Lawsuit: Dismissed xdbh v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nick

Citizen
xdbh
xdbh
Barrister
Joined
Feb 15, 2026
Messages
22

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xdbh
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your Honor,

I stand before you to request that this Court prevent an imminent and unlawful injury. As the language of the Taxation Act stands, the Commonwealth is currently executing section 4 of said act in a manner that is not prescribed by law. Specifically, the prescribes that Personal Balance Taxes be calculated using a "Bracket" method while the current mechanism imposed calculates taxes using a "Step" method, which creates "Tax Cliffs" that greatly over-tax.

These illegal seizures have severely hindered my ability to enjoy the Commonwealth and have created a significant "economic chilling effect" on my activity. Under the "Step" method, 0% of my wealth is taxed up to $99,999.99. However, the moment I earn a single cent more, I am subjected to an effective tax rate of 10,000,000% on that marginal cent, resulting in an immediate $1,000.00 seizure. This "Tax Cliff" is a mathematical absurdity that violates the Executive’s duty to enforce the law as written. I believe the merits of this case will become self-evident as my arguments are heard.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES & STANDING​

1. The Plaintiff, xdbh
2. The Defendant, Commonwealth of Redmont
3. The Standing (Court Rules 2.1):
a. Rule 2.1(1)(b): The Plaintiff is directly affected by the application of law, specifically the Taxation Act, which threatens an imminent and certain seizure of property.​
b. Rule 2.1(2): The threatened injury is against the law, as the Defendant utilizes an illegal "Step" calculation.​
c. Rule 2.1(3): The remedy sought—including Injunctions, Writs, and Damages—is applicable under law.​

II. FACTS​

1. "Tax Brackets" or other related terms such as "bracket amounts" are technical and specific terms that refer to a specific way to calculating taxes.
2. The initial proposal for the Taxation Act (the First Wealth Act) utilized the phrasing "Personal balances between [X] and [Y]... shall be taxed," which describes a "Step" taxation system.
3. The Legislature subsequently amended this language (in the Make Commercial Tax less Convoluted Act) to read: "The following bracket amounts are inclusive and shall be taxed..."
4. The amendment specifically removed the phrase "Personal balances" as the subject of the tax rate and replaced it with the technical term "bracket amounts."
5. A "bracket amount" refers to the specific portion of funds falling within a defined range, whereas a "personal balance" refers to the total sum held by an individual.
6. The Commonwealth utilizes an automated mechanism that calculates tax based on the Total Personal Balance (the "Step" method) as opposed to "bracket amounts".
7. The Plaintiff’s balance is imminently approaching the threshold where this improperly calculated seizure will occur.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

CLAIM I: UNLAWFUL EXECUTION OF STATUTE (Taxation Act §4(2))
The Taxation Act §4(2), as amended by the Make Commercial Tax less Convoluted Act, provides that "the following bracket amounts are inclusive and shall be taxed at the following rates weekly." The original First Wealth Tax Act used the phrase "Personal balances between [X] and [Y]... shall be taxed at a rate of..." Congress deliberately replaced "Personal balances" as the subject with "bracket amounts." A "bracket amount" is the portion of funds falling within a defined range. A "personal balance" is the total sum held. The step method taxes the personal balance; the statute mandates taxing bracket amounts. The Commonwealth is executing the statute contrary to its plain text.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A Writ of Mandamus ordering the Commonwealth to refrain from the "Step" calculation method and utilize the "Marginal" method as mandated by the "Bracket Amount" language in the Taxation Act. (Judicial Standards Act §10a)
2. A Declaratory Judgment that the Taxation Act §4(2) requires marginal bracket taxation, and that the Commonwealth's "Step" method is unlawful.
3. Nominal Damages of $5,000 (Legal Damages Act §6).
4. Consequential Damages of $35,000 for the "Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont" due to the economic chilling effect (Legal Damages Act §7).
5. Legal Fees for a pro se litigant at the 30% rate or the Federal Court minimum of $6,000 (Legal Damages Act §9).

V. EVIDENCE & EXHIBITS​

EXHIBIT 1: Taxation Act (As it stands on the filing of this complaint), including its legislative history and all posts pertaining to it.

EXHIBIT 2: Plain text definition and examples of "Tax bracket".

EXHIBIT 3: A visualization of tax rates as it stands (Step Taxation) compared to how the Taxation Act prescribes (Marginal Taxation).
P-003.png

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 17th day of February 2026

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Writ of Summons


@Dogeington is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xdbh v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 10

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.

 
The Commonwealth is present your honor
 
Dogeington said:
The Commonwealth is present your honor
Click to expand...

You have 48 Hours to present an answer. Any submission of a motion will toll this deadline, just make it if so inclinde.

Otherwise Answer by 2/19/26 @ 9pm EST.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honor,

In order for me to continue my economic activity without fear of being taxed illegally in the event my personal balance reaches $100,000, I would like to request an emergency injunction preventing the Commonwealth from utilizing a "Step" calculation method my balance taxes. As an alternative, I ask that they utilize the prescribed "Marginal" calculation method, or temporarily cease the collection of my balance taxes, whichever is easier for the court.

 
nick said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your honor,

In order for me to continue my economic activity without fear of being taxed illegally in the event my personal balance reaches $100,000, I would like to request an emergency injunction preventing the Commonwealth from utilizing a "Step" calculation method my balance taxes. As an alternative, I ask that they utilize the prescribed "Marginal" calculation method, or temporarily cease the collection of my balance taxes, whichever is easier for the court.

Click to expand...

DENIED, the Court isn't granting emergency relief from hypothetical harms.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its denial of the Motion for Emergency Injunction and, in support thereof, submits the following:

I. THE HARM IS IMMINENT AND CERTAIN, NOT HYPOTHETICAL
The Court denied the injunction on the basis that it would constitute "emergency relief from hypothetical harms." The Plaintiff respectfully submits that this characterization, while understandable at first glance, does not reflect the nature of the threat.

The tax mechanism at issue is automated. No human decision-maker exercises discretion over whether or how the tax is applied. The moment the Plaintiff's personal balance reaches $100,000.00, the system will execute a seizure calculated under the "step" method—a method the Plaintiff contends is not authorized by statute. This is not speculative. The mechanism exists, it is active, and its operation is as certain as any automated process can be. The only variable is when the threshold is crossed, not if the seizure will occur.

An injury does not become "hypothetical" merely because the Plaintiff has, through deliberate restraint, managed to delay its occurrence. To hold otherwise would mean that a citizen who sees an unlawful trap ahead and stops walking has no right to ask the Court to remove it—they must first step into it.

II. THE PLAINTIFF IS SUFFERING A PRESENT INJURY
Even setting aside the imminent seizure, the Plaintiff is experiencing ongoing, present harm. The threat of an illegally calculated tax has forced the Plaintiff to artificially suppress their personal balance below the $100,000 threshold. The Plaintiff is currently unable to freely engage in economic activity—earning, saving, and transacting—without fear of triggering an unlawful taking. In financing the development of their fund, the Plaintiff has been forced to delay receiving funds—which may exceed $100,000—until this case is likely adjourned, rather than immediately capitalizing their firm, out of fear of illegal taxation.

This "economic chilling effect" is not a future harm. It is happening now, every day, and it directly impairs the Plaintiff's ability to enjoy the Commonwealth.

In Redmont Civil Liberties Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 60, this Court permitted a case to proceed where the plaintiff's claimed injury was, in part, a chilling effect on protected activity. That case was ultimately withdrawn by the plaintiff—it was not dismissed by the Court for lack of standing. The Plaintiff submits that the same reasoning applies here: a chilling effect caused by the threat of unlawful government action is a present, cognizable harm sufficient to confer standing.

III. THE PLAINTIFF'S DUTY TO MITIGATE COMPELS THE VERY CONDUCT THE COURT CHARACTERIZES AS "HYPOTHETICAL"
Under the Legal Damages Act §4(3)(a), the Plaintiff has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages. The Plaintiff's decision to suppress their balance below $100,000 is not evidence that the harm is speculative—it is the direct and legally required consequence of a known, imminent, unlawful seizure. To deny relief on this basis would place the Plaintiff in an impossible position: suffer the unlawful seizure and be told they should have mitigated, or mitigate and be told they have no case. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the law cannot demand both.

IV. THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORS THE PLAINTIFF
Under the Judicial Standards Act §9(1)(b), emergency injunctions are issued "before the court has tried a case to prevent harm." The risk here is asymmetric: if this Court grants the injunction and the Plaintiff ultimately loses, the Commonwealth can collect the owed taxes retroactively with no permanent harm to the treasury. If the Court denies the injunction and the Plaintiff ultimately prevails, their property will have already been unlawfully seized. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that this balance favors granting relief.

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court reconsider its denial and grant the emergency injunction.

 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Reconsideration for Emergency Injunction

DENIED.


The Court reviews Plaintiff’s initial filings and his motion to renew de novo. In denial of the prior instant motion, the Court stated that relief will not be granted from “hypothetical harms.” The Court will reiterate its position and expound upon it given the arguments levied by counsel.

ANALYSIS OF THE COURT

Plaintiff proffers immediate and ongoing harm as a result of the allegedly improper taxation scheme employed by the Government. He calls it a “seizure” and further states that it is within the prerogative of this Court to pre-emptively prevent harm prior to actual injury. He states how he employed “deliberate restraint” from the alleged taxation harm and that his ability to “freely engage in economic activity” is chilled.

This is not compelling.

Plaintiff, in his first EI motion, has already affirmed under perjury that he has not been directly taxed yet. Thus, he has no direct financial harm as a result of the Government’s policy; this action therefore is a public interest suit (see PluraGlassHouse v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 137). In line with FCR 137, the Court sees this current action as a public interest suit with a unique controversy (alleged misapprehension of the Taxation Act). The harm borne out of that controversy is financial, overtaxation of citizens as a result of the Government’s mistake. Plaintiff proffers to this court that it is an irreparable harm to have one’s money taken as a result of Government action. This is not a reasonable interpretation of an “irreparable harm.” In our common law, irreparable harm is an injury that can’t be reasonably remedied with a monetary award. See the following cases where an EI was used to ensure a party did not abscond with contested assets:


The temporary loss of money is not an irreparable harm. The Government is the issuer of the currency, it can’t run out of cash. The Government, if it loses this case, would be able to return the funds that would temporarily have been lost.

Lastly, the power of taxation is a constitutional power of Congress. The Court is in no position to broadly halt taxation across the country, nor it will order Staff to modify the plugin to the benefit of Plaintiff alone. The Plaintiff approached this Court with a public interest suit, the public at-large must benefit, not just him.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 
Last edited:
I thank the court for the reconsideration and the re-classification of my case, and humbly ask the court to clarify when the defense must file a response to the complaint by. If it is
Muggy21 said:
You have 48 Hours to present an answer
Click to expand...
which would make it Feb 18; if it is
Muggy21 said:
2/19/26
Click to expand...
or if the deadline has been tolled.
 
nick said:
I thank the court for the reconsideration and the re-classification of my case, and humbly ask the court to clarify when the defense must file a response to the complaint by. If it is

which would make it Feb 18; if it is

or if the deadline has been tolled.
Click to expand...


2/18/26 @ 9pm EST for the Answer. If CW files a motion to dismiss, the deadline for the answer is stopped.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION - LACK OF CLAIM

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.5, Lack of Claim
In the appeal of Anthony_Ord v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117 to the Supreme Court, within the Court’s verdict Justice Smallfries provides the following legal test:

Imagine first a law which is properly enacted and is not unconstitutional, but confers some harm or benefit (perhaps it raises taxes, or gives an expanded right to a certain class of citizen in a proper and legal way). It should be obvious that citizens would lack standing to sue over this law. Though the citizen may be harmed (either by the increased taxes, or not being a part of that certain class that is benefitted), there is no applicable remedy by the court. The court cannot overturn a law simply because a citizen dislikes it. There must be a legal reason for the law to be overturned.
Click to expand...
This example is nearly 1:1 to the case at hand, fully meeting both criteria outlined in the test. The Taxation Act has been properly enacted and is not unconstitutional - this is not a contested fact of the case. While the plaintiff is alleging that the enforcement of the tax will cause some harm to himself, they have failed to even purport any theory under which the Act could be rendered invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has unambiguously stated that, for such a case, no applicable remedy can be provided by the court.

Rule 5.12, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
The Plaintiff claims they are “imminently approaching the threshold where this improperly calculated seizure will occur,” yet they provide no evidence to support that assertion. In order for the Court to hear a case, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that they have standing. Without providing any kind of support that the Plaintiff has suffered some damage, they have failed to meet the standing requirement needed for the Court to hear this case. The Plaintiff admits in Fact 7 to not having paid the balance tax, and therefore has not been damaged by the application of this law. This alone is reason to dismiss this case.

Further, the Defense has reason to believe that the Plaintiff is not approaching this threshold, and respectfully submits the following into evidence.
1771461538548.png
Note that balance taxation does not begin until a balance of $100,000 has been reached.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@nick You have 48 Hours to respond to the motion. Answer timeline tolled.
 

Motion


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

The Plaintiff states in Fact 1 that, “‘Tax Brackets’ or other related terms such as ‘bracket amounts’ are technical and specific terms that refer to a specific way of calculating taxes.” This definition is not a fact - it is a mere assertion with no backing in Redmontian law.
Further Plaintiff states in Fact 5 that, “A "bracket amount" refers to the specific portion of funds falling within a defined range, whereas a "personal balance" refers to the total sum held by an individual.” This is also not a fact.
The No More Clarity Act repealed the Clarity Act, which established a common definition for words in Redmontian law. This act was repealed, and the NMC Act establishes that “Legislators do not always write with the Clarity Act in mind, because common definitions often are at odds with dictionary definitions. Mandating a specific dictionary's interpretation disallows the use of basic intentionalism and purposivism to understand what legislators actually meant in court.” Whatever definition the Plaintiff supposes these terms have, within some non-Redmontian context, are entirely irrelevant to Redmontian law - Congress has specifically designated that this is the case. Therefore, the Defense moves that this definition is a legal opinion and asks that these facts be struck in line with the precedent set in FCR 107.



Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

In Fact 7 the Plaintiff states under threat of perjury that “The Plaintiff’s balance is imminently approaching the threshold where this improperly calculated seizure will occur.” With the submission of D-001 this is clearly untrue. The Plaintiff has only $1925 in their balance, 51 times less than the minimum amount which can be taxed under the balance tax.
Therefore the defense moves that this fact be stricken.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION OF INTENT TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff notes intent and requests that the court approve this motion once discovery has been entered.

I. BASIS FOR AMENDMENT
This Court has reclassified this action as a public interest suit under PlureGlassHouse v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 137, finding that it presents "a unique controversy (alleged misapprehension of the Taxation Act)." This reclassification constitutes a material development in the framing of this case.
The Plaintiff's original Prayer for Relief included personal compensatory damages. These are no longer appropriate given the public interest nature of this action. The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Prayer for Relief to accurately reflect the relief that corresponds to the Court's classification — namely, declaratory and mandamus relief that benefits all citizens equally, rather than personal monetary recovery.
This amendment does not alter any previously submitted facts, claims for relief, or the core legal theory of the case. It narrows the relief sought to align with the Court's own determination of the case's nature.

II. PROPOSED AMENDED PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following:
1. Declaratory Judgment. A declaration that the Taxation Act's use of the term "bracket amounts" mandates a marginal bracket method of taxation, whereby only the portion of a citizen's balance that falls within each bracket is taxed at that bracket's rate — not a step or cliff method that applies a single rate to the citizen's entire balance upon crossing a threshold.
2. Writ of Mandamus — Correct Implementation. Pursuant to JSA §10(a), an order directing the Executive to recalculate and implement the personal income tax in accordance with the statutory text, using the marginal bracket method as defined in Prayer 1.
3. Writ of Mandamus — Transparent Verification Process. Pursuant to JSA §10(a), an order directing the Executive to establish a publicly accessible and auditable process for verifying that tax calculations conform to the statute. Given the mathematical complexity of bracket versus step taxation — the very ambiguity that gives rise to this dispute — ongoing transparency is necessary to ensure continued compliance and to protect the public interest.
4. Pro Se Litigant Fees. Reasonable fees as permitted by law for the Plaintiff's costs in bringing this public interest action.

III. WHY THIS AMENDMENT SERVES THE COURT
This amendment serves the interests of judicial economy and proper adjudication:

It eliminates the Defense's standing objection. The Defense's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.12 is grounded in the argument that the Plaintiff has not suffered personal financial harm. By removing personal compensatory damages, this objection becomes moot. The Plaintiff seeks only relief that operates on behalf of all citizens.
It eliminates the relevance of the Perjury Objection. The Defense's objection to Fact 7 concerned the Plaintiff's proximity to the $100,000 threshold. Under the amended Prayer, the Plaintiff's personal balance is entirely irrelevant to the relief sought.
It aligns the remedy with the legal theory. The Plaintiff's claim has always been that the Executive is misapplying the Taxation Act. The Writ of Mandamus — not compensatory damages — is the proper remedy for compelling lawful execution of a statute. JSA §10(a) provides for exactly this.
It responds to the Court's own reclassification. The Court determined this is a public interest suit. The Prayer for Relief should reflect that determination.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
nick said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION OF INTENT TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff notes intent and requests that the court approve this motion once discovery has been entered.

I. BASIS FOR AMENDMENT
This Court has reclassified this action as a public interest suit under PlureGlassHouse v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 117, finding that it presents "a unique controversy (alleged misapprehension of the Taxation Act)." This reclassification constitutes a material development in the framing of this case.
The Plaintiff's original Prayer for Relief included personal compensatory damages. These are no longer appropriate given the public interest nature of this action. The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Prayer for Relief to accurately reflect the relief that corresponds to the Court's classification — namely, declaratory and mandamus relief that benefits all citizens equally, rather than personal monetary recovery.
This amendment does not alter any previously submitted facts, claims for relief, or the core legal theory of the case. It narrows the relief sought to align with the Court's own determination of the case's nature.

II. PROPOSED AMENDED PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following:
1. Declaratory Judgment. A declaration that the Taxation Act's use of the term "bracket amounts" mandates a marginal bracket method of taxation, whereby only the portion of a citizen's balance that falls within each bracket is taxed at that bracket's rate — not a step or cliff method that applies a single rate to the citizen's entire balance upon crossing a threshold.
2. Writ of Mandamus — Correct Implementation. Pursuant to JSA §10(a), an order directing the Executive to recalculate and implement the personal income tax in accordance with the statutory text, using the marginal bracket method as defined in Prayer 1.
3. Writ of Mandamus — Transparent Verification Process. Pursuant to JSA §10(a), an order directing the Executive to establish a publicly accessible and auditable process for verifying that tax calculations conform to the statute. Given the mathematical complexity of bracket versus step taxation — the very ambiguity that gives rise to this dispute — ongoing transparency is necessary to ensure continued compliance and to protect the public interest.
4. Pro Se Litigant Fees. Reasonable fees as permitted by law for the Plaintiff's costs in bringing this public interest action.

III. WHY THIS AMENDMENT SERVES THE COURT
This amendment serves the interests of judicial economy and proper adjudication:

It eliminates the Defense's standing objection. The Defense's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.12 is grounded in the argument that the Plaintiff has not suffered personal financial harm. By removing personal compensatory damages, this objection becomes moot. The Plaintiff seeks only relief that operates on behalf of all citizens.
It eliminates the relevance of the Perjury Objection. The Defense's objection to Fact 7 concerned the Plaintiff's proximity to the $100,000 threshold. Under the amended Prayer, the Plaintiff's personal balance is entirely irrelevant to the relief sought.
It aligns the remedy with the legal theory. The Plaintiff's claim has always been that the Executive is misapplying the Taxation Act. The Writ of Mandamus — not compensatory damages — is the proper remedy for compelling lawful execution of a statute. JSA §10(a) provides for exactly this.
It responds to the Court's own reclassification. The Court determined this is a public interest suit. The Prayer for Relief should reflect that determination.

Click to expand...

Rule 3.5 (Amendment Exception)​

Amendments to an Answer or Complaint cannot change information that was already submitted.

Read the rules Counselor. You can't remove existing claims.
 
You honor I would like to request an extension for 48 hours.
 
Dogeington said:
your honor,
Does this apply to all pending deadlines? Or only the MTD
Click to expand...
Just MTD, everything else is untouched (or still stopped - the answer is stopped)
 
Muggy21 said:
Just MTD, everything else is untouched (or still stopped - the answer is stopped)
Click to expand...
Your Honor, in that case, there are still the perjury objection and motion to strike. Are those tolled pending the MTD?
 
Dogeington said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

In Fact 7 the Plaintiff states under threat of perjury that “The Plaintiff’s balance is imminently approaching the threshold where this improperly calculated seizure will occur.” With the submission of D-001 this is clearly untrue. The Plaintiff has only $1925 in their balance, 51 times less than the minimum amount which can be taxed under the balance tax.
Therefore the defense moves that this fact be stricken.

Click to expand...

SUSTAINED. I don't see a viable defense to this. No charge will be levied.

Motion to Strike will be tolled, as he's gonna amend.
 

Motion


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

Your honor, due to unforeseen circumstances, I have found myself in a position unable to litigate this case.

However, since I find that the case still has merit, I request the the case be dismissed without prejudice so that it may be brought to back to court at a future time.

 
nick said:

Motion


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

Your honor, due to unforeseen circumstances, I have found myself in a position unable to litigate this case.

However, since I find that the case still has merit, I request the the case be dismissed without prejudice so that it may be brought to back to court at a future time.

Click to expand...
Your honor I believe this is an attempted motion to Nolle Prosequi
 
Muggy21 said:
I believe it to be so too Mr. General.

Any response to it?
Click to expand...
The Commonwealth would ask that this case be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons stated in it's MTD.
 
Dogeington said:
The Commonwealth would ask that this case be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons stated in it's MTD.
Click to expand...
Your honor,

I anything relating to standing is moot since the court ruled that this case is a public interest case, and as such the Defendant's MTD should not be considered in ruling the Plaintiff's MTD. Additionally, the defense's citation to rule 5.5 is irrelevant since the Plaintiff is not seeking to have the law repealed, but simply that the government executes it properly.

In summary, the Plaintiff's MTD should be granted and the case dismissed without prejudice since anything in the Defense's MTD is not relevant to this case.
 
nick said:
Your honor,

I anything relating to standing is moot since the court ruled that this case is a public interest case, and as such the Defendant's MTD should not be considered in ruling the Plaintiff's MTD. Additionally, the defense's citation to rule 5.5 is irrelevant since the Plaintiff is not seeking to have the law repealed, but simply that the government executes it properly.

In summary, the Plaintiff's MTD should be granted and the case dismissed without prejudice since anything in the Defense's MTD is not relevant to this case.
Click to expand...
In future, you'd file a Motion to Nolle Prosequi (unwilling to continue prosecution). The Court and Defense understood what you meant.

I'll rule on this soonish.
 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order of Dismissal- xdbh v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 10


The action is dismissed without prejudice.

An action should be not dismissed with prejudice absent thorough fact-finding. CW's Rule 5.5 argument is not persuasive since this is a public-interest suit and the SCR's verdict is not entirely dispositive of the issue herein; The question posed by Plaintiff is not one of legality in the Act itself, but of improper execution of the Act. For that reason Rule 5.5 can't be used. Rule 5.11 furthermore can't be used to dismiss a Public Interest suit at this stage in line with [2025] FCR 137.

That being said, the Court is not here to hear suits from litigants, for said litigants to then drop them without consequence. For failure to properly prosecute a declared public interest suit, Plaintiff is required to proceed with co-counsel in a future public interest suit before the Federal Court (R. Const § 18 (3)(b)); Failure to do so shall constitute Contempt of Court.

No part of this order shall be dispositive to Commonwealth's defenses.


So ordered,
Judge Mug


 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top