Appeal: Denied [2024] FCR 114 - Appeal

[ko531]

Username: ko531

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2024] FCR 114

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 114

Basis for Appeal: Sumo's entire argument is that the prison mine is not guaranteed to prisoners therefore my rights were not violated. This case is much more then that.

Every prisoner before and since has been able to roam the prison, use the prison hospital and use the prison mine. It has only been me who has been locked in their cell and denied access to alll of these things. I am the only one being singled out with this new invented term in Redmont of "Solitary confinement". This is the definition of Unequal.

This also sets terrible precedent. Judges can now, without being asked to, just put whoever they want in solitary confinement based on their own subjective opinions. There is no guidline being to apply this solitary confinement equally. Solitary confinement can be made at will based off what the Presiding officer is feeling that day..

Because the Subjectivness of the decision along with the fact that I am the only citizen it has ever been used on, This should easily meet the critera of Unequal under the law and violates my XIII. Therefore the case should have been in my favor and I should have been granted damages.

Supporting Evidence:

 

[End]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

In a 2-0 Decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the ruling of the Federal Court and rejects the appeal.

The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.

The Judiciary, through various legislation, is charged with the duty of interpreting the law and incarcerating as appropriate. The Supreme Court is satisfied that additional controls were necessary and reasonable limits of the appellant's rights in their incarceration. This was due to their extreme criminal behaviour that posed a risk to the community and other inmates.

The appellant was not legally entitled to use the mine by law, as discussed by the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court upholds the Federal Court's decision.

​