Franciscus
Citizen
State Department
Homeland Security Department
Education Department
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Change Maker
5th Anniversary
Multiman155
Electoral Officer
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2025
- Messages
- 179
- Thread Author
- #1
Username: multiman155
I am representing a client
Who is your Client?: Vernicia
File(s) attached
What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 51
Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51
Basis for Appeal: After numerous discovery violations by the defense in the original case, and a failure to amend complaint, the Plaintiff filed for a Motion for Default Judgement under Court Rule 3.6 (Default Judgment, Failure to Submit Defense). Under the rule, Judges are permitted "to grant default judgment against the defendant" when the defendant fails to include "affirmations or denials on all facts" in their answer to complaint by the end of discovery.
In this case, the Judge granted a default judgement following the Plaintiff's Rule 3.6 motion. But, rather than entering a default judgement against the defense, the Judge entered a default judgement in favor of the defense. Rule 3.6 does not allow this, full stop. The meaning of "against the defendant" is not "in favor of the defendant", and the ruling in favor of the defense when not permitted by the rule is a clear judicial error under the rule that deprived the Plaintiff of the fundamental fairness in trials guaranteed in the Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms at Const. 32(9). As such, this is a massive error of law that should be reversed.
The ruling by the Federal Court is both perverse in its own right and contrary to the interests of justice. Throughout the case, the Plaintiff sought to compel evidence from the Defense that the Plaintiff believed would undermine the Defense's case. But the Defense repeatedly stonewalled and failed to present compelled and relevant evidence to the court. Rather than so much as charging the Commonwealth with Contempt of Court, much less punishing the Commonwealth with a default judgement for its various violations in discovery, the Court rewarded the Commonwealth's total and utter contempt for the case by granting a default judgement in its favor. As the whole purpose of default judgement is to be a sanction against the party who has defaulted in a case, this judicial error is truly massive. And it's one that had material effects on the outcome of the case: in the verdict the Judge writes that "[t]he commonwealth's reasoning [regarding the bank holiday] must be taken at face value as there is nothing putting it into question", but the judge denied the Plaintiff the ability to question witnesses and obtain testimony during trial that would have spoken to exactly that by not proceeding to trial.
The Appellant asks that the Default Judgement in favor of the Defendant be reversed and remanded to the Federal Court, with an order to grant a Default Judgement in favor of the Plaintiff in full. The Supreme Court must not let stand a lower court decision that rewards gross discovery violations and gross violations of court rules. It must overturn this decision.
Supporting Evidence: Government - Constitution
Information Thread 'Court Rules and Procedures'
INTRODUCTION
These are the established rules and procedures of the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont. It is important that lawyers and any player who is participating in court proceedings are aware of these rules and procedures.Furthermore, Motions and Objections have their own guides to follow in addition to these Court Rules and Procedures. You can view these guides here:
Guide - Motions
INTRODUCTION A motion is a procedural device that is a formal request made to a Court for a decision on a specific part of a case. A judge will either Sustain (to agree with) or Overrule (to disagree with) a motion. Motions can be made throughout the case until a verdict is delivered. Nb...
www.democracycraft.net
Guide - Objections
INTRODUCTION These are the established objections of the Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont that are established through court policy, unless otherwise codified within law. It is important that lawyers and any player who is objecting to a remark made by the opposing party or to a question...
www.democracycraft.net
