IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM
Nexalin (Represented by Matthew100x)
Plaintiff
v.
Commonwealth of Redmont (Represented by the DLA)
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Due to the constitutional abuses of this current administration, I will be filing a lawsuit against the government. When a defendant is found not guilty or wins their appeal, they are entitled to their cash back. The plaintiff for over thirty (30) days after they successfully overturned the convictions was denied their cash back. He is entitled to reimbursement per the JSA of the constitution as well as a violation of his 15h right that has crossed the bridge from being an accident, to negligence, to willful dereliction of duty.
I. PARTIES
1. Nexalin, Plaintiff.
2. Matthew100x, Plaintiff’s Attorney.
3. Commonwealth of Redmont, Defendant.
4. DLA, Defendant’s Attorney.
5. DOJ, as an extension of the Defendant.
II. FACTS
1. On November 24th, at the end of the original prosecution, the plaintiff of this counterclaim (henceforth “plaintiff”), Nexalin, was fined $65,000 as the defendant of FCR-79.
2. On December 20th, the plaintiff became the appellant of SCR-27, where he appealed the convictions made in FCR-79 (See
Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
3. In SCR-27, The plaintiff/appellant claimed that both guilty verdicts of the corruption charges failed to meet the Corruption Test laid out in SCR-16 (See
Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
4. In SCR-27, the plaintiff/appellant claimed that the fact set of FCR 68 and SCR 68 was similar enough that their guilty verdict for treason was improperly applied (See
Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
5. On December 31st, The Supreme Court granted the appellant their appeal contingent on a new trial and overturned the convictions made in FCR-79 (See
Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
6. On January 5th, the plaintiff's attorney requested guidance on how to conduct the new trial within SCR-27 (See
Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
7. On January 6th, the Supreme Court instructed the court to reopen FCR-79 to begin the new trial within SCR-27 (See
Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
8. On January 20th, the plaintiff’s attorney made an appeal that the appeal had been accepted for over two weeks and that the lack of progress was violating the plaintiff’s 15th right as well as 20.1(a) and 21.1(b) of the Judicial Standards Act within SCR-27 (See
Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
9. On January 23rd, the plaintiff’s attorney followed up with the Supreme Court on a solution for the outstanding issue within SCR-27 (See
Appeal: Accepted - [2022] FCR 79 - Appeal Request - [2022] SCR 27).
10. On January 25th, FCR-79 was reopened and the plaintiff was summoned as a defendant by the Honorable Judge Aladeen.
11. On that same day, the attorney responding for the plaintiff demanded that the $65,000 dollars be returned to the plaintiff.
12. On January 29th, the plaintiff’s attorney posted for guidance for an emergency injunction and counterclaim and was told to keep posts within “one case”.
13. On that same day, shortly after, plaintiff’s attorney of this counterclaim posted a town hall in #legal explaining the charges and issues present in the continued freeze of the plaintiff’s $65,000 dollars (exhibit A).
14. On that same day, in fulfillment of xxTigOlBittiesxx (See
Lawsuit: Adjourned - xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] SCR 16), a ticket was opened with the DLA, #ticket-4660, with a demand of $130,000 dollars. $65,000 dollars to return the Plaintiff’s property plus an additional $65,000 dollars as reimbursement for violating the constitution as well as the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. This ticket was not made classified (Exhibit B).
15. On January 30th, a full thirty (30) days after the initial charges were successfully appealed in SCR-27, the plaintiff and the DLA could not come to a settlement for the violation of the plaintiff’s rights as well as constitutional violations. The DLA did agree to pay back the plaintiff their original $65,000 dollars. (Exhibit B again)
16. The 15th right is defined as “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. (See
Government - Constitution)
17. 20.1(a) is defined as “If the plaintiff had originally won the case and the defendant was charged with compensatory actions, the defendant will be fully refunded by the plaintiff” and is a constitutional law under the JSA. (See
Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act)
18. 21.1(b) is defined as “Where an individual is found innocent at trial, they shall be compensated up to $50 per minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences” and is a constitutional law under the JSA. (See
Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act)
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By withholding the plaintiff’s $65,000 dollars for 30 days after the plaintiff’s appeal had successfully overturned their guilty conviction, the defendant committed an “unreasonable seizure” and violated the plaintiff’s 15th right.
2. By not paying attention to SCR-27 and remitting the plaintiff’s $65,000 dollars on their successful appeal, the defendant became in violation of both 20.1(a) and 21.1(b) of the Judicial Standards Act.
3. The plaintiff, per 21.1(b), has the right to reimbursement for “unproved offences (offenses)”. An overturned guilty verdict awaiting a new trial is a definition for an unproved offense.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $65,000 dollars in damages for withholding the plaintiff’s cash for so long.
2. $13,000 in Legal Fees (20% of the case’s overall value).
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 1st day of February, 2023.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Tickets Dashboard
- Additional Information:
Cited Case Law:
The coroner reports show us who was killed, who started the fight and at what location it happened ( coords ) in the reports I provided u can see that dwerpy got killed twice by 2 different people and did not consent for it.
www.democracycraft.net
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth Prosecution v. supersuperking Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: The use of one’s public office to benefit themselves is a high crime that...
www.democracycraft.net
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth (hugebob23456 and Mask3D_WOLF representing) Prosecution v. Milqy Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: Corruption is when someone uses their...
www.democracycraft.net
- Client Name: Nexalin - Counsel Name: Prodigium | Attorneys at Law, designate Trial Attorney as Matthew100x - Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Defendant - Reason for the Appeal: The defendant, now appellant of this case, believes that the trial court erred in its decision...
www.democracycraft.net
Cited Statutes:
Government - Constitution - Right XV
Act of Congress - Constitutional Amendment - Judicial Standards Act - 20.1(a) and 21.1(b) (
Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act).