- Joined
- Jul 31, 2021
- Messages
- 110
- Thread Author
- #1
Client Name: ultrapvpnoob
Counsel Name: ultrapvpnoob
Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: defendant
Reason for the Appeal: The Magistrate provided a verdict because the defendant did not dispute the facts of the case (but did dispute the alleged crime of slander, which was not under 'facts'), however the defendant did still wish to have the entire lawsuit and be given the opportunity to prove their innocence. This lack of a lawsuit violated the defendant's rights to a fair trial, as provided by the Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Clause IX.
Additional Information: Link to original case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Crown Casino v. ultrapvpnoob [2022] DCR 43
Counsel Name: ultrapvpnoob
Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: defendant
Reason for the Appeal: The Magistrate provided a verdict because the defendant did not dispute the facts of the case (but did dispute the alleged crime of slander, which was not under 'facts'), however the defendant did still wish to have the entire lawsuit and be given the opportunity to prove their innocence. This lack of a lawsuit violated the defendant's rights to a fair trial, as provided by the Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Clause IX.
Additional Information: Link to original case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Crown Casino v. ultrapvpnoob [2022] DCR 43
