Clerk's Office

Bad Libertopia, on behalf of himself and all other Nations so situated, PLAINTIFF

Vs

Muh Roads, Citizen of the Second Republic, DEFENDANT

Complaint for Fraud, Abuse of Power, Negligence, Malice, Defamation, and Bad Faith resulting in Disenfranchisement and Violation of Plaintiff's Civil Rights.

PETITION FOR TRIAL

The Parties

Defendant Muh Roads (“Defendant”) is a citizen of the Second Republic listed on the Citizenship Register and posted to the RMB and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Court.

Plaintiff Bad Libertopia (“Plaintiff”) is a non-citizen resident of the Second Republic and is entitled to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” under Article VI, Section I of the Constitution.

Jurisdiction

It could be argued that Defendant cannot be sued for actions committed during the First Republic, since that government and its laws no longer exist. The same argument (Victor’s justice) has been used by war criminals when their atrocities and crimes against humanity have resulted in them being brought to justice, and courts have ruled that they are nevertheless liable for their actions, and in many cases, even executed for their crimes. The excuse “I was only following orders” did not exonerate them from their guilt, even after their laws, government, and command structure ceased to exist.

While the crimes in this case are not as heinous, it is a historical regularity that crimes committed by officials in a former government are prosecuted by the new government when there is a continuity in the criminality of the defendant’s behavior. The prisons are not opened up when a revolution occurs: murder, robbery, and rape were crimes before and those convicted under the past government continue to serve their sentences.

The principle of ex post facto only applies if the laws the Defendant were being accused of violating were not crimes at the time they were being committed (e.g. if a law is passed on Friday making skateboarding a crime, a skateboarder cannot be prosecute for riding on Wednesday). In this case what the Defendant is being accused of (fraud, abuse of power, disenfranchisement, etc.) would be considered actionable both in the past and in the present.

Furthermore, Plaintiff will prove that the Defendant took an direct and active role in causing the abolition of the First Republic, under which he would have faced prosecution. If courts permitted rulers to simply nullify the law under which they were being charged, it would be impossible to prosecute them for anything! Plaintiff and other applicant Nations were denied by the Defendant the right to vote on whether the First Republic should continue and what laws the Second Republic would have. Had they the right to vote, the old Constitution might not have been abolished and the Defendant could not try to avoid a trial.

Plaintiff's Prayer

It is the Plaintiff’s prayer that the Court would (1) find that the Plaintiff has standing to sue, (2) find that the Defendant is under the court's jurisdiction, and (3) grant the Plaintiff's petition for a trial.

If it pleases the Court to grant the trial petition, Plaintiff asks for time for discovery of "other Nations so situated" (since many who applied for citizenship are likely to have become frustrated with Libertatem and moved to other regions).

Bad Libertopia (represented by New Jaslandia), on behalf of himself and all other Nations so situated, PLAINTIFF

Vs

Muh Roads, Citizen of the Second Republic, DEFENDANT

Complaint for Fraud, Abuse of Power, Negligence, Malice, Defamation, and Bad Faith resulting in Disenfranchisement and Violation of Plaintiff's Civil Rights.

PETITION FOR TRIAL

The Parties

Defendant Muh Roads (“Defendant”) is a citizen of the Second Republic listed on the Citizenship Register and posted to the RMB and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Court.

Plaintiff Bad Libertopia (“Plaintiff”) is a non-citizen resident of the Second Republic and is entitled to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” under Article VI, Section I of the Constitution.

Plaintiff's legal counsel New Jaslandia ("Plaintiff's lawyer") is a citizen of the Second Republic and Attorney-General of Libertatem, and shall be formally representing Plaintiff in court for the duration of this legal proceeding.

Jurisdiction

It could be argued that Defendant cannot be sued for actions committed during the First Republic, since that government and its laws no longer exist. The same argument (Victor’s justice) has been used by war criminals when their atrocities and crimes against humanity have resulted in them being brought to justice, and courts have ruled that they are nevertheless liable for their actions, and in many cases, even executed for their crimes. The excuse “I was only following orders” did not exonerate them from their guilt, even after their laws, government, and command structure ceased to exist.

While the crimes in this case are not as heinous, it is a historical regularity that crimes committed by officials in a former government are prosecuted by the new government when there is a continuity in the criminality of the defendant’s behavior. The prisons are not opened up when a revolution occurs: murder, robbery, and rape were crimes before and those convicted under the past government continue to serve their sentences.

The principle of ex post facto only applies if the laws the Defendant were being accused of violating were not crimes at the time they were being committed (e.g. if a law is passed on Friday making skateboarding a crime, a skateboarder cannot be prosecute for riding on Wednesday). In this case what the Defendant is being accused of (fraud, abuse of power, disenfranchisement, etc.) would be considered actionable both in the past and in the present.

Furthermore, Plaintiff will prove that the Defendant took an direct and active role in causing the abolition of the First Republic, under which he would have faced prosecution. If courts permitted rulers to simply nullify the law under which they were being charged, it would be impossible to prosecute them for anything! Plaintiff and other applicant Nations were denied by the Defendant the right to vote on whether the First Republic should continue and what laws the Second Republic would have. Had they the right to vote, the old Constitution might not have been abolished and the Defendant could not try to avoid a trial.

Plaintiff's Prayer

It is the Plaintiff’s prayer that the Court would (1) find that the Plaintiff has standing to sue, (2) find that the Defendant is under the court's jurisdiction, and (3) grant the Plaintiff's petition for a trial.

If it pleases the Court to grant the trial petition, Plaintiff asks for time for discovery of "other Nations so situated" (since many who applied for citizenship are likely to have become frustrated with Libertatem and moved to other regions).

Your Honor, on behalf of the Plaintiff in Bad Libertopia v. Muh Roads, I would like to present this formal petition.

Pre-Trial Petition

Given that this case is moving directly to trial and Plaintiff was unable to make a petition to the Court there, and

As the Defendant enjoys all the civil rights and advantages of citizenship, and

While the Plaintiff has been denied these same rights by the Defendant, and

Since the Defendant has many friends and supporters in positions of power who would ordinary recuse themselves from this case, and

Understanding such recusals would be impractical and therefore Plaintiff must rely on Defendant's friends and supporters to be able to set aside their biases in the interest of Justice,

The Plaintiff petitions the Court to order:

(1) For the duration of this case, judicial protection against Plaintiff being banjected without due legal process (the same privilege that would be the right of a citizen).

(2) For the duration of this case, that the Plaintiff be granted the option to represent himself pro per if the Attorney General should recuse himself from the case or otherwise be unable or unwilling to continue.

(3) For the duration of this case, a restraining order against President Miencraft from assigning the “UK/Ireland” land plot on the Libertatem map to any nation (which Plaintiff would have claimed months ago had he been a citizen).

(4) That the Court set equivalent guidelines (or explicitly none) for Plaintiff and Defendant for public posting and access to the Court during this case, so that Plaintiff is not gagged while the Defendant has free reign, or vice-versa.

(5) That the Court order an immediate revision of the Libertatem main page (“Internal Affairs” link), the Map page (“citizens” and “citizenship” links), and all others to remove outdated and erroneous links to Defendant’s factbooks which still identify Defendant as the Manager of Internal Affairs and to whom citizenship applications should be officially directed.

(6) That the Court order Defendant to fully account for and immediately turn over all unprocessed citizenship applications in his possession to the appropriate authority so that they may be appropriately processed.