Case: Dismissed Crumplesnatch v. MilkCrack (2025) CV 03

[Crumplesnatch]

Your honour, may I request an 8 hour extension for submitting my opening statement to allow for irl circumstances?

 

[Westray]

Your extension of 8 hours has been granted. You have until 8 hours, from this post, to issue a response.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

Opening Statement

Your honour, in the atypically long filing period for this case, you stated the following:

“If the Plaintiff is alleging that Milk Crack, as an individual, is liable for the alleged actions, then he needs to prove that the Defendant acted outside of his official duties and beyond the constitutional authority granted to him.”

This is precisely what I intend to do in this case.

Your honour the facts of this case are simple.

In his duties as Prime Minister, when bringing forward his new Government, he left the position of Minister of Urban Development empty. This was a public acknowledgment that he was no longer in charge of the Ministry of Urban Development. The public understood this, Parliament understood this, and the Prime Minister understood this.

The constitution states that:

“Any person appointed to head a portfolio shall hold the title of Minister of (Portfolio’s name).”

By refusing to put forward his name for Minister of Urban Development during the vote of confidence in his government, he removed this portfolio from his duties and vacated any authority over the ministry beyond that of the Prime Ministerial authority to appoint its minister.

Fundamental Protection #10 of our constitution protects citizens from Government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution. As the power for the Prime Minister to manage ministries in lieu of a Minister is not stated in the constitution, and we have already established that he was no longer the Minister of Urban Development, Milk Crack used powers illegally as a private citizen to wrongfully and unlawfully remove me from my position.

In his answer to my filing, he stated that two of my legal claims are irrelevant as this is not a case against the government. Respectfully your honour, that is exactly why they are relevant. The constitution and the law make clear what those in government can or cannot do. The law makes clear that the government cannot take these actions, and unless the defendant wishes to accuse himself and his government of breaking the law, these unconstitutional actions must have been taken by him as a private individual.

I would also remind the court that I had intended to file this case against the government as well as the defendant, and provided precedents for this action, however the defence refused to acknowledge these and fought to limit the scope of this legal action.

The defence claims I am asserting that Ministers can be dismissed by not filing a name.

This is an outright lie.

I am asserting that Governments have no authority beyond that which is given to them by Parliament.

By failing to include himself in the position of Minister of Urban Development when requesting Parliament pass his government, he has formed his government with the position of Minister for Urban Development empty. If he felt as though he was still Minister, he was constitutionally bound to have included himself in the formation of government. Any attempt to assert otherwise is the defendant admitting to Lying before Parliament and making the vote of confidence in his government not-legally binding.

The inclusion of the word “Pending” in the vote of confidence in his government makes it explicitly clear that no Minister has been appointed, and the position is Vacant.

Members of Parliament have since publicly made clear that they did not know Milk Crack intended to remain in his position of MUD Minister, so he cannot claim that Parliament were aware of his deceptions.


The defendant states that as Head of Government, the Prime Minister has the authority to appoint or dismiss Ministerial staff unless a law is passed to state otherwise.

According to what? The constitution protects citizens from those in government from overreaching their specified powers. The constitution does not give the Prime Minister managerial rights over every government employee, this responsibility belongs to whomever is charged with the responsibility of running the department.

It is with this logic that I also challenge Milk Cracks removal of MOJ employees from their positions. MOJ staff spent multiple weeks requesting a new minister be appointed, and the defendant failed to undertake any managerial responsibilities outside of suspending a government prosecutor.

As the Prime Minister did not appoint himself as Minister for Justice, this prosecutors suspension was an illegal action taken by Milk Crack outside of his constitutional responsibilities.

In point #5 of their legal challenges, the defence claims I attempted to score political points shortly after my dismissal. As shown in the evidence, I did no such thing, as I was fundamentally unaware if I had in fact been dismissed, as I did not recognise the defendant’s authority to remove me from this role, and the defendant failed to specifically tell me I was dismissed, instead stating that he “would update my roles in game”.

He then accuses me of acting in bad faith, despite taking numerous actions to ignore legally binding precedents, and to delay and attempt to dismiss this case by bringing my filing into disrepute. If anyone in this case has acted in poor faith, it is the defendant.

The defence has made arguments against me having any lost salaries repaid due to the defendant failing to properly update my roles in-game, and that any lost salaries would be the obligation of the government to pay for.

Due to the defences inability to even complete an illegal firing, I had no loss in my incomes, this is why I removed this from my prayer for relief during one of the many filings the defence requested.

The inclusion of these arguments within the defences answer to my filing gives a strong indication that the defence counsel has not actually read my filing, despite his repeated delays to this hearing in his efforts to have it amended.

The Defendant has stated that the Prime Minister can re-assign portfolios at their own discretion. This is not a settled matter of law and is hugely contestable.

The constitution does not recognise the position of Minister in any context outside that of those with Ministerial Portfolios within Cabinet. These Cabinet Ministers must be appointed and dismissed by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister.

As the constitution offers no specific information on whether or not a Minister can exist without a Portfolio, outside of Cabinet, the right of the Prime Minister to appoint or dismiss ministers from their portfolios unilaterally is also an unsettled matter and is highly contestable.

I will now summarise, as the defence counsel has previously shown great deals of confusion with this case thus far.

Either the defendant fired me from my role illegally, using powers he did not lawfully possess from his role as Prime Minister and thus used as a Private Citizen, or the defence counsel is arguing that their own Government is responsible for the illegal actions taken in firing me from my position.

I ask him,
Which is it?

 

[Westray]

Thank you for your response. I would like to kindly remind both parties to minimize editorial commentary and personal opinions in your submissions to this Court, and to focus on the factual and legal arguments as is expected.

The Defendant has 48 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[MilkCrack]

Your honour, I would like to request a 24-hour extension.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

Motion to Dismiss
Your honour, the defence and I have come to a settlement agreement.

 

[Westray]

Upon the request of the Plaintiff, this case is hereby dismissed. The Court thanks both parties for their time.