- Joined
- Mar 24, 2025
- Messages
- 18
- Thread Author
- #1
Username: JunkCereal
I am representing a client
Who is your Client?: The Commonwealth of Redmont
File(s) attached
What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 41
Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 41
Basis for Appeal:
Your Honors,
We appeal this decision on a point of law. The Plaintiff argued that their constitutional rights were violated by § 6 of the now struck Plot Regulations Act (or "Act"). They were not.
First, the Constitution § 32 states that rights are "... subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." The Commonwealth contends that the Act fell within those reasonable limits. Congress believed that setting a lower c-plot limit was a positive and necessary aim, and to that end, they sought to ensure that all players fell below that limit. Since only three players would have had their plots "seized" at the time, and assuming the Court agrees that the aim of the clause was reasonable, any limitations of rights alleged regarding the Act must have been justified.
Second, it is incorrect to state the Act enforced "unreasonable seizure" since the Plaintiff would have been provided a fair value for their plots, and would have had the opportunity to select which plots to sell. If the Act was unreasonable, then so is any law limiting the amount of property a player can own. Furthermore, any law forcibly "seizing" a player's wealth through taxation could be considered unreasonable by the very short and broad verdict issued in this case. This is an untenable precedent.
We appeal this decision because the Government was denied a chance to present its case. Though the previous Attorney General failed to meet the deadline for summons, allowing the verdict to stand as it is would be a miscarriage of the constitution and law. We appeal so that the Department of Justice, now under new leadership, may be allowed the opportunity to have this case receive a proper trial.
Lastly, it should be noted that the verdict of this case was decided within the required month to file an appeal set by the Judicial Standards Act § 20.2 (Note: § 20 - Appeals.) This is mentioned due to a competing and subordinate standard set by the courts in Appealing a Federal Court Decision para. 2.
Supporting Evidence:
I am representing a client
Who is your Client?: The Commonwealth of Redmont
File(s) attached
What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 41
Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 41
Basis for Appeal:
Your Honors,
We appeal this decision on a point of law. The Plaintiff argued that their constitutional rights were violated by § 6 of the now struck Plot Regulations Act (or "Act"). They were not.
First, the Constitution § 32 states that rights are "... subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." The Commonwealth contends that the Act fell within those reasonable limits. Congress believed that setting a lower c-plot limit was a positive and necessary aim, and to that end, they sought to ensure that all players fell below that limit. Since only three players would have had their plots "seized" at the time, and assuming the Court agrees that the aim of the clause was reasonable, any limitations of rights alleged regarding the Act must have been justified.
Second, it is incorrect to state the Act enforced "unreasonable seizure" since the Plaintiff would have been provided a fair value for their plots, and would have had the opportunity to select which plots to sell. If the Act was unreasonable, then so is any law limiting the amount of property a player can own. Furthermore, any law forcibly "seizing" a player's wealth through taxation could be considered unreasonable by the very short and broad verdict issued in this case. This is an untenable precedent.
We appeal this decision because the Government was denied a chance to present its case. Though the previous Attorney General failed to meet the deadline for summons, allowing the verdict to stand as it is would be a miscarriage of the constitution and law. We appeal so that the Department of Justice, now under new leadership, may be allowed the opportunity to have this case receive a proper trial.
Lastly, it should be noted that the verdict of this case was decided within the required month to file an appeal set by the Judicial Standards Act § 20.2 (Note: § 20 - Appeals.) This is mentioned due to a competing and subordinate standard set by the courts in Appealing a Federal Court Decision para. 2.
Supporting Evidence:
Attachments
Last edited: