Dartanboy
Citizen
Supporter
3rd Anniversary
Change Maker
Popular in the Polls
Legal Eagle
Dartanboy
Attorney
- Joined
- May 10, 2022
- Messages
- 1,442
- Thread Author
- #1
Client Name:
Dartanman
Counsel Name:
Dartanman
Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant:
Plaintiff
Reason for the Appeal:
The verdict displays ignorance of the Constitution. The Court Opinion doesn't even have any opinion. It doesn't touch on the law at all. It doesn't seek to clarify anything. It is almost verbatim "It doesn't violate your rights, because it doesn't."
Regardless, I think it is very clear that the DoS has violated my rights, and wish to focus now on just one of this verdict:
"It doesn't violate the concept of everyone being equal before and under the law because these restrictions apply to everyone."
Your honors, I feel like this is the worst part of this entire verdict. Restrictions merely applying to everyone does not make for equality. For example, having a law that says, "You must have $15,000 in order to go to this part of town" applies to everyone - everyone must have $15,000 in order to go to this part of town, however this is discriminating against people with less than $15,000 based on socioeconomic status (social status).
Similarly, this point of the Court Opinion is fundamentally flawed, in that denying party registration because it isn't popular enough (not enough people support it) is denying party registration based no social status, which is unconstitutional.
Additional Information:
Original Case Link: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 36
Dartanman
Counsel Name:
Dartanman
Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant:
Plaintiff
Reason for the Appeal:
The verdict displays ignorance of the Constitution. The Court Opinion doesn't even have any opinion. It doesn't touch on the law at all. It doesn't seek to clarify anything. It is almost verbatim "It doesn't violate your rights, because it doesn't."
Regardless, I think it is very clear that the DoS has violated my rights, and wish to focus now on just one of this verdict:
"It doesn't violate the concept of everyone being equal before and under the law because these restrictions apply to everyone."
Your honors, I feel like this is the worst part of this entire verdict. Restrictions merely applying to everyone does not make for equality. For example, having a law that says, "You must have $15,000 in order to go to this part of town" applies to everyone - everyone must have $15,000 in order to go to this part of town, however this is discriminating against people with less than $15,000 based on socioeconomic status (social status).
Similarly, this point of the Court Opinion is fundamentally flawed, in that denying party registration because it isn't popular enough (not enough people support it) is denying party registration based no social status, which is unconstitutional.
Additional Information:
Original Case Link: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 36