Lawsuit: Dismissed CorruptedtheWolf v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] SCR 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

Snowy_Heart

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Snowy_Heart
Snowy_Heart
justice
Joined
Aug 30, 2023
Messages
241
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

CorruptedtheWolf (Lovely Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

The CommonWealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On December 30th, Lovely Law initiated legal proceedings by filing a suit on behalf of our client, CorruptedtheWolf, who suffered the heartbreak of losing her beloved pet. Despite the gravity of the situation, it has been 17 days since the filing, and the opposing counsel has not yet been summoned into court. This delay in the legal process is a cause for concern as it appears to violate our client's fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the constitution.
Adding to the complexity of the matter is the fact that numerous cases filed subsequent to CorruptedtheWolf v. Praisefelines [2023] FCR 112 have already been summoned and are actively progressing through the legal system. The disparate treatment of our client's case in comparison to these newer filings raises questions about the equitable administration of justice.

The prolonged delay not only compromises our client's right to a timely resolution but also exacerbates the emotional distress she is already enduring due to the loss of her cherished pet. A timely and fair trial is essential not only for the pursuit of justice but also for providing closure and relief to our client during this challenging time.

In light of these circumstances, it becomes imperative to seek immediate redress. Our client has a legitimate expectation for her case to be heard promptly, and any undue delay could further undermine the pursuit of justice.

The extended delay in summoning the opposing counsel and advancing our client's case raises serious concerns about the infringement of her right to a speedy trial. Taking proactive steps to address this issue is vital to ensuring that our client receives the justice she seeks and to alleviate the emotional burden caused by the unresolved court case.



I. PARTIES
1. CorruptedtheWolf
2. The CommonWealth of Redmont
3. The Federal Court of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. On December 30th the lawsuit CorruptedtheWolf v. Praisefelines [2023] FCR 112 was filed on the forums.
2. After 17 days the lawsuit has not been summoned or recognized by the court.
3. Multiple cases filed after CorruptedtheWolf v. Praisefelines [2023] FCR 112 have been summoned into the court and are currently on going. These include 2024 FCR 3, 2024 FCR 7,and 2024 FCR 9,

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Our client's right to a speedy trial which is given by the constitution has been violated. This should be rectified immediately.
2. Having a right guaranteed by the constitution violated to this degree constitutes outrageous.
3. Due to the court's negligence our client has suffered even more emotional damages as it pertains to the case.
4. Due to having their rights violated our client has loss enjoyment of Redmont

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1.A writ of mandamus be filed by the supreme court demanding that the federal court take up CorruptedtheWolf v. Praisefelines [2023] FCR 112 and summon Praisefelines to court.
2. Punitive damages of $55,000 be awarded to my client for the Federal courts' outrageous violation of their rights.
3. Emotional damages of $35,000 be awarded to my client for the court's prevention of justice and healing.
4. $25,000 be awarded for our client's loss of enjoyment of Redmont
5. $23,000 be awarded for legal fees.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
 
This is not an issue for the Supreme Court to hear. While the Supreme Court will ensure that the case filed in the Federal Court is moved along, this simply should have been addressed in the original case. Allowing the opportunity for damages to occur does not grant those damages valid, rather the opposite. As delivered by Former Associate Justice JoeGamer in his opinion for [2022] SCR 18, "Purposely allowing damages to occur makes the damaged party’s request for compensation invalid. If one allows something to happen, they must pay the consequence of their actions (or lack thereof)."

The Supreme Court has ensured the case mentioned is a priority in appropriate chambers moving forward, but we will not hear this case at this time.

We thank the involved party for their time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top