Alexander P. Love
Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Legal Eagle
Change Maker
Popular in the Polls
AlexanderLove
attorney
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,119
- Thread Author
- #1
Client Name: EcoFinance
Counsel Name: Dragon Law Firm
Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant
Reason for the Appeal: An error of law was made -- that is, damages were not proven yet were awarded. Furthermore, punitive damages were evaluated at $50,000, the same as offenses such as election torts. Is a contract issue to be penalized the same as an election tort? The unfair damages violate my client's 13th right, as equality under the law was not issued. A high penalty was awarded simply based on presumption of wealth, without regard for the actual alleged offense that occurred. Furthermore, if the contract was edited to add a termination clause, then the contract simply would have never been legally terminated. The contract should have simply been reinstated, as there were no proven harms. When a Court starts awarding high damages over hypothetical damages rather than proven ones, there is an issue. The Supreme Court must hear this case and adjust the verdict to be fair, just, and set the standard for remedies.
Furthermore, there was an issue with evidence. Evidence was submitted after discovery due to the failure of the plaintiff to attach working evidence the first time. The plaintiff could have possibly admitted extra evidence after opening statements, and the Judge simply admitted it without carefully considering the impact it could have on the case. Court has a high standard of admissibility to protect against surprise evidence, unfair evidence, and other miscarriages of justice. On this fact alone, the case should be reconsidered with the evidence that was submitted before discovery.
Additional Information: I am happy to answer any questions that may help the Supreme Court in considering this appeal request.
Counsel Name: Dragon Law Firm
Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant
Reason for the Appeal: An error of law was made -- that is, damages were not proven yet were awarded. Furthermore, punitive damages were evaluated at $50,000, the same as offenses such as election torts. Is a contract issue to be penalized the same as an election tort? The unfair damages violate my client's 13th right, as equality under the law was not issued. A high penalty was awarded simply based on presumption of wealth, without regard for the actual alleged offense that occurred. Furthermore, if the contract was edited to add a termination clause, then the contract simply would have never been legally terminated. The contract should have simply been reinstated, as there were no proven harms. When a Court starts awarding high damages over hypothetical damages rather than proven ones, there is an issue. The Supreme Court must hear this case and adjust the verdict to be fair, just, and set the standard for remedies.
Furthermore, there was an issue with evidence. Evidence was submitted after discovery due to the failure of the plaintiff to attach working evidence the first time. The plaintiff could have possibly admitted extra evidence after opening statements, and the Judge simply admitted it without carefully considering the impact it could have on the case. Court has a high standard of admissibility to protect against surprise evidence, unfair evidence, and other miscarriages of justice. On this fact alone, the case should be reconsidered with the evidence that was submitted before discovery.
Additional Information: I am happy to answer any questions that may help the Supreme Court in considering this appeal request.
