Appeal: Denied Case No. 07-2021-22 - Appeal Request

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alexander P. Love

Managing Partner, Dragon Law
Construction & Transport Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Willow Resident
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
582
- Client Name: ChAkslesn
- Counsel Name: The Lovely Law Firm
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff
- Reason for the Appeal: Judge BubbaRC erred in his judgement of the case when he instructed the DOJ to “to fine the defendant for however much of the $505,960 as they can obtain and unfine that amount to the plaintiff” when the wording currently standing as precedent in the Supreme Court is to the effect of “to fine the defendant $505,960 and unfine that amount from the Plaintiff”. In a similar case, where the Defendant was banned, the precedent was still set for the wording to be “I order: The transfer of $14,300 from the defendant to the plaintiff.” (Lawsuit: Adjourned - YoungBuck2k (Prodigium and Partners at Law Representing) vs YTAnarchy | Case 3-2021-21). The precedent should have been followed, since there was no reason to do otherwise. Congress created provisions to handle court debts in the anticipation that they would have to deal with it eventually, and therefore the Court owes Congress no favors as far as saving money. Justice should be above this. In fact, all court cases followed the fine x, unfine x formula, except for in the case, which is a clear violation of the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. This departure from precedent has made it difficult for our client to retrieve the compensation he deserves and must be rectified. The Department of Justice previously fined AcilousS a bunch of money for the murder of Chak's villagers, money Chak never saw. He was left with the remaining $400 of AcilousS' balance, essentially nothing to compensate for what was taken from him. This lapse in justice, equality under the law, and immorality should be rectified by the Supreme Court. Thank you.
- Additional Information: Link to original case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - ChAkselsn (The Lovely Law Firm Representing) v. AcilousS [Case No. 07-2021-22]
 
Good Evening Alexander,

I will be writing on the behalf of the Honorable Chief Justice Westray as an Associate Justice of this Court. I will be penning the response of this court to this appeal.

The Supreme Court moves to deny your appeal without prejudice on several grounds.

First and foremost is that the Defendant cited in the case being appealed has quit the server and cannot pay their debts. They have not played in over three months and it is unlikely that they will ever come back. They owe north of $570,000 dollars in fines as they have been found liable through judgment, though mostly default judgment, to be culpable for damages they have inflicted. When judges instruct the DoJ to fine and unfine a person, we know that there are limitations. The primary one being that a person can only be compensated for damages with only as much money as an offender actually has. Since the person did not have adequate funds to cover the damages they caused, the plaintiff that your firm represented, unfortunately, could not recover the full amount of damages.

The second is that this Court does not ascribe to the enforcement of positive rights. Read Prodigium & Partners at Law vs the Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 01-2021-16] for further detail. We cannot force the government to act outside of the boundaries of the law. The law dictates that, at the time, plaintiffs be awarded debts from the defendant as so far as the defendant can afford. Any cases in which the defendant can not afford to pay their debts should be submitted before Congress to reclaim damages done by the defendant. I want to finish this point by adding that since the resolution of the case, the Debt Recovery Act has since been amended by the August Debt Recovery Act. While Ex Post Facto prevents your client from asking the DOJ for their budget for compensation, it should help your client recover damages done by the defendant by clarifying some issues you might be having.

The third is that this issue is mostly that of semantics. As pointed out in point 1, your client was only ever going to receive from the defendant what they have. Bubba not saying exactly what was said by other Judges does not step outside SOP for both the Court and the procedure for handling debts, as the intent was still the same. This court is working off of existing information posted in this appeal and to the lawsuits linked and we do not believe that Bubba meant to harm your client in any way and penned a different way of asking the DoJ to implement debt recovery for your client.

This court will help your client recover damages incurred and recommends the plaintiff to take the matter before Congress to recover damages. This Court is not in the position to force the government to pay your client the damages they have incurred. If there are further issues on legal grounds in regards to the recovery of damages for the plaintiff, please feel free to submit another appeal request using this lawsuit (as long as it's within the statute of limitations).

This court is now dimissed.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Matthew100x
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top