Lawsuit: In Session ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21

Your honour,

I have retrieved a motherboard capable of supporting video and as such my computer has been cured of perpetual 1-day-blindness and I am able to take up position as counsel reliably once again.

Dartanboy said:
docs.google.com

Fraud in the Federal Court

Fraud in the Federal Court On April 3rd, Pepecuu filed a lawsuit against MasterCaelen, a player who joined on February 15th this year. However, the former president is allegedly committing fraud in the federal court. Editor’s Note: This is a very long article, and if you don’t need to know ...
docs.google.com docs.google.com
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Many apologies your honour, had my computer not been afflicted I would’ve been able to address this properly sooner, I make this submission acknowledging that discovery has been declared over- I however hope your honour will see the merit in the objection and take under consideration the circumstances counsel was placed in.


Submission D-C005 should be split up, in previous cases in the FCR and DCR this same objection has been levied towards evidence that has been ‘collaged’ together as one ‘evidence’.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vanguard & Co v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49 - ‘Sustained, please split up the collage so each component can be address individually throughout this case. ‘

Lawsuit: Dismissed - lucaaasserole v. Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 85 - ‘Sustained. Plaintiff must split these exhibits so each image can be address individually.’

Lawsuit: Dismissed - NovaKerbal v. Town of Oakridge [2026] DCR 6 - ‘As declared in [2025] FCR 49, evidence should be split up instead of collaged so they can be addressed individually throughout the case.‘

All of which are in reference to or cite directly Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.1 - ‘The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness. It is to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments. Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle.‘


I believe this particular submission to offend not only this metric, but that it contains largely opinionated language in reference to this case, as well that the contents of the link itself are maintained by a third-party and are potentially subject to edits - of which without a public and available history your honour this evidence is precarious at best.

 
asexualdinosaur said:
Your honour,

I have retrieved a motherboard capable of supporting video and as such my computer has been cured of perpetual 1-day-blindness and I am able to take up position as counsel reliably once again.



Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Many apologies your honour, had my computer not been afflicted I would’ve been able to address this properly sooner, I make this submission acknowledging that discovery has been declared over- I however hope your honour will see the merit in the objection and take under consideration the circumstances counsel was placed in.


Submission D-C005 should be split up, in previous cases in the FCR and DCR this same objection has been levied towards evidence that has been ‘collaged’ together as one ‘evidence’.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vanguard & Co v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49 - ‘Sustained, please split up the collage so each component can be address individually throughout this case. ‘

Lawsuit: Dismissed - lucaaasserole v. Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 85 - ‘Sustained. Plaintiff must split these exhibits so each image can be address individually.’

Lawsuit: Dismissed - NovaKerbal v. Town of Oakridge [2026] DCR 6 - ‘As declared in [2025] FCR 49, evidence should be split up instead of collaged so they can be addressed individually throughout the case.‘

All of which are in reference to or cite directly Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.1 - ‘The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness. It is to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments. Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle.‘


I believe this particular submission to offend not only this metric, but that it contains largely opinionated language in reference to this case, as well that the contents of the link itself are maintained by a third-party and are potentially subject to edits - of which without a public and available history your honour this evidence is precarious at best.

Click to expand...
Your honor,

Discovery is already over,  and the News Article is itself one entire piece of evidence.

This objection should be overruled.
 
asexualdinosaur said:
Your honour,

I have retrieved a motherboard capable of supporting video and as such my computer has been cured of perpetual 1-day-blindness and I am able to take up position as counsel reliably once again.



Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Many apologies your honour, had my computer not been afflicted I would’ve been able to address this properly sooner, I make this submission acknowledging that discovery has been declared over- I however hope your honour will see the merit in the objection and take under consideration the circumstances counsel was placed in.


Submission D-C005 should be split up, in previous cases in the FCR and DCR this same objection has been levied towards evidence that has been ‘collaged’ together as one ‘evidence’.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Vanguard & Co v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 49 - ‘Sustained, please split up the collage so each component can be address individually throughout this case. ‘

Lawsuit: Dismissed - lucaaasserole v. Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 85 - ‘Sustained. Plaintiff must split these exhibits so each image can be address individually.’

Lawsuit: Dismissed - NovaKerbal v. Town of Oakridge [2026] DCR 6 - ‘As declared in [2025] FCR 49, evidence should be split up instead of collaged so they can be addressed individually throughout the case.‘

All of which are in reference to or cite directly Court Rules and Procedures Rule 4.1 - ‘The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness. It is to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments. Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle.‘


I believe this particular submission to offend not only this metric, but that it contains largely opinionated language in reference to this case, as well that the contents of the link itself are maintained by a third-party and are potentially subject to edits - of which without a public and available history your honour this evidence is precarious at best.

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — OBJECTION FOR IMPROPER EVIDENCE (Post No. 101)

The objection is immensely untimely. Our standard response times under Rule 6.6 would have given 24 hours to provide an objection. The material objected to was submitted on April 27 at 1:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time. The objection was filed on May 4 at 7:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time. This is approximately 174 hours after the evidence was submitted. Even if we were to stretch RoFC 4.4 (“[a] party may respond to any motion, brief, or other legal filing within forty-eight (48) hours”) beyond its text to objections, we still would be well outside the window to object.

Moreover, discovery began on April 21 and was extended to end on April 29. A timely filed objection would have permitted time for the Defendant to re-submit evidence in discovery pending a final ruling on the objection.

Because the Co-Plaintiff’s delay in objecting caused the objection to be filed at a time where the Defendant could no longer submit new evidence, striking this evidence after such a delay would prejudice this case. This basis alone may be sufficient to overrule the objection.

Nevertheless, the Court examines substantial questions posed by the objection. The Court finds that the objection distills into three such questions: (1) whether the contents of the article require representation in separate exhibits; (2) whether the textual contents of the article are permissible given their opinionated nature; and (3) whether the Court may allow the news article given the location of the file on a third-party site that may subject the article to change.

As to the question of image presentation, the Defendant has presented this Court with a complete news article, not merely a collage of screenshots selected by the Defendant. The Court does not find the prior cited rulings of the Federal Court to horizontally bind this Court, nor does this Court find the application to this question to be apt or persuasive: we have a full and complete document, this Court sees no need to order it be chopped up into multiple exhibits.

As to the question of the content of the article, the Court will not assume as fact the textual content of a player-generated news article submitted as evidence without corroborating testimony. This is in line with how the District Court has outlined the handling of prior public statements in its Order in emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24, Post No. 65. The Federal Court fully incorporates the reasoning in that Order in its own right and extends it here.

As to the question of the location of the file, the objection has some merit. Under Rule 4.6, “Images must be uploaded DIRECTLY TO THE FORUMS to be submitted as evidence”. This draws from the principle that our court filing must not be easily changed without the Court being able to know; evidence must be submitted in a way that reflects this principle.

The Objection is this overruled in-part and sustained in-part. To remedy the substantial merit and the procedural issue of timing unfairness, the Court uses its constitutional judicial power (see: Const. 13) to apply balance of equities.

The Court requires immutability while not prejudicing the defendant (and co-defendant) for the co-Plaintiff’s extreme tardiness. The Court thus orders that the Clerk (or, in the Clerk’s absence, a judicial officer) download the article as an PDF and attach it to the Defense’s post originally containing the link in question. This creates an immutable record in court, resolving the substantial concern about editing of the article during or after the witness questioning. It also addresses the procedural fairness concern by allowing the material to remain usable to all parties who may have planned to rely upon it.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top