Lawsuit: Adjourned xAntho_ny v. Government

[Ryan_88]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 05/14/22

xAntho_ny
Ryan_88

v.

Government

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
On May 12th supersuperking opened the poll of parliament replacement elections with IAmA_MoronXD on the ballot. The Omnibus Elections Acts Amendment Bill states that the requirements to run for MP are "Having a playtime of at least 5 days". Supersuperking put IAmA_MoronXD on the ballot anyways, even though they did not have enough playtime. IAmA_MoronXD even announced in #elections that they were running without 5 days of playtime.


II. Parties
1. supersuperking
2. IAmA_MoronXD

III. Sequence of Events
1. On May 10th IAmA_MoronXD announces they are running without 5 days of playtime.
2. Then on May 12th supersuperking opens ballot with IAmA_MoronXD on it.

IV. Claims for Relief
1. IAmA_MoronXD announces they are running for MP knowing they did not have 5 days of playtime. (Moron playtime.png, Moron announcement.png)
2. The Omnibus Elections Acts Amendment Bill states that anyone who runs for the position of MP must have at least 5 days of playtime.


V. Damages
1. We ask that the court bans IAmA_MoronXD from running for MP next election.
2. supersuperking is removed as Speaker of Parliament for breaching the Omnibus Elections Acts Amendment Bill.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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]

@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!

Since this is a case against the Government, the Speaker may choose to have another Government figure or representative represent them in the case.
Additionally, this is a reminder that I will be very stringent when it comes to the times granted and limiting extensions. Please be prepared to make responses when called to do so.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

I will be representing supersuperking in this case.

Election vetting is a process done by the Department of State, and is not a responsibility of the Speaker of Parliament. This was further supported in the case Dusty v. Government of Stratham, which can be found here: https://mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/dusty_3-vs-government-of-stratham.15683/#post-65432

As election vetting is not the duty of the Speaker of Parliament, supersuperking is not responsible for the situation the plaintiff described.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The court thanks the Defense for their response; however, the court is also confused as to whether the Defense is presenting a Motion To Dismiss or Answer To Complaint. The Court asks that the Defense clarifies such, so we may proceed appropriately.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

I would like to proceed with the case. Sorry for the confusion.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to present their opening statement. If they do not within that time frame, the court will move on without hearing it.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Ryan_88]

Your honor, the normal election process is done by the Department of State therefore the DoS should be the ones performing vetting of all candidates to make sure they meet all requirements to run.

In this case, this was a replacement election which in The Omnibus Elections Acts Amendment Bill states (A) The SoP shall create a EoI thread as per the current process, which the citizens of stratham may use to nominate either themselves or another member of the server for the vacant seat. All persons may only nominate one person! Any additional nominations will be discarded. (I.E. if I nominated myself or someone else over two comments, or in the same comment, only 1 comment/vote would be counted".

Clearly the bill intends that the Speaker of Parliament should oversee the process of replacement elections therefore the Speaker should be the one vetting candidates.

Thank you

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Plaintiff's opening is noted. The Defense now has 48 hours to present their opening statement. If they do not within that time frame, the court will move on without hearing it.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Defense has asked for a 12-hour extension given to personal reasons. Seeing that it is a small amount of time, I have granted it; however, there will not be any more extensions for this post.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

It can be argued that the bill has no clear intent of the Speaker vetting EOI candidates because although the other processes are specified, the vetting of candidates is not. This creates a constitutional gray area. If a new process is not specified, does the government proceed according to how a similar process is specified in other situations or proceed based on assumptions? Although neither is an ideal choice, proceeding according to assumptions is dangerous.

In fact, this gray area has seemed to confuse the public as well. In the evidence provided by the plaintiff, it is clearly seen that a member of the public tags poemhunter, the DoS minister. If the bill confuses the public, then the intent is not clear.

While IAmA_MoronXD’s playtime still does not meet the 5 day requirement, it’s important to clarify that the requirement is total playtime, not 30 day playtime. The reason I bring this up is because in the plaintiff’s evidence, the 30 day playtime was pulled up and not total playtime. Why is this important? The Omnibus Election Act does not specify a 30 day playtime of 5 days. That would be requiring players to play an average of 4 hours per day, which is too much of a requirement for most players to meet.

While I do hope that this lawsuit inspires a clarification bill to formally outline the vetting process for replacement candidates, assuming duties should be condoned. The decision regarding this case sets a precedent to how similar cases are viewed and acted upon. With that in mind, I ask the court this: when a process is not specified for a particular situation, is it better to proceed based on how the process is specified for similar situations or to assume this new process and potentially fall victim to instability and confusion?

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Court thanks both parties for their statements.
We will now proceed to witness testimony. If either party has any witnesses to call up to the stand, they are given 48 hours to make it known within the Court. If they do not make it known, the witnesses will not be called for testimony. Additionally, if a party elects to not call any witnesses to the stand, the Court asks they say so. This is so we can continue with the trial without having to wait for a response.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Ryan_88]

We do not have any witnesses to call, your honor.

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

We also have no witnesses to call.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Seeing that there are no witnesses to call to the stand, the Court will proceed with closing statements. The Plaintiff is given 48 hours to post their closing statement. Once the Plaintiff posts their statement or the 48 hours is up, the Defense's 48 hours will automatically begin. Without any extensions or objections, at this time in 96 hours, the Court will be closed for responses and I will begin writing my verdict.

If any party has any questions, please feel free to let me know.
That is all,
Thank You

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Due to the forums shut down, the Plaintiff's 48 hours will restart. Everything, as mentioned prior, is the same.

If there are any questions please feel free to let me know.
That is all,
Thank You

 

[Ryan_88]

Your honor, even if the law doesn't state specifically if it should be 5 days of total playtime or from the past 30 days, IAmA_MoronXD doesn't have a 5-day total playtime. I've attached evidence of this below. The Speaker should've at least reached out to the DoS to have them vetted or the DoS doing it themselves and notifying the speaker before the ballot was opened. Thank you

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

As I stated before, I hope that this lawsuit inspires a clarification of the EOI procedures to include the vetting process. However, despite whoever is decided as responsible for the vetting process, supersuperking is no longer speaker or a parliamentarian. Therefore, one of the damages being requested of the court has already occurred. However, regardless of the outcome of this case, I would argue that IAmA_MoronXD should not be made unable to run in the next election cycle. The vetting process being flawed is not the fault of the candidate and so IAmA_MoronXD should not be punished for being allowed to run, as that is not his fault.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Court would like to thank both parties for their efforts. The Court will now no longer be hearing arguments and will begin the process of making a verdict. I shall return in a few days, most likely sometime this weekend, with its final verdict.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.
That is all,
Thank you

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Firstly, I would like to apologize for taking so long with this response. Nonetheless, let's get right into it.

Plaintiff's Arguments:
1. IAmA_MoronXD did not have 5 days of playtime when running in the Parliamentary Replacement Elections; therefore, they should be banned from running in the next Election.
2. Since it is the Speaker's responsibility to manage Replacement Elections, Supersuperking should be punished for placing IAmA_MoronXd since they did not perform the proper background checks. It would be the Speaker's responsibility because the bill in question, the Omnibus Elections Acts Amendment Bill, specifically mentions the SoP that oversees the process. Since they are the one that oversees the process, they must be the one who has to vet individuals.
3. It would not be the responsibility of the DoS Minister as this was a replacement election rather than a normal election.

Defendant's Arguments:
1. Election vetting is a process done by the Department of State, as was ruled in Dusty_3 vs Government of Stratham.
2. There is no clear intent that it is the Speaker's responsibility to vet EOI candidates for replacement elections. In other words, the responsibility is not specifically stated.
3. The 5-day requirement to run is an individual's total play time, not playtime within the last 30 days.
4. The vetting process being flawed is not the fault of the candidate and IAmA_MoronXD should not be punished.

Verdict:
When it comes to the Plaintiff's arguments, I agree with only argument 1 listed above. It is inevitably clear that IAmA_MoronXD did not meet the amount of playtime required to run in the parliamentary replacement elections; as a matter of fact, it is an undisputed argument that even the Defense has agreed to. However, I do not agree with arguments 2 and 3 as the Constitution states, "Department of State, commonly abbreviated DoS, is responsible for managing foreign affairs, the election process, and city relations." Although "the election process" is a very vague description of the DoS' responsibility, I am under the impression that it refers to any and all processes relating to an election. This would also be supported by the precedent that the Defense mentions, as it was ruled in that case that, "most at fault is the DOS, [as] their constitutional responsibility is to manage the election process, this includes vetting all candidates making sure they are fit to run for office." With all this being said, one could argue that the bill in question introduces constitutional problems as it works in opposition; however, that is another debate for another day.

Another point in regards to the "punishment" for IAmA_MoronXD, I believe that it would be improper to punish an individual for something the Government is responsible for handling. This also would follow the ruling of Dusty_3 vs Government of Stratham as the verdict states, "I think the breach does not solely lie with jemizzy, [but rather] the DOS," and "Jemizzy through no thought of their own is not to blame for there allowance to remain on the ballot and subsequently sworn in under false pretenses."

Nonetheless, it is of this Court's opinion that it is the DoS's responsibility to manage all aspects of all election processes, which includes vetting individuals in parliamentary replacement elections. Therefore, I am ruling in favor of the Defense. No relief shall be granted as Supersuperking would not be responsible for vetting candidates and IAmA_Moron shall not be punished for the Government's wrongdoing. Additionally, I will not be removing IAmA_MoronXd from parliament, as the election in which they won yesterday is 1. not relevant to this case and 2. currently legitimate in its proceedings.

I would like to thank both parties for their hard work and dedication to this case. If either party has any questions, my door is wide open.
Otherwise, that is all.
Thank You

Case Adjourned

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Cooleagles