Lawsuit: Dismissed Lex Titanum v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 70

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


---

Lex Titanum (Formerly Titan Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


---

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the 22nd of November 2024, the Plaintiff filed [2024] DCR 43 – Appeal. The Plaintiff did not receive any response from any judicial officer until July 7th, 2025 — a gap of 227 days. The Plaintiff’s right to a “speedy and fair trial,” as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont, has been violated due to this delay. The Plaintiff asks for $200 in compensation for every day over fourteen days (213 days), which the Plaintiff believes is a reasonable time frame to wait for a response. Additionally, the Plaintiff was deprived of approximately $550 in interest that would have accrued on £2000 over a period of seven months at a monthly rate of 3.5%.

---

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

---

I. PARTIES

1. Dodrio3 – Plaintiff


2. Commonwealth of Redmont – Defendant


3. Federal Court of Redmont

---

II. FACTS

1. On November 22nd, 2024, Dodrio3 filed [2024] DCR 43 – Appeal.


2. There was no response or indication of the status of the case from the Federal Court until July 7th, 2025.


3. There was a gap of 227 days from when the case was filed until any response was given to the case by the Federal Court.


4. The Plaintiff has a right to a “speedy and fair trial.”


5. The Plaintiff could have received a 3.5% interest rate on £2000 through a Volt Savings Account.

---

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff waited 227 days for a verdict on their appeal to the Federal Court. This prolonged delay violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to a speedy and fair trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont.


2. The Plaintiff has excluded fourteen (14) days from the total delay, deeming this a reasonable period for judicial response. The remaining 213 days constitute undue delay, for which the Plaintiff seeks $200 in compensation per day.


3. The Plaintiff was deprived of approximately $550 in interest that would have accrued on £2000 over a period of seven months at a monthly rate of 3.5%.

---

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $42,600 in punitive damages for the excess time (213 days) it took for the Federal Court to issue a judgment ($200/day)


2. $550 in lost interest (3.5% monthly) that the Plaintiff would have received if the judgment was made in a timely manner


3. Legal fees equal to 30% of the total monetary relief awarded in this case, regardless of the final amount granted

---

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 21st day of July 2025

 

[AmityBlamity]

I am remanding this case to the Federal Court of Redmont, as it deals with questions of constitutionality, over which the FCR has original jurisdiction.

 

[JunkCereal]

Writ of Summons

The Attorney General, @gribble19, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Lex Titanum v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 70.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

Your Honor, this motion to dismiss will be unusual. Our Court Rules and Procedures state that "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule [sic] that a lawyer wishes to submit under. The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions."

We find ourselves in a situation where there is no dismissal rule fitting the situation, although reason and precedent both prescribe that dismissing this case would be the correct decision. The Defendant will therefore file this motion under a rule that does not perfectly describe the situation, namely Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction). The Defendant, however, urges the courts to consider adding a rule to allow for dismissal to be requested in similar situations in the future.

Plaintiff's counsel does not have any Barrister qualifications and is not allowed to practice or file cases in this court. The Defendant respectfully requests this case be dismissed in line with the precedent set in MC20masarati v. TheExchange [2025] FCR 55.

The Defendant could provide evidence of Plaintiff's counsel's lack of Barrister qualifications, however per the Court Rules and Procedures evidence can only be entered by Defendant either in the Answer to Complaint or during Discovery, and therefore it seems impossible to provide the evidence currently.

 

[JunkCereal]

Motion

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

Your Honor, this motion to dismiss will be unusual. Our Court Rules and Procedures state that "A Motion to Dismiss must specify the Discovery Rule [sic] that a lawyer wishes to submit under. The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions."

We find ourselves in a situation where there is no dismissal rule fitting the situation, although reason and precedent both prescribe that dismissing this case would be the correct decision. The Defendant will therefore file this motion under a rule that does not perfectly describe the situation, namely Rule 5.12 (Lack of Personal Jurisdiction). The Defendant, however, urges the courts to consider adding a rule to allow for dismissal to be requested in similar situations in the future.

Plaintiff's counsel does not have any Barrister qualifications and is not allowed to practice or file cases in this court. The Defendant respectfully requests this case be dismissed in line with the precedent set in MC20masarati v. TheExchange [2025] FCR 55.

The Defendant could provide evidence of Plaintiff's counsel's lack of Barrister qualifications, however per the Court Rules and Procedures evidence can only be entered by Defendant either in the Answer to Complaint or during Discovery, and therefore it seems impossible to provide the evidence currently.

You may provide the evidence.

 

[dodrio3]

The Plaintiff wishes to close the case so that they my get the relevant qualifications and refile once they have received the correct qualification.

 

[JunkCereal]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Lex Titanum v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 70
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

At the request of the plaintiff, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiff is instructed to provide proof of qualification when they refile the case.