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.)

 

[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.

Clerk note: Question 1 Stricken by Court

2. No.

 

[emilypancakes22]

2. No.

3. P-004 shows you sending $28,000 to the Defendant. It also shows you discussing a mortgage that you took out. How much of the $28,000 that you sent, if any, is from this mortgage?
4. What did you intend to do with plot C117 when you signed the contract with the Defendant?
5. Why do you no longer own C117?

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

 

[fickogames]

3. P-004 shows you sending $28,000 to the Defendant. It also shows you discussing a mortgage that you took out. How much of the $28,000 that you sent, if any, is from this mortgage?
4. What did you intend to do with plot C117 when you signed the contract with the Defendant?
5. Why do you no longer own C117?

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

3. Yes, money is fungible, of course, but that day I got 28,000 from the mortgage, and gave 28,000 to the Defendant. Its fair to say I sent the mortgage money to him.
4. I planned on demolishing the existing structure and building it up more with more "luxury" apartments to rent, which was supposed to then either be rented out by me or sold to another person for what I thought at the time to be major profit.
5. Other interested buyers asked to purchase the plot, due to this lawsuit happening, and the plot not being given to me when it was supposed to be, I was unable to develop it myself, so I was forced to sell it.

 

[emilypancakes22]

3. Yes, money is fungible, of course, but that day I got 28,000 from the mortgage, and gave 28,000 to the Defendant. Its fair to say I sent the mortgage money to him.
4. I planned on demolishing the existing structure and building it up more with more "luxury" apartments to rent, which was supposed to then either be rented out by me or sold to another person for what I thought at the time to be major profit.
5. Other interested buyers asked to purchase the plot, due to this lawsuit happening, and the plot not being given to me when it was supposed to be, I was unable to develop it myself, so I was forced to sell it.

6. Describe how the defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 has or has not impacted your ability to pay back your mortgage.

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

Clerk note: Question struck by Court.

 

[fickogames]

6. Describe how the defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 has or has not impacted your ability to pay back your mortgage.

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

6. Because I was forced to immediately sell the plot rather than develop it, I've had to pay back the mortgage using just UBI. For that reason, I've been at constant risk of defaulting during the entire course of the trial.

Clerk note: Answer struck by Court.

 

[emilypancakes22]

6. Because I was forced to immediately sell the plot rather than develop it, I've had to pay back the mortgage using just UBI. For that reason, I've been at constant risk of defaulting during the entire course of the trial.

Plaintiff has no further questions for this witness.

 

[gribble19]

3. P-004 shows you sending $28,000 to the Defendant. It also shows you discussing a mortgage that you took out. How much of the $28,000 that you sent, if any, is from this mortgage?

Objection

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

Plaintiff in this question states that P-004 shows the witness discussing a mortgage that they took out. This is not true. The only message regarding a mortgage in P-004 is a message sent by the witness to coshjlose and it reads: "Morgage [sic] is on me so please forward the cash to Ollie as soon as you can and we'll get the morgage [sic] set up later." Nowhere in this message can the witness be seen discussing a mortgage that they took out. This message is clearly regarding a mortgage that they are intending to take out in the future, as it is to be set up later. Further down in P-004 we see that coshjlose was not the one who sent the money to Defendant and that the witness himself was in the fact the one to do so.

The question thus assumes that the witness took out a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

The question is ambiguous for multiple reasons. It refers to "this mortgage" but it is unclear what mortgage this refers to, as we have seen that the previously described mortgage (namely one that was shown to be taken out in P-004) does not exist as such.

The question is furthermore ambiguous because money is fungible and there is no clear way to determine what the origins of the money that was sent are.

Lastly, nowhere in Plaintiff's complaint is a mortgage, loan or anything similar mentioned at all. The Defendant thus fails to see the relevance of this question.


Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests that this question and any answers given to it be struck for any or all of the above reasons.

 

[gribble19]

4. I planned on demolishing the existing structure and building it up more with more "luxury" apartments to rent, which was supposed to then either be rented out by me or sold to another person for what I thought at the time to be major profit.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NOTHING PENDING

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests that the part of witnesses answer that is bolded and italicized be struck from the record. The preceding text has already answered the question that was asked and the piece of text in question does not answer the question asked.

 

[gribble19]

6. Describe how the defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 has or has not impacted your ability to pay back your mortgage.

Objection

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

Your Honor, this is not a question at all, but rather an order. This is a breach of procedure.

Furthermore, this order assumes that the witness has a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

Defendant respectfully requests that this, and any responses given to it by the witness be struck from the record.

 

[emilypancakes22]

Objection

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

Plaintiff in this question states that P-004 shows the witness discussing a mortgage that they took out. This is not true. The only message regarding a mortgage in P-004 is a message sent by the witness to coshjlose and it reads: "Morgage [sic] is on me so please forward the cash to Ollie as soon as you can and we'll get the morgage [sic] set up later." Nowhere in this message can the witness be seen discussing a mortgage that they took out. This message is clearly regarding a mortgage that they are intending to take out in the future, as it is to be set up later. Further down in P-004 we see that coshjlose was not the one who sent the money to Defendant and that the witness himself was in the fact the one to do so.

The question thus assumes that the witness took out a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

The question is ambiguous for multiple reasons. It refers to "this mortgage" but it is unclear what mortgage this refers to, as we have seen that the previously described mortgage (namely one that was shown to be taken out in P-004) does not exist as such.

The question is furthermore ambiguous because money is fungible and there is no clear way to determine what the origins of the money that was sent are.

Lastly, nowhere in Plaintiff's complaint is a mortgage, loan or anything similar mentioned at all. The Defendant thus fails to see the relevance of this question.


Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests that this question and any answers given to it be struck for any or all of the above reasons.

RESPONSE
Perjury: This represents a misreading of the evidence. The plaintiff's and coshljose's messages clearly indicates that a mortgage had already been agreed to, and that the pending matter for the mortgage is just the production and signing of formal paperwork. The statement "morgage [sic] is on me" makes this clear as the statement is in the past tense. If the plaintiff was only intending to take out a mortgage at a later time, they would have said the mortgage would be on them. Furthermore, coshljose states "will...forward cash when i get back". They would not say they were going to forward cash if no agreement had occured yet. That the plaintiff ultimately sent the money rather than coshljose does not indicate that no mortgage was taken out; rather that at some point in the 17 hours between messages it was decided not to shortcut the path of the money.
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence: I believe the above reasoning is enough to satisfy that P-004 establishes that the Plaintiff took out a mortgage.
Ambiguous: That money is fungible does not preclude the ability to state a source of money. If one were to take out a loan, and then buy some thing using some amount of money they did not have prior to taking out the loan, then it would be fully reasonable to state that the loan was used to buy said thing.
Relevance: The mortgage was not mentioned in the complaint because it was not relevant at that time. The Defense has made the mortgage relevant by incorrectly asserting that the Defendant had offered to make the Plaintiff whole during the Defense's opening statement, a statement which is refuted by the existence of the mortgage.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NOTHING PENDING

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests that the part of witnesses answer that is bolded and italicized be struck from the record. The preceding text has already answered the question that was asked and the piece of text in question does not answer the question asked.

RESPONSE
The question asks what the Plaintiff intended to do with the property. The answer includes that they intended to receive "major profit". The statement does answer the question asked.

Objection

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

Your Honor, this is not a question at all, but rather an order. This is a breach of procedure.

Furthermore, this order assumes that the witness has a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

Defendant respectfully requests that this, and any responses given to it by the witness be struck from the record.

Response
Breach of Procedure: Asking someone to describe something is not an order.
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence: This is the same objection as that made of question 3, and I believe my response to that objection covers this objection as well.

 

[Franciscus]

I will try to get to rulings on pending items done later this evening; if not, then tomorrow evening.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

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

Plaintiff in this question states that P-004 shows the witness discussing a mortgage that they took out. This is not true. The only message regarding a mortgage in P-004 is a message sent by the witness to coshjlose and it reads: "Morgage [sic] is on me so please forward the cash to Ollie as soon as you can and we'll get the morgage [sic] set up later." Nowhere in this message can the witness be seen discussing a mortgage that they took out. This message is clearly regarding a mortgage that they are intending to take out in the future, as it is to be set up later. Further down in P-004 we see that coshjlose was not the one who sent the money to Defendant and that the witness himself was in the fact the one to do so.

The question thus assumes that the witness took out a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

The question is ambiguous for multiple reasons. It refers to "this mortgage" but it is unclear what mortgage this refers to, as we have seen that the previously described mortgage (namely one that was shown to be taken out in P-004) does not exist as such.

The question is furthermore ambiguous because money is fungible and there is no clear way to determine what the origins of the money that was sent are.

Lastly, nowhere in Plaintiff's complaint is a mortgage, loan or anything similar mentioned at all. The Defendant thus fails to see the relevance of this question.


Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests that this question and any answers given to it be struck for any or all of the above reasons.

Overruled. Defense's response sufficiently rebuts every one of these objection types.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NOTHING PENDING

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests that the part of witnesses answer that is bolded and italicized be struck from the record. The preceding text has already answered the question that was asked and the piece of text in question does not answer the question asked.

Overruled. Profit motive is plausibly responsive to intent.

Objection

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

Your Honor, this is not a question at all, but rather an order. This is a breach of procedure.

Furthermore, this order assumes that the witness has a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

Defendant respectfully requests that this, and any responses given to it by the witness be struck from the record.

Sustained. Questions must be questions. Question and answer are struck. Seeing as this may have affected declaration that Plaintiff had "no further questions", Plaintiff may continue to ask follow-ups.

 

[emilypancakes22]

6. Because I was forced to immediately sell the plot rather than develop it, I've had to pay back the mortgage using just UBI. For that reason, I've been at constant risk of defaulting during the entire course of the trial.

Clerk note: Answer struck by Court.

7. How, if at all, has the Defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 affected your ability to pay back your mortgage?

 

[fickogames]

7. How, if at all, has the Defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 affected your ability to pay back your mortgage?

7. Because I was forced to immediately sell the plot rather than develop it, I've had to pay back the mortgage using just UBI. For that reason, I've been at a risk of defaulting during the entire course of the trial.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RE-EXAMINATION

Your Honor, the Defendant is aware that this may be an unusual request, but for the sake of fairness finds it an important request to make regardless. It should be clear from the fact that the witness is also the Plaintiff that the witness is an adverse witness to the Defendant. During Cross-examination by Plaintiff of this witness, new information has come up. This is of course normal and not problematic. However, witnesses answers to certain questions make very little sense at all and do not appear consistent.

The Defendant respectfully requests to be allowed to re-examine the witness after the cross-examination has ended, solely being allowed to ask questions relating to the answers given by the witness during cross-examination, in order to clarify ambiguity and clear up inconsistencies.

 

[emilypancakes22]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RE-EXAMINATION

Your Honor, the Defendant is aware that this may be an unusual request, but for the sake of fairness finds it an important request to make regardless. It should be clear from the fact that the witness is also the Plaintiff that the witness is an adverse witness to the Defendant. During Cross-examination by Plaintiff of this witness, new information has come up. This is of course normal and not problematic. However, witnesses answers to certain questions make very little sense at all and do not appear consistent.

The Defendant respectfully requests to be allowed to re-examine the witness after the cross-examination has ended, solely being allowed to ask questions relating to the answers given by the witness during cross-examination, in order to clarify ambiguity and clear up inconsistencies.

RESPONSE
No such motion type exists nor does the Court Rules & Procedures establish re-examination as existing. To the best of the Plaintiff's knowledge, there is also no precedent establishing such a thing.

Defense claims that the current witness is an adverse witness despite the Defense having called the witness themself. Defense further claims that the witness's answers are non-sensical or inconsistent but fails to make use of the actual established remedy for such a problem: objecting to the witness's allegedly inconsistent answers.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court deny this request and this trial be allowed to progress to the next witness.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RE-EXAMINATION

Your Honor, the Defendant is aware that this may be an unusual request, but for the sake of fairness finds it an important request to make regardless. It should be clear from the fact that the witness is also the Plaintiff that the witness is an adverse witness to the Defendant. During Cross-examination by Plaintiff of this witness, new information has come up. This is of course normal and not problematic. However, witnesses answers to certain questions make very little sense at all and do not appear consistent.

The Defendant respectfully requests to be allowed to re-examine the witness after the cross-examination has ended, solely being allowed to ask questions relating to the answers given by the witness during cross-examination, in order to clarify ambiguity and clear up inconsistencies.

Denied. "Absent applicable precedent, the Court requires extraordinary reasons to accept a novel motion filing type" (emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24, Order at Post No. 85). The Court does not see extraordinary reasons pleaded here; the witness being adverse was known ahead of time and answers being allegedly nonsensical or inconsistent are insufficiently pleaded.

 

[Franciscus]

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court deny this request and this trial be allowed to progress to the next witness.

The Court takes this to mean that there are no further questions on cross for the Plaintiff-witness. As such, the Defense (@gribble19) will have 48 hours to present questions on direct examination to their next witness, who is the Defendant-Witness.