Appeal: Accepted FCR 97 Appeal Request

[ko531]

- Client Name: ko531
- Counsel Name: ko531
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plantiff
- Reason for the Appeal: First let me state this I DO NOT WANT THE VERDICT OVERTURNED.

I believe my prayers of relief werent fully granted. I was returned the fines and compensated for the time in jail exactly 4 moths before I filed the case. This falls directly in line with statute of Limitations. The problem is the Statute of Limitations were applied wrong when giving the Verdict. I was not aware of the offense until the day I made the lawsuit. According to the Standarized Criminal Code Act it states " All legal action must be commenced within four months of the date of the alleged offense OR within 2 months of becoming aware of the offence, if outside the Statute of Limitations 4 Month timeframe."

The question then becomes when did I become "aware" and that is very simple. I became aware when AlexanderLove pointed out the flaw in the law in the Legal channel in the discord. Within 4 hours after he pointed it out I had filed my case. Therefore I should have my fines returned and be compensated for the time in jail since the amendment was signed on Feburary 4th and not only after Jul 6th

- Additional Information: I tried attaching photos of Alexander's Message and the quote inside the Standarized Criminal Code Act but It is refusing to let me add them. If you need either photo let me know and I can send the any way I can

 

[ko531]

 

[drew_hall]

Verdict

The Supreme Court has unanimously decided to accept this appeal, and is remanding this case back to the Federal Court for the errors to be corrected.

The Supreme Court has authored two opinions regarding this appeal. One is authored by Chief Justice Drew_Hall and signed by Associate Justice Matthew100x, and the other is a separate concurrent opinion authored by Associate Justice Dartanman.


Majority Opinion: Authored by Chief Justice Drew_Hall, signed by Associate Justice Matthew100x

In accordance with the guidelines in the 'Standardized Criminal Code Act,' enacted by Former President Derpy on January 1, 2023, the statute of limitations operates in one of two ways; the filing party must submit the lawsuit within four months of the criminal act OR within two months of becoming aware of said offenses. If one criterion applies, the other is not applicable. One necessitates awareness of offenses and filing within four months while the other requires filing within two months of awareness, applicable only when the four-month mark has passed. In the case under appeal, the claims derive from attempting to apply both criteria to the same instance.

To clarify, [2023] FCR 97 was accepted despite not all offenses occurring within four months of filing, and not all charges eventually expunged in the verdict occurred within four months of filing either. The Plaintiff filed the day they became aware of their ability to do so, and as the Plaintiff filed, and the case was accepted on, the two month criteria of becoming aware of the offenses, the use of the four month criteria at any point in the case should not have been used. When the charges were expunged back until the enactment of the ‘Violent Offenses Act,’ the fines incurred as a result of them should have been reimbursed, as well as compensation for any jail time served. If the charges are overturned, the Commonwealth is not entitled to the fines collected by the expunged crimes, and they must compensate for time lost due to time served in jail.

Moreover, the expungement of crimes in this case does not follow traditional criteria, but instead results from legislative and presidential oversights in the enactment of the 'Violent Offenses Act.' The expungement extends to the petitioner's criminal record back to the signing of this Act into law, but only reimburses fines and jail times related to these now-expunged crimes dating back to four months of the filing date of the lawsuit. All charges expunged due to this legislative flaw should entail appropriate reimbursements for any incurred losses by the Plaintiff, and if the basis for expungement was the enactment of the ‘Violent Offenses Act,’ that should also be the basis for compensation owed to the original Plaintiff, the petitioner in this appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to remand this case back to the Federal Court is warranted to correct the aforementioned errors. If charges are expunged dating back to the Act's signing, full financial reimbursements and compensation for time served in jail must be provided to the petitioner.

Concurring Opinion: Authored by Associate Justice Dartanman

The Standardized Criminal Code Act explains that "All legal action must be commenced within four months of the date of the alleged offense OR within 2 months of becoming aware of the offence, if outside the Statute of Limitations 4 Month timeframe."

In FCR 97, the Hon. Judge RelaxedGV ordered the DoJ to "expunge all crimes pertaining to murder from ko531's criminal record after the passing of the Violent Offenses Amendment Act" (going back roughly 8 months from the filing of the case) and simultaneously to "refund all fines and compensate for all jail time served after July 6th, 2023" (going back exactly 4 months from the filing of the case).

These two orders are in conflict with each other. If 4 months is the correct length of time for the application of the Statute of Limitations in this case, then only the murders from the last 4 months should be expunged. On the other hand, if it is found by the Federal Court that the Plaintiff became "aware of the offence" within the last 2 months, then all the murders from the passing of the Violent Offenses Amendment Act should be compensated for.

This case ought to be remanded back to the Federal Court for this error to be fixed.

The Supreme Court would like to thank all involved parties for their time. This is now remanded back to the Federal Court for the errors in the final verdict to be corrected.