Freeze_Line
Citizen
Attorney General
Justice Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Legal Eagle
Order of Redmont
Freeze_Line
Attorney General
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2021
- Messages
- 263
- Thread Author
- #1
Username: Freeze_Line
I am representing a client
Who is your Client?: The Commonwealth of Redmont
File(s) attached
What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 11
Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 11
Basis for Appeal: Your Honors,
I would first like to address the incompetence displayed by the judge in this case. The judge has, on multiple occasions, mixed up key facts, which led to unnecessary arguments and avoidable mistakes.
Firstly, the judge stated that "the burden of proof falls to the person making the argument." While this is true, it is equally true that the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff to prove their case. In this instance, the plaintiff could only show that they were sentenced, not that they actually served the full sentence. The defense, on the other hand, presented evidence early on in the form of a perjury objection, demonstrating that the plaintiff did not spend the full 3 days and 8 hours in jail, but only 2 hours and 33 minutes.
The plaintiff objected to this evidence on the grounds of it being inadmissible after discovery. However, the judge initially failed to understand what the plaintiff was objecting to, which caused unnecessary delays and confusion for both parties. Ultimately, the judge sustained the motion to exclude the evidence, even though it was used during opening statements and served as the foundation for witness testimonies. This objection was raised after the first round of witness examination, leaving the defense with no opportunity to adjust their questions or strategy.
Secondly, the judge denied a motion to submit crucial evidence, despite it being essential to a fair judgment. In FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont, late evidence was permitted due to the importance of the claims involved. Here, the judge acknowledged that the evidence was critical, stating: "This evidence is crucial to the case, but considering the facts at hand, the court determines it to be the correct action to deny this motion." This decision came after the judge had already apologized for mixing up key details earlier in the trial. Moreover, during the second round of witness testimonies, the officer confirmed that the plaintiff had only spent 2 hours and 33 minutes in jail.
I would like to remind the Supreme Court of the judge's own standard: "if there is an argument made with no evidence provided whatsoever - be it in form of witness testimonies or other - that the burden of proof falls to the person making the argument." Despite this, the defense's evidence was not only rejected (despite precedent) but later confirmed again during testimonies and still ignored in the verdict.
And it doesn't end there. The judge also failed to rule on my perjury objection submitted right before the closing arguments. It was clear that the objection would likely have been sustained, but because it was never ruled on, it raises serious concerns about whether the judge conducted this case fairly.
The plaintiff presented vague, speculative claims and grossly overestimated potential losses. The judge fully awarded damages based on possible earnings the plaintiff might have lost if they had served the full sentence, which they did not. Nearly every request for relief was granted in full, despite a glaring lack of evidence to support those claims. Meanwhile, the judge dismissed all of the defense's efforts, stating, "Other than that, the defense has not provided any evidence to back up their claims." This is simply not true. The defense provided clear, relevant, and usable evidence.
Lastly, the judge stated: "The court hereby dismisses the argument that this was a mistake, and that the issue at hand was attempted to be remedied immediately." This was despite a witness clearly explaining that a mistake had occurred and was immediately addressed. The plaintiff claimed the defendant didn’t attempt to immediately resolve this issue, which is when my unanswered perjury objection should have been considered. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff based on a hypothetical scenario where they served the full 3 days and 8 hours, something they never claimed nor actually did.
Section 4.2c of the Standardized Criminal Code Act states: "If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute SPENT in jail for offenses found unproven, alongside reimbursement of any fine paid." The plaintiff only spent 2 hours and 33 minutes in jail, as supported by both the denied motion and the witness testimony. Nevertheless, the judge ruled as if they served the full sentence.
It is plainly obvious that this case was too complex for the presiding judge. Given the numerous procedural errors, misunderstandings, and ignorance of precedent, I respectfully request that this appeal be granted and that a fair and accurate verdict be issued. Although this trial spanned over two months, it now feels as though all that time and effort was disregarded.
Most of the plaintiff's claims were speculative, and I ask that the honorable justices of the Supreme Court assess them based on the actual facts, testimony, and evidence presented.
Thank you.
Supporting Evidence: Lawsuit: Adjourned - FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1
Act of Congress Thread 'Standardized Criminal Code Act'
INTRODUCTION
These are the established rules and procedures of the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont. It is important that lawyers and any player who is participating in court proceedings are aware of these rules and procedures.Furthermore, Motions and Objections have their own guides to follow in addition to these Court Rules and Procedures. You can view these guides here:
Guide - Motions
INTRODUCTION A motion is a procedural device that is a formal request made to a Court for a decision on a specific part of a case. A judge will either Sustain (to agree with) or Overrule (to disagree with) a motion. Motions can be made throughout the case until a verdict is delivered. Nb...
www.democracycraft.net
Guide - Objections
INTRODUCTION These are the established objections of the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont that are established through court policy, unless otherwise codified within law. It is important that lawyers and any player who is objecting to a remark made by the opposing party or to a question...
www.democracycraft.net
