Appeal: Pending In re [2026] FCR 91 | [2026] SCR 24

Motion


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION


Appellants respectfully pray, under Judicial Standards Act Part V, Section 1(2)(b), for an emergency injunction during this proceeding, as follows:

  1. An order barring the Department of Commerce, until final judgment in this appeal, from collecting any fee under Section 16(12) of the Redmont Commerce and Finance Act ("RCFA") from Appellants, and from acting under RCFA Section 18(3) against Appellants for non-payment of such a fee.
  2. An order tolling the periods in RCFA Section 59(5) as they apply to Appellants until final judgment in this appeal, and barring the Department from acting under RCFA Section 59(6) or Part X against Appellants for non-compliance with Sections 16(5) or 59(5) during that time.

GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION

I. Urgency
  1. On September 27, 2026, the Federal Court granted this same relief in full and tolled the Section 59(5) periods until final judgment (TheStockExchange LLC vs. President antonfr [2026] FCR 91). The Verdict of October 12, 2026 lifted that injunction on the very date the Section 59(5) capital plan was originally due.
  2. Section 59(5) provides that "the Department may not extend" these periods. Only this Court can preserve the status quo while the appeal is heard.

II. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
  1. The Federal Court defined a tax as a charge that serves general revenue collection and is not calculated on the cost of a service. On the established facts, the Section 16(12) charge is paid into the general DCGovernment account and is calculated as 1% to 5% of a capital figure, with a mandatory floor unrelated to cost (Facts 4 and 5). It meets every element of the Court's own test.
  2. The Federal Court reached the opposite result by attributing to Congress an intent found nowhere in the Act, and by adding a "generality" element absent from its own definition. This Court has reversed the Federal Court for applying a standard whose source the trial court "did not explain," and has held that Congress's will is to be found in the text it enacted (Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 78 (appeal)).
  3. That decision also confirms that a department may act only "within the law and within the enabling statute provided by Congress." Part I, Section 2(4) of the Constitution reserves control of taxation to Congress, and the delegation of the rate to the Executive is not within the law.

III. Irreparable Harm
  1. Under Section 59(6), an institution that misses the Section 59(5) requirement "shall either surrender its license and return customer funds in an orderly manner, or apply for a license class whose requirement it does meet." Surrender would close Appellants' exchange and harm its listed companies and investors in a way no later judgment can undo.
  2. Surrender or reclassification would also end Appellants' liability to the Class F charge and threaten to moot this appeal before the constitutional question is decided. The Federal Court has recognized that courts should not continue to adjudicate disputes that have become obsolete (IgnitedTnT v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 20). The loss of the ability to obtain a ruling at all cannot be remedied after the fact.
  3. The alternative, meeting the capital requirement, locks $250,000 in place for at least 90 days under Section 16(8), and any transaction returning it to an owner is voidable by the Department.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top