Search results

In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court dismisses this case sua sponte for lack of standing. The Plainitff has shown no personal injury or legal effect as required under Rule 2.1, and also lacks standing under Rule 2.1(3), as civilians cannot seek removal of officials from offices for issues...

In a 3-0 decision, the Supreme Court dismisses the Plaintiffs request for removal from office against the Vice President under Rule 2.2 for lack of standing and remands this case to the Federal Court. We believe that removing someone from office through the judiciary is only appropriate when...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT VERDICT zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 10 Civil Action I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION The Plaintiff argues the validity of the appointment of xDarkkex to the position of Secretary of Public Affairs, asserting that it violated the...

In a 3-0 decision the Supreme Court dismisses this case sua sponte under Rule 2.2 for lack of standing. The Plaintiff has failed to request a remedy this Court can grant to him.

The Commonwealth has 48 hours to present their Answer to Complaint.

@Attorney General's Office is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 12.

Case is now in recess pending verdict.

In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has voted to reject this appeal. The not guilty verdict and expungement were necessary to resolve the wrongful termination claim, given that the legality of the murders directly impacted the arrest and termination. The verdict does not pointlessly overturn a...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT VERDICT RaiTheGuy v. lukeyyyMC_ [2025] FCR 30 Civil Action I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 1. The Defendant is considered a “gaming institution” under the Commercial Standards Act by auctioning multiple mystery box auctions, which constitute...

@gribble19 you have around 53.5 hours to present closing statements.

In a 2-0 decision the Supreme Court has decided to grant this appeal. The legal fees are increased by $10,000 bringing the total amount to $30,000 making it now the minimum of 10% under the Legal Damages Act.

In a 2-0 decision the Supreme Court has decided to reject this appeal. We believe that while rule 3.6 does give the plaintiff the ability to request default judgment, the presiding officer still has the ability to evaluate the case and ultimately rule for either party.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to present Closing Statements, after it is posted, the 72-hour timer for the Defendant will begin.

The defense will be given the same extension time of 48 hours to present opening statements.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present their Opening Statement. Immediately after it is posted, the 48-hour timer for the Defendant will begin.

Objection sustained. This court does not believe that the testimony of a former DCT Secretary regarding eviction policy has sufficient connection between the case concerning the DPA. The witness is struck.

They are being given simultaneously in order to keep the case moving within the timeline given by the Court Rules and Procedures. Both parties are still given the 72 hours allotted.

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are given 72 hours, running simultaneously to present opening statements.

Discovery has now concluded, the validity of the witness is pending and will be determined once the plaintiff clarifies the relevance of their testimony to the case.

Could you clarify specifically the connection between DCT policy and the matter at hand?