ultrapvpnoob
Citizen
Health Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
			
				
				
	
		
		
			
				
					
						
							
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
		
			
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
		
		
			
		
		
		
	
	
			
		
			Grave Digger
			
		
	
		
	
						
							
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
		
			
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
		
		
			
		
		
		
	
	
			
		
			Change Maker
			
		
	
		
	
						
							
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
		
			
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
		
		
			
		
		
		
	
	
			
		
			Popular in the Polls
			
		
	
		
	
						
					
				
			
		
	
			
	
	
	
		ultrapvpnoobb
        	
        		
            		Epidemiologist
        		
			
    		- Joined
 - Jul 31, 2021
 
- Messages
 - 141
 
- 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