Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
4,160 characters extracted
—
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
TOASTEDPUERI, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-870
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
v.
JOAOISHUMAN.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ORDER
The Court is presented with an emergency petition for a preliminary injunction under
Rid. R. Civ. Pro. 47(b) summarily. There are four standards in which “1) they are likely to
succeed on the merits; 2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction; 3) the
balance of equities and hardships is in favor of the plaintiff; and 4) whether that injunction is in
the public interest.” Largetitantic2 v. Nevplaysgames, 1 Rid. ____ (2023)(quoting Winter v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008)). There is little doubt in my
mind that plaintiff’s have shown they have a high probability of succeeding on the merits, the
Lieutenant Governor’s order on face value is arbitrary and without the standing of law nor
expansive rule. It would boggle the mind for any individual to argue that the plaintiff would not
suffer irreparable harm from a rule which not only deprives him of a position in the highest
echelons of government but also through such a rule which would allow elected representatives
to deprive other elective representatives of their seats – on moral – not legal issues. That is not
how any democratic government ought to function nor am I satisfied that the Governor’s order is
contemporaneously applicable here as plaintiff cites Powell as convincingly supportive
precedent. The balance of equities without a doubt stand in favor of the plaintiff for the above
mentioned reasons and the interest of the public could not be greater – having an elected
representative do the work of their constituents. Anything obstreperous to such is not only
offensive to the law, repugnant to the Constitution and does not satisfy the suggestion that
plaintiff would not suffer under this order by the President of the Senate.
I’d like to further make it clear that despite the frivolous suggestions by the Attorney
General that this is not an order enjoining any branch including the Senate from their work.
“When a court enters a negative injunction against a law, an order prohibiting certain conduct, it
is not removing that law or making it inoperative, but enjoining those who are charged with
enforcing that law.” See Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (citing Nev). This is
an order temporarily enjoining the enforcement of the Lieutenant Governor’s directive on the
prevention of plaintiff through Senate Rule 904. This is not directed at the Senate at large but
rather the President of the Senate and the alleged effectuator of harm and therefore the court
complies with the fact that the defendant must be the sole addressee of the injunction.” Zenith
Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110–11 (1969)). Sufficient facts must be
pleaded that injury must be “certainly impending” or “substantial risk” to prove injury-in-fact
and that “[a]llegations of possible future injury” are not enough to prove injury. Whitmore v.
Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 158 (1990); Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 399 (2013).
Respondent was given the opportunity to respond to the motion for a preliminary
injunction and argued in such that the court was mandated by rule and persuasive authority from
the Supreme Court to afford a time to rebut. With the finding that plaintiff satisfies all the prongs
of a preliminary injunction that are more stringent than a temporary restraining order, the
prerequisites for a TRO must invariably have been met as well.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Court issues a temporary restraining order on the enforcement of Rule 904
of the Standing Rules of the Ridgeway State Senate in relation to the adversary ruling to Senator
ToastedPueri issued by the President of the Senate, incorporated as the sole defendant. This order
shall expire upon the conclusion of a hearing on the merits of a preliminary injunction which will
allow for adequate briefing on both sides.
DATED: 17 JANUARY, 2023
__________________________________
HON. ALEX J. CABOT
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Document record
File size
105.1 KB
Uploaded
Jan 16, 2023 12:00 PM
Filed
Jan 16, 2023 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
ciifford2
Notes
MotionRuling_RSC-CV-870_1924-011623.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/cVPhLeBu)
