

I will be recusing myself as per the defendant's wishes.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

I shall be taking over this case from justice MegaMinerM. If the Defence would like to submit a response to the plaintiff, they may do so now.

 

[pet_the_fish]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic

CIVIL ACTION
Date: 05/11/2024


stinkycow



v.



The Stratham Republic


(Nightmare98765 - Attorney General, pet_the_fish representing)

Under the 5th Ammendment, signed into law October 5th 2024.
3.3(e) The Supreme Court shall have the power of Judicial Review in which the use of such power shall require a majority. The power of Judicial Review can strike any government decision deemed unconstitutional or unlawful.
Firstly, judicial review requires a full court to happen, which is currently not available. This means that this bill is currently unable to be removed or sections removed by the court. Secondly the section that is being referred to is a government decision, as it is decided to implement a total majority for this bill to removed.

However in an old case, the lawsuit was dismissed due to ‘a lack of authority for this case’. This case involved the constitution of Stratham, and was dismissed due to the fact that the courts are to remain politically impartial which means they cannot alter bills and other political pieces of writing.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - DoubbleKerius VS BC Constitution

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic CRIMINAL ACTION Date: 06/15/2024 The Republic of Stratham DoubbleKeirus v. BC Government I. Description of Case The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant: Currently are judicial...

www.mcbusinesscraft.com

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.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

Upon further review, this case can not continue at this point, and is unable to until such a time as where there is a sufficient number of judges available and able to make a majority vote as to if this bill should be striked or not. Therefore, this case is now placed on hold indefinitely. The Bill in question, the property tax act, is now frozen, and may not be enacted upon, edited or rescinded until such a time where this case can continue.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

Following Acting Chief Justice MegaMinerM's departure from the judiciary, as Acting Chief Justice I am now in a position to be able to continue this case (The Supreme Court shall rule collectively by majority, when the Supreme Court opinion does not make a majority, the Chief Justice’s opinion shall prevail as the court’s opinion.). The Plaintiff, @stinkycow , now has 48 hours to present their closing statement, followed by the defence @Nightmare98765 , after which I shall use Judicial Review to adjourn the case.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

Seeing as the Plaintiff has elected to not present a closing statement, I shall now offer the defence @Nightmare98765 48 hours to post their closing statement, following which I shall make my judgement.

 

[Nightmare98765]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic

CIVIL ACTION
Date: 05/11/2024

stinkycow

v.

The Stratham Republic
Nightmare98765 - Attorney General

Closing Statement:

Your Honor, the Plaintiff has raised valid concerns regarding the clause in question. However, the Defense maintains that the Property Tax Act, while imperfect, can be constitutionally preserved through amendment rather than invalidation. We reiterate our earlier position: amending the clause to remove the Prime Minister's approval requirement and ensuring decisions rest with Parliament upholds the Constitution’s intent. Thank you.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

Through the power of Judicial Review, I hereby declare the Property Tax Act unconstitutional, and therefore strike said Act. The Department of Economy (@Lentark_ ) is instructed to refund all players taxed under this Act as per their records for the entire period that this Act was enacted upon. My detailed reasoning for this judgement is given below:

The section of the act called into question is Section 2, 2. Upon commencement, this bill shall be removed only by a unanimous vote by the Parliament, upon the Prime Minister’s request. The plaintiff claims that this section of the Act is unconstitutional, a statement that is not disputed by the defence. The two clauses of the constitution that the Act is in breach of are 2.2(f) The Parliament shall have the sole authority to levy taxes upon the people of Stratham by a majority vote, and 2.2(l) The Parliament can not give themselves power or take away power from another branch of government. I shall now explore why the act is in breach of each of these clauses.

With 2.2(f), the definition of levy is to impose. With the absence of a separate clause to cover modifications and removals, it is fair to assume that these actions were intended to be included within the original clause. By requiring the Prime Minister to request any removal, as well as requiring an unanimous vote in order to do so, the Act is clearly in breach of this clause.

With 2.2(l), it could be argued that the Act does not directly give power to the parliament and instead takes power away, which is not against the constitution. However, by passing the Act that requires a higher requirement to rescind it could be argued that it gives the current parliament additional power to make it harder to rescind the act in the future for future parliaments.

Given that the Act has been found to be unconstitutional, the only option given to me is to strike the Act. As stated by the plaintiff, and for good reason, the courts are not able to modify Acts, and are only able to determine whether acts are within the constitution or not. 3.3(e) The Supreme Court shall have the power of Judicial Review in which the use of such power shall require a majority. The power of Judicial Review can strike any government decision deemed unconstitutional or unlawful.

The court is now adjourned.

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Cherub54321