Appeal: Denied [2025] FCR 58 - Appeal

[Dartanboy]

Username: Dartanboy

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: MrFluffy2U94

File(s) attached

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 58

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Dismissed - MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 58

Basis for Appeal: New Evidence & Unfair Dismissal

Supporting Evidence: On new evidence:
We have obtained evidence that the DoE and DCT conspired to block the exams at the same time as the auctions specifically to prevent people from bidding on the auction. It was not simply a "professional requirement" as the Commonwealth claimed in the original case.

On the Unfair Dismissal:
The Dismissal was largely due to the Honorable Ko531 saying "As the actions by the commonwealth applied to all citizens equally, was allowed under the law and without unfair [discrimination], it is therefore not in violation of the 13th right and this case must be dismissed."

However, this is essentially a verdict without hearing Opening or Closing Statements. The dismissal is for "lack of claim" but we had a claim: the claim was that the actions of the Commonwealth violated my client's 13th right. The Court ruled that they did not violate the right, and dismissed the case.

While it may be possible that we are incorrect about a rights violation, to dismiss the case for lack of claim (essentially meaning we did not allege all the elements required of a civil case, which we did) simply because our interpretation is different is prejudicial.

 

[Dartanboy]

The New Evidence Mentioned

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

We ask that while this appeal is pending, "realtor-only" auctions be frozen, as allowing them to continue will cause irreversible harm by permanently making the plots my client wishes to bid on unavailable to him.

 

[Matthew100x]

In a 3-0 decision, the Supreme Court has declined to hear this case.

First Count for Appeal:
New Evidence is not a basis for appeal. (see 19.4 - Appeals, Government - Constitution)

Second Count for Appeal:

The Honorable Ko did an extensive analysis on the 13th Right. It is reasonable limitation of a right to have a realtor-only auction. The Executive Standards Act and Property Standards Act gives broad leeway to the DCT to establish the policy. (see, Lawsuit: Dismissed - MrFluffy2U94 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 58, see Property Standards Act, Act of Congress - Property Standards Act, see 11 - Department of Construction & Transportation Act of Congress - Executive Standards Act). Ko's ruling was not prejudicial; it is the duty of the Judiciary, and thus all Judicial Officers, to make rulings consistent with the law. (see 14 - Role‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌Federal‌ ‌Court‌ ‌System‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont, Government - Constitution).​