Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79

[Aladeen]

However @Claxx77 I still expect and answer to the defendants original question which you can find in his first message of the new trial.

 

[Claxx77]

Your honour, I request 24 hours extension. Also, I sent the proof of the payment to the defendant's lawyer.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

By proof of payment, the government means that it finally gave Nexalins $65,000 back. To us, that is not a payment and we shall be seeking a counterclaim.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

The prosecution has failed to respond to my original question in this court case. He was required to answer it within the first 24 hour extension. Will there be any sanctions for this? Additionally I would like you to know that we are preparing the countersuit against the government and will be posting it in this thread per your request.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM


Nexalin (Represented by Matthew100x)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont (Represented by the DLA)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Due to the constitutional abuses of this current administration, I will be filing a lawsuit against the government. When a defendant is found not guilty or wins their appeal, they are entitled to their cash back. The plaintiff for over thirty (30) days after they successfully overturned the convictions was denied their cash back. He is entitled to reimbursement per the JSA of the constitution as well as a violation of his 15h right that has crossed the bridge from being an accident, to negligence, to willful dereliction of duty.

I. PARTIES
1. Nexalin, Plaintiff.
2. Matthew100x, Plaintiff’s Attorney.
3. Commonwealth of Redmont, Defendant.
4. DLA, Defendant’s Attorney.
5. DOJ, as an extension of the Defendant.

II. FACTS
1. On November 24th, at the end of the original prosecution, the plaintiff of this counterclaim (henceforth “plaintiff”), Nexalin, was fined $65,000 as the defendant of FCR-79.
2. On December 20th, the plaintiff became the appellant of SCR-27, where he appealed the convictions made in FCR-79 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
3. In SCR-27, The plaintiff/appellant claimed that both guilty verdicts of the corruption charges failed to meet the Corruption Test laid out in SCR-16 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
4. In SCR-27, the plaintiff/appellant claimed that the fact set of FCR 68 and SCR 68 was similar enough that their guilty verdict for treason was improperly applied (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
5. On December 31st, The Supreme Court granted the appellant their appeal contingent on a new trial and overturned the convictions made in FCR-79 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
6. On January 5th, the plaintiff's attorney requested guidance on how to conduct the new trial within SCR-27 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
7. On January 6th, the Supreme Court instructed the court to reopen FCR-79 to begin the new trial within SCR-27 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
8. On January 20th, the plaintiff’s attorney made an appeal that the appeal had been accepted for over two weeks and that the lack of progress was violating the plaintiff’s 15th right as well as 20.1(a) and 21.1(b) of the Judicial Standards Act within SCR-27 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
9. On January 23rd, the plaintiff’s attorney followed up with the Supreme Court on a solution for the outstanding issue within SCR-27 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
10. On January 25th, FCR-79 was reopened and the plaintiff was summoned as a defendant by the Honorable Judge Aladeen.
11. On that same day, the attorney responding for the plaintiff demanded that the $65,000 dollars be returned to the plaintiff.
12. On January 29th, the plaintiff’s attorney posted for guidance for an emergency injunction and counterclaim and was told to keep posts within “one case”.
13. On that same day, shortly after, plaintiff’s attorney of this counterclaim posted a town hall in #legal explaining the charges and issues present in the continued freeze of the plaintiff’s $65,000 dollars (exhibit A).
14. On that same day, in fulfillment of xxTigOlBittiesxx (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16), a ticket was opened with the DLA, #ticket-4660, with a demand of $130,000 dollars. $65,000 dollars to return the Plaintiff’s property plus an additional $65,000 dollars as reimbursement for violating the constitution as well as the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. This ticket was not made classified (Exhibit B).
15. On January 30th, a full thirty (30) days after the initial charges were successfully appealed in SCR-27, the plaintiff and the DLA could not come to a settlement for the violation of the plaintiff’s rights as well as constitutional violations. The DLA did agree to pay back the plaintiff their original $65,000 dollars. (Exhibit B again)
16. The 15th right is defined as “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. (See Government - Constitution)
17. 20.1(a) is defined as “If the plaintiff had originally won the case and the defendant was charged with compensatory actions, the defendant will be fully refunded by the plaintiff” and is a constitutional law under the JSA. (See Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act)
18. 21.1(b) is defined as “Where an individual is found innocent at trial, they shall be compensated up to $50 per minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences” and is a constitutional law under the JSA. (See Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By withholding the plaintiff’s $65,000 dollars for 30 days after the plaintiff’s appeal had successfully overturned their guilty conviction, the defendant committed an “unreasonable seizure” and violated the plaintiff’s 15th right.
2. By not paying attention to SCR-27 and remitting the plaintiff’s $65,000 dollars on their successful appeal, the defendant became in violation of both 20.1(a) and 21.1(b) of the Judicial Standards Act.
3. The plaintiff, per 21.1(b), has the right to reimbursement for “unproved offences (offenses)”. An overturned guilty verdict awaiting a new trial is a definition for an unproved offense.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $65,000 dollars in damages for withholding the plaintiff’s cash for so long.
2. $13,000 in Legal Fees (20% of the case’s overall value).

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 1st day of February, 2023.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:
Tickets Dashboard


- Additional Information:

Cited Case Law:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16

The coroner reports show us who was killed, who started the fight and at what location it happened ( coords ) in the reports I provided u can see that dwerpy got killed twice by 2 different people and did not consent for it.

www.democracycraft.net

Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth Prosecution v. supersuperking Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: The use of one’s public office to benefit themselves is a high crime that...

www.democracycraft.net

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth (hugebob23456 and Mask3D_WOLF representing) Prosecution v. Milqy Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: Corruption is when someone uses their...

www.democracycraft.net

Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27

- Client Name: Nexalin - Counsel Name: Prodigium | Attorneys at Law, designate Trial Attorney as Matthew100x - Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant - Reason for the Appeal: The defendant, now appellant of this case, believes that the trial court erred in its decision...

www.democracycraft.net

Cited Statutes:
Government - Constitution - Right XV
Act of Congress - Constitutional Amendment - Judicial Standards Act - 20.1(a) and 21.1(b) (Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act).

 

[Claxx77]

Before we commence with the trial, I'd like to ask the prosecutorial authority, the DLA, if they wish to pursue and continue this case against my client.

Yes, we wish to continue. Also, I didn't respond because I was waiting for the extension. Here is the proof of payment.

 

[Aladeen]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM


Nexalin (Represented by Matthew100x)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont (Represented by the DLA)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Due to the constitutional abuses of this current administration, I will be filing a lawsuit against the government. When a defendant is found not guilty or wins their appeal, they are entitled to their cash back. The plaintiff for over thirty (30) days after they successfully overturned the convictions was denied their cash back. He is entitled to reimbursement per the JSA of the constitution as well as a violation of his 15h right that has crossed the bridge from being an accident, to negligence, to willful dereliction of duty.

I. PARTIES
1. Nexalin, Plaintiff.
2. Matthew100x, Plaintiff’s Attorney.
3. Commonwealth of Redmont, Defendant.
4. DLA, Defendant’s Attorney.
5. DOJ, as an extension of the Defendant.

II. FACTS
1. On November 24th, at the end of the original prosecution, the plaintiff of this counterclaim (henceforth “plaintiff”), Nexalin, was fined $65,000 as the defendant of FCR-79.
2. On December 20th, the plaintiff became the appellant of SCR-27, where he appealed the convictions made in FCR-79 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
3. In SCR-27, The plaintiff/appellant claimed that both guilty verdicts of the corruption charges failed to meet the Corruption Test laid out in SCR-16 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
4. In SCR-27, the plaintiff/appellant claimed that the fact set of FCR 68 and SCR 68 was similar enough that their guilty verdict for treason was improperly applied (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
5. On December 31st, The Supreme Court granted the appellant their appeal contingent on a new trial and overturned the convictions made in FCR-79 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
6. On January 5th, the plaintiff's attorney requested guidance on how to conduct the new trial within SCR-27 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
7. On January 6th, the Supreme Court instructed the court to reopen FCR-79 to begin the new trial within SCR-27 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
8. On January 20th, the plaintiff’s attorney made an appeal that the appeal had been accepted for over two weeks and that the lack of progress was violating the plaintiff’s 15th right as well as 20.1(a) and 21.1(b) of the Judicial Standards Act within SCR-27 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
9. On January 23rd, the plaintiff’s attorney followed up with the Supreme Court on a solution for the outstanding issue within SCR-27 (See Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
10. On January 25th, FCR-79 was reopened and the plaintiff was summoned as a defendant by the Honorable Judge Aladeen.
11. On that same day, the attorney responding for the plaintiff demanded that the $65,000 dollars be returned to the plaintiff.
12. On January 29th, the plaintiff’s attorney posted for guidance for an emergency injunction and counterclaim and was told to keep posts within “one case”.
13. On that same day, shortly after, plaintiff’s attorney of this counterclaim posted a town hall in #legal explaining the charges and issues present in the continued freeze of the plaintiff’s $65,000 dollars (exhibit A).
14. On that same day, in fulfillment of xxTigOlBittiesxx (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16), a ticket was opened with the DLA, #ticket-4660, with a demand of $130,000 dollars. $65,000 dollars to return the Plaintiff’s property plus an additional $65,000 dollars as reimbursement for violating the constitution as well as the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. This ticket was not made classified (Exhibit B).
15. On January 30th, a full thirty (30) days after the initial charges were successfully appealed in SCR-27, the plaintiff and the DLA could not come to a settlement for the violation of the plaintiff’s rights as well as constitutional violations. The DLA did agree to pay back the plaintiff their original $65,000 dollars. (Exhibit B again)
16. The 15th right is defined as “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. (See Government - Constitution)
17. 20.1(a) is defined as “If the plaintiff had originally won the case and the defendant was charged with compensatory actions, the defendant will be fully refunded by the plaintiff” and is a constitutional law under the JSA. (See Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act)
18. 21.1(b) is defined as “Where an individual is found innocent at trial, they shall be compensated up to $50 per minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences” and is a constitutional law under the JSA. (See Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By withholding the plaintiff’s $65,000 dollars for 30 days after the plaintiff’s appeal had successfully overturned their guilty conviction, the defendant committed an “unreasonable seizure” and violated the plaintiff’s 15th right.
2. By not paying attention to SCR-27 and remitting the plaintiff’s $65,000 dollars on their successful appeal, the defendant became in violation of both 20.1(a) and 21.1(b) of the Judicial Standards Act.
3. The plaintiff, per 21.1(b), has the right to reimbursement for “unproved offences (offenses)”. An overturned guilty verdict awaiting a new trial is a definition for an unproved offense.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $65,000 dollars in damages for withholding the plaintiff’s cash for so long.
2. $13,000 in Legal Fees (20% of the case’s overall value).

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 1st day of February, 2023.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:
Tickets Dashboard


- Additional Information:

Cited Case Law:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16

The coroner reports show us who was killed, who started the fight and at what location it happened ( coords ) in the reports I provided u can see that dwerpy got killed twice by 2 different people and did not consent for it.

www.democracycraft.net

Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth v. supersuperking [2022] FCR 68

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth Prosecution v. supersuperking Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: The use of one’s public office to benefit themselves is a high crime that...

www.democracycraft.net

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth (hugebob23456 and Mask3D_WOLF representing) Prosecution v. Milqy Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: Corruption is when someone uses their...

www.democracycraft.net

Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27

- Client Name: Nexalin - Counsel Name: Prodigium | Attorneys at Law, designate Trial Attorney as Matthew100x - Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant - Reason for the Appeal: The defendant, now appellant of this case, believes that the trial court erred in its decision...

www.democracycraft.net

Cited Statutes:
Government - Constitution - Right XV
Act of Congress - Constitutional Amendment - Judicial Standards Act - 20.1(a) and 21.1(b) (Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act).

The commonwealth has 48 hours from now to post either an answer to complaint or a motion to dismiss

 

[Matthew100x]

Your Honor,

it has been 96 hours (5 days) since the DLA was requested to answer the question of whether or not they intend to prosecute Nexalin and they have not yet posted a new complaint. Are we working off the initial complaint or can we demand a default judgment for lack of prosecution?

 

[Aladeen]

Given that the DLA said that they will continue with prosecution they have 24 hours to post a new complaint. No more time will be given unless extraordinarily circumstances.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

The government has failed to prosecute the defendant, the defense is requesting that default judgment in this criminal matter to find the defendant not guilty of any and all alleged crimes stemming from this case against him.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

The defendant of the counterclaim has failed to post their response within 48 hours. The plaintiff of the counteraction is requesting that default judgment in this civil matter be granted.

 

[Claxx77]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS TO COUNTERCLAIM


Nexalin (Represented by Matthew100x)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

Dismiss

There are not any legal basis for their request.
21 - Sentencing
(1) Where there is a continued threat to player safety or enjoyment due to the commission of crime, the prosecuting authority can impose punishment prior to a trial.
a. Where an individual is found guilty at trial, any punishment already undertaken will be deemed spent.
b. Where an individual is found innocent at trial, they shall be compensated up to $50 per minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences.

The Judicial Standards act 21 - Sentencing clearly states that if there is a continued threat to player safety or enjoyment due to commission of crime, the prosecution can impose punishment prior to trial.

The Judicial Standards act 21.1(b) states if they are found innocent at trial(if punishment is imposed before the trial), they shall be compensated up to $50 per minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences.

The plaintiff was not punished before the trial. So the commonwealth did not violate JSA 21 and JSA 21.1(b).


The JSA 20.1(a) states if the plaintiff had originally won the case and the defendant was charged with compensatory actions, the defendant will be fully refunded by the plaintiff.

The commonwealth has fully refunded the plaintiff (Exhibit 1). So the commonwealth did not violate the Judicial Standards act 20.1(a).

Constitution/XV. Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The commonwealth did not seize the defendant's property. The defendant refunded the plaintiff.

The defendant was able to open a DOJ ticket to get their payment earlier. Normally, if you didn’t get your payment within 2 weeks, you can open a DOJ ticket to get support from the department. But the defendant did not open a ticket to get support. Instead, they decided to get the payment and a reimbursement alongside the payment.

So the commonwealth did not violate any right of the defendant and this claim is not reasonable.

 

[Aladeen]

I apologize for being late, the commonwealth was given 24 hours to post a new complaint but they have failed to do so, of course, that by the time this message is sent more than 24 hours have passed. Furthermore, the commonwealth was in fact late to the 48-hour deadline to post either their answer to complaint or motion to dismiss, so this will not be considered. I will write the verdicts for both trials shortly.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your Honor,

It has been 5 days since you have announced a default judgment for both the criminal action and the counterclaim. Respectfully, when will the verdict be made?

 

[Aladeen]

Your Honor,

It has been 5 days since you have announced a default judgment for both the criminal action and the counterclaim. Respectfully, when will the verdict be made?

The verdict will be posted today, had some complications at the moment of writing it.

 

[Aladeen]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Nexalin v. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Countersuit)

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to reimburse the money that the Plaintiff was entitled, to given how they won their appeal.
2. The Defendant took well over 30 days to finally give the plaintiff back their rightful money.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear before the court.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This court rules in favor of the plaintiff given how it believes that due to the failure of the commonwealth to check on cases involving them failed to notice and to reimburse back the money from the plaintiff. not only did they fail to do so, but it took more than 3 weeks for the plaintiff to get their money back.

IV. DECISION
1. This court grants a full prayer of relief consisting of the following:

1. $65,000 dollars in damages for withholding the plaintiff’s cash for so long.
2. $13,000 in Legal Fees (20% of the case’s overall value).

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 

[Aladeen]

2nd verdict coming shortly.

 

[Aladeen]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. Nexalin [2022] FCR 79

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. Failed to appear, did not post a new claim as constructed.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Not Guilty on all charges
2. There is a lack of evidence on behalf of the prosecution
3. The Defendant used public information for the information in the contracts
4. A similar case was posted which resulted in the defendant on that case being found not guilty due to lack of evidence on some of the charges.


III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Given how the commonwealth failed to present a new case as instructed, we will continue based of the discoveries given in the past.
2. It is within the courts opinion that the defendant did in fact use his position to benefit himself as showed in the evidence related to the contracts. For the first treason charges, not all judges have to rule the same on cases, not even if they are extremely similar. I believe that the defendant does in fact as the honorable justice banana said “squeeze money” in moments of crisis.
3. For the final charge of corruption it is to remember that the defendant did in fact know that the government would most likely accept the deal the loan meaning that all the people that were offered the contract would’ve lost money.

IV. SENTENCE
1. Two counts of corruption, a total of $15,000 per count.
2. For one count of treason, a total of $20,000 and removal of office for one month.

Total: $50,000 in fines and removal of office for 1 month

The Federal Court thanks all involved.