The following petition has been received from JerryDon Lane:
Before the Honorable Scientific Counsel:
PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AND WRIT OF MANDABUS
INFORMATION: A petition is a written proposal before a court, officer, or legislative body that requests action on a certain matter.
A Writ of Mandabus is a petition before a court containing information that a certain government official is not following the law or performing or not performing certain actions relevant to their office that should be or should not be performed; and thereby praying the court to force certain actions or to uphold the law via court order.
The Constitution states: Section 5 – “Chancellor Selection Process:
The Chancellor of the CDS shall be elected by universal suffrage of all citizens from among any CDS citizen who shall make application to the SC.”
The relevant part of this Constitutional Dictate pertains to the word “elected.” The terms universal suffrage and those who make application to the SC to stand for election are irrelevant in this case, because they are both only discriptive dictates that state what form of election is to be held, should a Chancellor election be held, and what candidates may qualify to run in that election.
Therefore, the relevant term of this dictate that applies to this case reads: “Section 5 – Chancellor Selection Process:
The Chancellor of the CDS shall be elected…..”
Please note that the Constitution makes no distinction between candidates running opposed or unopposed, or contested and/or non-contested elections. Nor does it stipulate or provide remedy that Section 5—Chancellor Selection Process, may be ignored should a candidate not have anyone running against them—Nor does it give the SC the power to change what the Constitution dictates, nor to amend it at their whim and/or by decree.
Thus, this Constitutional Dictate stands as valid and may not be lawfully changed by the SC. It must be upheld if the SC is not itself to be in violation of Constitutional law.
BE IT KNOWN, that A) One individual by the name of Patroklus Murakami has illegally assumed the position of Chancellor of the CDS. B) That no elections, opposed or unopposed, contested or uncontested, were held in order that the citizens of the CDS, the rightful governors in a democracy might give their endorsement to these elected positions, and C) That the Constitution of the CDS is presently and blatantly being violated by the Executive Branch.
NOW THEREFORE, the petitioner prays the court to issue six separate rulings in this case to provide remedy to the citizens of the CDS:
1) To confirm that the CDS is still a democracy and is governed via a constitution.
2) To confirm that the Constitution is law and that this law must not only be followed by the citizens of the CDS, but government office holders as well.
3) To endorse that the Consitution states this: “Section 5 – Chancellor Selection Process:
The Chancellor of the CDS shall be elected…..”
4) To confirm that no elections in any form, contested elections or uncontested elections were held in this term and/or in accordance to this Constitutional Dictate.
5) To confirm that one Patroklus Murakami is disregarding this Constitutional Dictate and acting as a Chancellor with no endorsement from the people to do so.
6) To enforce the Constitutional law of the CDS by issuing an injunction forbidding Patroklus Murakami from further assuming an elected office without the endorsement of the people via due process of an election.
The SC is further informed: failure to uphold, enforce and interpret the law in good faith by a judicial body in a Constitution Democracy in order to give an advantage to a friend is a crime, a violation of the oath of office, a grave breach of justice and therefore an impeachable offense in CDS.
Thank you for your consideration and your prompt remedy to the good people of CDS.