Lawsuit: Pending jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

J

jsrkiwi

Citizen
Homeland Security Department
Commerce Department
Supporter
jsrkiwi
jsrkiwi
Recruit
Joined
Aug 27, 2025
Messages
46

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

jsrkiwi
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant unlawfully killed me sixteen seconds after I had tasered and cuffed him, then immediately uncuffed him. The Defendant claims self-defence, but the circumstances clearly show intentional lethal action after being restrained and released.

Separately, in a DHS ticket, the Defendant called me “an absolute liar” and told me to “stop lying,” in front of multiple Government personnel. These statements were false and intended to discredit me professionally.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff is jsrkiwi.
2. The Defendant is Trentrick_Lamar.

II. FACTS
1. On 9th November 2025, the Plaintiff, acting in his capacity as a Police Recruit, attempted to apprehend Urb5n, a mass murderer wanted by police.
2. Urb5n was hiding in room CE102 at the university.
3. On the first attempt at arrest of Urb5n by the Plaintiff, Urb5n exited the room and proceeded to murder the Plaintiff further down the corridor at 19:11:54 UTC.
4. The Plaintiff immediately returned to the university to attempt a second arrest. On this second attempt at arrest of Urb5n by the Plaintiff, Urb5n used the Defendant as a human shield to avoid arrest.
5. At 19:12:31 UTC, the Plaintiff tasered the Defendant, whilst attempting to taser Urb5n.
6. At 19:12:32 UTC, the Plaintiff cuffed the Defendant, whilst attempting to cuff Urb5n.
7. Two seconds later at 19:12:34 UTC, the Plaintiff realised his error and uncuffed the Defendant.
8. The Plaintiff started typing out an apology message, however this was interrupted because sixteen seconds later after being uncuffed, at 19:12:50 UTC, the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff.
9. The Defendant faced no imminent threat from the Plaintiff. The plaintiff was motionless and was not holding a weapon.
10. The Defendant cannot claim self-defence, as there never was a threat of harm against the Defendant, and certainly none once 16 seconds had elapsed from after the Plaintiff had uncuffed him.
11. The Plaintiff’s armour was damaged by the Murder, as evidenced by exhibit 3.
12. The Plaintiff returned to the University to collect the clues from both murders, and in his capacity of a Detective solved the murder case stated in Fact 8 at 19:15:07 UTC, and solved the murder case stated in Fact 3 at 19:15:27 UTC.
13. The Plaintiff then arrested the Defendant at 19:17:15 UTC, read him his rights at 19:17:23 UTC, imprisoned him at 19:17:36 UTC.
14. At 19:19 UTC, the Defendant opened government ticket dhs-25340 with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
15. At 19:20 UTC, the Defendant posted a screenshot to the ticket purporting to show ‘self-defence’.
16. At 19:22 UTC, the Plaintiff responded with a factually accurate witness statement.
17. At 19:22 UTC, the Defendant responded “Absolute liar. I have a witness. | I would like Dolev added to this ticket. | He has your head that I tossed. | @Secretary | Dolev is even there in my screenshot standing right in front of me | Jsr, stop lying. Urbsn was not there. It was Dolev who was there, and he is literally right there in my screenshot.| Urbsn and Dolev do not have the same skin”. (n.b. “|” has been used instead of a new line).
18. These statements were made in the presence of third parties, including (for example) roryyy_, Dolev, Comet, and Culls.
19. Under the No More Defamation Act, false statements constitute Slander.
20. The Defendant provided no evidential basis for alleging that the Plaintiff lied.
21. Under the Legal Damages Act, each act of unlawful defamation permits a damages award.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant unlawfully killed the Plaintiff when no imminent threat of harm against the Plaintiff existed. Therefore, the Defendant committed the criminal act of Murder.
2. Upon these facts the Defendant is civilly liable for the unlawful killing and the Plaintiff claims compensatory damages under the Legal Damages Act.
3. The Defendant’s written statements constitute slander: “A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization”.
4. The Defendant’s actions fulfil the elements of the tort under the No More Defamation Act, as the accusation (“liar”) was made as a statement of fact, not opinion, and injured the Plaintiff’s professional reputation.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following:
1. A declarative judgement finding that the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff.
2. $1 nominal compensatory damages for Murder.
3. A declarative judgement that the Defendant slandered the Plaintiff.
4. An order that the Defendant retract the defamatory claim by way of public statement, and apologise to the Plaintiff.
5. $1 nominal compensatory damages for Slander.

V. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
1. Transcript of government ticket dhs-25340, showing the defamatory statements.
2. Logs excerpt from 9th November 2025 between 19:11:00 UTC and 19:18:00 UTC, showing that the Plaintiff did not lie.
3. Screenshot showing damage to the Plaintiff’s armour.

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 9th day of November 2025

 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court to order Defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, to preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff has initiated a civil action against the Defendant in this Court concerning events that occurred on the DemocracyCraft Minecraft server during the above-stated period.
2. The logs maintained by the Defendant are likely to contain evidence relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims and the Defendant’s conduct.
3. Immediate preservation of these logs is necessary to prevent spoliation of evidence, as such digital records are susceptible to automatic deletion or alteration prior to the opening of discovery.
4. Without the preservation of these records, the Plaintiff’s ability to present relevant evidence and support the claims in this case will be materially impaired.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an order requiring Defendant Trentrick_Lamar to:
1. Preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025; and
2. Refrain from deleting, modifying, or altering any such records until further order of this Court.

 
This is I love DemocracyCraft!ing stupid lol
 

Writ of Summons

@Trentrick_Lamar , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.


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.

 
jsrkiwi said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court to order Defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, to preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff has initiated a civil action against the Defendant in this Court concerning events that occurred on the DemocracyCraft Minecraft server during the above-stated period.
2. The logs maintained by the Defendant are likely to contain evidence relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims and the Defendant’s conduct.
3. Immediate preservation of these logs is necessary to prevent spoliation of evidence, as such digital records are susceptible to automatic deletion or alteration prior to the opening of discovery.
4. Without the preservation of these records, the Plaintiff’s ability to present relevant evidence and support the claims in this case will be materially impaired.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an order requiring Defendant Trentrick_Lamar to:
1. Preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025; and
2. Refrain from deleting, modifying, or altering any such records until further order of this Court.

Click to expand...

Granted. Defendant shall preserve logs as described.
 
Your Honor,

MZLD will be representing the Defendant.
1762734055965.png
 
@Rory (@Kaiserin_ , courtesy ping in case DoJ can answer on behalf of DHS).

Interrogatory by the Court: Are DHS tickets inherently classified when initially filed?
 
Your honour,

To ignore any other concerns about privacy and confidentiality - no, DHS tickets are not automatically assigned a classification status when opened.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint in Part.


Prayer #1 is dismissed with prejudice. This Court is not equipped to issue declaratory judgements of summary offenses that occurred outside of its purview. A declaratory judgement of this nature may impart a duty on this Court to affirm actions that have otherwise been adjudicated by the DHS. This Court has a duty to hear appeals on DHS actions, this Court will never make a declaratory judgment in a civil proceeding affirming a criminal action.

So ordered,
Magistrate Mug



 
Your Honor,

Defendant requests a 24 hour extension to file an Answer for IRL reasons and also because of the relatively high quantity of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. I also note that we filed an appearance well within the 72 hour timeframe so the effect on the overall proceedings is minimal.
 
BrownBerry said:
Your Honor,

Defendant requests a 24 hour extension to file an Answer for IRL reasons and also because of the relatively high quantity of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. I also note that we filed an appearance well within the 72 hour timeframe so the effect on the overall proceedings is minimal.
Click to expand...
Your Honour, the Plaintiff does not object to the request for extension by the Defendant.
 
BrownBerry said:
Your Honor,

Defendant requests a 24 hour extension to file an Answer for IRL reasons and also because of the relatively high quantity of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. I also note that we filed an appearance well within the 72 hour timeframe so the effect on the overall proceedings is minimal.
Click to expand...
Answer Due : 11/13/25
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court, in light of the Court’s Order at 04:21 UTC on 10 November 2025, to withdraw certain portions of the Complaint to simplify the case, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Fact 11 from Section II (Facts) of the Complaint.

2. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Prayer 2 from Section IV (Prayer for Relief) of the Complaint.

3. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Exhibit 3 from Section V (Attached Evidence) of the Complaint.

4. These withdrawals are made to streamline the litigation and focus on the remaining claim.

5. No other facts, claims, or prayers for relief are affected by this motion.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

 

Attachments

Last edited:
jsrkiwi said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT FOURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

With respect to the matter of the Plaintiff’s editing of their motion after submission, it is my understanding that Plaintiffs should generally not do this. To the best of my knowledge, there is a default grace period of 5 minutes built into the forums, and it is common sense that this time could be used for things like spelling/grammar mistakes.

That being said, as I was reading the Plaintiff’s brief, it was edited, and a screenshot of that edit (for posterity's sake) is included below as Exhibit D-ZZ0. This was outside of the narrow window to fix basic mistakes that the forums software affords.

Exhibit D-ZZ0

1762789243782.png


The Defense requests that the Plaintiff indicate the changes made in the brief since it was originally posted or, in the alternative, that the brief be stricken (amendments to motions are not automatically granted under the rules).

 
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT FOURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

With respect to the matter of the Plaintiff’s editing of their motion after submission, it is my understanding that Plaintiffs should generally not do this. To the best of my knowledge, there is a default grace period of 5 minutes built into the forums, and it is common sense that this time could be used for things like spelling/grammar mistakes.

That being said, as I was reading the Plaintiff’s brief, it was edited, and a screenshot of that edit (for posterity's sake) is included below as Exhibit D-ZZ0. This was outside of the narrow window to fix basic mistakes that the forums software affords.

Exhibit D-ZZ0
View attachment 66695

The Defense requests that the Plaintiff indicate the changes made in the brief since it was originally posted or, in the alternative, that the brief be stricken (amendments to motions are not automatically granted under the rules).

Click to expand...
The amendment was to remove a blank line before the title "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT", and to add bold formatting to headings.
 
jsrkiwi said:
The amendment was to remove a blank line before the title "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT", and to add bold formatting to headings.
Click to expand...
The Court reviewed the history, Plaintiff's explanation is substantiated.

Overruled.
 
jsrkiwi said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court, in light of the Court’s Order at 04:21 UTC on 10 November 2025, to withdraw certain portions of the Complaint to simplify the case, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Fact 11 from Section II (Facts) of the Complaint.

2. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Prayer 2 from Section IV (Prayer for Relief) of the Complaint.

3. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Exhibit 3 from Section V (Attached Evidence) of the Complaint.

4. These withdrawals are made to streamline the litigation and focus on the remaining claim.

5. No other facts, claims, or prayers for relief are affected by this motion.

Click to expand...


Granted in part. Exhibit 3 will not be struck.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

jsrkiwi
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

  1. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
  2. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
  3. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
  4. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
  5. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
  6. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
  7. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
  8. Defendant DENIES paragraph 8 of the Complaint. Defendant's killing of Plaintiff was justified by reason of self defence; it was not murder.
  9. Defendant DENIES paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
  10. Defendant DENIES paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
  11. [Paragraph 11 struck by Plaintiff on motion.]
  12. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
  13. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
  14. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
  15. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
  16. Defendant DENIES paragraph 16 of the Complaint. Plaintiff's statement was not correct: Defendant did not murder Plaintiff.
  17. Defendant AFFIRMS that Defendant made the statement alleged in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. Defendant DENIES any defamatory import.
  18. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
  19. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 19 of the Complaint. Legal conclusions should not appear in the facts of a Complaint.
  20. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 20 of the Complaint. It is neither here nor there whether Defendant provided evidence of their claims: the question is whether the claims are true.
  21. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 21 of the Complaint. This is a legal conclusion that should not be included in the facts. In any case, Plaintiff has only alleged one act of unlawful defamation; this issue is moot.

II. DEFENCES​

A. Truth​

Plaintiff claimed Defendant murdered him. Defendant disputed the accuracy of that statement. Plaintiff sued for defamation. Although the nominal issue is the accuracy of Defendant's statement, the underlying issue is whether the Plaintiff's witness statement was true, and therefore, the case turns on the issue of whether Defendant murdered Plaintiff or whether it was justified by reason of self-defence.

Defendant claims that the killing was protected by the defence of self-defence. The force used by Defendant was proportionate and reasonable as Defendant believed that Plaintiff was going to attempt to murder them for a second time.

Defendant will introduce evidence in support of this defence and will further develop it during the course of this proceeding.

B. Privilege​

Defendant would also like to raise a novel issue with the Court relating to whether the statements were protected by a criminal investigation privilege to be found in the common law. Defendant will file a Motion to Dismiss during discovery and the Court will have the opportunity to take submissions from both parties on this issue.



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 12th day of November 2025.

 
jsrkiwi said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

Click to expand...
Your Honor,

I apologize for my out-of-time request (more than 24 hours; I had an exam today). Defendant would like to be heard on this Motion. Defendant believes there is directly relevant persuasive precedent from this Court that should be applied to this issue.

Alternatively, Defendant submits that—taking Plaintiff's motion at face value—since Vernicia is not counsel of record, she has not been afforded a right to be heard on this Motion, even though it relates directly to her conduct and a monetary and criminal penalty may be awarded against her. The Court must, out of fairness, grant Vernicia an opportunity to be heard and full due-process rights.
 
BrownBerry said:
Your Honor,

I apologize for my out-of-time request (more than 24 hours; I had an exam today). Defendant would like to be heard on this Motion. Defendant believes there is directly relevant persuasive precedent from this Court that should be applied to this issue.

Alternatively, Defendant submits that—taking Plaintiff's motion at face value—since Vernicia is not counsel of record, she has not been afforded a right to be heard on this Motion, even though it relates directly to her conduct and a monetary and criminal penalty may be awarded against her. The Court must, out of fairness, grant Vernicia an opportunity to be heard and full due-process rights.
Click to expand...

The Court will grant an extra 24 hours. For future reference, the response window for motions 48 Hours, not 24. You had an hour left on this timer when the Court responded.
 
Last edited:
Discovery is now open.
Present Deadline 11/17/2025 @ 23:00 EST.


============ WITNESSES TAB ==================
I'm going to have these notes and update as new witnesses (if any are called).

Present Witness List:
(Plaintiff/Defendant) / IGN / - Reason
(P) : jsrkiwi - Plaintiff
 
jsrkiwi said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

Click to expand...
Your Honor, in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions:

As to Claim for Relief #2, I'd make the immediate point that the comments by Vernicia, however construed, did not relate to Plaintiff's conduct as a witness. Just because an alleged threat is made against someone who happens to be a witness, it does not follow that obstruction of justice has occurred. There must be some relation. Clearly, in this instance, Vernicia's comments were directed to Plaintiff in his capacity as a plaintiff, not as a witness. The Motion should fail at this point.

But even then, I refer the Court to Post #30 in [2025] DCR 83 (Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions). In that case, similar accusations were made that Defendant's counsel had threatened Plaintiff's counsel. This precedent is directly on point. The ultimate question is whether an undue threat is made. Clearly, that is not the case here.

I repeat two important points made in [2025] DCR 83:
1. A lawyer must advocate for their clients. They represent their client's interests to the exclusion of the interests of an opposing party. Oftentimes, this is not nice for the opposing party. Of course professional respect must be maintained (which it clearly has here).
2. Lawyers make demands of others all the time. For example, the statutory law of Redmont (the Intellectual Property Act) requires a cease-and-desist to be sent prior to filing a lawsuit. A cease-and-desist is simply a demand to cease infringing action or otherwise, litigation will be commenced. The same is true here: on behalf of Defendant, Vernicia has made a demand for certain compensation, or Defendant will refuse to do business with Plaintiff (and other related sanctions). It is well open to Defendant to refuse to serve Plaintiff in their stores unless this litigation is dropped. The prohibition against undue threats does not require litigants to be friends.

Defendant further submits that BrownBerry is not counsel of record in this case: the Mezimoří Legal Department is (see post #8: "MZLD will be representing"). As such, any lawyer from MZLD can file a document in this proceeding. The fact that one lawyer (me) is assigned to this case is merely a matter of continuity and to avoid confusion. It doesn't stop others from also participating. MZLD, like every law firm, is a team effort. A good team can rely on each other, and indeed, Multiman's objection (#18) is a quintessential example of this.

In this light, the proposed order for "Vernicia to be formally excluded [...] [from] this case" is—in effect—an order denying Defendant their chosen counsel. The Court must take the constitutional rights of Defendant into careful consideration before making such an order. As far as counsel knows, it is without precedent for a Court to order that counsel must remove themself from a case for supposed bad conduct. In the same vein, the second proposed order (that all communications must come from me, BrownBerry) has an equally significant effect upon Defendant's constitutional rights for the same reason.

Prayers for Relief 4 and 5 follow from the other Prayers. Defendant submits they should be denied for the reasons already given.

The Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for the reasons given.
 
BrownBerry said:
Your Honor, in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions:

As to Claim for Relief #2, I'd make the immediate point that the comments by Vernicia, however construed, did not relate to Plaintiff's conduct as a witness. Just because an alleged threat is made against someone who happens to be a witness, it does not follow that obstruction of justice has occurred. There must be some relation. Clearly, in this instance, Vernicia's comments were directed to Plaintiff in his capacity as a plaintiff, not as a witness. The Motion should fail at this point.

But even then, I refer the Court to Post #30 in [2025] DCR 83 (Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions). In that case, similar accusations were made that Defendant's counsel had threatened Plaintiff's counsel. This precedent is directly on point. The ultimate question is whether an undue threat is made. Clearly, that is not the case here.

I repeat two important points made in [2025] DCR 83:
1. A lawyer must advocate for their clients. They represent their client's interests to the exclusion of the interests of an opposing party. Oftentimes, this is not nice for the opposing party. Of course professional respect must be maintained (which it clearly has here).
2. Lawyers make demands of others all the time. For example, the statutory law of Redmont (the Intellectual Property Act) requires a cease-and-desist to be sent prior to filing a lawsuit. A cease-and-desist is simply a demand to cease infringing action or otherwise, litigation will be commenced. The same is true here: on behalf of Defendant, Vernicia has made a demand for certain compensation, or Defendant will refuse to do business with Plaintiff (and other related sanctions). It is well open to Defendant to refuse to serve Plaintiff in their stores unless this litigation is dropped. The prohibition against undue threats does not require litigants to be friends.

Defendant further submits that BrownBerry is not counsel of record in this case: the Mezimoří Legal Department is (see post #8: "MZLD will be representing"). As such, any lawyer from MZLD can file a document in this proceeding. The fact that one lawyer (me) is assigned to this case is merely a matter of continuity and to avoid confusion. It doesn't stop others from also participating. MZLD, like every law firm, is a team effort. A good team can rely on each other, and indeed, Multiman's objection (#18) is a quintessential example of this.

In this light, the proposed order for "Vernicia to be formally excluded [...] [from] this case" is—in effect—an order denying Defendant their chosen counsel. The Court must take the constitutional rights of Defendant into careful consideration before making such an order. As far as counsel knows, it is without precedent for a Court to order that counsel must remove themself from a case for supposed bad conduct. In the same vein, the second proposed order (that all communications must come from me, BrownBerry) has an equally significant effect upon Defendant's constitutional rights for the same reason.

Prayers for Relief 4 and 5 follow from the other Prayers. Defendant submits they should be denied for the reasons already given.

The Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for the reasons given.
Click to expand...
REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

While the Court’s Rules and Procedures do not expressly provide for a “Rebuttal”, the Plaintiff respectfully submits this rebuttal in the interests of fairness and procedural clarity. The Defendant’s response raises new arguments and new factual assertions which, if left unaddressed, could mislead the Court or leave material matters unresolved. To permit such assertions to stand unanswered would prejudice the Plaintiff and distort the factual record before this Honourable Court. It is therefore proper and consistent with the spirit of the rules and procedures that govern this Honourable Court that the Plaintiff be allowed to reply briefly to solely those new points.

I. ON DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83
1. The cited case (CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83) is wholly distinguishable. In that matter, an alleged threat, “I'd also note that we intend to request the name of your client's anonymous source in discovery. It's in your client's interest to settle to avoid that”, was made between counsel, within the context of settlement talks (a legitimate adversarial context).
2. Here, by contrast, Vernicia contacted the Plaintiff outside any professional context, and immediately following service of the Writ. Such conduct is qualitatively different and falls well outside acceptable professional advocacy.
3. Advocacy ends where intimidation begins. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s actions constitute zealous representation is untenable.

II. ON DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION THAT VERNICIA’S THREATS WERE “BUSINESS-RELATED”
1. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s comments merely concerned “business” matters is a transparent attempt to reframe the facts. The timing of the messages (within minutes of the Writ being served) and the content referring to the Plaintiff’s “withdrawing the case” make it obvious that the threats were litigation-related.
2. No reasonable person could interpret “I believe you want to withdraw that case before I get involved” as related to business. It is a direct reference to an ongoing legal proceeding, aimed squarely at deterring the Plaintiff from exercising his lawful right to pursue justice.

III. ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROFESSIONAL DECORUM
1. The Defendant’s claim that excluding Vernicia “denies Defendant their chosen counsel” is disingenuous. Vernicia is not currently acting as counsel of record and has instead engaged in conduct that undermines her eligibility to continue in any capacity in this proceeding. The constitutional right does not extend so far as to allow a litigant to retain an advocate who engages in intimidation of the opposing party.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jsrkiwi said:
REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

While the Court’s Rules and Procedures do not expressly provide for a “Rebuttal”, the Plaintiff respectfully submits this rebuttal in the interests of fairness and procedural clarity. The Defendant’s response raises new arguments and new factual assertions which, if left unaddressed, could mislead the Court or leave material matters unresolved. To permit such assertions to stand unanswered would prejudice the Plaintiff and distort the factual record before this Honourable Court. It is therefore proper and consistent with the spirit of the rules and procedures that govern this Honourable Court that the Plaintiff be allowed to reply briefly to solely those new points.

I. ON DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83
1. The cited case (CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83) is wholly distinguishable. In that matter, an alleged threat, “I'd also note that we intend to request the name of your client's anonymous source in discovery. It's in your client's interest to settle to avoid that”, was made between counsel, within the context of settlement talks (a legitimate adversarial context).
2. Here, by contrast, Vernicia contacted the Plaintiff outside any professional context, and immediately following service of the Writ. Such conduct is qualitatively different and falls well outside acceptable professional advocacy.
3. Advocacy ends where intimidation begins. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s actions constitute zealous representation is untenable.

II. ON DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION THAT VERNICIA’S THREATS WERE “BUSINESS-RELATED”
1. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s comments merely concerned “business” matters is a transparent attempt to reframe the facts. The timing of the messages (within minutes of the Writ being served) and the content referring to the Plaintiff’s “withdrawing the case” make it obvious that the threats were litigation-related.
2. No reasonable person could interpret “I believe you want to withdraw that case before I get involved” as related to business. It is a direct reference to an ongoing legal proceeding, aimed squarely at deterring the Plaintiff from exercising his lawful right to pursue justice.

III. ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROFESSIONAL DECORUM
1. The Defendant’s claim that excluding Vernicia “denies Defendant their chosen counsel” is disingenuous. Vernicia is not currently acting as counsel of record and has instead engaged in conduct that undermines her eligibility to continue in any capacity in this proceeding. The constitutional right does not extend so far as to allow a litigant to retain an advocate who engages in intimidation of the opposing party.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor:

Under the Rules of Procedure (and what I might refer to as the Magistrate Mug Court Rules Addendum that "In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission"), there does not appear to exist any permission for opposing counsel to issue a so-called "REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION".

When it comes to response chains, we have to draw the line somewhere; the Federal Court has previously noted that "[t]he court room isn't a place where you can simply submit an infinite loop of arguments while the Judge isn't looking". This Court appears to have drawn the line at one filing for the movant and one filing for the respondent through the special rules permitted under Rule 1.2 that are mentioned in an above parenthetical. This extends the logic behind standard practice for objections: (i.e. that "[o]ne Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter") to all motions. But a response to a response to a motion is a different matter entirely, and does not appear to be explicitly permitted under the rules.

As such, the defense asks that this filing be stricken for breaching procedure - the spontaneous filing appears neither to be permitted under the standard Court Rules nor by the special dispensation Your Honor has granted to automatically respond to motions in this case.

 
jsrkiwi said:
REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

While the Court’s Rules and Procedures do not expressly provide for a “Rebuttal”, the Plaintiff respectfully submits this rebuttal in the interests of fairness and procedural clarity. The Defendant’s response raises new arguments and new factual assertions which, if left unaddressed, could mislead the Court or leave material matters unresolved. To permit such assertions to stand unanswered would prejudice the Plaintiff and distort the factual record before this Honourable Court. It is therefore proper and consistent with the spirit of the rules and procedures that govern this Honourable Court that the Plaintiff be allowed to reply briefly to solely those new points.

I. ON DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83
1. The cited case (CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83) is wholly distinguishable. In that matter, an alleged threat, “I'd also note that we intend to request the name of your client's anonymous source in discovery. It's in your client's interest to settle to avoid that”, was made between counsel, within the context of settlement talks (a legitimate adversarial context).
2. Here, by contrast, Vernicia contacted the Plaintiff outside any professional context, and immediately following service of the Writ. Such conduct is qualitatively different and falls well outside acceptable professional advocacy.
3. Advocacy ends where intimidation begins. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s actions constitute zealous representation is untenable.

II. ON DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION THAT VERNICIA’S THREATS WERE “BUSINESS-RELATED”
1. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s comments merely concerned “business” matters is a transparent attempt to reframe the facts. The timing of the messages (within minutes of the Writ being served) and the content referring to the Plaintiff’s “withdrawing the case” make it obvious that the threats were litigation-related.
2. No reasonable person could interpret “I believe you want to withdraw that case before I get involved” as related to business. It is a direct reference to an ongoing legal proceeding, aimed squarely at deterring the Plaintiff from exercising his lawful right to pursue justice.

III. ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROFESSIONAL DECORUM
1. The Defendant’s claim that excluding Vernicia “denies Defendant their chosen counsel” is disingenuous. Vernicia is not currently acting as counsel of record and has instead engaged in conduct that undermines her eligibility to continue in any capacity in this proceeding. The constitutional right does not extend so far as to allow a litigant to retain an advocate who engages in intimidation of the opposing party.
Click to expand...

The Court strikes the entirety of this Response and warns Plaintiff against responding to a response.

A defense may include novel arguments. In fact, they probably should.
 
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor:

Under the Rules of Procedure (and what I might refer to as the Magistrate Mug Court Rules Addendum that "In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission"), there does not appear to exist any permission for opposing counsel to issue a so-called "REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION".

When it comes to response chains, we have to draw the line somewhere; the Federal Court has previously noted that "[t]he court room isn't a place where you can simply submit an infinite loop of arguments while the Judge isn't looking". This Court appears to have drawn the line at one filing for the movant and one filing for the respondent through the special rules permitted under Rule 1.2 that are mentioned in an above parenthetical. This extends the logic behind standard practice for objections: (i.e. that "[o]ne Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter") to all motions. But a response to a response to a motion is a different matter entirely, and does not appear to be explicitly permitted under the rules.

As such, the defense asks that this filing be stricken for breaching procedure - the spontaneous filing appears neither to be permitted under the standard Court Rules nor by the special dispensation Your Honor has granted to automatically respond to motions in this case.

Click to expand...

Sustained.
 

Writ of Summons

@Vernicia, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

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.



(Counselors will not be permitted to question the witness, the Court is summoning Vernicia based on the filings of the Motion)

@Vernicia The Court has questions regarding your conduct during this litigation. (A lawyer may respond for Vernicia if authorization is attached to do so.)

1) The Court is aware that MZLD has represented Trentrick_Lamar in a previous case ([2025] DCR 81). Are clients of MZLD represented on a case-by-case basis or does your retainer agreement persist beyond the conclusion of a case?

2) In contacting the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi) via DMs, were you engaging in settlement discussions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top