Lawsuit: In Session fickogames v. Ollie_MineCraft [2026] DCR 22

[fickogames]

1) Yes. I have been unable to repay the loan in full and nearly defaulted on it. Because of that, interest payments have been eating away at my personal finances.
2) I was forced to sell the plot because I could not afford to remodel and operate it myself after purchasing it.

Clerk note: The Court struck both answers.

 

[fickogames]

@fickogames
1. In P-007, you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan. Has the Defendant's failure to fulfill their contractual obligations impacted your ability to pay back this loan?
2. D-004 shows you purchasing the plot sometime after the Defendant failed to purchase it. Do you still own C117?

The plaintiff reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.

1) Yes. I have been unable to repay the loan in full and nearly defaulted on it. Because of that, interest payments have been eating away at my personal finances.
2) I was forced to sell the plot because I could not afford to remodel and operate it myself after purchasing it.

 

[gribble19]

2) I was forced to sell the plot because I could not afford to remodel and operate it myself after purchasing it.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE, NARRATIVE

The question asked was a closed question which should be answered with either yes or no. The witness did not answer the question and instead gave non-required information as testimony. The Defendant respectfully requests this answer be struck and the witness be made to answer the question asked.

 

[gribble19]

1) Yes. I have been unable to repay the loan in full and nearly defaulted on it. Because of that, interest payments have been eating away at my personal finances.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

The question asked was a closed question. The answer "yes" sufficed. Everything else is narrative and the Defendant respectfully requests the rest of the answer be struck.

 

[gribble19]

@fickogames
1. In P-007, you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan. Has the Defendant's failure to fulfill their contractual obligations impacted your ability to pay back this loan?

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, PERJURY

This question assumes that Defendant failed to fulfill their contractual obligations which is not an established fact in this case. Defendant respectfully requests that both this question and any answers given to it be struck.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff states here: "In P-007 you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan." This is not true. First of all, the witness had not yet sent any money to Plaintiff at the time of the conversation in P-007 (See Fact 6 of Complaint.) Furthermore, in P-007 the witness does not state at all that the money they sent to the Defendant came from a loan. It is clear that Plaintiff's counsel is aware of P-007 and thus of the fact that this is not true. The Defendant respectfully request that the Plaintiff's counsel be punished appropriately for this misrepresentation of the truth.

 

[emilypancakes22]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE, NARRATIVE

The question asked was a closed question which should be answered with either yes or no. The witness did not answer the question and instead gave non-required information as testimony. The Defendant respectfully requests this answer be struck and the witness be made to answer the question asked.

Response
Re: Non-Responsive - "I was forced to sell" clearly answers the question. If the witness has sold the plot, then they do not still own it.
Re: Narrative - Nothing about the question asked indicates that the response was only to be a yes or no. Furthermore, the witness's answer is not "lengthy or [a] detailed story", but rather just a single sentence providing relevant details as to why the Defendant no longer owns C117.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

The question asked was a closed question. The answer "yes" sufficed. Everything else is narrative and the Defendant respectfully requests the rest of the answer be struck.

Response
Nothing about this question indicates that the response was to only be a yes or no. Furthermore, the witness's answer is not "lengthy or [a] detailed story", but rather two sentences that are relevant to the question being asked.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, PERJURY

This question assumes that Defendant failed to fulfill their contractual obligations which is not an established fact in this case. Defendant respectfully requests that both this question and any answers given to it be struck.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff states here: "In P-007 you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan." This is not true. First of all, the witness had not yet sent any money to Plaintiff at the time of the conversation in P-007 (See Fact 6 of Complaint.) Furthermore, in P-007 the witness does not state at all that the money they sent to the Defendant came from a loan. It is clear that Plaintiff's counsel is aware of P-007 and thus of the fact that this is not true. The Defendant respectfully request that the Plaintiff's counsel be punished appropriately for this misrepresentation of the truth.

Response
Re: Assumes Facts Not in Evidence
The Defense has affirmed the fact that the Defendant failed to fulfill their contractual obligations in their Answer to Complaint. Fact 11 of the Defense's Answer states "The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, informing them that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract." (Emphasis mine). This fact is not up for consideration; rather the question before the court is whether or not Force Majeure applies to protect the Defendant from the consequences of failing to fulfill their contractual obligations.
Re: Perjury
The Defense is caught up on a technicality in the wording. Yes, at the time of the conversation shown in P-007, the money had not yet been sent to the Defendant. However, at the time of the question being asked, it had already been sent. As such, "the money [the Plaintiff] sent" is a valid descriptor of the money in question.
In P-007, the plaintiff is seen stating "Im buying the property on a loan". It would be preposterous to assume that the money sent to purchase to the property did not come from the loan taken out for the explicit purpose of purchasing the property.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE, NARRATIVE

The question asked was a closed question which should be answered with either yes or no. The witness did not answer the question and instead gave non-required information as testimony. The Defendant respectfully requests this answer be struck and the witness be made to answer the question asked.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NARRATIVE

The question asked was a closed question. The answer "yes" sufficed. Everything else is narrative and the Defendant respectfully requests the rest of the answer be struck.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, PERJURY

This question assumes that Defendant failed to fulfill their contractual obligations which is not an established fact in this case. Defendant respectfully requests that both this question and any answers given to it be struck.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff states here: "In P-007 you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan." This is not true. First of all, the witness had not yet sent any money to Plaintiff at the time of the conversation in P-007 (See Fact 6 of Complaint.) Furthermore, in P-007 the witness does not state at all that the money they sent to the Defendant came from a loan. It is clear that Plaintiff's counsel is aware of P-007 and thus of the fact that this is not true. The Defendant respectfully request that the Plaintiff's counsel be punished appropriately for this misrepresentation of the truth.

Narrative (Post No. 104) — Sustained. The question asked whether something has affected the witness, not how it had affected the witness. Answer is stricken. Witness would be ordered to re-answer answer the question directly, except that the question is stricken below for assuming facts not in evidence.

Narrative, Non-responsive (Post No. 103) — Sustained. Question was about whether a plot was owned, not why a transfer occurred. Answer is stricken and Witness is ordered to re-answer the question directly.

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence and Perjury (Post No. 105) — Sustained and Overruled, correspondingly. P-007 appears to contain explicit statements from the Plaintiff asking for money to be sent on the basis of “lending terms” and refers to a future intent to buy a property using money from a loan. This may be money that was ultimately sent, but such does not yet appear to be in the record in testimony or an exhibit (if it is, the Court cannot find it). As such, the Court does not find sufficient reason to consider the statement perjurious, but the question (and thus the answer to it) are both struck in entirety.

(As regarding the alleged failure to fulfill, the Court finds that the admission in Answer section I.11 meets the bar for the assumption of the affirmed fact’s truth within questions to witnesses.)