Case: Dismissed Jebediah Crumplesnatch v. The "Prime Minister"

[Crumplesnatch]

Jebediah Crumplesnatch, Plaintiff

v.

Milkcrack, Defendant



Civil Complaint:

On January 29th, I was informed twice that I would be removed from my position within the Ministry of Urban Development in response to me reminding the Prime Minister that he had stood down from the position of Minister of Urban Development. As the Constitution does not specify the right to rule the ministries in lieu of a Minister in Post, this is in breach of Fundamental Protection #10 of the constitution,

The right against government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution.​

and thus was an unlawful action. Additionally, as I am the third member of my party to be dismissed from a Government role under suspicious circumstances by Milkcrack during the last few weeks, I also have little choice but to believe he is targeting APA members has breached Fundamental Protection #1 of the constitution.

Freedom of thought, belief, and political opinion.​

I requested an official confirmation that I had been fired before bring about this case, and it took me asking 6 times, asking both privately, within the staff area of MUD, and publicly before he would give me the official confirmation of this.

Parties:

Identify the plaintiff(s); defendant(s); co-defendant(s); and third parties by name.

1. Jebediah Crumplesnatch - Plaintiff
2. Milkcrack - Defendant
3. Galavance - Witness
   

Factual Allegations:

1. Milkcrack served as Minister for Urban Development during the Third Term of Parliament.
2. During the confidence vote for Milkcracks government in the 4th Azalean Parliament, he left the role of MUD minister vacant, thereby resigning from the role.
3. Before his resignation, he appointed Westray as Deputy Minister.
4. On January 29th at 16:43 UTC, he responded to a MUD ticket opened by Galavance saying he felt that Galavance's proposal was not a good idea due to potentially causing a bigger workload down the line in very specific scenarios.
5. As Milkcrack was no longer a MUD employee, I interjected to prevent the ticket from being closed down without the input of a serving member of the Ministry.
6. After finding out I was participating as a MUD employee and not as a co-proposer alongside Galavance, he ordered me to stop taking part in discussions.
7. Before I could reply, I received private messages telling me to stop talking in the ticket to prevent sending "mixed messages".
8. I pointed out to him that he was no longer MUD minister and so the matter proposed in the ticket was no longer his concern.
9. He insisted to be in charge of MUD until a new minister was appointed. I disputed this and stated that the Deputy Minister was the one deputising as Minister until a new one was appointed. I also reminded him that I had repeatedly asked for a new minister to be appointed.
10. I then stated that I did not work for the Prime Minister, but for the Ministry. He then told me that if I did not want to work for him then he would be updating my roles to reflect this.
11. I informed him that there is no legal basis to support the Prime Minister being able to operate the ministries in lieu of a minister, he refused to acknowledge this, stating once again that he will remove my roles and leave the next minister the choice of rehiring me.
12. I am now the 3rd person to be removed from my role by Milkcrack in legally dubious situations.

Legal Claims:

1. The constitution specifies that members of the executive branch of government with portfolios to run ministries will hold the title of "Minister of (Portfolios name)"
2. Milkcrack has previously served as both PM and MUD minister, however this is no longer the case following the vote of confidence in his own government which left the position of MUD minister vacant.
3. The constitution specifically prevents citizens against "government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution."
4. By firing me, Milkcrack took actions reserved to the Minister of Urban Development, giving himself power that is not specified by the constitution.
5. He previously fired The Minister of Justice Galavance, taking an hour to actually seek constitutional permission from the crown to remove him from the role following on from the public announcement.
6. He previously fired Spyro as a prosecutor in the MOJ despite not being Minister of Justice, or Spyro being charged with any crimes.

Prayer for Relief:

1. My reinstatement to the position of "District Analyst"
2. Any lost earnings paid to me personally by the Prime Minister.
3. $5000 paid to me in compensation to remind the Prime Minister that the constitution is the foundation of our political system, not a memo to be ignored.
4. Permanent injunction against the office of Prime Minister from firing government employees until such a time that the constitution is changed.
5. The Prime Minister be required to pass a Lawyers exam in the hope that he may learn a lesson about the powers and limitations of his role, and to remind him that those who make the law are just as obligated to follow it as every other citizen.

Verification:

I, Jebediah Crumplesnatch, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[MilkCrack]

MOTION TO DISMISS

All the alleged facts would be official acts performed during the course of my duties as Minister of Urban Development and Prime Minister. As such I can not be sued for them personally, and the plaintiff's grievances are with the government and not me.

Furthermore, the prayer for relief is asking me to do things in my official capacity as Minister of Urban Development and/or Prime Minister. Such as hiring back the plaintiff as a 'District Analyst'. As well as seeking an injunction against the government (which is a different entity from me). And injunctive relief, against me personally, in the form of my taking a lawyer exam.

This mismatch of prayer for relief makes it clear that the plaintiff is suing the wrong entity.

I ask that this case be dismissed and the plaintiff find a more suitable defendant.

 

[Westray]

The Plaintiff, Jebediah Crumplesnatch (Fergie_Foo), has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss before the Court makes a decision on it.

 

[Crumplesnatch]

The Defendant has claimed that “All the alleged facts would be official acts performed during the course of my duties as Minister of Urban Development and Prime Minister” and the Defendant has further claimed that “As such I can not be sued for them personally, and the plaintiff's grievances are with the government and not me.” however The Plaintiff has not explained why this theory of “official acts” would mean they cannot be “sued for them personally”, they have merely claimed that these are “official acts” as if this is some ‘Get out of jail free card’. There exists no such “get out of jail free card” in our legal system, if you commit a crime you are guilty of it - just because you are in government does not mean you are immune from committing a crime.

The Prime Minister is being sued for government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution.

His defence is to hide behind a shield not specified by the constitution.

What is specified in the constitution however, are guarantees that “Each citizen shall be entitled to equal treatment under the law”, the attempt by the defendant to subvert this is undemocratic and an insult to this court. There is no further possible response to this argument as it has no basis in legal fact, the ideas presented by the defence simply do not exist. In fact the defendant is admitting to the facts of the case in trying to present this as a defence, the defendant admitted it was done “as an official act”. We ask that this be considered an admittance of guilt towards the accusations I have put forwards.

Milkcrack is the Prime Minister. Until such a time he is removed from office, they are one and the same, as the defendant is fully aware. The injunction I have requested is not required, the constitution already specifies this. An injunction was requested as the Prime Minister has clearly shown a blatant disregard for the constitution, whereas an injunction is much simpler and easy for him and his successors to understand.

I would also like to bring to the courts attention that The Prime Minister has just committed Perjury. He had previously been Minister of Urban Development, however he stood down from this role on the 24th of January as shown in Exhibit D. As the events within this case did not begin until January 29th, after he was no longer the Minister, he could not have undertaken any actions as the Minister for Urban Development, official or otherwise, and my prayer for relief is to undo an action he had no legal power to undertake in the first place.

 

[MilkCrack]

Your honour, seeing as the plaintiff has decided to challenge, the existence of protection against personal liability for official acts I would like to supplement my motion to dismiss with the case law in The_Donuticus vs SimplyMadi.

With the ruling on the motion to dismiss stating:
"Therefore, it seems probable that this was an official act, by a government official in their official capacity. If true, the defendant could not be held personally liable, and could also not be ordered to edit the bill, as this would be an official act and not within the purview of this lawsuit."

Clearly establishing that official acts are excluded from personal liability and civil lawsuits against private individuals cannot ask the government to do something or ask said person to perform an action in their official capacity.

 

[Westray]

Your honour, seeing as the plaintiff has decided to challenge, the existence of protection against personal liability for official acts I would like to supplement my motion to dismiss with the case law in The_Donuticus vs SimplyMadi.

With the ruling on the motion to dismiss stating:
"Therefore, it seems probable that this was an official act, by a government official in their official capacity. If true, the defendant could not be held personally liable, and could also not be ordered to edit the bill, as this would be an official act and not within the purview of this lawsuit."

Clearly establishing that official acts are excluded from personal liability and civil lawsuits against private individuals cannot ask the government to do something or ask said person to perform an action in their official capacity.

Seeing as you have already filed your motion to dismiss, the Court will not consider this additional argument added out of turn. Please ensure you familiarize yourself with the Case Structure.

 

[Westray]

After much consideration, the Court has decided to accept the motion to dismiss. I will outline the reasons below:

The Plaintiff, Jebediah Crumplesnatch (Fergie_Foo), alleges that the Defendant, Prime Minister MilkCrack, has unlawfully given himself the authority as a Minister of Urban Development without the proper constitutional steps taken. By using such authority, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated his rights. While the Court sees this as a reasonable claim to dispute in court, there is an issue of jurisdiction.

To be clear, if the Prime Minister was acting within his official duties, the Plaintiff may still allege that the Prime Minister - and by extension, the government, has violated his constitutional rights. However, if he is alleging that the government has violated his rights, he must name the government as the defendant in such case. The Prime Minister cannot be held personally responsible for official actions within his realm of authority, but the government may be held responsible for not following the law or for extensive overreach that violates constitutional liberties.

The Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests both personal compensation from the Prime Minister and reinstatement to a government position. This creates a contradiction in the nature of the lawsuit. Claims seeking government action (such as reinstatement to a government position) must be directed at the government itself, not an individual. Likewise, if the Plaintiff is alleging wrongful personal conduct by the Prime Minister, the suit must clearly establish how such actions fall outside the scope of his official duties.

As currently filed, the lawsuit does not clearly distinguish between a claim against the Prime Minister in his personal capacity and a claim against the Azalea Isles Government. For this reason, the Court finds that the case has been improperly directed and must be dismissed.

Therefore, this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff is invited to re-file an amended version of this case, making it clear as to who they are alleging this suit against, whereby the merits of the case will be considered.

Thank you both for your time.