Lawsuit: In Session Lex Titanum v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 72

dodrio3

dodrio3

Citizen
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Grave Digger Change Maker Popular in the Polls Statesman
Dodrio3
Dodrio3
Attorney
Joined
May 15, 2021
Messages
301

Case Filing




IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


---

Lex Titanum (Formerly Titan Law)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


---

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the 22nd of November 2024, the Plaintiff filed [2024] DCR 43 – Appeal. The Plaintiff did not receive any response from any judicial officer until July 7th, 2025 — a gap of 227 days. The Plaintiff’s right to a “speedy and fair trial,” as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont, has been violated due to this delay. The Plaintiff asks for $200 in compensation for every day over fourteen days (213 days), which the Plaintiff believes is a reasonable time frame to wait for a response. Additionally, the Plaintiff was deprived of approximately $550 in interest that would have accrued on £2000 over a period of seven months at a monthly rate of 3.5%.
Click to expand...

---

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

---

I. PARTIES

1. Dodrio3 – Plaintiff


2. Commonwealth of Redmont – Defendant


3. Federal Court of Redmont

---

II. FACTS

1. On November 22nd, 2024, Dodrio3 filed [2024] DCR 43 – Appeal.


2. There was no response or indication of the status of the case from the Federal Court until July 7th, 2025.


3. There was a gap of 227 days from when the case was filed until any response was given to the case by the Federal Court.


4. The Plaintiff has a right to a “speedy and fair trial.”


5. The Plaintiff could have received a 3.5% interest rate on £2000 through a Volt Savings Account.

---

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff waited 227 days for a verdict on their appeal to the Federal Court. This prolonged delay violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional right to a speedy and fair trial, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont.


2. The Plaintiff has excluded fourteen (14) days from the total delay, deeming this a reasonable period for judicial response. The remaining 213 days constitute undue delay, for which the Plaintiff seeks $200 in compensation per day.


3. The Plaintiff was deprived of approximately $550 in interest that would have accrued on £2000 over a period of seven months at a monthly rate of 3.5%.

---

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $42,600 in punitive damages for the excess time (213 days) it took for the Federal Court to issue a judgment ($200/day)


2. $550 in lost interest (3.5% monthly) that the Plaintiff would have received if the judgment was made in a timely manner


3. Legal fees equal to 30% of the total monetary relief awarded in this case, regardless of the final amount granted

---

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 21st day of July 2025

 
Here is the proof of qualification as required by the dismissal without prejudice
1753205832495.png
 
Could you please provide:
1. Proof Lex Titanum has legal standing, viz. proof of registration as a business; and
2. Proof of either a.) ownership or b.) an agreement of representation.
 
JunkCereal said:
Could you please provide:
1. Proof Lex Titanum has legal standing, viz. proof of registration as a business; and
2. Proof of either a.) ownership or b.) an agreement of representation.
Click to expand...
1753254792771.png
 

Attachments

  • 1753254784750.png
    1753254784750.png
    10.7 KB · Views: 11

Writ of Summons


The Attorney General, @gribble19, is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Lex Titanum v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 72.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Lex Titanum (Formerly Titan Law)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that Dodrio3 posted the forums post for [2024] DCR 43 - Appeal on November 22nd, 2024. Dodrio3 only practically filed the forums post and was doing so while representing their client BrustkleFurry and serving as their legal counsel. The Defendant therefore DENIES that Dodrio3 legally filed the appeal as it was filed by BrustkleFurry.
2. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge to form a belief about the truth of there not being a response or indication on the status of the case from the Federal Court until July 7th, 2025 and therefore DENIES this.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS that there was a gap of 227 days from when the case [2024] DCR 43 - Appeal was filed until a verdict was given to the case by the Federal Court.
4. The Defendant DENIES that the Plaintiff has a right to a "speedy and fair trial".
5. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge to form a belief about the truth of the Plaintiff being able to receive a 3.5% interest rate on £2000 through a Volt Savings account and therefore DENIES this.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff in this case is not a party to [2024] DCR 43 - Appeal.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 27th day of July 2025

lextitanumd001.jpg
lextitanumd002.jpg




Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,
[2024] DCR 43 - Appeal was filed by Dodrio3 in the sense that Dodrio3 made the post on the forums in their position as legal counsel of a client; See D-001. As this was done while representing a client, the actual party filing the case was BrustkleFurry; See D-001. Dodrio3 was not a party to the original case [2024] DCR 43; See D-002. Only parties to a court case may request to appeal the decision by filing an appeal in the court of the next tier; See Judicial Standards Act §20.(1). The appeal could thus not possibly have been filed by Dodrio3, which further confirms that the actual party filing the appeal was BrustkleFurry.

The alleged injury that was suffered was thus not suffered by the Plaintiff, as they were not a party to the appeal. In order for a Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show to the court that they suffered some injury; See Court Rules and Procedures Rule 2.1. As Plaintiff was not the one suffering the injury, they have no standing to pursue this case.

Plaintiff's first Claim for Relief is "The Plaintiff waited 227 days for a verdict on their appeal to the Federal Court." however as we have seen Plaintiff was not a party to the appeal to [2024] DCR 43, and Plaintiff has not alleged being a party to any other appeal in their complaint. As plaintiff has not been party to any appeal as far as the facts in case are concerned, Plaintiff has thus never had to wait for a verdict on "their appeal" and has no claim. Plaintiff's second and third claim for relief follow from the first claim for relief, and therefore with a dismissal of the first claim for relief, there would be no claim at all.

A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case; See Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.12. A Motion to Dismiss may also be filed if the Plaintiff fails to state a valid claim for relief; See id. Rule 5.5.

Considering that the Plaintiff has no standing to pursue this case and has no valid claims for relief, the Defendant respectfully requests this case be dismissed.

 
Permissions to respond your honour.
 

Response



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION

Your Honour, the defence submits that Lex Titanum has not suffered any injury as it is not a named party in [2024] DCR 43 - Appeal. However, the ruling of the appeal is limited to only legal fees. Since the awarded damages are only applicable to legal counsel, any potential injury arising from the verdict would affect only the legal firm representing BrustkleFurry - Lex Titanum (Formerly Titan Law).

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