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

[Johnes]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL [FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF]

Noting the Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department in the ticket (P-005) with TheSnowGuardian said "that is something from the bot not dependent on us now we have a policy not to share those with anyone. if these have been violated you are welcome to leave a report and that will be taken seriously".

Your Honour, the Plaintiff motions that the Court compel the Co-Defendant to produce the following:

1. Any and all documents that are or were in effect, acting as policies, that may be guiding or binding regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP.
2. Disciplinary actions taken against Plura72 by the Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant, if any, after the controversial message which contained the Plaintiff's application. (See P-005, Dearev said "fowarded to EC" after TheSnowGuardian sent him a message link pointing towards said message link)

2.

Spoiler: Response

 

[Johnes]

INTERROGATORIES TO THE CO-DEFENDANT

@Johnes

1. Are the contents of applications publicly disclosed without consent of the concerned applicant even if the application was accepted?

1. The sdp dosent disclose anything, Plura was acting as a rouge agent.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour, with Discovery ending in almost 48 hours, the Plaintiff would like gently remind the Court of the Motion to Compel in #81 as Your Honour hasn't indicated any ruling.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL [FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF]

Noting the Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department in the ticket (P-005) with TheSnowGuardian said "that is something from the bot not dependent on us now we have a policy not to share those with anyone. if these have been violated you are welcome to leave a report and that will be taken seriously".

Your Honour, the Plaintiff motions that the Court compel the Co-Defendant to produce the following:

1. Any and all documents that are or were in effect, acting as policies, that may be guiding or binding regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP.
2. Disciplinary actions taken against Plura72 by the Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant, if any, after the controversial message which contained the Plaintiff's application. (See P-005, Dearev said "fowarded to EC" after TheSnowGuardian sent him a message link pointing towards said message link)

Granted, in part.

The Court will not compel the production of (2), as it is not clear to the Court why this is being probed directly and the motion doesn’t really explain why such evidence would be relevant to the case.

As to (1), this seems reasonably enough related. The Co-Defendant (cc: @Johnes) shall provide the Court a copy of all Defendant’s policies and procedures, whether advisory or compulsory in scope, of the SDP “regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP”. This shall be submitted within 48 hours of the time of this post, on pain of contempt.

 

[Johnes]

Granted, in part.

The Court will not compel the production of (2), as it is not clear to the Court why this is being probed directly and the motion doesn’t really explain why such evidence would be relevant to the case.

As to (1), this seems reasonably enough related. The Co-Defendant (cc: @Johnes) shall provide the Court a copy of all Defendant’s policies and procedures, whether advisory or compulsory in scope, of the SDP “regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP”. This shall be submitted within 48 hours of the time of this post, on pain of contempt.

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.

 

[Franciscus]

As discovery is now concluded, we move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (CC: @TheSnowGuardian ) shall have 72 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

Spoiler: Screenshot extracted from P-005

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

 

[Johnes]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

Spoiler: Screenshot extracted from P-005

View attachment 82402

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

Response

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

Your Honour,
opposing counsel is quick to jump to conclusions and even quicker with the objections.
I have stated in response to Plaintiff's Compel request:

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.

I have affirmed that Co-Defendant stores applications, and have therefore not perjured the Court or misled the Court, even if Plaintiff tries to paint as such.

Plaintiff in his Objection shows P-005, where Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department dearev shares the way Co-Defendant stores said applications.

Thefore, the Court should overrule this objection.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

Spoiler: Screenshot extracted from P-005

View attachment 82402

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

Response

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

Your Honour,
opposing counsel is quick to jump to conclusions and even quicker with the objections.
I have stated in response to Plaintiff's Compel request:

I have affirmed that Co-Defendant stores applications, and have therefore not perjured the Court or misled the Court, even if Plaintiff tries to paint as such.

Plaintiff in his Objection shows P-005, where Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department dearev shares the way Co-Defendant stores said applications.

Thefore, the Court should overrule this objection.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — OBJECTION FOR PERJURY (Post No. 107).

Co-Defendant’s counsel, in response to interrogatory, stated “Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications” (Post No. 105). Plaintiff objected on grounds of perjury, stating that Plaintiff’s Evidence (Exhibit P-005) contains a message from Dearev, whom Plaintiff alleges “willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications”.

Upon review of the evidence, Dearev indeed appears to have said “we have a policy not to share those with anyone”.

The District Court has recently examined what it has deemed the "prior public statements" of witnesses, that is, out-of-court statements made by some person who may testify in a case. The prohibition on hearsay may generally prohibit the use of statements by others outside of Court within a trial, but an exception exists when such statements are an admission against one's interest as a party (See: Objections Guide). When it comes to organizations that are parties to a case, the District Court found that "a court may equitably extend 'an admission by the opposing party' to those who have close ties to such a party (e.g. statements of employees of a business or a government department when that business or government department is a party to a suit)" (emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24, Post No. 65). The Federal Court has already fully adopted the DCR’s reasoning in that order as its own, but this was done in the context of the Order’s handling statements made by witnesses who are uninvolved third parties (see: ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21, Post No. 103). We thus take time to explicitly note the Federal Court’s adoption of the logic in emmythegremlin standard more broadly, so as to also apply to third parties who are closely involved with a second party organization. And, in that light, the Court can consider the statement.

Having worked through the hearsay concern, we return to the perjury question more directly. The phrase "we have a policy of" may refer to a literal formal written document that prescribes exactly with whom the material may or may not be shared, but in colloquial English may also be used to refer to something that is a habit, shared understanding, or some other non-written guiding principle by which people or a person would try to abide. It’s also plainly possible that the Co-Defendant lied to your client and is telling the truth in response to an interrogatory. None of this would be perjury because there would not be a knowingly false statement in Court.

The Court just doesn’t have enough evidence in front of it to conclude, even on balance of probabilities, that that the statement in the screenshot was true and that (consequently) the statement in Court was false. Perhaps one may which to ask the witness more about this matter on the stand, but we can’t speculatively sustain an objection without establishing truth of the matter.

As such, overruled.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

As discovery is now concluded, we move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (CC: @TheSnowGuardian ) shall have 72 hours to present their opening statement.

Your Honour, considering the Co-Defendant responded to the motion right before Discovery ended, and in light of the recent ruling on the Perjury objection, we request that Your Honour exercise Rule 1.2 and permit the Plaintiff to add MrCheesGuy to the witness list.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour, considering the Co-Defendant responded to the motion right before Discovery ended, and in light of the recent ruling on the Perjury objection, we request that Your Honour exercise Rule 1.2 and permit the Plaintiff to add MrCheesGuy to the witness list.

(1) Witnesses must be added before the close of discovery; and (2) I fail to see how MrCheesGuy is related to Dearev’s out-of-court statement that seems to have caused the recently ruled upon perjury objection.

The former is sufficient, in its own to reject the request. The reference to the recent objection doesn’t really help move the needle. Request denied.