Appeal: Accepted Case No. 07-2021-06-01 - Appeal Request

[GoodMorning9]

- Client Name: Department of Justice
- Counsel Name: GoodMorning9 (Prosecutor)
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant (This case is nnmc v. DoJ, though it has the same case number as another case)
- Reason for the Appeal:

1. The Department of Justice lost this case due to a heavy case load in the office of the attorney general a the time, the sitting attorney general at the time was busy and it is totally unfair to fine the department such a large amount due to this.
2. The evidence provided by the plaintiff, not only does not show who took the photos, but does not show who in particular killed the person who took the photo
3. The plaintiffs severely misinterpreted the law in question, as the referenced law (Protection of the public act) says “The punishment for Police Misconduct shall be a fine of at least $500 and at most $10,000, jail time of at most 30 minutes, and the offending officer may be stripped of their officer position and be temporarily or permanently barred from serving as an officer in the future, at the court’s discretion.” The law is clearly intended to punish officers, not the department of justice, and we are not contesting the punishment given to the officer in question. The intention is clear because departments cannot be jailed. However the fine is completely unjust, the department of justice is not responsible for the police misconduct that is referenced. The plaintiffs cut off their quote of the law right before the part about jail time due to the fact that they knew it would hurt their case. The law also seems to reference that police misconduct is a crime for making up punishments. The law says "Any officer found guilty in court to be issuing punishments that conflict with the punishments specifically outlined is to have committed Police Misconduct." Therefore the plaintiffs surely should not use this law as a reference.
4. There is no evidence showing anyone was even killed by the specific player in question because the picture of death could have been taken by anyone who was killed by anyone.
5. Even if the law was interpreted correctly (which it was not) the plaintiff never provided any evidence showing how they were so negatively affected to warrant the maximum punishment
6. The court should have done a thorough review of the law and despite that they had to rule in a default ruling, the court still should have asked questions about why the plaintiff deserved this compensation, this kind of questioning is common in frivolous cases resulting in default ruling.
7. In conclusion, the plaintiff clearly was trying to use the court for an opportunity to make money, providing a lack of evidence, no real reasoning behind their prayer for relief, and a misinterpretation of the law. The court is meant to bring justice, not as a form of making money. Therefore the court should overturn this decision.

- Additional Information: I understand that it is likely that the $10,000 split between nnmc and MoyUwW has already been paid, We are asking that the court removes $5000 each from the accounts of nnmcg and MoyUwu, and give that money to the Department of Justice. We also know this is a late appeal but since it has been less than 14 days since the ruling In the original suit, according to court procedure the Department of Justice still can appeal. Also, I know this case has the same number as another pending appeal, the original cases were numbered the same, the case I am appealing is nnmc v DoJ.

 

[Westray]

Congratulations, the Supreme Court has decided to grant your appeal to re-consider Case No. 07-2021-06-01.

We believe that there is sufficient grounds for the court to reconsider this case. It is evident that the Department of Justice was provided an inadequate counsel, as the then-Attorney General did not respond to the case within the proper allocated time.

This lack of adequate counsel resulted in a default judgement of a near maximum punishment and the termination of a police officer. While we believe the Plaintiff may have potentially had merit in such case, we believe that the Defendant was not given the opportunity to properly defend themselves in a default judgement.

The Court has posted a copy of the original case in the Supreme Court subforum, please provide your answer to complaint when possible.