Jakovus
Citizen
Judge
State Department
Oakridge Resident
Grave Digger
Change Maker
Popular in the Polls
Legal Eagle
Jakovus
Judge
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2021
- Messages
- 159
- Thread Author
- #1
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
xtub12345 (Represented by Solid Law Firm)
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Your honour,
As per the Supreme Court decision on the appeal of this case (it was firstly dismissed in the Federal Court) [2022] FCR 94 - Appeal Request - SCR 25 [2022], the Supreme Court stated the case is valid, however, it is due to be filed with civil damages and the appeal to the contempt of court separately, which is why I am refiling the case to soley appeal the charge.
The functionality and efficiency of the judicial system in Redmont have always been of the utmost importance to the proper functioning of all arms of government and the state, in general. On that note, when something in this machinery, either by accident or on purpose, goes amiss, one should use their rights to correct it.
While executing the duties of the State Prosecutor, the Plaintiff was called by the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont to represent the Commonwealth in the case Unfairly Taxed Citizens CALG v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 77, which has, since then, been dismissed. The Plaintiff, in their capacity as the State Prosecutor, represented the Commonwealth in the case for a minimal amount of time, after which they tendered their resignation from the aforementioned position, while the case was still being heard by the Court.
Afterward, the Department of Legal Affairs failed to notify the Court of the resignation, and the Court assumed the Plaintiff was in contempt. The Plaintiff could not have, nor should have, notified the Court of their resignation as they would have been rightfully charged with contempt in their own capacity for speaking in name of the Commonwealth, when they were not authorised to. It was the duty of the newly assigned counsel to inform the Court of the Plaintiff’s inability to continue the litigation, but it did not. The presiding Judge, dygyee, conclusively issued the charge of contempt of court.
PARTIES
1. xtub12345
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
FACTS
1. On 5th October, 2022, the Plaintiff was assigned to represent the Commonwealth of Redmont at the case “Unfairly Taxed Citizens CALG v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 77”
2. On 12th October, 2022, the Plaintiff tendered their resignation to the Department of Legal Affairs
3. On 16th October, 2022, the Federal Court of Redmont issued a contempt of court charge against the Plaintiff for failing to respond to the Court on the Commonwealth’s behalf
4. On 16th October, 2022, The_Donticus (hereinafter Donut), who became the Attorney-General that day, apologised for the inconvenience and cautioned the honourable Judge dygyee it was the responsibility of the Department of Legal Affairs to notify the Court of the Plaintiff’s resignation
5. On 17th October, 2022, the newly appointed representative of the Commonwealth, Dartanman, articulated his disapproval at the decision to charge the Plaintiff for contempt of court and conclusively requested for the Court to retract the charge
6. The honourable judge presiding over the case, dygyee, refuted the request to lift the charge of contempt of court, stipulating it was still the Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court of their absence and resignation
7. Complement to the previous fact, the Judicial Standards Act regulates the contempt of court charge as follows: “the act of speaking in a court case when not involved or summoned to provide testimony or the failure to respond in reasonable circumstances when requested by the court.”
8. Since the charge in question was adjudicated by the Federal Court, only the Federal Court shall hold the jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter, irrespective of the fact the total relief requested by the Plaintiff amounts to $750; this case should not be heard at the District Court
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiff relieved themselves of all duties connected with the Department of Legal Affairs, including representing the Commonwealth in this case, and as such could no longer participate in the proceedings. Furthermore, the Plaintiff would’ve breached the Judicial Standards Act were they to, upon their resignation, notify the Court of their absence. The Court wrongfully served the Plaintiff with the charge of contempt of court, as it was the duty of the Department of Legal Affairs to notify the Court, with which the Plaintiff was after their resignation unaffiliated.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
EVIDENCE
Exhibit A: The Plaintiff announcing their clear intent at resignation (dated)
Exhibit B: The Plaintiff announcing they have resigned from the Department of Legal Affairs (dated)
Exhibit C: The Plaintiff is charged with contempt of court by the presiding Judge
Exhibit D: The Attorney-General Donut contests the charge, stipulating the Department of Legal Affairs should have sourced a replacement.
Exhibit E: The Commonwealth’s representative, Dartanman, contests the charge, stipulating it was not the Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court of their absence as they were off the case
Exhibit F: The Court stands by its decision to serve the charge, stipulating it was the Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court
Proof of Consent to Represent:
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 10th day of December 2022
CIVIL ACTION
xtub12345 (Represented by Solid Law Firm)
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Your honour,
As per the Supreme Court decision on the appeal of this case (it was firstly dismissed in the Federal Court) [2022] FCR 94 - Appeal Request - SCR 25 [2022], the Supreme Court stated the case is valid, however, it is due to be filed with civil damages and the appeal to the contempt of court separately, which is why I am refiling the case to soley appeal the charge.
The functionality and efficiency of the judicial system in Redmont have always been of the utmost importance to the proper functioning of all arms of government and the state, in general. On that note, when something in this machinery, either by accident or on purpose, goes amiss, one should use their rights to correct it.
While executing the duties of the State Prosecutor, the Plaintiff was called by the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont to represent the Commonwealth in the case Unfairly Taxed Citizens CALG v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 77, which has, since then, been dismissed. The Plaintiff, in their capacity as the State Prosecutor, represented the Commonwealth in the case for a minimal amount of time, after which they tendered their resignation from the aforementioned position, while the case was still being heard by the Court.
Afterward, the Department of Legal Affairs failed to notify the Court of the resignation, and the Court assumed the Plaintiff was in contempt. The Plaintiff could not have, nor should have, notified the Court of their resignation as they would have been rightfully charged with contempt in their own capacity for speaking in name of the Commonwealth, when they were not authorised to. It was the duty of the newly assigned counsel to inform the Court of the Plaintiff’s inability to continue the litigation, but it did not. The presiding Judge, dygyee, conclusively issued the charge of contempt of court.
PARTIES
1. xtub12345
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont
FACTS
1. On 5th October, 2022, the Plaintiff was assigned to represent the Commonwealth of Redmont at the case “Unfairly Taxed Citizens CALG v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 77”
2. On 12th October, 2022, the Plaintiff tendered their resignation to the Department of Legal Affairs
3. On 16th October, 2022, the Federal Court of Redmont issued a contempt of court charge against the Plaintiff for failing to respond to the Court on the Commonwealth’s behalf
4. On 16th October, 2022, The_Donticus (hereinafter Donut), who became the Attorney-General that day, apologised for the inconvenience and cautioned the honourable Judge dygyee it was the responsibility of the Department of Legal Affairs to notify the Court of the Plaintiff’s resignation
5. On 17th October, 2022, the newly appointed representative of the Commonwealth, Dartanman, articulated his disapproval at the decision to charge the Plaintiff for contempt of court and conclusively requested for the Court to retract the charge
6. The honourable judge presiding over the case, dygyee, refuted the request to lift the charge of contempt of court, stipulating it was still the Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court of their absence and resignation
7. Complement to the previous fact, the Judicial Standards Act regulates the contempt of court charge as follows: “the act of speaking in a court case when not involved or summoned to provide testimony or the failure to respond in reasonable circumstances when requested by the court.”
8. Since the charge in question was adjudicated by the Federal Court, only the Federal Court shall hold the jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter, irrespective of the fact the total relief requested by the Plaintiff amounts to $750; this case should not be heard at the District Court
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiff relieved themselves of all duties connected with the Department of Legal Affairs, including representing the Commonwealth in this case, and as such could no longer participate in the proceedings. Furthermore, the Plaintiff would’ve breached the Judicial Standards Act were they to, upon their resignation, notify the Court of their absence. The Court wrongfully served the Plaintiff with the charge of contempt of court, as it was the duty of the Department of Legal Affairs to notify the Court, with which the Plaintiff was after their resignation unaffiliated.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
- The charge of contempt of court be annulled and stricken from the Plaintiff’s criminal record
EVIDENCE
Exhibit A: The Plaintiff announcing their clear intent at resignation (dated)
Exhibit B: The Plaintiff announcing they have resigned from the Department of Legal Affairs (dated)
Exhibit C: The Plaintiff is charged with contempt of court by the presiding Judge
Exhibit D: The Attorney-General Donut contests the charge, stipulating the Department of Legal Affairs should have sourced a replacement.
Exhibit E: The Commonwealth’s representative, Dartanman, contests the charge, stipulating it was not the Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court of their absence as they were off the case
Exhibit F: The Court stands by its decision to serve the charge, stipulating it was the Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court
Proof of Consent to Represent:
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 10th day of December 2022
