Lawsuit: In Session mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32

[TheSnowGuardian]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

mar_milk
(Plaintiff)

v.

Plura72,
Social Democrat Party
(Defendant(s))

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I, mar_mik, believe that my statutory rights to privacy have been violated. By releasing private chat logs, Plura caused me distress and may have affected my reception to voters.

I. PARTIES​

1. mar_milk (known as Plaintiff)
2. Plura72 (Defendant)
3. Social Democrat Party (Co-Defendant)
Collectively, parties listed in 2 and 3 shall be known as ‘Defendants’

II. FACTS​

1. On or around 20/21/22 March 2026, the Plaintiff sent an application to the Co-Defendant (Social Democrat Party) under the ‘Young League Applications’ part of the Co-Defendant’s Discord Server’s ‘apply for membership’ chanel. (P-002)
2. On or around 22/23/24 March 2026, the Plaintiff’s Application was denied by the Defendant. (P-002)
3. On or around 19/20 April 2026, the Defendant shared the Plaintiff’s Application in the #politics channel. (P-001)
4. The Application’s image contained the Plaintiff’s username, their opinion about the LBTQ+ (aka, queer) community, and whether the Plaintiff agreed with the rules in their charter. (P-001, P-002)
5. That message which contained the leaked application is no longer available in the #politics channel and is presumed to have been deleted. (P-003)
6. The Plaintiff never consented to their application information being distributed or shared by the Defendant.
7. On or around 21 April 2026, Talion & Partners INC. on behalf of the Plaintiff further investigated the root causes and actions that led to the Application’s image sharing. (P-004)
8. When TheSnowGuardian, acting in his capacity as an employee of Talion & Partners INC., opened a ticket with the SDP, he asked for the legal department. (P-004)
9. On asking for the legal department, he had asked for the process of information processing that he had a right to know pursuant to the Privacy Act. (P-004)
10. Dodrio3, a member of the Co-Defendant’s Legal Department, said they “have no idea”, and “personally have no access to anything like that.” (P-004)
11. TheSnowGuardian refused to accept the lack of knowledge as an answer, it was later revealed that Dodrio3 was not representing the whole legal department. (P-004)
12. The Head of the Co-Defendant’s Legal Department, Dearev, was later referred to the question, and said question was repeated again with better clarity by TheSnowGuardian. (P-005)
13. Dearev did respond to some degree, however, TheSnowGuardian was not satisfied and asked for where the Co-Defendant disclaimed the process of personal data/information collection, processing, storage, and distribution. (P-005)
14. Dearev responded again with “it is implied appy has logs” and “i have answered your question to my fullest extent” (P-005)
15. Dearev also said in between the above two statements, “we are not responsible for member’s actions ..” (P-005)
16. The Plaintiff does believe, Dearev on behalf of the Co-Defendant, has exercised some remorse and tried to curtail the actions of the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff does not believe the Co-Defendant should be completely stripped of liability.
17. The underlying cause for the sharing of the image was that the Defendant believed the Plaintiff hated the Co-Defendant and shared the image in order to contradict the Plaintiff. (P-001)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

A. Breach of Privacy by Plura72​

Breach of Privacy is committed when a person “knowingly or recklessly discloses private information of another individual or entity to the public domain, or to unauthorised third parties without lawful authority or consent” according to Part XII, Section 4 (a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act.

What the Defendant did is nothing short of this definition. The Defendant with full intention and sound mind knowingly AND recklessly disclosed the private information and the details of the Plaintiff’s application in a public channel.

B. Consequential Damages from Plura72​

Not only did the Defendant violate the Plaintiff’s Privacy Rights, they did it in #politics channel, this aims to show that the Defendant wanted to tarnish the Plaintiff’s reputation and their political career and wanted to make them look foolish.

Consequential Damages for Humiliation is defined “(s)ituations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.” according to the RCCA.

C. Punitive Damages from Plura72​

The Plaintif’s political opinion was made to look foolish, he was made to look foolish, and this was done by violating his rights. This act by itself is outrageous.

The RCCA has many tests for Punitive Damages, and the Defendant’s actions seems to have fit multiple of these.

Spoiler

.. (b) Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, conduct is outrageous where any of the following are met:
(i) The defendant intended to cause harm or loss;
(ii) The defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person;
(iii) The defendant acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur;
(iv) The conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust or power;
(v) The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences; or
(vi) The conduct demonstrates gross negligence, being such a significant departure from the standard of care that it warrants punishment rather than compensation alone. ..

The Defendant did intend to cause harm. Witness testimony, along with the fact that it was posted in #politics will continue prove this. As such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.

The Defendant did act knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage the Plaintiff in their political career. As such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.

The Defendant did act with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur. As such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.

The Defendant did act in bad faith, and abused their power granted by the Co-Defendant, whom which the Plainitff had trusted not to share their private details (later confirmed by clarification, see P-005), as such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.

The conduct of the Defendant does demonstrate gross negligence, with a lack of care for any consequences or the rights of the Plaintiff, as such, the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.

D. Violation of the Plaintiff’s Privacy Rights by the Co-Defendant​

The Co-Defendant has also equally acted egregiously in this entire situation.
The Co-Defendant never disclosed why information is collected, how it will be stored, who it will be disclosed to, and other provisions of the Privacy Act.
When confronted about it (see P-005), the Co-Defendant’s Head of Legal Department simply said “it is implid Appy has logs”. This does not meet the threshold of what the Privacy Act requires. Anything can be implied, but the Privacy Act specifically requires that the above be disclaimed before or during the time of Data Collection.

E. Punitive Damages from the Co-Defendant​

The Co-Defendant has also acted recklessly, when confronted about this situation, the Plaintiff’s legal counsel was given “we are not responsible for member’s actions”.

There has been gross negligence from the Co-Defendant, and as such the Plaintiff prays for 10,000$ in Punitive Damages.

The Court should note that soley acting on a complaint may diminish other tests for Punitive Damages, however, the sole fact that the Plaintiff’s Privacy Rights were violated by the Co-Defendant and the neglect shown warrants Punitive Damages.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A Court Order stopping/preventing the Defendant from violating the Plaintiff’s privacy rights.
2. A Court Order mandating that the Co-Defendant disclaim the information required by the Privacy Act so as to respect the Plaintiff’s (and the general public’s) Privacy Rights.
3. 50,000$ in Consequential Damages from the Defendant.
4. 50,000$ in Punitive Damages from the Defendant.
6. 10,000$ in Punitive Damages from the Co-Defendant.
7. 30% of the Total Case Value awarded as legal fees to Talion & Partners INC.
8. Any other awards or actions the Court deems just.

V. Witnesses​

1. Dearev
2. Plura72
3. mar_milk
4. Dodrio3

Additionally, we would like to treat witnessess Dearev, Plura72 and Dodrio3 as hostile.

VI. Evidence​

Spoiler: P-001 - Posting of Application

Spoiler: P-002 - Application Details

Spoiler: P-003 - Deletion of Sent Image

Spoiler: P-004 - Investigation (Dodrio3)

Spoiler: P-005 - Whole Ticket

See attached 'Social Democrat Party (SDP) - ticket-0029.pdf'

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 23rd day of April, 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff believes that the Defendant has deleted messages that replied to JuliaMC_ and messages that were sent in regards to this whole controversy. (See P-001 and P-003)
TheSnowGuardian, on behalf of the Plaintiff, opened a staff ticket.

Spoiler: MtC- Exhibit - P.A

Tickets V2 Dashboard

Staff, in return, told TheSnowGuardian that they needed a Court Order.

As such, we motion that the Court order the staff team:
(a) Produce the first message deleted that caused this whole controversy (The message that can be seen in P-001).
(b) Messages that contextually reply to JuliaMC_'s "What?" question.
(c) Other messages sent by Plura72 related to this matter that were deleted within that timeframe, to specify, witihin a 1 hour timeframe.

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

@Plura72 and the Social Democrat Party (@MrCheesGuy) are ordered to appear before the Federal Court in the case of mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32.

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.

 

[Franciscus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff believes that the Defendant has deleted messages that replied to JuliaMC_ and messages that were sent in regards to this whole controversy. (See P-001 and P-003)
TheSnowGuardian, on behalf of the Plaintiff, opened a staff ticket.

Spoiler: MtC- Exhibit - P.A

Tickets V2 Dashboard

Staff, in return, told TheSnowGuardian that they needed a Court Order.

As such, we motion that the Court order the staff team:
(a) Produce the first message deleted that caused this whole controversy (The message that can be seen in P-001).
(b) Messages that contextually reply to JuliaMC_'s "What?" question.
(c) Other messages sent by Plura72 related to this matter that were deleted within that timeframe, to specify, witihin a 1 hour timeframe.

[/motion]

Denied. We are not in discovery at this time; the Court will not entertain motions to compel prior to entering discovery.

 

[Novakerbal]

Your Honor,

As a current member of the LGBTQ+ community (“Queer”), I humbly request to submit an amicus brief on the validity of the released information being a “political opinion”.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honor,

As a current member of the LGBTQ+ community (“Queer”), I humbly request to submit an amicus brief on the validity of the released information being a “political opinion”.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure, Assumes Facts not in Evidence

Your Honour,

I do not believe the complaint stated that the information released was a political opinion, but rather that the underlying cause for sharing said information was due to a want for contradiction of the Plaintiff's Political Opinion. (See P-001 and Fact 17)

Additionally, the claims for relief are solely stated on the fact that the Defendant allegedly breached the Plaintiff's privacy due to the underlying cause for a want for contradiction in the Plaintiff's political opinion.

So I beg the Court to ask Hnble. Member of the Queer Community, Novakerbal, what they would be filing an amicus brief on.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure, Assumes Facts not in Evidence

Your Honour,

I do not believe the complaint stated that the information released was a political opinion, but rather that the underlying cause for sharing said information was due to a want for contradiction of the Plaintiff's Political Opinion. (See P-001 and Fact 17)

Additionally, the claims for relief are solely stated on the fact that the Defendant allegedly breached the Plaintiff's privacy due to the underlying cause for a want for contradiction in the Plaintiff's political opinion.

So I beg the Court to ask Hnble. Member of the Queer Community, Novakerbal, what they would be filing an amicus brief on.

Overruled. Amicus brief requests in the Federal Court are required to state the interest of the movant in the subject matter of the case (Regulations of the Federal Court, Section 3.2(a)). The interest need not be established in the evidence-in-case prior to such a brief being considered; an application is the proper means for stating such interest.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

As a current member of the LGBTQ+ community (“Queer”), I humbly request to submit an amicus brief on the validity of the released information being a “political opinion”.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — APPLICATION TO SUBMIT AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF (Novakerbal, Post No. 4)

Under the Regulations of the Federal Court, applications to file an Amicus Curiae brief must state:

(a) the interest of the movant in the subject matter of the case;
(b) an affirmative statement attesting that the movant has no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case; and
(c) that the proposed brief concerns a legal argument arising from constitutional principles, historical development of law, overturned or modified precedent, or a uniquely situated legal issue.

(RoFC, Section 3.2).

The Court is satisfied as to RoFC 3.2(a) inasmuch as the interest is plainly stated. However, the Court cannot presently identify any statement in the application that would fully satisfy the requirements in RoFC 3.2(b)-(c).

As such, the application is denied.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[dodrio3]

Writ of Summons

@Plura72 and the Social Democrat Party (@MrCheesGuy) are ordered to appear before the Federal Court in the case of mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32.

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.

Your Honour, I will be representing Co-Defendant Plura72 In this matter.

 

[Johnes]

Your Honour, SDP is present.

Spoiler: Consent to represent

 

[Franciscus]

Both defendant (CC: @dodrio3 ) and co-defendant (CC: @Johnes ) have 48 hours to file their respective answers to complaint.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour, I will be representing Co-Defendant Plura72 In this matter.

View attachment 80898

Your Honour, this attorney is a named witness in this case, the Plaintiff requests a sidebar.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour, this attorney is a named witness in this case, the Plaintiff requests a sidebar.

For what purposes?

 

[Johnes]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,
the Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the co-defendant under Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules and Procedures and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

I. Overview of the information shared
For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential.

A. The information was shared in a public setting
The Privacy Act defines personal information as follows:

4 - Definitions
(1) For the purposes of this Act, "personal information" and "private information" shall have the same meaning and refer to any information relating to an identifiable individual, including but not limited to:
(a) Employment details, discipline records, termination details, and administrative actions
(b) Financial records with private organisations, including but not limited to:
(i) Account balances
(ii) Transaction history
(iii) Debts and other assets
(2) Personal information and Private information do not include:
(a) Information that is freely and publicly available
(b) Information that has been anonymised or aggregated such that it cannot reasonably identify any individual
(c) Information displayed on public leaderboards, statistics pages, or BlueMap
(d) Information voluntarily posted by the individual in a public area, except for real-life personal information as protected under Section 8

The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act.

As is aforementioned, the information in question:
1. does not pertain to employment, discipline, termination or administrative records, actions or details,
2. does not pertain to financial records, and
3. was voluntarily posted by the Plaintiff in a public area.

While our assertion that the ticket is public may not fulfill the express terms of the Privacy Act, the term "public area" does not explicitly pertain to an area where everyone may see the message but to one where a reasonable expectation of privacy is not present.

B. The information is not private
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines breach of privacy as follows:

4. Breach of Privacy
Violation Type: Intentional/Negligent
Remedy: An order to prevent further disclosure; An order to destroy the information
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) knowingly or recklessly discloses private information of another individual or entity to the public domain, or to unauthorised third parties without lawful authority or consent; or
(b) uses private information obtained in confidence for an unauthorised purpose that causes or is likely to cause harm to the individual or entity to whom the information relates.
This violation shall not occur where:
(c) the disclosure is required or permitted by law or court order; or
(d) the disclosure is made as part of official Congressional or Court proceedings; or
(e) the subject has provided explicit consent to the disclosure; or
(f) the information is already in the public domain through lawful means; or
(g) the information is general in nature and does not identify or could not reasonably identify any individual or entity.
Relevant Law: Act of Congress - Privacy Act

Under § 4(a) of the aforestated excerpt of the RCCA, the violation shall occur if an individual discloses private information to the public domain.

The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy.

II. Punitive Damages
The Plaintiff wrongly asserts that the Defendant is liable for any Punitive Damages.
The RCCA defines Punitive Damages as follows:

3. Punitive Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.

(2) Award:
(a) Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorised by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.
(b) Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, conduct is outrageous where any of the following are met:
(i) The defendant intended to cause harm or loss;
(ii) The defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person;
(iii) The defendant acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur;
(iv) The conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust or power;
(v) The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences; or
(vi) The conduct demonstrates gross negligence, being such a significant departure from the standard of care that it warrants punishment rather than compensation alone.
(c) In the event that punitive damages are being argued because an authorised statute grants it, the award shall be limited by the amount granted by law.
(d) In assessing punitive damages, courts shall consider the character of the defendant’s act, the nature and extent of the harm, and the defendant’s wealth.

As we have argued above, the Defendant acted within the legal bounds, did not intend to cause harm or loss and the Defendant's conduct did not involve dishonesty, deception, bad faith or abuse of trust.

The Plaintiff also shared the information willingly, without any proof, agreement or any sort of confirmation that the information would be confidential and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable for sharing it.

Wherefore, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all relief sought against the Social Democratic Party and remove the SDP from this case.

Your Honour,
the Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for posting the answer to the complaint is tolled until the Court's ruling on this motion.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

For what purposes?

Discussion of protocol when the Attorney representing the Defendant is called to testify and any further concerns that would best not flood Your Honour's Docket.

 

[Franciscus]

Discussion of protocol when the Attorney representing the Defendant is called to testify and any further concerns that would best not flood Your Honour's Docket.

There is no real procedural difference (See [2025] FCR 76). Request for sidebar Denied.

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,
the Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the co-defendant under Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules and Procedures and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

I. Overview of the information shared
For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential.

A. The information was shared in a public setting
The Privacy Act defines personal information as follows:

The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act.

As is aforementioned, the information in question:
1. does not pertain to employment, discipline, termination or administrative records, actions or details,
2. does not pertain to financial records, and
3. was voluntarily posted by the Plaintiff in a public area.

While our assertion that the ticket is public may not fulfill the express terms of the Privacy Act, the term "public area" does not explicitly pertain to an area where everyone may see the message but to one where a reasonable expectation of privacy is not present.

B. The information is not private
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines breach of privacy as follows:

Under § 4(a) of the aforestated excerpt of the RCCA, the violation shall occur if an individual discloses private information to the public domain.

The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy.

II. Punitive Damages
The Plaintiff wrongly asserts that the Defendant is liable for any Punitive Damages.
The RCCA defines Punitive Damages as follows:

As we have argued above, the Defendant acted within the legal bounds, did not intend to cause harm or loss and the Defendant's conduct did not involve dishonesty, deception, bad faith or abuse of trust.

The Plaintiff also shared the information willingly, without any proof, agreement or any sort of confirmation that the information would be confidential and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable for sharing it.

Wherefore, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all relief sought against the Social Democratic Party and remove the SDP from this case.

Your Honour,
the Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for posting the answer to the complaint is tolled until the Court's ruling on this motion.

I would like to request that the defendants legal team be allowed time post a motion to dismiss before a ruling is given on this one.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,
the Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the co-defendant under Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules and Procedures and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

I. Overview of the information shared
For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential.

A. The information was shared in a public setting
The Privacy Act defines personal information as follows:

The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act.

As is aforementioned, the information in question:
1. does not pertain to employment, discipline, termination or administrative records, actions or details,
2. does not pertain to financial records, and
3. was voluntarily posted by the Plaintiff in a public area.

While our assertion that the ticket is public may not fulfill the express terms of the Privacy Act, the term "public area" does not explicitly pertain to an area where everyone may see the message but to one where a reasonable expectation of privacy is not present.

B. The information is not private
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines breach of privacy as follows:

Under § 4(a) of the aforestated excerpt of the RCCA, the violation shall occur if an individual discloses private information to the public domain.

The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy.

II. Punitive Damages
The Plaintiff wrongly asserts that the Defendant is liable for any Punitive Damages.
The RCCA defines Punitive Damages as follows:

As we have argued above, the Defendant acted within the legal bounds, did not intend to cause harm or loss and the Defendant's conduct did not involve dishonesty, deception, bad faith or abuse of trust.

The Plaintiff also shared the information willingly, without any proof, agreement or any sort of confirmation that the information would be confidential and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable for sharing it.

Wherefore, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all relief sought against the Social Democratic Party and remove the SDP from this case.

Your Honour,
the Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for posting the answer to the complaint is tolled until the Court's ruling on this motion.

Your Honour, the Defendant and Co-Defendant is perfectly able to form a defence and affirm or dispute facts within the complaint if we look at the contents of this MtD. In interest of an efficient Court proceeding, I urge the Court to not toll the Defence or the Co-Defence's deadline for answer to complaint.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,
the Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the co-defendant under Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules and Procedures and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

I. Overview of the information shared
For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential.

A. The information was shared in a public setting
The Privacy Act defines personal information as follows:

The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act.

As is aforementioned, the information in question:
1. does not pertain to employment, discipline, termination or administrative records, actions or details,
2. does not pertain to financial records, and
3. was voluntarily posted by the Plaintiff in a public area.

While our assertion that the ticket is public may not fulfill the express terms of the Privacy Act, the term "public area" does not explicitly pertain to an area where everyone may see the message but to one where a reasonable expectation of privacy is not present.

B. The information is not private
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines breach of privacy as follows:

Under § 4(a) of the aforestated excerpt of the RCCA, the violation shall occur if an individual discloses private information to the public domain.

The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy.

II. Punitive Damages
The Plaintiff wrongly asserts that the Defendant is liable for any Punitive Damages.
The RCCA defines Punitive Damages as follows:

As we have argued above, the Defendant acted within the legal bounds, did not intend to cause harm or loss and the Defendant's conduct did not involve dishonesty, deception, bad faith or abuse of trust.

The Plaintiff also shared the information willingly, without any proof, agreement or any sort of confirmation that the information would be confidential and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable for sharing it.

Wherefore, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all relief sought against the Social Democratic Party and remove the SDP from this case.

Your Honour,
the Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for posting the answer to the complaint is tolled until the Court's ruling on this motion.

Your Honour, the Defendant and Co-Defendant is perfectly able to form a defence and affirm or dispute facts within the complaint if we look at the contents of this MtD. In interest of an efficient Court proceeding, I urge the Court to not toll the Defence or the Co-Defence's deadline for answer to complaint.

Plaintiff (cc: @TheSnowGuardian) will have 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. While the Defendant and Co-Defendant are both represented by qualified counsel, and can be expected to file an answer to complaint, the Court sees no reason to require such an answer be filed prior to ruling on a preliminary pre-answer MTD. Deadline for Defendant and Co-Defendant to file their answers to complaint are tolled.

I would like to request that the defendants legal team be allowed time post a motion to dismiss before a ruling is given on this one.

Please post it within the next 48 hours, or the Court may rule on the MTD already filed prior to receiving one from the party you represent.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,
the Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the co-defendant under Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules and Procedures and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

I. Overview of the information shared
For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential.

A. The information was shared in a public setting
The Privacy Act defines personal information as follows:

The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act.

As is aforementioned, the information in question:
1. does not pertain to employment, discipline, termination or administrative records, actions or details,
2. does not pertain to financial records, and
3. was voluntarily posted by the Plaintiff in a public area.

While our assertion that the ticket is public may not fulfill the express terms of the Privacy Act, the term "public area" does not explicitly pertain to an area where everyone may see the message but to one where a reasonable expectation of privacy is not present.

B. The information is not private
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines breach of privacy as follows:

Under § 4(a) of the aforestated excerpt of the RCCA, the violation shall occur if an individual discloses private information to the public domain.

The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy.

II. Punitive Damages
The Plaintiff wrongly asserts that the Defendant is liable for any Punitive Damages.
The RCCA defines Punitive Damages as follows:

As we have argued above, the Defendant acted within the legal bounds, did not intend to cause harm or loss and the Defendant's conduct did not involve dishonesty, deception, bad faith or abuse of trust.

The Plaintiff also shared the information willingly, without any proof, agreement or any sort of confirmation that the information would be confidential and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable for sharing it.

Wherefore, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all relief sought against the Social Democratic Party and remove the SDP from this case.

Your Honour,
the Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for posting the answer to the complaint is tolled until the Court's ruling on this motion.

Plaintiff (cc: @TheSnowGuardian) will have 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. While the Defendant and Co-Defendant are both represented by qualified counsel, and can be expected to file an answer to complaint, the Court sees no reason to require such an answer be filed prior to ruling on a preliminary pre-answer MTD. Deadline for Defendant and Co-Defendant to file their answers to complaint are tolled.


Please post it within the next 48 hours, or the Court may rule on the MTD already filed prior to receiving one from the party you represent.

Objection

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

Your Honour, Co-Defendant's attorney made himself known to the Court in Post No. #9.

This Motion to Dismiss addresses claims specifically made against the Defendant and not the Co-Defendant.

Claims against the Co-Defendant are Section III, D and E of the Complaint.

The 'Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court' information thread clearly states

FOR LAWYERS
When representing a client in court, you must provide evidence that the client has officially retained you as their lawyer. Acceptable forms of evidence include a picture of the agreement, a screenshot of a Discord conversation, or a chat record.

This implies that to defend a client in Court you must specifically show proof of representation. Plura72 and the Social Democrat Party are two seperate entities and the Counsellor represents the latter.

Why is the Plaintiff being required to answer to a Motion to Dismiss submitted by the Co-Defendant which aims to dismiss claims made against the Defendant?

 

[Johnes]

Objection

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

Your Honour, Co-Defendant's attorney made himself known to the Court in Post No. #9.

This Motion to Dismiss addresses claims specifically made against the Defendant and not the Co-Defendant.

Claims against the Co-Defendant are Section III, D and E of the Complaint.

The 'Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court' information thread clearly states



This implies that to defend a client in Court you must specifically show proof of representation. Plura72 and the Social Democrat Party are two seperate entities and the Counsellor represents the latter.

Why is the Plaintiff being required to answer to a Motion to Dismiss submitted by the Co-Defendant which aims to dismiss claims made against the Defendant?

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION

Your Honour,
I believe I made myself clear that I wish to dismiss any claims against the Social Democratic Party and not Plura72 by stating:

Wherefore, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all relief sought against the Social Democratic Party and remove the SDP from this case.

The term "Defendant" and "Co-Defendant" is used in the MtD interchangeably but the Court shall regard any use of this term as to refer to the Social Democratic Party.

As for the reason the MtD covers topics that may refer to the claims against Defendant Plura72, we believe the Plaintiff's claim for Punitive Damages overlaps with the areas we have expressed in our MtD.

For the reasons above, we ask that Your Honour overrule this objection.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,
the Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the co-defendant under Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules and Procedures and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

I. Overview of the information shared
For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential.

A. The information was shared in a public setting
The Privacy Act defines personal information as follows:

The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act.

As is aforementioned, the information in question:
1. does not pertain to employment, discipline, termination or administrative records, actions or details,
2. does not pertain to financial records, and
3. was voluntarily posted by the Plaintiff in a public area.

While our assertion that the ticket is public may not fulfill the express terms of the Privacy Act, the term "public area" does not explicitly pertain to an area where everyone may see the message but to one where a reasonable expectation of privacy is not present.

B. The information is not private
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines breach of privacy as follows:

Under § 4(a) of the aforestated excerpt of the RCCA, the violation shall occur if an individual discloses private information to the public domain.

The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy.

II. Punitive Damages
The Plaintiff wrongly asserts that the Defendant is liable for any Punitive Damages.
The RCCA defines Punitive Damages as follows:

As we have argued above, the Defendant acted within the legal bounds, did not intend to cause harm or loss and the Defendant's conduct did not involve dishonesty, deception, bad faith or abuse of trust.

The Plaintiff also shared the information willingly, without any proof, agreement or any sort of confirmation that the information would be confidential and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable for sharing it.

Wherefore, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all relief sought against the Social Democratic Party and remove the SDP from this case.

Your Honour,
the Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for posting the answer to the complaint is tolled until the Court's ruling on this motion.

Objection

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

Your Honour, Co-Defendant's attorney made himself known to the Court in Post No. #9.

This Motion to Dismiss addresses claims specifically made against the Defendant and not the Co-Defendant.

Claims against the Co-Defendant are Section III, D and E of the Complaint.

The 'Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court' information thread clearly states



This implies that to defend a client in Court you must specifically show proof of representation. Plura72 and the Social Democrat Party are two seperate entities and the Counsellor represents the latter.

Why is the Plaintiff being required to answer to a Motion to Dismiss submitted by the Co-Defendant which aims to dismiss claims made against the Defendant?

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION

Your Honour,
I believe I made myself clear that I wish to dismiss any claims against the Social Democratic Party and not Plura72 by stating:

The term "Defendant" and "Co-Defendant" is used in the MtD interchangeably but the Court shall regard any use of this term as to refer to the Social Democratic Party.

As for the reason the MtD covers topics that may refer to the claims against Defendant Plura72, we believe the Plaintiff's claim for Punitive Damages overlaps with the areas we have expressed in our MtD.

For the reasons above, we ask that Your Honour overrule this objection.

Overruled; the Court will construe the references to the "Defendant" to mean the co-Defendant.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,
the Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the co-defendant under Rule 5.12 of the Court Rules and Procedures and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

I. Overview of the information shared
For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential.

A. The information was shared in a public setting
The Privacy Act defines personal information as follows:

The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act.

As is aforementioned, the information in question:
1. does not pertain to employment, discipline, termination or administrative records, actions or details,
2. does not pertain to financial records, and
3. was voluntarily posted by the Plaintiff in a public area.

While our assertion that the ticket is public may not fulfill the express terms of the Privacy Act, the term "public area" does not explicitly pertain to an area where everyone may see the message but to one where a reasonable expectation of privacy is not present.

B. The information is not private
The Redmont Civil Code Act defines breach of privacy as follows:

Under § 4(a) of the aforestated excerpt of the RCCA, the violation shall occur if an individual discloses private information to the public domain.

The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy.

II. Punitive Damages
The Plaintiff wrongly asserts that the Defendant is liable for any Punitive Damages.
The RCCA defines Punitive Damages as follows:

As we have argued above, the Defendant acted within the legal bounds, did not intend to cause harm or loss and the Defendant's conduct did not involve dishonesty, deception, bad faith or abuse of trust.

The Plaintiff also shared the information willingly, without any proof, agreement or any sort of confirmation that the information would be confidential and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable for sharing it.

Wherefore, the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss all relief sought against the Social Democratic Party and remove the SDP from this case.

Your Honour,
the Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline for posting the answer to the complaint is tolled until the Court's ruling on this motion.

Plaintiff (cc: @TheSnowGuardian) will have 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. While the Defendant and Co-Defendant are both represented by qualified counsel, and can be expected to file an answer to complaint, the Court sees no reason to require such an answer be filed prior to ruling on a preliminary pre-answer MTD. Deadline for Defendant and Co-Defendant to file their answers to complaint are tolled.


Please post it within the next 48 hours, or the Court may rule on the MTD already filed prior to receiving one from the party you represent.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the above Motion to Dismiss for the following reasons:

I. The Co-Defence Needs to Open It's Eyes​

The Co-Defence submitted this Motion to Dismiss under Court Rule 5.12, which speaks about Personal Standing.
The Plaintiff has demonstrated enough standing as:

1. There was some injury caused by two second-parties here.

2. The cause of injuries was mainly:
(a) Breach of Privacy by the Defendant
(b) Violation of Privacy Rights by the Co-Defendant
Both of which violate the law (the RCCA and the Privacy Act)

3. The remedies applicable are:
(a) 2 seperate orders that prevent further privacy breaches from the Defendant, and the other one ordering the Co-Defendant to disclose the process of information processing.
(b) Consequential Damages from the Defendant
(c) Punitive Damages from the Defendant and Co-Defendant, which are assessed seperately for different outrageous actions.

To determine whether what the Plaintiff actually alleges against the Defendants due to their collective actions is actually a violation of the law is upto the Court to decide at the time of verdict.

II. The Co-Defence is Being Hypocritical​

The Co-Defence wants the Court to believe that this information was not "private" or "personal".

For the purposes of this MTD, the Plaintiff introduces 'MTD-P-001' as an exhibit.

Spoiler: MTD-P-001

See attached 'Charter of the Social Democrat Party (SDP).pdf'

It is the current channel list of the Social Democrat Party, charter, and the application channel. There is no channel or place that the public can view the content of the Applications. It was like this when the Plaintiff applied in the 'Young League Application' of the SDP.

The Co-Defence asserts that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Here is what the Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department told an employee (i.e. I, TheSnowGuardian) of T&P upon contact in the ticket:

(The below quotes have been extracted from P-005)

"we have a policy not to share [application logs] with anyone"
"if you believe [policies] have been violated feel free to leave a report"

Additionally, when presented a screenshot that contained a price quote that was accepted by the Plaintiff, and when demanded "that this Party produce me all application logs submitted by mar_milk", the Head of Legal Department said "we need written authorisation to release said info."

If this was not information placed in a Public Area where the public can view, which the Public cannot ask for without authorisation from the concerned, then it is not public at all.

Now who actually had access to this information? The Defendant in the ticket told the employee (i.e., me) "theyre the @Staff" and "not dc staff". Only a select group of people within the SDP actually had access to the application logs.

The Court might ask when this information was released.
The Co-Defendant only produced the application logs when the employee (i.e., me) gave them a screenshot of consent (see below).

Spoiler: MTD-P-002

The consent clearly stated "personal information", and when produced the consent, only then did the Co-Defendnant actually give those logs out.

To conclude, the Co-Defendant (through the information released by the Head of their Legal Department) treated their application logs as private all along, said "we take breach of privacy very seriously", forwarded an action of the Defendant to their Executive Committee, asked "if you could just point to who released those applications", and then when sued expects the Court and the public to believe that there was no "reasonable expectation of privacy". This is absurd, diabolical, hypocritcal and I urge the Court not to stand for it.

III. Why Am I Even Addressing This MtD?​

The Claims of Relief made against the Co-Defendant are the Violation of Privacy Rights that are afforded by the Privacy Act. Not the Breach of Privacy that is alleged against the Defendant.

The Co-Defence wants to claim that there "an application for membership isn't by itself ... confidential."
When the Privacy Act clearly dictates that one is "to be informed of why your personal information is being collected, how it will be used, how it will be stored, and who it will be disclosed to, before or at the time of collection;"

The Co-Defendant treated this information private all along, and they never stated the above quoted text of the law anywhere. Upon reading the Claims stated in Section III, D and E of the Complaint, we understand that the Co-Defendant continued to just state "it is implied Appy has logs". This does not meet the threshold. The Co-Defence, as of this date, still hasn't amended any of their channels, charters or information threads/policies about the above.

To re-iterate, there has been gross negligence, the Co-Defendant did not exercise their due dilligence in following the Privacy Act, has not respected the Privacy Rights of the Plaintiff, and that is what the Plaintiff alleges against the Co-Defendant, not the Breach of Privacy alleged against the Defendant.

It seems as though the Co-Defence Counsellor wants to dismiss the claims alleged against the Defendant and not the Co-Defendant.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Objection

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

Your Honour, the Plaintiff objects to @dodrio3 and @Johnes being the legal counsel in this case as they were employed and had access to private channels within Talion & Partners INC. when this case first came to us.

Spoiler: Exhibit-A

The Plaintiff first became a client on 20th April 2026, and these two counsellors were removed from the Notes thread (and the channel) on 23rd April 2026, which is the same day this case was filed.

The ticket itself contained vital information that the two counsellors had access to, along with the Notes channel. It is improper that they now represent the Defendants.

As such, we ask that the Court remove these two counsellors for defence and order the Defendants to find new legal counsel.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

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

Your Honour, the Plaintiff objects to @dodrio3 and @Johnes being the legal counsel in this case as they were employed and had access to private channels within Talion & Partners INC. when this case first came to us.

Spoiler: Exhibit-A

View attachment 81085
View attachment 81086

The Plaintiff first became a client on 20th April 2026, and these two counsellors were removed from the Notes thread (and the channel) on 23rd April 2026, which is the same day this case was filed.

The ticket itself contained vital information that the two counsellors had access to, along with the Notes channel. It is improper that they now represent the Defendants.

As such, we ask that the Court remove these two counsellors for defence and order the Defendants to find new legal counsel.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - BREACH OF PROCEDURE OBJECTION (Post No. 23)

At present, the law regarding Conflict of Interest criminalizes when a person "represents both the defence and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same legal case" (CCA, Part III, Section 14(a)).

Prior law contained similar language on conflict of interest; Section 12(2) of the since-repealed Super Modern Legal Board Act stated that "In the legal context, a conflict of interest is defined as the situation where the same legal counsel represents both the defense and the plaintiff simultaneously in the same case". The Modern Legal Reform Act, prior to the passage of the Redundant Offenses Removal Act, stated the same in Section 8(3)(b) thereof.

Upon examining prior cases, the Federal Court finds no precedent that permits a Judicial Officer to remove qualified private counsel even when such counsel may have had visibility into attorney-client communications prior to representing the opposing party.

In Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62, Plaintiff petitioned for removal of Defense counsel due to alleged conflict of interest originating from Defense counsel's ownership of Plaintiff's counsel's law firm and the Defense counsel's prior involvement in a related case. Plaintiff's counsel alleged a "palpable risk that [Defense counsel] could exploit privileged attorney-client information to [Plaintiff's] detriment" (Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62, Post No. 20) and that such violated both the law and fundamental fairness. The Court denied the motion (id., Post No. 25). Plaintiff's counsel moved for reconsideration, alleging that the Defense counsel "worked with the plaintiff and was given privileged information" (id., Post No. 27) regarding a related case (that is, steveshat v. Former Shareholders of Keystone Holdings [2024] FCR 49) and a related Supreme Court appeal (that is, [2024] FCR 27 - Appeal Request). The Court denied reconsideration, emphasizing that the Defendant's counsel was not actually representing the Plaintiff in that case (Steveshat v. Vanguard [2024] FCR 62, Post No. 29), and did not conclude that the Super Modern Legal Board Act prohibited the Defense Counsel's from representing that Defendant.

In Commonwealth v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83, the Department of Justice (Prosecution) sought to remove Defendant's counsel, who was also a DOJ prosecutor, from representing the Defendant. The DOJ alleged that the Defendant's counsel "had full access to all of the prosecution's internal communications, evidence, and strategy" (Commonwealth of Redmont v. urb5n [2025] FCR 83, Post No. 19) regarding the prosecution and that "even unintentionally, [Defense counsel] could use his knowledge of the prosecution's strategy in [Defendant's] defense" (ibid.). The Prosecution proffered that the representation created a "large conflict of interest and a potential breach of attorney client privilege" and "could constitute corruption as deffined by the CCA" (ibid). The Federal Court declined to remove the Defendant's counsel, citing prior precedents (id., Post No. 23). Prosecution moved for reconsideration, alleging that the severity of the conflict in the case was not the same as in prior cases (id., Post No. 26). The Court denied reconsideration, stating that mere dual-employment did not give rise to a conflict of interest; the Court instead said "If the Commonwealth believes that [Defendant's Counsel] took advantage of their access before requesting it be restricted... then they should bring that evidence to the court" (id., Post No. 46).

The Court here sees no reason to depart from horizontal precedent. Absent a showing that a counsel actually took advantage of access for their own benefit in this case, the Court will not remove counsel from this case. This is so even if a counsel did have access to a channel containing Plaintiff's internal communications, evidence, and/or litigation strategy.

As the Court does not see such evidence of advantage-taking presented, the objection is Overruled.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honour,
I am not of much legal tenure, nor are my legal arguments of great length.
But I strive to ensure my clients have a fair trial and try to provide my best legal argument possible.

The Plaintiff has a right to a fair trial to demonstrate their case, and this is a constitutional right.

I am not specifically asking the Court to bar the two counsellors due to the Conflict of Interest, it is a criminal act whose prosecuting jurisdiction lies with the DoJ.

What I am asking this Hnble. Court is to follow the fundamental principles of justice of granting a fair and speedy trial. The trial cannot be fair if the defense counsellors have already been subject to knowledge attained when they were on the Plaintiff's side. This already prejudices the right to a fair trial. The counsellors very well knew and had access to these cases and then they voluntarily took these cases up.

I urge the Court to reconsider in the interest of a fair trial proceeding.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honour,
I am not of much legal tenure, nor are my legal arguments of great length.
But I strive to ensure my clients have a fair trial and try to provide my best legal argument possible.

The Plaintiff has a right to a fair trial to demonstrate their case, and this is a constitutional right.

I am not specifically asking the Court to bar the two counsellors due to the Conflict of Interest, it is a criminal act whose prosecuting jurisdiction lies with the DoJ.

What I am asking this Hnble. Court is to follow the fundamental principles of justice of granting a fair and speedy trial. The trial cannot be fair if the defense counsellors have already been subject to knowledge attained when they were on the Plaintiff's side. This already prejudices the right to a fair trial. The counsellors very well knew and had access to these cases and then they voluntarily took these cases up.

I urge the Court to reconsider in the interest of a fair trial proceeding.

Defendant and co-defendant (cc: @Johnes and @dodrio3 ) have 48 hours to respond to this motion to reconsider.

 

[dodrio3]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honour,
I am not of much legal tenure, nor are my legal arguments of great length.
But I strive to ensure my clients have a fair trial and try to provide my best legal argument possible.

The Plaintiff has a right to a fair trial to demonstrate their case, and this is a constitutional right.

I am not specifically asking the Court to bar the two counsellors due to the Conflict of Interest, it is a criminal act whose prosecuting jurisdiction lies with the DoJ.

What I am asking this Hnble. Court is to follow the fundamental principles of justice of granting a fair and speedy trial. The trial cannot be fair if the defense counsellors have already been subject to knowledge attained when they were on the Plaintiff's side. This already prejudices the right to a fair trial. The counsellors very well knew and had access to these cases and then they voluntarily took these cases up.

I urge the Court to reconsider in the interest of a fair trial proceeding.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach Of Procedure

Your honor court procedure states that a motion to reconsider may be filed when "based on a point of law or new evidence". The Plaintiff has failed to add any new meaning full content or a legal argument.

This contradicts the purpose of a motion to reconsider which is meant to bring a new legal argument or additional point that a judge has not considered. This is just an attempt for the plaintiff to beg to be allowed to remove two legal council who have a right to represent their client.

Additionally it can be seen in [2026] DCR 11 (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11) where the magistrate ruled that the motion did not consider and new legal point and such was denied

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach Of Procedure

Your honor court procedure states that a motion to reconsider may be filled when "based on a point of law or new evidence". The Plaintiff has filed to add any new meaning full content or a legal argument.

This contradicts the purpose of a motion to reconsider which is meant to bring a new legal argument or additional point that a judge has not considered. This is just an attempt for the defense to beg to be allowed to remove two legal council who have a right to represent their client.

Additionally it can be seen in [2026] DCR 11 (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11) where the magistrate ruled that the motion did not consider and new legal point and such was denied

Your Honour, before I respond to this objection:

Could the Defence please elaborate on what 'filed' means in the context of "The Plaintiff has filed to add any new meaning full content .."?

What 'filled' means in the context of "a motion to reconsider may be filled when .."?

Why the word 'defense' has been used in the context of "This is just an attempt of the defense to to be allowed to remove two legal .." when it is the Plaintiff who filed the Motion to Reconsider?

What the word 'council' means in the context "two legal council who have a right to represent their client"

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honour, before I respond to this objection:

Could the Defence please elaborate on what 'filed' means in the context of "The Plaintiff has filed to add any new meaning full content .."?

What 'filled' means in the context of "a motion to reconsider may be filled when .."?

Why the word 'defense' has been used in the context of "This is just an attempt of the defense to to be allowed to remove two legal .." when it is the Plaintiff who filed the Motion to Reconsider?

What the word 'council' means in the context "two legal council who have a right to represent their client"

The first two issue are oversight on my behalf failing to correctly proofread my statement, that have been amended.

For the last point "legal council" is a very common term that can have its meaning found with a quick google search if needed.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Objection amended this was an issue with an autocorrect.

Your Honour, I fail to see the proper amendments into the objection.

What I do see is "that a motion to reconsider may be failed when 'based on a point of law or new evidence'" (emphasis added)

And additionally, "The Plaintiff has filed to add any new meaning .." (emphasis added)

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach Of Procedure

Your honor court procedure states that a motion to reconsider may be filed when "based on a point of law or new evidence". The Plaintiff has failed to add any new meaning full content or a legal argument.

This contradicts the purpose of a motion to reconsider which is meant to bring a new legal argument or additional point that a judge has not considered. This is just an attempt for the plaintiff to beg to be allowed to remove two legal council who have a right to represent their client.

Additionally it can be seen in [2026] DCR 11 (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11) where the magistrate ruled that the motion did not consider and new legal point and such was denied

Additionally the defense requests that the requirement to post a response be tolled until the objection is ruled on.

 

[Franciscus]

Additionally the defense requests that the requirement to post a response be tolled until the objection is ruled on.

The Court will not toll the deadline. Please provide a substantial response in the meantime.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach Of Procedure

Your honor court procedure states that a motion to reconsider may be filed when "based on a point of law or new evidence". The Plaintiff has failed to add any new meaning full content or a legal argument.

This contradicts the purpose of a motion to reconsider which is meant to bring a new legal argument or additional point that a judge has not considered. This is just an attempt for the plaintiff to beg to be allowed to remove two legal council who have a right to represent their client.

Additionally it can be seen in [2026] DCR 11 (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11) where the magistrate ruled that the motion did not consider and new legal point and such was denied

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honour, first of all, I don't believe I made an "attempt for the plaintiff to beg to be allowed to remove two legal council",
and I resent the insinuation made by the Defense. My arguments were based on matters of law, and not an "attempt .. to beg".

When examining the reasoning for the Overruling of the Breach of Procedure Objection, the Hnble. Court decided to take past precedent which mainly applied the principle of a Conflict of Interest (or the lack thereof)

However, the motion clearly stated,

I am not specifically asking the Court to bar the two counsellors due to the Conflict of Interest, it is a criminal act whose prosecuting jurisdiction lies with the DoJ.

What I am asking this Hnble. Court is to follow the fundamental principles of justice of granting a fair and speedy trial.

The new legal argument that I presented before the Court was a right to a fair trial due to the sole reason that it would be prejudiced because the two counsellors already had access to information of the Plaintiff's side and then chose to become the Defence.

This is contrary to the Court's opinion that removing the two counsellors should only be considered when there is evidence of using the information as an advantage to the legal defence, and that a Conflict of Interest may not be considered here as the private counsellors do not represent the Plaintiff.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach Of Procedure

Your honor court procedure states that a motion to reconsider may be filed when "based on a point of law or new evidence". The Plaintiff has failed to add any new meaning full content or a legal argument.

This contradicts the purpose of a motion to reconsider which is meant to bring a new legal argument or additional point that a judge has not considered. This is just an attempt for the plaintiff to beg to be allowed to remove two legal council who have a right to represent their client.

Additionally it can be seen in [2026] DCR 11 (Lawsuit: Dismissed - Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11) where the magistrate ruled that the motion did not consider and new legal point and such was denied

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honour, first of all, I don't believe I made an "attempt for the plaintiff to beg to be allowed to remove two legal council",
and I resent the insinuation made by the Defense. My arguments were based on matters of law, and not an "attempt .. to beg".

When examining the reasoning for the Overruling of the Breach of Procedure Objection, the Hnble. Court decided to take past precedent which mainly applied the principle of a Conflict of Interest (or the lack thereof)

However, the motion clearly stated,


The new legal argument that I presented before the Court was a right to a fair trial due to the sole reason that it would be prejudiced because the two counsellors already had access to information of the Plaintiff's side and then chose to become the Defence.

This is contrary to the Court's opinion that removing the two counsellors should only be considered when there is evidence of using the information as an advantage to the legal defence, and that a Conflict of Interest may not be considered here as the private counsellors do not represent the Plaintiff.

Overruled. The (implicit) Constitutional argument was not present in the original objection.