Appeal: Denied [2024] FCR 107 - Appeal

[ko531]

Username: ko531

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: The Commonwealth of Redmont

What Case are you Appealing?: [2024] FCR 107

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Crytiee [2024] FCR 107

Basis for Appeal: The case was dismissed for 2 reason, Lack of Claim and Immunity. Both of these were invalid reason to dimiss, especially lack of claim as Duke had to rule on it three times before dismissing it.

LACK OF CLAIM:

When in came to our claim we claimed Crytiee committed corruption. We explained that claim and how not voting is not apart of their official duty as Congress's Official duties are to represent the will of the people. The act of not voting does not represent anyone as Redmont is a representative democracy, therefore any elected representative has a responsibility to actively participate in government - which includes approving and overturning motions of no confidence. Crytiee chose not to cast a vote in order to benefit Xine.

The act of not voting is not in line with in their official duties and this act directly benefited Xine. If both of these are taken as fact then it fits the definition of corruption and there is our claim to prosecute.

IMMUNITY:

Duke argued that Abstaining is a right granted to senator and therefore immune. Crytiee never abstained and there was no abstaining vote recorded. The vote was 2-0-0. What Crytiee did was choose not to vote which is different. The act of not voting is not a protected power of the senate and should not be rewarded with immunity. Senators have the responsiblity to participate in the democratic process in a representative democracy. Inaction is the same as not having representation at all. Senators have the responsiblity to do the opposite then what crytiee has done, no immunity should be given to an act that is not in line with their responsiblities.

Supporting Evidence:

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honors,

My client is afforded the right to a fair trial, and appeals are no different. We wish to be afforded the opportunity to debunk the Appellant's claims before a decision is made.

Thank you.

 

[ko531]

Your honors,

My client is afforded the right to a fair trial, and appeals are no different. We wish to be afforded the opportunity to debunk the Appellant's claims before a decision is made.

Thank you.

Your Honor,

No one has ever been given the right to rebutt an appeal, the appeals need to be decided on based on the reasoning of the dismissal given by the Judge and everything provided in the case. Any new arguments made by Dart can not be considered as they would have not be present for Duke to consider for his dismissal and therefore the court cannot use it to decide whether to overturn the same dismissal.

 

[SumoMC]

Your honors,

My client is afforded the right to a fair trial, and appeals are no different. We wish to be afforded the opportunity to debunk the Appellant's claims before a decision is made.

Thank you.

Denied

 

[Dartanboy]

Denied

Your honors,

On what basis is the motion denied? Is my client not being allowed a fair trial?

Was this a unanimous decision by both Justices?

 

[SumoMC]

Your honors,

On what basis is the motion denied? Is my client not being allowed a fair trial?

Was this a unanimous decision by both Justices?

You are hereby charged with 1 Count with Contempt of Court, i order the DHS to fine/jail accordingly. You are the former Chief Justice, you know better then to speak before being summoned. You also know that that has never been done in the past nor does policy state this is something we do.

 

[Dartanboy]

You are hereby charged with 1 Count with Contempt of Court, i order the DHS to fine/jail accordingly. You are the former Chief Justice, you know better then to speak before being summoned. You also know that that has never been done in the past nor does policy state this is something we do.

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

Your honors, no warning was given not to speak. You already allowed me to speak without punishing me nor even asking me to refrain from doing so.

I am only asking a question seeking understanding, and you find me in contempt?

I urge you to reconsider the decision and the broad precedent you'd create by charging me here.

 

[End]

Your honors,

On what basis is the motion denied? Is my client not being allowed a fair trial?

Was this a unanimous decision by both Justices?

This is an appeal, not a trial.

 

[SumoMC]

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

Your honors, no warning was given not to speak. You already allowed me to speak without punishing me nor even asking me to refrain from doing so.

I am only asking a question seeking understanding, and you find me in contempt?

I urge you to reconsider the decision and the broad precedent you'd create by charging me here.

Motion to Reconsider is denied , Speak again and you will be held in contempt.

 

[SumoMC]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

In a 2-0 Decision, The Supreme Court has decided to reject this appeal for the following reasoning.


An abstention from voting is an abstention from voting. Whether formally cast as an abstain or not, the act of not voting is abstaining from the vote.

The system by which the votes are tallied and a majority is formed doesn't discriminate between cast and uncast abstentions. The original verdict will be upheld.

​