Lawsuit: In Session Reveille Legion v. BabySoga [2025] DCR 52

Babysoga4real said:
Motion to reconsider in the DCR

Your Honor,

You ruled on his Objection within 5-6 hrs of it being published this has never been done with a non-absent Defendant therefore I wish that the Defence gets to respond before a Objection gets ruled upon.
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defendant has not followed the proper formating for this motion to reconsider.

Thus, the Plaintiff moves that this be struck from the record.



 
The Plaintiff request that we move to closing statement as the defence has failed to provide questions for the witnesses.
 
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you think BabySoga would ever do anything harmful?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what do you think they were?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you think there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties?

These are my first questions more will be submitted if allowed
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

If one of the questions may be struck we wish that the others be asked any way. And I have not failed to ask question.
 
dodrio3 said:
The Plaintiff request that we move to closing statement as the defence has failed to provide questions for the witnesses.
Click to expand...

Objection


OBJECTION---PERJURY

The Plaintiff is clearly not seeing that questions were asked though he has even objected to one question.

 
Babysoga4real said:

Objection


OBJECTION---PERJURY

The Plaintiff is clearly not seeing that questions were asked though he has even objected to one question.

Click to expand...

Response



The defence did fail to re ask the questions that were struck from the record.

 
Babysoga4real said:

Objection


OBJECTION---PERJURY

The Plaintiff is clearly not seeing that questions were asked though he has even objected to one question.

Click to expand...
Overruled.
 
dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defendant has not followed the proper formating for this motion to reconsider.

Thus, the Plaintiff moves that this be struck from the record.



Click to expand...
Sustained. The defendant may refile their motion if they so wish following proper formating.
 
dodrio3 said:
The Plaintiff request that we move to closing statement as the defence has failed to provide questions for the witnesses.
Click to expand...
May we get a response to this request?
 
dodrio3 said:
The Plaintiff request that we move to closing statement as the defence has failed to provide questions for the witnesses.
Click to expand...
Denied. I am giving the defendant 24 hours to rephrase their questions. If they fail to do so, we shall move on.

@lucaaaaMC Answer Question 2 in the next 24 hours or be found in Contempt of Court.
 
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not if this is the Case?
 
Could I please get clarification on question 3? I am unsure of what mistakes we are referring to.

Also, could it be confirmed that I will be answering question 1?

+Benedict
 
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not if this is the Case?
Click to expand...
Can you please rephrase question 1 and also provide an affirmation that I am meant to answer question 1
 
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not if this is the Case?
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS

It is hard to know what the Defence is asking the witness for in the questions. Even the witnesses do not know what they are asking.

Additionally, I ask that if this motion is granted, a timeframe be put in place to rephrase the questions so we do not waste any more time.

 
dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS

It is hard to know what the Defence is asking the witness for in the questions. Even the witnesses do not know what they are asking.

Additionally, I ask that if this motion is granted, a timeframe be put in place to rephrase the questions so we do not waste any more time.

Click to expand...
Sustained. Defendant will be given 24 hours and one final chance to rephrase the questions.
 
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose during the Football Event?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money you were aware of?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they during the Event?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose during the Football Event?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money you were aware of?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they during the Event?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not?
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Question One: The question asks the witness to provide an opinion on whether BabySoga acted “on purpose.” This calls for a conclusion as it seeks inference of intent rather than a factual testimony.

Question Two: The question asks whether there was a “mismanagements of money,” which is an evaluative and legal conclusion. It improperly calls on the witness to label conduct as mismanagement rather than state facts personally observed.

Question Three: The question asks whether there were “mistakes” made by the defendant. This term is vague and subjective, requiring the witness to draw a conclusion rather than testify to facts.

Question Four: The question asks the witness to judge whether there were “wrong decisions” concerning penalties, which is a conclusion. The witness is being asked to evaluate decisions rather than provide factual testimony of what they observed.

For these reasons, I request we move past witnesses to closing statements as the defence has again failed to rephrase their questions in a way that is allowed by the court.

 
dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Question One: The question asks the witness to provide an opinion on whether BabySoga acted “on purpose.” This calls for a conclusion as it seeks inference of intent rather than a factual testimony.

Question Two: The question asks whether there was a “mismanagements of money,” which is an evaluative and legal conclusion. It improperly calls on the witness to label conduct as mismanagement rather than state facts personally observed.

Question Three: The question asks whether there were “mistakes” made by the defendant. This term is vague and subjective, requiring the witness to draw a conclusion rather than testify to facts.

Question Four: The question asks the witness to judge whether there were “wrong decisions” concerning penalties, which is a conclusion. The witness is being asked to evaluate decisions rather than provide factual testimony of what they observed.

For these reasons, I request we move past witnesses to closing statements as the defence has again failed to rephrase their questions in a way that is allowed by the court.

Click to expand...
Your Honor

The Plaitiff is trying to dodge what he knows will break his Case. The doest want to hear the witnesses because it will break his Case. We wish that the witnesses be heared we see no problem with the questions.
 
Babysoga4real said:
Your Honor

The Plaitiff is trying to dodge what he knows will break his Case. The doest want to hear the witnesses because it will break his Case. We wish that the witnesses be heared we see no problem with the questions.
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

As per court Rule 6.6 (Response Times). Any objection must be responded to within 24 hours of the defence having taken over 50 hours, more than 2x what is allowed under the court rules.

The Plaintiff request that the defendant's response be stricken from the record and the objection be ruled upon swiftly without the response being taken into consideration.

 
dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Question One: The question asks the witness to provide an opinion on whether BabySoga acted “on purpose.” This calls for a conclusion as it seeks inference of intent rather than a factual testimony.

Question Two: The question asks whether there was a “mismanagements of money,” which is an evaluative and legal conclusion. It improperly calls on the witness to label conduct as mismanagement rather than state facts personally observed.

Question Three: The question asks whether there were “mistakes” made by the defendant. This term is vague and subjective, requiring the witness to draw a conclusion rather than testify to facts.

Question Four: The question asks the witness to judge whether there were “wrong decisions” concerning penalties, which is a conclusion. The witness is being asked to evaluate decisions rather than provide factual testimony of what they observed.

For these reasons, I request we move past witnesses to closing statements as the defence has again failed to rephrase their questions in a way that is allowed by the court.

Click to expand...
Overruled on all counts save for Question 1, which will be struck.

dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

As per court Rule 6.6 (Response Times). Any objection must be responded to within 24 hours of the defence having taken over 50 hours, more than 2x what is allowed under the court rules.

The Plaintiff request that the defendant's response be stricken from the record and the objection be ruled upon swiftly without the response being taken into consideration.

Click to expand...
Overruled.

@lucaaaaMC , @Mask3D_WOLF and @RspDMcd are hereby ordered to answer questions 2, 3, and 4 in the next 24 hours.
 
Respectfully, may I have a 48 hour extension? I have been swamped recently, and have multiple funerals to attend.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Respectfully, may I have a 48 hour extension? I have been swamped recently, and have multiple funerals to attend.
Click to expand...
Granted. My condolences. Please let me know if you need additional time.
 
Your honor I ask for a 24 hour extension
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose during the Football Event?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money you were aware of?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they during the Event?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not?
Click to expand...
No wrong decisions were taken concerning penalties. Yes I wrote to Babysoga if goal or no.
 
RspDMcd said:
Your honor I ask for a 24 hour extension

No wrong decisions were taken concerning penalties. Yes I wrote to Babysoga if goal or no.
Click to expand...
Granted, though I'm not sure why you're asking for one seeing as you replied to the question.
 
AmityBlamity said:
Granted, though I'm not sure why you're asking for one seeing as you replied to the question.
Click to expand...
whoops sorry dont need the extension :D I dont know why that was put there as well sorry for the confusion.
 
AmityBlamity said:
Overruled on all counts save for Question 1, which will be struck.


Overruled.

@lucaaaaMC , @Mask3D_WOLF and @RspDMcd are hereby ordered to answer questions 2, 3, and 4 in the next 24 hours.
Click to expand...

@lucaaaMC has failed to answer the question In the timeframe.

I request they they be given one last chance to answer before we move on so as to not waist this courts time.
 
3. I believe that BabySoga should have communicated with the players better, especially in regards to the rules.
 
dodrio3 said:
@lucaaaMC has failed to answer the question In the timeframe.

I request they they be given one last chance to answer before we move on so as to not waist this courts time.
Click to expand...
@lucaaaaMC is hereby found in contempt of court. I will be giving them a final 24 hours to answer the question.
 
The Plaintiffs council we hence forth be leaving the server. We request that this case go into reces so the plaintiff may seek new representation.
 
court is in recess until plaintiff finds a new counsel.
 
Good morning all,

Vendeka Inc. will now be representing the Plaintiff for this case.

Screenshot 2025-09-29 114845.png
 
@lucaaaaMC is hereby found in contempt once again for failing to comply with the final 24 hour period for response. We shall now move on. Plaintiff may now cross-examine the witnesses.

@EmmDubz
 
1. @RspDMcd - The defendant has affirmed that "if the ball was caught by the leash before entering the net, it would not count as a goal." Can you confirm whether this was the rule you were operating under when advising the defendant of the penalties?

2. @Mask3D_WOLF - As league commissioner at the time of the event, would you agree that all event officials have a fundamental duty to apply the rules that they themselves have established in a fair and consistent manner?

3. @Mask3D_WOLF - You have testified that the Defendant "should have communicated with the players better." If an event official states a clear rule, and then makes a final ruling that directly contradicts that same rule, would that be an example of poor communication and management that you're referring to?

4. @lucaaaaMC - I would like to ask again whether, as the Defendant's direct superior in the DPA at the time, were you aware of any financial mismanagement by the Defendant?

5. @lucaaaaMC - As a manager in the DPA, what were you professional expectations for those working under you, like the Defendant, when it came to establishing and fairly enforcing the rules of a public competition?

6. @lucaaaaMC - Based on the DPA's internal review of the event on the 21st of June, did the Defendant meet those expectations?


I would also like to ask if i may draw the witnesses' attention to P-004, your honour.
 
I ask that the leading questions asked to me be rephrased before I answer, Your Honor.
 
Babysoga4real said:
Your Honor,

We'd like to object to the Question "would you" is always a personalized Interpretation and not a fact.
Click to expand...
apologies for the delay, please make a proper objection.
 
Your Honor, when should I answer the questions?
 
Your Honor, I will temporarily be serving as BabySoga’s co-counsel.
 
EmmDubz said:
2. @Mask3D_WOLF - As league commissioner at the time of the event, would you agree that all event officials have a fundamental duty to apply the rules that they themselves have established in a fair and consistent manner?
Click to expand...

Objection


OBJECTION
LEADING QUESTION

Question includes information that questioner seeks to confirm and in a way that suggests a positive response (“Would you agree that…”).

This is a textbook leading question, and therefore should be struck before witness answers any questions.

 
EmmDubz said:
1. @RspDMcd - The defendant has affirmed that "if the ball was caught by the leash before entering the net, it would not count as a goal." Can you confirm whether this was the rule you were operating under when advising the defendant of the penalties?
Click to expand...

Objection


OBJECTION
LEADING QUESTION

Questioner questions witness with information they seek to confirm.

 
@EmmDubz @Mask3D_WOLF @Babysoga4real

I'm now the assigned Magistrate on this case.

Responses to motions are automatically accepted with a response window of 48 hours.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Objection


OBJECTION
LEADING QUESTION

Question includes information that questioner seeks to confirm and in a way that suggests a positive response (“Would you agree that…”).

This is a textbook leading question, and therefore should be struck before witness answers any questions.

Click to expand...

Sustained. @EmmDubz Rephrase the question.
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Objection


OBJECTION
LEADING QUESTION

Questioner questions witness with information they seek to confirm.

Click to expand...
Sustained. @EmmDubz rephrase the question.
 
Rephrased question for @RspDMcd:

1. Please state what your understanding was of the rule regarding a penalty shot that is caught by a leash before it has fully crossed the goal line.


Furthermore, given that the witness @Mask3D_WOLF has now assumed the role of co-counsel for the defense, the Plaintiff hereby formally withdraws all previously submitted questions directed towards them.
 
Your Honor, I have resigned as co-counsel as of today. Plaintiff, feel free to ask me questions.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Your Honor, I have resigned as co-counsel as of today. Plaintiff, feel free to ask me questions.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Here are the revised questions for @Mask3D_WOLF .

1. Based on your experience as League Commissioner during the event, what are the fundamental, basic duties of an event official with respect to the rules they establish for a competition?

2. You've previously testified that the Defendant "should have communicated with the players better." What specific actions, or inactions, did you observer that has led you to that conclusion?
 
1. Event Coordinators should apply rules practically and with common sense.
2. I observed the presence of complaints of not revealing rules and later enforcing them, along with hostile communications.
 
1. Please state what your understanding was of the rule regarding a penalty shot that is caught by a leash before it has fully crossed the goal line.


If the ball is caught by the leash before it goes in it does not count as a goal.
 
Thank you both for your responses.

Your honour, we would like to request an indefinite pause to the trial as the Defendant has approached us to settle.
 
EmmDubz said:
Thank you both for your responses.

Your honour, we would like to request an indefinite pause to the trial as the Defendant has approached us to settle.
Click to expand...

Received, the case is tolled for 7 days. A status report is due on 10/26/2025.
 
@EmmDubz @Babysoga4real

Parties have 48 hours to resume questioning of witnesses or the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
 
Your honour, to conclude the cross-examination we'd like to draw the attention of @RspDMcd to the video P-004.

Having reviewed the video in P-004, and recalling your testimony that a goal does not count if caught by the leash before it goes in, please could you state whether the defendant's final rulings on the penalty kicks shown in the video were consistent with the rule that they established.
 
@RspDMcd You have a question pending:

"Having reviewed the video in P-004, and recalling your testimony that a goal does not count if caught by the leash before it goes in, please could you state whether the defendant's final rulings on the penalty kicks shown in the video were consistent with the rule that they established."
 
Apologies for the delay on the response.

Yes the decisions from the referee was still consistent with the rules established from when it happened in real time during the event.
 
Your honour, the Plaintiff has no more questions for the witnesses, we would be happy to move to closing statements if convenient for the court.
 
@EmmDubz You have 72 Hours to prepare a Closing Statement, after which @Babysoga4real you have 72 hours after Plaintiff submits his Closing Statement, to present your Closing Statement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top