- Joined
- Feb 16, 2021
- Messages
- 248
- Thread Author
- #1
- Client Name: Nacholebraa
- Counsel Name: DouCo Law (The_Donuticus - Lead Counsel)
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Nacholebraa was the defendant.
- Reason for the Appeal:
My client, Nacholebraa, was charged with Perjury by Judge dygyee stating the following:
My client would like to state their constitutional right under article four of the Rights and Freedoms section of the constitution to appeal this charge and clear their name.
In this instance the Judge seems to have gotten confused over who the Plaintiff and who the Defendant in the case is. The Judge said the statement "No monetary exchange occurred during this transaction...between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding this private trader." is proven wrong because magsymags send $3,000 to my client. However the Plaintiff was not magsymags, the Plaintiff was Admin23 and as such the statement made by my client is not a lie and thus my clients name must be cleared.
I would like the question as to the goals of the Judge in this instance to try and accuse my client of Perjury, a very serious charge for someone in such good standing as my client.
- Additional Information:
Plaintiff: Admin23
Defendant: Nacholebraa
Not involved in the case: magsymags
Statement: "No monetary exchange occurred during this transaction...between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding this private trader."
Judge: "This statement has been proven wrong by images from the ticket of magsymags sending $3,000 to nacho."
???
Original Case:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Admin23 v. The Exchange [2022] FCR 67
EDIT: I have made an edit on 25/09/2022 - 13:48 GM, to remove a gendered term (Made by counsel) from the argument, DouCo Law strives to always use gender neutral language no matter what in its arguments and would like to apologize to all involved for this oversight.
- Counsel Name: DouCo Law (The_Donuticus - Lead Counsel)
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Nacholebraa was the defendant.
- Reason for the Appeal:
My client, Nacholebraa, was charged with Perjury by Judge dygyee stating the following:
6. On a separate note, Nacho did lie when he said "The plaintiff has filed false accusations against TE regarding a monetary exchange between a private trader (Mags) and TE. No monetary exchange occurred during this transaction (the one before the court) between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding this private trader." This statement has been proven wrong by images from the ticket of magsymags sending $3,000 to nacho.
.......
2. Separately because Nacho lied about there being no monetary transaction throughout the whole process, he is charged with perjury. I hereby order the DOJ to fine him the minimum amount of $1,000.
.......
2. Separately because Nacho lied about there being no monetary transaction throughout the whole process, he is charged with perjury. I hereby order the DOJ to fine him the minimum amount of $1,000.
My client would like to state their constitutional right under article four of the Rights and Freedoms section of the constitution to appeal this charge and clear their name.
In this instance the Judge seems to have gotten confused over who the Plaintiff and who the Defendant in the case is. The Judge said the statement "No monetary exchange occurred during this transaction...between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding this private trader." is proven wrong because magsymags send $3,000 to my client. However the Plaintiff was not magsymags, the Plaintiff was Admin23 and as such the statement made by my client is not a lie and thus my clients name must be cleared.
I would like the question as to the goals of the Judge in this instance to try and accuse my client of Perjury, a very serious charge for someone in such good standing as my client.
- Additional Information:
Plaintiff: Admin23
Defendant: Nacholebraa
Not involved in the case: magsymags
Statement: "No monetary exchange occurred during this transaction...between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding this private trader."
Judge: "This statement has been proven wrong by images from the ticket of magsymags sending $3,000 to nacho."
???
Original Case:
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Admin23 v. The Exchange [2022] FCR 67
EDIT: I have made an edit on 25/09/2022 - 13:48 GM, to remove a gendered term (Made by counsel) from the argument, DouCo Law strives to always use gender neutral language no matter what in its arguments and would like to apologize to all involved for this oversight.
Last edited:
