IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RELIEF
First, I would like to thank the court for its decision to reopen this case.
Your Honor, this procedure is a bit extraordinary, so please forgive me for filing a motion that does not exist within Redmont Courts’ Motions Guide. I have not found any Redmont law or court procedure written to help resolve this. I’m sure this will raise an objection from opposing counsel; however, I ask that the court hear me out.
I would like to explain the Plaintiff’s predicament to the court.
The link in question was the only evidence I had to show the unedited contract in its original form. This link was functional when the complaint was submitted to this court.
I would like to bring the court’s attention to the fact that neither of the two presiding judges nor opposing counsel raised any issues with the link. Both RelaxedGV and SumoMC had the opportunity to examine Exhibit A, and neither stated that they found fault with the link. Even if we assume that presiding judges might not look at the evidence until the last minute, which should not be the case, opposing counsel did not mention this issue at all. If the crucial piece of evidence that the Plaintiff relied on to make their argument did not exist, Defendant’s counsel would have been the first to tear it to pieces. Especially given the fact that this is Alexander Love, a sharp attorney with a long history of an eye for detail. Instead, his argument focused on the lack of damages,
not the lack of evidence.
The core issue here is that the court effectively lost the evidence provided. The timing of the presiding judge’s review of the evidence or the expiration of the link is entirely beyond the control of either party in the case. The evidence was submitted but was not reviewed in a timely manner to be utilized in the verdict.
Under American and British law (both of which influence Redmont’s legal system), courts are permitted to infer in favor of the Plaintiff regarding the contents of lost evidence. I have not found any specific Redmont law addressing this unique situation.
Therefore, I am requesting that the court give inference in favor of the Plaintiff about the contents of the lost evidence. This request is reasonable considering that the Defendant’s counsel did not dispute the link’s validity, thereby implicitly accepting that it was proof of the original, unedited version of the contract, supporting the arguments laid out in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opening Statements, and Closing Statements.
With this in mind, I respectfully request relief from the court.