Appeal: Pending [2025] FCR 84 - Appeal

[dodrio3]

Username: Dodrio3

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 84

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Dismissed - Lex Titanum (Formerly Titan Law) v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 84

Basis for Appeal: I. Procedural Filing
The dismissal claims “1. It was not filed properly. This case should have been an appeal to the Supreme Court within the limitations granted by law because you are appealing the result based on perceived bias.”This should NOT have been an appeal as we opened the case for a different reason. [2025] FCR 72 states “The Court does not find that ‘trial’ was meant to include appeals.” We filed [2025] FCR 84 specifically with this in mind, ensuring that we did not refer to what had gone dismissed. We did not contest the detention of a trial and felt no need to appeal, and instead refiled using different legal standing.
II. Duty to Mitigate
The dismissal claims “2. There is a duty to mitigate on the part of the parties. While it took 8 months or so for the case to be heard, the plaintiff did not make a single motion in that time to make the court aware of the standstill and then waited 2 additional months before filing this case.”
The Constitution imposes a duty upon the courts to deliver an unbiased verdict in all cases. This duty is not discretionary nor does it depend on a party’s reminders. By failing to act on the Plaintiff’s appeal for over 227 days, the court breached this constitutional duty, and it is this breach which caused the Plaintiff’s harm, not any alleged failure by the Plaintiff to prompt the court.
The reliance on the doctrine of mitigation is misplaced. Mitigation requires a party to take reasonable steps to limit losses within their control. But here, the harm arose entirely from the court’s failure to act — a matter outside the Plaintiff’s control. Just as a patient is not expected to remind a doctor of their duty to provide treatment, a lawyer should not be expected to nag the courts into fulfilling their constitutional duty to decide cases in a timely, impartial manner.
To permit the Federal Court to shift blame onto the Plaintiff for its own constitutional breach would invert the principle of justice and undermine confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
Additionally, the statement about taking over 2 months to file the case is completely false. The first appeal was filed within 2 weeks of the appeal and the second less than 6 weeks; even if rounded, it would be one month, not two. Despite this, the statute of limitations grants 4 months to file a case from when the offence was committed.
The precedent in End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31 states “The Plaintiff has alleged a failure to comply with a mandatory constitutional obligation. The Department of State should not need a ticket to comply with a constitutionally mandated timeline.” The same principle applies here — the courts should not need a prompt to comply with a constitutional obligation of an impartial trial.
III. Claims for Relief
The dismissal claims “3. No claims for relief were cited by law.” The Plaintiff stated that there was a constitutional breach as part of our appeal. This is a valid reason why the Plaintiff should be able to receive damages from the defence.

Supporting Evidence: