Lawsuit: Pending MysticPhunky v. Naezaratheus [2025] SCR 8

Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Attorney
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,554

Case Filing


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MysticPhunky (represented by Justice Compass Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Naezaratheus
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

MysticPhunky was doing construction on his property when Naezaratheus brutally murdered MysticPhunky after being invited to see the property. The crime scene produced by Naezaratheus delayed the construction MysticPhunky was doing – one of the primary ways the Plaintiff enjoys his time in Redmont. This not only made it impossible for MysticPhunky to enjoy activities the way he once did, but it delayed the amount of time before he could release the apartments in the building for rent, thus causing compensatory damages as well.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. MysticPhunky (Plaintiff)
2. Naezaratheus (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. MysticPhunky was doing construction on their property.
2. Naezaratheus then murdered MysticPhunky while MysticPhunky was doing construction.
3. The crime scene produced made MysticPhunky unable to work on his construction work for at least 8 hours.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Murder, an illegal action, resulted in Loss of Enjoyment by making the Plaintiff unable to enjoy the activity of Construction in Redmont for a prolonged period of time. It also resulted in a loss of income from not being able to complete rentable regions in the same amount of time.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $30,000 in Compensatory Damages for Lost Rentable Region Income
2. $20,000 in Consequential Damages for Loss of Enjoyment
3. $5,000 in Punitive Damages for Outrageous Conduct
4. $16,500 in Legal Fees (30% of case value)

EVIDENCE
1745440938370.png

1745440967274.png

1745441045673.png

1745441080596.png

1745441100300.png

CONSENT TO REPRESENT
1745440664138.png

 

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Appeal which this case was born from was not an Appeal for this case, rather an Appeal of the Countersuit which took place in [2025] FCR 26. This was abundantly clear in the Appeal. As such, we ask the Court to provide a Writ of Certiorari and reverse the appeal decision.

Furthermore, as shown in the Consent to Represent, the Appeal which this case was born from was not consented to by the Plaintiff, and as such it could not have been legally accepted. We ask the Court to provide a Writ of Certiorari and reverse the appeal decision.

 

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

If a Writ of Certiorari is not issued, we request Default Judgement as the Defendant is deported and lacks the right to contest this lawsuit in court.

1745441556630.png

 

Motion


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

The Defendant, moves this Court to dismiss this case pursuant to Rules 5.8, 5.9, and 5.4 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL:

1. Res Judicata (Rule 5.8): This exact matter has already been adjudicated in Federal Court case [2025] FCR 26, with a verdict rendered on the merits. The case was not properly appealed by the Plaintiff, as Justice Compass explicitly stated in their appeal filing that they were only appealing the countersuit portion, not the main case.

2. Collateral Estoppel (Rule 5.9): The identical factual questions presented in this case were already litigated and determined in the Federal Court case [2025] FCR 26.

3. Improper Jurisdiction (Rule 5.4): This case is improperly before the Supreme Court. As documented in the appeal filing, Justice Compass Law Firm appealed only the countersuit decision regarding legal fees, not the main case. The appeal specifically stated: "Basis for Appeal: The Defendant filed a countersuit alleging a Frivolous Case, and lost the countersuit." The scope of the appeal was clear and limited, and Justice Compass Law Firm has confirmed this in their own Motion to Reconsider where they state: "The Appeal which this case was born from was not an Appeal for this case, rather an Appeal of the Countersuit which took place in [2025] FCR 26." The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to order a retrial of the main case when only the countersuit was appealed.

4. Improper Appeal Process: The appeal that led to this case being before the Supreme Court did not follow proper procedure for appealing the main case verdict. As Justice Compass noted in their Motion to Reconsider, the appeal was specifically limited to the countersuit. The Supreme Court's acceptance of an appeal beyond its stated scope has created a procedural irregularity that should be corrected through dismissal.

 
Dartanboy said:

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

If a Writ of Certiorari is not issued, we request Default Judgement as the Defendant is deported and lacks the right to contest this lawsuit in court.

View attachment 54599

Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Defendant, Naezaratheus, opposes the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment on the following grounds:

1. The Defendant is not deported and is fully able to participate in these proceedings.
preview

2. The Court Rules and Procedures, specifically Rule 3.6, only permit a default judgment when a defendant fails to submit a defence prior to the end of discovery. As discovery has not yet begun in this case, a motion for default judgment is premature and procedurally improper.


Proof of representation:

preview
 
Last edited:

Objection


Breach of Procedure

The Defendant has not been summoned.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top