Lawsuit: Dismissed Nacholebraa v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 83

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nacho

Nacho

Manager
Manager
Chief Justice
Construction & Transport Department
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Nacholebraa
Nacholebraa
constructor
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
933
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Nacholebraa
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The District Court has recently ruled in a default judgment resulting in a citizen's guilt in the form of a Default judgment. The defendant did not appear before the court, resulting in the default judgment. The default judgment is wrong because the defendant failed to appear before the court. The ‘Public Defender Utilization Act” guarantees that all individuals of the public are protected from default judgments in circumstances of a no-show to court. A public defender must be present before the court can file a default judgment.

It is within the precedent of a superior court to keep a lawsuit on pause until such requirements are met. Please see [2023] DCR 18 & [2023] FCR 60 for the precedent in which the court held the case until a public defender was present.

This is not an appeal of the court's decision but rather a challenge of breach of process of the court. The court should recognize it’s mistake and request a public defender to represent the defendant in this instance.


I. PARTIES
1. Nacholebraa
2. Commonwealth of Redmont
3. .Oubie033 (Witness)
4. xAntho_ny (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. Wednesday, 13 September 2023 xAnthon_ny(Plaintiff Counsel) filed a case against.Oubie033 (Defendant) citing civil damages of slander against plaintiff Lex404.(Exhibit A)
2. Friday, 15 September 2023, District Court Magistrate RelaxedGV summoned the defendant to the case, giving a 48-hour summons timeframe.(Exhibit B)
3. Sunday, 17 September 2023, District Court Magistrate RelaxedGV issued a contempt of court charge against the defendant for failure to appear and ordered the DOJ to fine/jail the defendant accordingly.(Exhibit C)
4. Sunday, 17 September 2023, District Court Magistrate RelaxedGV issued a verdict following his contempt of court charge to the defendant, stating within the defendant's position, “The defendant failed to appear in court” (Exhibit D)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Established within the ‘Public Defender Utilization Act,’ the court must request a public defender when the case results in a default judgment.
2. As established in [2023] DCR 18 & [2023] FCR 60, the court has placed a lawsuit filed in both the Federal and District courts on hold for extensive amounts of time until a public defender is present.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The verdict of [2023] DCR 28 is struck from the record, and the court requests a public defender. Or the court overturns the judgment and dismisses the claims altogether, allowing the plaintiff to refile the case for a new magistrate to oversee.
2. $2,500 in Nominal Damages.

Exhibit A: Attached ([2023] DCR 28)
Exhibit B: Attached (Link to Act)
Exhibit C: [2023] DCR 18 & [2023] FCR 60


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 18th day of September 2023
 

Attachments

  • Exhibit B.PNG
    Exhibit B.PNG
    103 KB · Views: 53
  • Exhibit A.PNG
    Exhibit A.PNG
    67.6 KB · Views: 54
I want to request this case be dismissed. After reviewing it turns out the law in which I am citing has been repealed previously but has never been updated.
 
PwFVDhr.png



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Nacholebraa v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 83. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
I believe it has surpassed the 48-hour timeframe.
 
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff requested that the case be dismissed. Surely, you do not think that you can force a case to be heard if the Plaintiff does not wish to pursue it?
 
I’ve asked before and I will ask again, does the plaintiff wish to drop this case?
 
Your honor,

We were under the impression that this case was to be dismissed (as established through 3 years of precedent).

If you're not going to dismiss this case, we request 24 hours from when the Plaintiff responds to your question.
 
Dartanman said:
Your honor,

We were under the impression that this case was to be dismissed (as established through 3 years of precedent).

If you're not going to dismiss this case, we request 24 hours from when the Plaintiff responds to your question.
Click to expand...
Granted, can the plaintiff please respond to my question within 24 hours starting from this post.
 
I have filed a motion to reconsider below for you. Should the motion to reconsider be denied, I would request this case to be dropped for a disregard of my time in allowing an unfair advantage to the DLA to have ample prep time against my case. Should the motion to granted, I would like to hear the judgment on this case due to the importance of members of the public having the right right of representation before the court.

I want to mention this in response to the earlier objection. The Attorney General was summoned to the case as everyone else was. Your honor, you mentioned specifically that I had to request again if I wanted the case to be dropped, which my no response is my response. You summoned and notified the DLA of their obligations, as is done through various other cases.

However, I was prompt to follow the case where the DLA failed to respond in time with their countless resources. I find it rather disheartening even to entertain the notion their impression was flawed. If the DLA was confused or misguided, why did they merely file their objection following my notion to the court of the 48-hour deadline being surpassed?


MOTION TO RECONSIDER
I ask the court to reconsider allowing the DLA further time on the case. They were summoned like any other citizen, and they failed to appear or even request clarification from the court on a mere technicality.
I am not dismissing this case due to a recent decision made in Lawsuit: In Session - Utilitysoup1407 v. Kitje_katje_nl [2023] DCR 26. I will be summoning this case unless the plaintiff again chooses to request to dismiss this case.
Click to expand...
Clearly, the court's words as boldened show unless I wanted to send a second request. This implies if I don't send a second request, the case proceeds. There was no question rather a notion, that if I wanted to send a request I could.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The Defense affirms all the following facts:

1. Wednesday, 13 September 2023 xAnthon_ny(Plaintiff Counsel) filed a case against.Oubie033 (Defendant) citing civil damages of slander against plaintiff Lex404.(Exhibit A)
2. Friday, 15 September 2023, District Court Magistrate RelaxedGV summoned the defendant to the case, giving a 48-hour summons timeframe.(Exhibit B)
3. Sunday, 17 September 2023, District Court Magistrate RelaxedGV issued a contempt of court charge against the defendant for failure to appear and ordered the DOJ to fine/jail the defendant accordingly.(Exhibit C)
4. Sunday, 17 September 2023, District Court Magistrate RelaxedGV issued a verdict following his contempt of court charge to the defendant, stating within the defendant's position, “The defendant failed to appear in court” (Exhibit D)

II. DEFENSES
1. The proper course of action if one believes a verdict was issued incorrectly is an appeal, not a separate lawsuit.

2. The law being cited has been repealed.

3. As shown in many cases, with a lack of official PD guidelines and no laws establishing guidelines, it is up to the presiding Judicial Officer whether to summon a PD.
 
Nacho said:
I have filed a motion to reconsider below for you. Should the motion to reconsider be denied, I would request this case to be dropped for a disregard of my time in allowing an unfair advantage to the DLA to have ample prep time against my case. Should the motion to granted, I would like to hear the judgment on this case due to the importance of members of the public having the right right of representation before the court.

I want to mention this in response to the earlier objection. The Attorney General was summoned to the case as everyone else was. Your honor, you mentioned specifically that I had to request again if I wanted the case to be dropped, which my no response is my response. You summoned and notified the DLA of their obligations, as is done through various other cases.

However, I was prompt to follow the case where the DLA failed to respond in time with their countless resources. I find it rather disheartening even to entertain the notion their impression was flawed. If the DLA was confused or misguided, why did they merely file their objection following my notion to the court of the 48-hour deadline being surpassed?


MOTION TO RECONSIDER
I ask the court to reconsider allowing the DLA further time on the case. They were summoned like any other citizen, and they failed to appear or even request clarification from the court on a mere technicality.

Clearly, the court's words as boldened show unless I wanted to send a second request. This implies if I don't send a second request, the case proceeds. There was no question rather a notion, that if I wanted to send a request I could.
Click to expand...

The DLA has responded after 60 hours. The Court has given other plaintiffs and defendants leeway in timing given that the common law suggests that late submissions are acceptable. However, there needs to be a certain cutoff. The defendant responded to the case with an objection instead of a motion to dismiss or answer to complaint and did not respond to the case with an answer until now, 120+ hours after when the case began. Though in fairness to them, they were awaiting a response from the plaintiff and it appears as though there has been a miscommunication on the matter. On this instance I will grant it due to the confusion on the matter. In the future, this court will be more forward in confirming the conviction of the plaintiff to continue the case.

Given that both sides agree to the facts and the plaintiff is keen on moving the case to completion, this Court kindly requests that both sides agree to a summary judgment. If there is agreement on this matter, this Court can begin working on a verdict.
 
The Defense is fine with Summary Judgement
 
I am fine with Summary Judgement
 
I am informing the Court that I am no longer the Attorney General. @drew_hall is and I will no longer be involved in this case.
 

Verdict


Upon reviewing the case, I have come to realize there is a critical issue regarding this matter on the part of the plaintiff, that is the lack of standing. The plaintiff of this case is unaffiliated with the defendant of [2023] DCR 28 and therefore has no specific harms which to sue on. Specifically, the plaintiff lists the defendant of [2023] DCR 28 as a witness and not the plaintiff.

That being said, between the beginning of this case, and this post that will be (hopefully) resolving the matter, the Supreme Court has released official guidelines regarding the use of Public Defenders which this court hopes will satisfy the plaintiff. In the future, it is likely that a defendant who finds themselves in a similar situation may be afforded a public defender.

This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing. The Federal Court thanks everyone for their time in this matter.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top