Motion to Strike
The defendant stated that “previous acts have stated that parliament is required to pass standing orders for each parliament”.
This is false.
Previous legislation specifically stated,
“They are to be adopted upon the appointment of a new Speaker of the House.”.
Whilst there is an election of the Speaker following an Election, this is not the claim the defence has made, and as the wording used has been proven to be untrue, I request it be struck from the record.
Objection #1: Hearsay
The defendant stated:
“The standing orders of the previous parliament were clearly titled "Standing Orders for the Third Parliament." At no point did the third parliament intend for these standing orders to be transferred to the fourth parliament.”
He cannot speak to the thoughts and motives of those in Previous Parliaments. Furthermore, this is not what is written in law, the law is the law. The law is not what Milkcrack feels like it should be.
Objection #2: Hearsay
The defendant stated:
“The parliament lacked legislative intent to transfer the standing orders from the third to the fourth parliaments. At no point did the third or fourth parliament intend to do so.”
Whilst his title is the Speaker of Parliament, he does not speak on behalf of its members. Unless he has spoken to all the members of the Third and Fourth parliament to ask for their thoughts, he cannot speak to the thoughts and motives of those in the Third and Fourth Parliaments. Furthermore, this is not what is written in law, the law is the law. The law is not what Milkcrack feels like it should be.
Objection #3: Hearsay
The defendant later stated the following:
“Previous parliaments did not have to repeal previous standing orders in order to pass new ones. This is because they recognised that previous standing orders do not transfer.”
He cannot speak to the thoughts and motives of those in Previous Parliaments. Furthermore, this is not what is written in law, the law is the law. The law is not what Milkcrack feels like it should be.
Opening Statement
Your Honour, for all the retreating and smoke screening that has occurred so far, this case ultimately resolves down to a single question: “Do the Standing Orders carry over following an election?”.
On this side of the court, we say yes.
Whilst I cannot presume to speak to the motives of all the other members of the Third Parliament, I can speak to their actions. Whilst these standing orders were being written, multiple members of the house, including the defendant, requested that clauses be added or rewritten due to the possibility of the rules being abused by future parliaments, or a potential future rogue Speaker who followed me in the role. Whilst it would be improper for anyone in this court to speak to another citizens thoughts or motives, these do not appear to be the actions I would personally associate with those who felt the Standing Orders didn’t carry onward beyond their own term.
Following the Fourth Election, I am unable to provide you with the evidence of these conversations, so should the defence try to dispute my claims here, I would ask that you subpoena parliament for you to have access to the debate so that you may view the messages yourself.
The defence has made bold claims saying that Standing Orders are passed for a sole parliamentary term and therefore dom not require repealing. To this I would simply ask one question, “According to what?” the defence is making assumptions and declaring it law. Not one single line of any clause currently in law even hints toward the Standing Orders only applying for a single term.
Whilst the contrary is also true, there is no bill saying they do carry forwards, the very term “Standing Orders” does. A popular online dictionary defines standing as the following: “remaining in force or use; permanent.” Permanent. Not permanent until a politician decides not to follow them; permanent. Not permanent until there’s an election; permanent.
These orders were debated by MPs, were voted upon by MPs, and by definition are permanent. Unless legislation exists to define an expiry date, these cannot expire. The outstanding precedent that would be established in allowing matters voted upon by members to be voided simply due to the occurrence of an election, with no defined law to justify it, would be simply catastrophic.
Your honour, I am fully aware of the seriousness of the accusation I am about to make, but I have no choice but to believe he has committed perjury. In his response to my filing’s factual allegations, he has denied the fact that the house voted for a 3-3 tie on this bill. If the house did not vote 3-3 tie as he is claiming, why did he submit a vote? The records show that before his vote was cast, it was a 3-3 split. So why would he lie about such a blatant matter if not to try and delay and cause additional disruption to this case?
In his second point, he says “The speaker's restriction to only cast tie-breaking votes does not derive from the standing orders but from the Parliamentary Procedure Act.”
Respectfully, the Standing Orders are older than the PPA, so if this is derived from anything it is the Standing Orders. But ignoring that minor detail for a moment, he is still agreeing with my claim that the Speaker may only cast tie-breaking votes, supporting my claim that the defendant has lied to this court, unless the Speaker is now publicly admitting to voting illegally before a tie had occurred.
He then denies that the Speaker is required to vote in a manner which retains continuity, need I quote the Standing Orders?
It is in this next denial that I truly begin to wonder if the defence has even read my filings. He denies the notion that giving the Speaker a free vote would disrupt the status quo. How does giving the Speaker a free vote on all matters not disrupt the status quo or the balance of power? The defence may believe it not to be an issue, but that does not change the fact that this change would disrupt parliament.
The very fact the defence launched an attack about this bill not yet receiving assent only serves to prove the effects this would have on the status quo in Parliament, his frustrations serving to prove that the Speaker is relying on this bill to break the status quo and grant him the ability to try and break the Parliamentary deadlock.
If however the defence does truly believe this would not break the status quo, allow me to be so bold as to remind the court what the Status Quo actually is.
In the first version of Parliaments standing orders, it says the following :
“2. Voting Procedures
(a) Votes shall be conducted by an electronic tally with the options: Aye, Nay, or Abs
(b) In the event of a tie, continuity prevails.”
In the second version of the standing orders, it says the following:
“Voting
(a) Votes shall be conducted through forums or through a poll with the following options: Aye, Nay, or Abs
(b) In the event of a tie, the matter fails.”
And as the defence is fully aware, what is written in the current version of the Standing orders is the following:
“4) Voting Procedures
a) Votes shall be conducted by an electronic tally with the options: Aye, Nay, or Abs
i) In the event of a tie, the Speaker will cast the deciding vote, and must always vote for continuity.”
At no point in our entire nations history has the Speaker been given free reign to vote as they please, and until such a time that a bill such as the Speakership Amendment Act is passed legally, or the house passes replacement standing orders allowing for it, the status quo must remain. And as states in the Parliamentary Procedures Act, the Speaker is the individually charged with holding parliament accountable to the Standing Orders.
“9(2c) Enforcing the Parliamentary Procedure Act, Standing Orders, and general ethical standards.”
As this bill was authored by the defendant, I do not expect him to try and deny knowledge of his own words. Instead, I would question how the Speakers duties can include enforcing rules that the defence are saying do not exist.
It is at this point in the factual claims where the defence finally finds something it agrees with me on, that being the repealing of PESA removed the requirement for new standing orders to be brought forward following the election of the Speaker. However a minor detail I fear the defence is missing is that by repealing the only legislation to require new standing orders be voted upon, he also repealed the only legislation that would have supported his claim that standing orders do in fact require replacing.
With regards, to his challenges to my Legal Claims, two of these are blatant hearsay and must be struck from the record, one is a total misunderstanding of the word “Standing” on behalf of the defendant, and as for his fourth challenge, whilst eloquent, it is a smokescreen. The constitution gives Parliament no right to enforce laws. That responsibility belongs to the Judiciary. The defence here is stating that the Judiciary has no jurisdiction over Parliament. The Constitution explicitly states otherwise and charges the Supreme Court with reviewing the constitutionality of laws made by Parliament.
Repeatedly in this case, the Defendant has made bold assertions which simply have no legal basis, and are solely derived on assumptions based on his experiences in other countries. I would advise he find alternative counsel in any future cases, however he has been rather public about his difficulties finding someone to take on these cases. If no-one in our countries legal community wants to take on a potentially lucrative name-making case, it paints a very clear picture of the defences legal position.
The standing orders were debated by Parliament, they were voted on by Parliament, and the PPA makes them legally enforced. If the defence wants to question whether or not this case is within the jurisdiction of the court, I would remind them that a hearing in the Supreme court will be far more disruptive than a simple expedited hearing here, but it is a length that I am willing to extend to if he continues in his efforts to prevent a ruling here.
As for points 5,6, and 7, how many more times must we discuss my standing in this case? The matter has been settled multiple times already. I have precedence in the fact that I am the author of the rules that the Speaker is flagrantly breaching. I have standing as a Citizen who is represented by a parliament whose speaker has acted to pervert the power given to them by the citizenry of our country. I have standing in the fact that as a justice, in Crumplesnatch Vs Bezzer, the defendant allowed a case against the Speaker to go ahead when the Speaker had voted illegally. And if precedence is irrelevant, and my being the author does not qualify as having relevant standing, I ask the defence this – Who does? The judiciary is charged with ensuring Parliament abides by the Constitution, who is allowed to bring forward cases to ensure this? Can he give a direct and specific answer, or is he once again trying to sidestep any possibility of accountability? Milkcrack has said the judiciary doesn't have the power to rule on this case, he has said that I do not have standing as a citizen to hold him to account. The truth is Milkcrack does not believe he is accountable to anyone.
Your honour, there are two sides in this hearing. One side has abided by the deadlines; spoken with a clear respect for the rule of law, providing clear and specific quotations and references to any legal document; and has been championing correct procedure and decorum. The other side has been late, has attacked the court and the crown, and has failed to provide any legal basis for their claims, instead relying solely on assumption and euphemism. I cannot stress this enough your honour, the defence has provided No Legal Arguments against my case. He has only denied my statements with no explanation, and attacked my ability to present this case.
I would ask that you rule in favour of common sense and block the Speakers fraudulent vote.
