Lawsuit: Adjourned ZeketheKaiser v Government

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

For the sake of simplicity I am going to overrule the objection; however, let it be known for the record that the questions should be reasked as if they were being asked for the first time. I am only allowing such a question on this one occasion for purposes of keeping the trial moving.

In regards to the evidence, I ask that Defense's counsel please present their evidence before the witness speaks. Evidence should not be presented by the witness, let that be a note for all future trials.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

Attached is the evidence that collectively shows that Former Speaker Unity knew about a former MP not meeting constitutional requirements and verifies Ted's testimony.

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor, I object to the evidence bharatj provided for the following reasons:
Evidence 1: Unity is expressing his desire to give someone a chance. Unity is not dismissing his obligations in any way, unity expresses that his legal opinion is that "i think we win that case".

Evidence 2: Unity allocated some of his constitutional powers to Ted (his deputy speaker), which constitutionally the speaker can do whenever they like. Unity, with the use of the constitution, granted ted (his DSoP) the legal authority to make the vonc. It is entirely different to super, a regular MP, doing it without any permission or legal authority.

Evidence 3-5: Link back to evidence 1, Unity legally thinks jemizzy stands a chance at staying as an MP, and is joking with the public.

Unity has no relevance to this case, this is a point of law. Circumstance does not change what is written in the law, Ted was a DSOP granted legal authority via the constitution, Super was an MP with an axe to grind using non-legal methods to remove unity.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

If the Defense chooses so, they are given 48 hours to respond to the objection.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Due to the forums shut down, the Defense's 48 hours will restart.

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

 

[bharatj]

Your Honor,

First off, I would once again like to respond to the notion that Unity is not involved in this case. I would argue that he very much is because the legal infraction we are discussing is a direct result of his action or inaction. I agree that circumstance does not change what is written in the law, does the circumstance of Unity telling Ted to post the announcement not go against the law since the law states the SoP must make VoNC announcements? Or is it implied that the law is specially applied to those responsible for acting on them?

Finally, I would like to motion to dismiss this lawsuit for the sake of irrelevance to the current time. When this lawsuit began, supersuperking was still in office, however, regardless of the outcome of this case, supersuperking cannot be removed from an office he is not part of, and UnityMaster cannot be made Speaker again due to him being removed through reasons unaffected by this case. Your honor, proceeding with this case despite the situation having no direct relevance to the times would be for the sake of setting precedent. However, in the case DoJ v. Government, it was ruled that present circumstance cannot be ignored for the sake of setting a precedent (https://www.mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/doj-v-government-appeal.8473/).

Thank you.

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your Honor, I object to bharatj's response for the simple reason that he is way beyond his time limit to respond to my objection. I also would like to respond to his motion to dismiss by saying that this case should continue to clear up issues regarding this subject in the future.

Thank you.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Firstly, to the Motion To Dismiss. I will be overruling the motion to dismiss as I believe the case brought up, DoJ v. Government, has been slightly misinterpreted. The perceived precedent that "present circumstance cannot be ignored for the sake of setting a precedent," is an accurate one, I would say. However, the circumstances of these two cases are different. In DoJ v. Government, or really A1phaSniper V. Department of justice, the circumstances being "ignored" were essentially the Defense's whole argument. The Judge decided to disregard their arguments because of the ultimatum. In other words, the judge agreed that A1phaSniper should have been fired but because the ultimatum was made, it did not matter. The appeal case obviously ruled against that, stating "that the ultimatum given by Bharatj for retraining is not valid grounds for the decision made by Tree60NoScope to prevent A1phaSniper's termination."
Now, in this case, the Defense is arguing that because Super is no longer speaker he can not be removed from the role, as requested by the Plaintiff; additionally, that Unity can not be reinstated as he was already removed for unrelated reasons. Unlike the aforementioned case, these circumstances do not affect the case, rather they affect the relief. To add to that, the relief suggested by the Plaintiff is in no way required to be followed. There is nothing stating that as a Judge, I must grant all the relief and that I must rule not only on the evidence provided but also on the relief. I only rule on the evidence, and then from that ruling, I grant relief.
So to summarize, the first case has circumstances regarding the evidence, which can't just be "ruled out", whilst this case has circumstances regarding the relief, which is not a factor the verdict depends on.

Secondly, this whole back and forth about Unity's role in the case is ridiculous. This case is about a situation involving the powers of the Speaker of Parliament; and then, whether or not those powers were misused by Super. I think it is blatantly obvious that Unity has some role in this case and I will leave it at that.

Thirdly, all other objections are overruled.

On a final note, this is one of the longest witness testimonials to date. It has been days, and we are still in the midst of direct testimony. I ask both parties to pick up the pace and be at ease with the objections. A majority of the arguments, in this case, have been in the form of objections; now, you do with that information what you will, but let it be heard.

The Defense may continue their direct examination, please restate any questions you asked prior to objections.

If there are any questions, feel free to ask.
That is all,
Thank You

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor,

I have a solution to this witness testimony.

Clearly the opposing council is trying to present TedHastings actions as precedent in order to justify the actions of supersuperkings violation of the law. To save the courts and the opposing council some time:

Regardless of Tedhastings testimony, there is one major legal difference between Tedhastings and Supersuperkings actions. Tedhastings was Deputy Speaker of Parliament when he "initiated" Jemizzy's VoNC. He states under oath he did this because UnityMaster was "too busy to do the announcements himself."

Citing the constitution, the SOP "may assign the Deputy Speaker powers and responsibilities that the Speaker holds at their discretion." This line instantly shows a compelling difference between these two individuals. Tedhastings, in capacity of DSOP, was given the powers of the speaker, from the speaker, to initiate a VoNC against jemizzy. In stark contrast, supersuperking, a regular MP, took it upon himself to initiate a VoNC. VoNCs legally reside in the powers of the speaker therefore the DSOP can carry out a VoNC upon given permission (Which was the case for jemizzy's VoNC) however a regular MP cannot take it upon themselves to issue a VoNC. If the defenses argument is accepted, it would set the precedent that any Member of Parliament can act in capacity of Speaker whenever they choose, which is completely against the law.

This evidence should entirely make Teds testimony irrelevant as these are two different situations, but if the defendant feels that more time should be wasted on this witness that is their decision. But hopefully this can draw a close to the witness testimony from Tedhastings, and prove that supersuperking overreached his constitutional authority as Member of Parliament regardless of circumstance.
As the opposing party agrees, circumstance does not change the law.

This case is essential in providing future precedent that MPs cannot take legal matters into their own hands.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Whilst the Court appreciates your attempt at a solution, rather than an objection, all that has been presented is an argument; moreover, an argument that most likely would have made on cross. Despite your belief and reasoning for why the witness is irrelevant to the trial, it is the Defense's witness and they may ask any questions they feel improve their case. That is of course if they are not objectionable. Seeing as no question was asked, I find it hard for you to object to their testimony. Additionally, your whole argument is somewhat speculative as you can not speak to Defense Counsel's mindset in questioning the witness. Although assumptions can be made that it is the path they are taking, they could easily ask completely different questions, that introduce a whole different argument.
In summary, your attempt to essentially impeach the witness is based solely on the grounds of moving the court along and a faulty argument towards their relevance in the case and the Court does not accept it.

The Defense may continue their Direct Examination.
If anyone has any questions feel free to ask.
That is all,
Thank You.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Defendant is given another 24 hours to present another question. If they are finished with their Direct Examination, they are to inform the court of such.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

As the time for the Defendant has expired we will be moving on to Cross-Examination. The Court asks that the Plaintiff please try to post as many questions at once as possible, but I do understand that some may require an answer first. Additionally, the court asks that when the Plaintiff is done with the witness, they say so. Waiting for questions that do not exist is not something this court favors.

If there are any questions, feel free to ask.
That is all,
Thank You

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

1. Did you ask Unity for permission to begin the VONC?

2. Did UnityMaster state you had permission to initiate the VONC?

3. Because you were Unity's Deputy Speaker, and he gave you permission to initiate the VONC, it was an example of the Speaker delegating some of their powers to the Deputy Speaker, wasn’t it?

4. Was Supersuperking Deputy Speaker or Speaker when he initiated his VONC?

 

[bharatj]

Objection, your Honor.

Question 3 of the plaintiff’s cross examination is asking the witness to make a constitutional judgement, which the plaintiff himself stated the witness should not be asked.

I apologize for taking more of the court’s time with this objection. Thank you.

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

Your honor, in this case it has been shown that we can ask those questions as per question 1 from the defense.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The objection is overruled.

The Witness may proceed to answer the questions.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[TeddyTaps230]

1. To the best of my knowledge, I did not.

2. UnityMaster stated if I want to post it I can. He was not available to do it at the time but could have waited.

3. No. Having been a speaker myself, when delegating power the speaker needs to list the powers given to the DSoP. Not simply use a passing remark of, do it if you like.

4. He was not. But seeing as UnityMaster tried to give most of not all parliamentarians a warning point for the first VoNC, it was clear he was not fit to be Speaker and so Super did what needed to be done.

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

5. So in your opinion what Supersuperking did was illegal but you think was justified because of the circumstance?

6. Is it true that supersuperking could've used legal ways to remove Unity such as through the courts?

 

[TeddyTaps230]

5. The circumstances required action. The Speaker of Parliament did not seem willing to take that action.

6. It seems you are trying to lead me to a certain answer with this question. But the correct answer is no. The courts are always there to remain politicized, Parliament has processes for removing people. It is just a shame that on this occasion, one member had to do something above his pay grade because the person in the relevant position did not want to do it.

 

[ZeketheKaiser]

7. Because Supersuperking was only a Member of Parliament at the time, do you know of any word in the law that allows a Member of Parliament to act out the speakers powers?

8. With all this in mind, Supersuperking was not legally allowed to initiate a VONC, do you agree?