Appeal: Denied [2024] FCR 102 - Appeal

[ko531]

Username: ko531

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: The Commonwealth of Redmont

What Case are you Appealing?: [2024] FCR 102

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102

Basis for Appeal: The Commonwealth wishes for this verdict to be vacated due to error of law with the interpretation. We are not requesting a retrial as that would violate citzen rights. The basis for this appeal is because right 16 states:

"XVI. No citizen shall be tried or punished again for an offence regarding a single criminal act for which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted of, in accordance with the law."

We do not believe the verdict was given in accordance with the law. First End said that:

"If the Commonwealth was ignorant and negligent in its enforcement of the law, the defendant had every right to commence legal proceedings against the government as a legal remedy."

Before FCR 99 (the case the commonwealth claimed to be fraudulent) the commonwealth became aware of this law because of FCR 98. In FCR 99 the commonwealth was not ignorant or negligent of the law which is why you will see alexander was wanted for 5 murders but only received punishment for 2 which violated no rights or laws as seen in the verdict. Therefore there no right to commence legal proceeding for ignorance or negligence.

End also stated:

"At the end of the day, the Commonwealth committed a wrong. The defendant fought the wrong in court and was not awarded damages."

No wrong was committed in the events of FCR 99. Duke said in his verdict that the DHS didnt have the power to selectively charge crimes as it could violate rights. But in FCR 99 no rights of alexanderlove's were violated. No wrong was committed which is why the case went in favor of the commonwealth.

End continued to state:

"Whether the defendant did the illegal action with a view for profit or whether they genuinely wanted to prove a point through the legal system is irrelevant"

This is very relevant. As the act of allowing damages or causing damages to happen entitles you to nothing as seen by The_Donuticus v. GER, as an organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18. This case set clear precedent that by not doing what is in your power to prevent the damages, it makes you entitled to nothing. As end agreed with our stances of alexander's intent to purposely seek damages for FCR 99 then the case had no value from the start making it a frivilous case.

Finally end said:

"I'm not satisfied that the Commonwealth suffered any quantifiable losses."

Time was spent representing a case that should have been dismissed. End agreed that Alexanderlove misrepresented and ommitted facts from the case. If all these facts were straight then the case would have been dismissed. Instead Prosecutors had to send hours defending the commonwealth. Prosecutors dont work for free meaning that damages in time and monetary value were caused to the commonwealth. End understands that defending a case can cause harm which is why he awarded Alexanderlove with legal fees yet fails to see our harm in defending FCR 99.



As you can see multiple things in the verdict are either wrong, hypocritical or poorly interpreted. This is where you can see the Error of law in this verdict meaning it must be vaccanted. This verdict was not given "in accordance with the law" as said in the 16th right. Again we are not asking for a retrial just a vacated verdict.

Supporting Evidence:

 

[ko531]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

I move for the recusal of Justice xEndeavour due to him being the one who issued the verdict being appealed in this matter.

 

[End]

I recuse myself

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

In a 3-0 decision, a court opinion written by Associate Justice Matthew100x and signed on by Chief Justice Aladeen and Associate Justice Dr_Eksplosive, the Supreme Court has decided to uphold and affirm the Federal Court's verdict in this matter and reject this appeal.​

I. Introduction​

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Redmont on an appeal filed by the Commonwealth of Redmont, contesting the decision in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 102. The appeal is based on an alleged error of law in the lower court's interpretation of fraud, specifically regarding the requirement for damages and the application of legal precedent. The Commonwealth does not seek a retrial but requests that the verdict be vacated on the grounds that it was not rendered in accordance with the law.​

II. Issues on Appeal​

The Commonwealth contends that the presiding judge erred in finding that no quantifiable damages resulted from the defendant’s actions, despite acknowledging intent and misrepresentation. The prosecution argues that time and monetary costs incurred in defending against a frivolous lawsuit constitute damages. Furthermore, they assert that the lower court’s interpretation contradicts legal precedent and is inconsistent with established case law.

However, the timing and nature of the appeal raise concerns regarding its validity. At the time of filing, the prosecution could not demonstrate that the Commonwealth had suffered damages. The existence of damages was only established after the appeal had already been submitted.​

III. Analysis
1. The Requirement of Damages in Fraud​

Fraud, as defined in Redmont law, requires (1) an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of a material fact, (2) reliance on the misrepresentation, and (3) actual, quantifiable damages suffered by the victim. The lower court correctly found that while intent and misrepresentation were present, damages had not been proven at the time of the ruling.

The prosecution argues that legal expenses and resource allocation constitute damages. However, at the time the appeal was filed, no such damages had been awarded. The Supreme Court finds that an appeal cannot be granted on the basis of hypothetical or speculative damages. Legal precedent requires that damages be established at trial, not discovered post hoc. The subsequent award in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98 does not retroactively validate the appeal’s basis.​

2. Inconsistencies in the Verdicts Because Damages Were Granted in FCR 98.​

An argument that the ruling in AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 98 undermines the lower court’s decision in FCR 102 comes post hoc. The Supreme Court finds that judicial consistency requires each case to be evaluated on its own merits at the time of its ruling. The fact that a later case resulted in damages being awarded to AlexanderLove does not change the fact that, at the time of FCR 102, the prosecution had not demonstrated quantifiable damages. Vacating the lower court’s decision based on an appeal prior to knowing whether or not there would be damages would lead to inconsistency.

Furthermore, the alleged fraudulent nature of FCR 99 validates FCR 102. The ruling in FCR 99 favored the defendant, and damages were not duplicative from FCR 98. To vacate FCR 102 on the basis that FCR 99 was allegedly fraudulent would set a dangerous precedent because FCR 98 should be evaluated on its own basis, and the damages that occurred in that case came from clean hands and was not a matter of fraud.​

IV. Conclusion​

The verdict in The Commonwealth of Redmont v. AlexanderLove [2024] FCR 102 is hereby affirmed.​