Lawsuit: Dismissed Steveshat v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 56

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

steveshat
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

In the legal matter of steveshat v. Former Shareholders of Keystone Holdings [2024] FCR 49, the plaintiff initially named several defendants under the collective banner of "Former Shareholders of Keystone Holdings." The listed parties included: 1. steveshat (Plaintiff), 2. Keystone Holdings (Tortfeasor), 3. wetc (Agent and Shareholder of Keystone Holdings), 4. Vanguard (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings), 5. supersuperking (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings), 6. The Exchange (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings), and 7. HenryDz5 (Shareholder of Keystone Holdings). The proceedings commenced smoothly with the judge issuing summonses, along with stating that should any of the parties disagree to having the same attorney, the case would be bifurcated into separate proceedings. Only two of the defendants, Nexalin and a_guy_name_henry, appeared in court, while the remaining three failed to do so. Upon the plaintiff's request, the absent defendants were petitioned to be held in contempt, and a summary judgment was sought for those who did not attend, allowing the trial to proceed with the present parties. "SumoMC," the presiding officer, obliged, holding the absentees in contempt and continuing with the case. Following this, "MegaMinerM" filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of Nexalin and Wetc. The plaintiff's legal team countered this motion, asserting that the rule cited for dismissal was not relevant, and the case was under appeal and could not legally be dismissed with a motion to dismiss. Despite this argument, the judge granted the motion to dismiss, citing the inability to mandate all parties to share legal representation. Despite efforts by the plaintiff's legal team to clarify the appellate status and procedural discrepancies, the judge persisted in dismissing the case, albeit on alternative grounds. This dismissal not only disregarded established precedent but also disadvantaged the plaintiff by granting additional time to absent defendants. This miscarriage of justice not only contravened established legal precedents but also infringed upon the plaintiff's right to a speedy trial. The wrongful dismissal of the original case necessitated an appeal, and the subsequent actions of the judge further delayed proceedings. It is imperative that this unjust dismissal be rectified, and the case reopened to uphold the principles of fairness and due process.



I. PARTIES

1. Steveshat
2. SumoMC
3. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS

1. In case FCR 49, the plaintiff identified multiple parties under the collective defendant "Former Shareholders of Keystone Holdings."
2. Proceedings commenced smoothly with SumoMC issuing summonses, coupled with the declaration that disagreement on legal representation would result in separate cases.
3. Within the 72-hour timeframe, only Nexalin and Henry appeared as defendants, while Wetc, Stoppers, and Supersuperking were held in contempt for non-attendance.
4. MegaMinerM filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 5.7, citing the plaintiff's inclusion of too many parties without considering their legal representation.
5. The plaintiff's legal team countered, asserting that Rule 5.7 was inappropriate and that the case couldn't be dismissed under Rule 5.6's Appeal Exception.
6. Despite this, SumoMC accepted the motion to dismiss, citing the refusal to compel shared legal representation for defendants breaking rule 5.6.
7. The plaintiff was then asked to refile each case separately, granting additional time to the absent defendants who should have faced a summary judgment.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. SumoMC's disregard for court Rule 5.6 constitutes a clear breach of procedural protocol, undermining the integrity of the judicial process and compromising the fairness of the proceedings. By accepting the motion to dismiss without sufficient legal basis, the judge failed in their duty to uphold the principles of fairness and equity, eroding confidence in the legal system.

2. The wrongful dismissal of FCR 49 represents a direct violation of my client's constitutional right to a prompt trial, exacerbating the already significant delay and denying them the justice they deserve. Requiring the plaintiff to file each case separately imposes an unjustifiable burden and prolongs the litigation process unnecessarily, compounding the harm caused by the initial dismissal.

3. The presiding officer's failure to acknowledge their error and instead altering the grounds for dismissal not only disregards established legal precedents but also undermines the trust in the judiciary, perpetuating injustice. The failure to grant a summary judgment to the absent defendants, who forfeited their right to participate in the proceedings, constitutes a grave miscarriage of justice and undermines the principles of fairness and equality before the law.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Reopening of case FCR 49 and assignment of a new judge to ensure fair and impartial proceedings. The Plaintiff requests the issuance of a summary judgment for the parties who originally missed the 72-hour timeframe.

2. The Plaintiff seeks $25,000 in Punitive Damages as compensation for the Defendant's outrageous conduct in mishandling FCR 49 and disregarding established court procedures. This punitive measure aims to deter similar misconduct in the future and hold the Defendant accountable for their actions.

3. The Plaintiff also requests $5,000 in Consequential Damages to address the exacerbation of existing conditions resulting from the Defendant's actions. The Defendant's disregard for procedural fairness violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right to a speedy trial, causing undue stress and further delays in seeking justice.

4. The Plaintiff seeks 30% of the value of this case, amounting to $9,000, in legal damages. The substantial costs incurred in refiling and appealing the case, coupled with the ongoing efforts to reopen it, necessitate compensation for the Plaintiff's financial burden. This reimbursement aims to mitigate the financial strain imposed on the Plaintiff throughout the legal process.


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

DATED: This 13th day of April 2024

Spoiler: Client

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Lawsuit: Dismissed - steveshat v. Former Shareholders of Keystone Holdings [2024] FCR 49

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION steveshat (Represented by Dragon Law) Plaintiff v. Former Shareholders of Keystone Holdings Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: steveshat is a man who was having a good time, and...

www.democracycraft.net

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI​

Your Honor, We respectfully request the dismissal of this case. Upon thorough review, it has been determined that while the presiding judge may have inadvertently breached court policy, it is apparent that they are in the process of reacclimating to their judicial duties after a period of absence.

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI​

Your Honor, We respectfully request the dismissal of this case. Upon thorough review, it has been determined that while the presiding judge may have inadvertently breached court policy, it is apparent that they are in the process of reacclimating to their judicial duties after a period of absence.

Very well, this case is dismissed at request of Plaintiff.