[Civil Complaint] New World Oceania v The North Pacific et al.

Discussion in 'Legal Office Archive' started by New World Oceania, Oct 16, 2014.

  1. New World Oceania

    New World Oceania TNPer

    Messages:
    5
    In the Office of the Attorney General
    For the Court of The North Pacific

    THE NEW WORLD OCEANIA, in their Individual Capacity,
    Plaintiff,

    v.

    THE NORTH PACIFIC, governing body, and
    HMS UNICORN, WA Delegate,
    Defendants.

    ________________________________/

    COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    1. Plaintiff, The New World Oceania ("NWO"), in their individual capacity, files this complaint against Defendants The North Pacific ("TNP"), HMS Unicorn ("Delegate") (collectively, "Defendants") to recover declaratory judgement for clarification on behalf of the occupants of The North Pacific region and injunctive relief for the prevention of further offense from the Defendants for violation of The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific, Clause 2, Clause 4, Clause 5, Clause 9, Clause 10, and Clause 11 et seq. and for extending beyond his privileges and obligations as bestowed by Const. 1.1 and Const. 7.1.

    2. The Defendants' violations of Clause 2 and Clause 11 arise from the assumption by the Delegate on behalf of TNP that it was best interests of the Region to recklessly telegram every member of The North Pacific, as an active government official, and endotart, a practice in which an endorsement is granted by one nation intending for the accusative to respond with an endorsement for the initiating party, in which the Defendants thereby unconstitutionally attempted to influence said members' actions.

    3. The Defendants' violations of Clause 4, Clause 5, Clause 9, and Clause 10 arise from the exertion of influence as a governmental authority by the Delegate in effecting expectation of support from the entirety of the Region.

    4. The Defendants' violations of Article 1 and Article 7 of the Constitution arise from their attempts to extend the affirmation of their position and power beyond constitutional and electoral means using the office they had been elected and appointed to as the medium for subliminal enforcement of support for their continued increase in strength delegacy, viz. the Delegate identified themselves exclusively as an authority in order to unethically induce support for their retainment of the office in question, then not only abusing the office but exploiting the government of the Region therefor.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE
    1. Cause of action arises from the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    2. Plaintiff NWO resides in The North Pacific and derives from Groland.
    3. Defendant the Delegate resides in The North Pacific and for intents and purposes herein contained derives from there.
    4. Defendant TNP has its principle place of business in The North Pacific.
    5. Defendants are actively engaged in conducting the official business of and managing residence over The North Pacific.
    6. All parties have substantial ties to The North Pacific.
    7. Accordingly, it is the responsibility and duty of an elected Justice within the venue of the Court of The North Pacific under Const. Art. 5.

    THE PARTIES

    1. Plaintiff NWO is a citizen and Regional Assembly member of The North Pacific.
    2. Defendant HMS Unicorn holds office as WA Delegate of The North Pacific.
    3. Defendant TNP includes the WA Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the Cabinet, and the Executive Staff.

    ALLEGATIONS
    1. The Delegate sends telegrams to all members of the region requesting the Delegate receive their endorsement. This is incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
    2. The Delegate sends telegrams to all those whom join the World Assembly while belonging to the North Pacific requesting they receive endorsement and informing them that endotarting has been initiated as a result of their joining the WA. This is implied therein as evidence from Exhibit A.
    3. The Delegate subliminally encourages unsuspecting citizens to endorse the Delegate, incorporated herein as Exhibits B and D.
    4. The Delegate fraudulently attempts to convince citizens that endorsing the WA Delegate is directly within the interests of The North Pacific. This is incorporated as Exhibits C and D.
    5. Citizens of The North Pacific have full expectations of the rights established for them in the Bill of Rights.
    6. The Defendants' unethical exploitation of the citizens they are responsible to serve inherently demands relief for said citizens.
    7. The aforementioned exploitation, which is still in order, can only be viably resolved through estoppel.
    8. The interests of The North Pacific would be best served by the Court granting injunctive relief and forcing the Defendants to cease the acts of sending telegrams to gain endorsements while in office, endotarting when demonstrably exceeding numbers of endorsements which would be illegal for anyone but the Vice Delegate to hold, and using their office to persuade citizens to support them.
    9. The actions of the Defendants at issue herein violate the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs by The North Pacific Constitution in that they:

    A. Abridge and restrain the Plaintiffs' rights without influence from TNP as guaranteed by Clauses 2 and 11 of the Bill of a Rights;

    B. Constitute a prior restraint on such expression;

    C. are arbitrary and capricious as applied to the subject Plaintiffs;

    D. are an unlawful exercise of unconstitutional policies and unfetterred discretion in that there is no rational relationship to the protection of the public health and welfare or any legitimate governmental objective and they are not reasonable exercises of governmental discretion;

    F. implicate procedures that are vague, indefinite, and fail to properly define all phrases set forth therein, and also fail to set out distinct criteria, thus leaving those of common intelligence to guess as to the meaning and lack adequate procedural safeguards and fail to provide for prompt judicial review;

    G. manifest an improper purpose in that the actions are not content-neutral and are not unrelated to the suppression of free speech;

    H. impose restrictions on Article 1 freedoms that are overbroad and far greater than are essential to the furtherance of any alleged governmental interest.

    COUNT I
    THE ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS CANNOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE ANY PUBLIC NECESSITY AND CANNOT BE SHOWN TO BE REASONABLY RELATED TO ANY LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST
    10. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein 1 through 9 as if fully set out herein.

    11.The actions at issue herein, pose an impediment to the exercise of Article 1 rights without any showing of public necessity, nor are they reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose, thereby denying Plaintiffs due process to freely endorse without governmental influence as they desire.

    12. There are no data, studies, nor any legitimate information which establishes any nexus between the uninfluenced endorsement and the cause of any legitimate identifiable “harm” caused by participation in free endorsement, nor any legitimate governmental interest advanced by denial of such participation, thus there is no reasonable basis to impose a restriction on the people of The North Pacific from participating in uninfluenced endorsement.

    13. Accordingly, attempts to maintain the unlawful actions taken by Defendants is illegal and unconstitutional because the subject actions fail to satisfy even the most rudimentary requirements for the exercise of the police power, and thus effect denial of legally established rights.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment, for an injunction, and for supplemental relief awarding all or some of the following:

    A. Declaring that the arbitrary and capricious acts of the Delegate, in exploiting their governmental authority as a means to aid in the act of endotarting, to be an unconstitutional denial of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights, and therefore to be null and void ab initio;

    B. Issuing an immediate temporary injunction enjoining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and others acting in concert with, or under the direction and control of them from administering, executing, and enforcing or threatening to enforce or attempting to enforce the continued encouragement of endorsing the Delegate on behalf of the demand of the Executive or the aforementioned agents of the Defendants, or to further refuse to issue the appropriate withdrawal of endotarting demands, pending the issuance of a permanent injunction;

    C. Issuing an immediate mandatory injunction requiring the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and others acting in concert with, or under the direction and control of them to cease and desist encouraging citizens of The North Pacific to endorse a government official under the guise of its being for the greater good of the Region, pending the issuance of a permanent injunction as set forth herein;

    D. Issuing a permanent injunction, after appropriate proceedings in this matter, enjoining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and others acting in concert with, or under the direction and control of them from administering, executing, and enforcing or threatening to enforce the the counts contained herein.

    E. Awarding such other supplemental relief as may be just and appropriate.

    COUNT II

    FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS IN PRIOR RESTRAINT BY DEFENDANT

    14. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein 1 through 9 as if fully set out herein.

    15. The actions of the Defendant, by allowing the exploitation of unbridled administrative discretion, providing no procedural safeguards, and ultimately imposing a complete prior restraint on the participation in pure political speech, have effects a complete and total deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Article 1 rights.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a declaratory judgment, for an injunction, and for supplemental relief awarding all or some of the following

    F. Declaring that the arbitrary and capricious acts of the Delegate, in exploiting their governmental authority as a means to aid in the act of endotarting, to be an unconstitutional denial of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights, and therefore to be null and void ab initio;

    G. Issuing an immediate temporary injunction enjoining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and others acting in concert with, or under the direction and control of them from administering, executing, and enforcing or threatening to enforce or attempting to enforce the continued encouragement of endorsing the Delegate on behalf of the demand of the Executive or the aforementioned agents of the Defendants, or to further refuse to issue the appropriate withdrawal of endotarting demands, pending the issuance of a permanent injunction;

    H. Issuing an immediate mandatory injunction requiring the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and others acting in concert with, or under the direction and control of them to cease and desist encouraging citizens of The North Pacific to endorse a government official under the guise of its being for the greater good of the Region, pending the issuance of a permanent injunction as set forth herein;

    I. Issuing a permanent injunction, after appropriate proceedings in this matter, enjoining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and others acting in concert with, or under the direction and control of them from administering, executing, and enforcing or threatening to enforce the the counts contained herein

    J. Awarding such other supplemental relief as may be just and appropriate.

    COUNT III

    THE ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT REFLECTS THE EXERCISE OF UNBRIDLED ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND SHOW THAT THE ENDOTARTING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE

    80. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein 1 through 57 as if fully set out herein.

    81.The actions of the Defendant, by allowing the exploitation of unbridled administrative discretion, providing no procedural safeguards on the basis of the telegrams, regional factbook entries, and endotarting (devoid of definitions for material terms) reflects the exploitation of unbridled administrative discretion and shows that the subject endorsement encouragement process is unconstitutionally vague, as set forth above, which has effected a complete and total deprivation of citizens' Article 1 rights.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs call upon a declaratory judgment, for an injunction, and for supplemental relief awarding all or some of the following:

    K. Declaring that the arbitrary and capricious acts of the Delegate, in exploiting their governmental authority as a means to aid in the act of endotarting, to be an unconstitutional denial of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights, and therefore to be null and void ab initio;

    L. Issuing an immediate temporary injunction enjoining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and others acting in concert with, or under the direction and control of them from administering, executing, and enforcing or threatening to enforce or attempting to enforce the continued encouragement of endorsing the Delegate on behalf of the demand of the Executive or the aforementioned agents of the Defendants, or to further refuse to issue the appropriate withdrawal of endotarting demands, pending the issuance of a permanent injunction;

    M. Issuing an immediate mandatory injunction requiring the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and others acting in concert with, or under the direction and control of them to cease and desist encouraging citizens of The North Pacific to endorse a government official under the guise of its being for the greater good of the Region, pending the issuance of a permanent injunction as set forth herein;

    N. Issuing a permanent injunction, after appropriate proceedings in this matter, enjoining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and others acting in concert with, or under the direction and control of them from administering, executing, and enforcing or threatening to enforce the the counts contained herein

    O. Awarding such other supplemental relief as may be just and appropriate.

    RELEVANT LAW AND RULINGS
    Evidentiary Submissions:
    [​IMG]
    Exhibit A
    [​IMG]
    Exhibit B
    [​IMG]
    Exhibit C
    [​IMG]
    Exhibit D

    Respectfully submitted,
    The New World Oceania
     
  2. Romanoffia

    Romanoffia Garde à l'eau!

    Messages:
    5,052
    I do have to say, this is just about one of the most brilliant complaints that I have ever seen. The construction is impeccable.

    But that said, we do not have a Civil Code in The North Pacific (I tried to get legislation to create an actual Civil Code to cover civil issue, tort, equity or otherwise and got beat to a pulp for my efforts :P ), so, civil matters do not exist constitutionally or otherwise.

    But what really intrigues me is

    "COUNT III

    THE ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT REFLECTS THE EXERCISE OF UNBRIDLED ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND SHOW THAT THE ENDOTARTING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE"


    Insofar as endotarting restrictions being essentially a restriction of free speech, per se. Very interesting approach.

    I would say that such a question be posed to the Court for Review, but I would suspect that one would have to have standing in such a matter (such as being actually ejected from the region or being charged with a Criminal Offense in such a matter).

    It would be an interesting question to present to the Court, though, just for entertainment value, to see what they would say one way or another.

    But the fact that this is a civil complaint and that we have no civil code in The North Pacific (unfortunately), that any complaint written as a Civil matter would not fly. The AG himself needs to make the actual determination on this.
     
  3. New World Oceania

    New World Oceania TNPer

    Messages:
    5
    I was under the impression that 5.4 of the Constitution — which states "The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials." — implied that there were common law elements to the judicial procedure of The North Pacific, if not defining it a common law jurisdiction as a whole with the Legal Code merely functioning as a provision of the legal system.

    Am I incorrect? A lack of civil procedure might understandably impede upon progress of the case, but the mere collection of rulings can suffice for appropriate codification. Is it not possible, therefore, to litigate under civil/private law in the Courts? I suppose you're correct in that it would be a concern of the Attorney General.

    Away from legalese, I do have to extend my thanks for the compliments on the pleading. It took about six hours in total, jumping between tabs of former TNP cases, Laws, and this glaring Lemon v. Kurtzman article I've been pondering for days but not quite being able to equate state religions to asking for endorsements.
     
  4. falapatorius

    falapatorius TNPer -

    Messages:
    4,036
    Agreed. The tl;dr crowd will diminish in population due to exploding heads though. :rofl:
     
  5. mcmasterdonia

    mcmasterdonia TNPer - - - - -

    Messages:
    20,331
    TNP Nation:
    McMasterdonia
    The courts do not hear civil complaints any more.

    Also :npa4: :boom
     
  6. PaulWallLibertarian42

    PaulWallLibertarian42 TNPer

    Messages:
    2,400
    1. TNP abolished Civil proceedings awhile back.

    2. The AGs office hears complaints based on the Criminal Code.

    3. I hear the Court recently got a new associate Justice elected to the bench, if you feel HMS Unicorn has somehow violated your rights then bother them submit a request for review with them, I am sure the Chief Justice would love to get the new justice-elect some work in.
     
  7. PaulWallLibertarian42

    PaulWallLibertarian42 TNPer

    Messages:
    2,400
    I am closing and locking this as the complaint docket is for Criminal complaints.

    If the plantiff sincerely believes some right of his has been violated then I encourage him to file the proper request for review paperwork with the Justices of the court themselves in the Court forum area and not with the AGs office. Thank you.