Lawsuit: Pending Slime_Mario v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 166

[Slime_Mario]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ​

CIVIL ACTION

Slime_Mario
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont (Department of Education)
Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 23, 2026, the Department of Education and Department of Justice jointly announced the immediate, open-ended closure of all legal examinations across the Commonwealth of Redmont due to an alleged cheating investigation. Over two and a half weeks have passed since that announcement, and as of September 12, 2026, the examination system remains completely closed with no reopening date.

I. PARTIES​

1. Slime_Mario (Plaintiff)
2. Department of Education (Defendant)

II. FACTS​

1. Under Part II, Section 1(3) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act, the Bar Association of Redmont (BAR) is established as the "exclusive body regulating the legal field in Redmont".
2. The Department of Education's statutory authority regarding legal examinations is specifically delegated by Congress in Part VII of the Bar Association of Redmont Act.
3. On August 23, 2026, at 8:03 PM EDT (00:03 UTC), Secretary Matthew100x issued an official announcement on behalf of the Department of Education and Department of Justice titled "LEGAL EXAMS CLOSED PENDING ONGOING INVESTIGATION" [Exhibit P-001].
4. In that announcement, Matthew100x stated: "The Department of Education and Department of Justice have uncovered evidence of widespread cheating involving Redmont’s legal examinations and are currently investigating the source and extent of the compromise.Effective immediately, all legal examinations are temporarily closed.The suspension is expected to last for at least the next few weeks. During this period, the Department of Education will review and reformat affected examination materials, strengthen examination security, and work alongside the Department of Justice while its investigation continues.This action is being taken to preserve the integrity of Redmont’s legal qualification system and to protect the public from the consequences of individuals obtaining legal qualifications without demonstrating the required knowledge and competency.Legal examinations will reopen once the Department of Education is satisfied that the examination system is secure and the necessary reforms have been completed. Further updates, including a reopening date, will be announced when available." [Exhibit P-001].
5. The Defendant gave zero days prior notice before suspending the exam-sign system, as it ordered the closure "effective immediately".
6. Upon information and belief, the Defendant did not consult with the Council of the BAR prior to ordering the immediate closure of all legal examinations.
7. The closure was open-ended, as it was conditioned entirely on a subjective satisfaction of the DoE ("once the Department of Education is satisfied that the examination system is secure and the necessary reforms have been completed").
8. As of September 12, 2026, it has been twenty days following the announcement and all legal examinations remain completely suspended, the exam lecterns are removed, and the legal examinations are unavailable to practitioners [Exhibit P-002].
9. No reopening date has been scheduled, and no interim mechanism has been provided.
10. The Plaintiff is a licensed Solicitor in good standing with the Bar Association of Redmont. The Plaintiff is presently eligible to become a Barrister, and intends to take the Administrative Law specialization examination, but is unable to do so because of the suspension.
11. Under Part VI, Section 3(1)(a) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act, the only route for a Solicitor to qualify as a Barrister and independently practice law in the Federal Court is to pass a specialization examination.
12. Because of the Defendant's open-ended suspension, the Plaintiff has been completely prevented from taking any specialization examination, advancing to the Barrister rank, and independently representing clients in the Federal Court of Redmont.
13. The Plaintiff remains unable to advance his legal rank and practice in higher courts, and is thereby deprived of the statutory rights and legal business benefits associated with the Barrister rank.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Failure to Perform Statutory Duty
   1. Part XI, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) establishes a civil violation when a government officer or body fails to perform a duty required by law and that failure causes harm to the plaintiff.
   2. Bar Association of Redmont Act Part VII, Section 1(1)(a) and Section 2(1) obligate the Department of Education to "maintain" the legal examinations and conduct them through the Minecraft Exam-sign system. Although temporary interruptions may be necessary for security or maintenance, a complete and open-ended suspension is inconsistent with that duty.
   3. The legal examination lecterns have remained removed and the examinations inaccessible since August 23, 2026. This failure to maintain the examination system directly harms the Plaintiff by denying him the ability to take specialization exams and advance his legal career, firm, and practice into higher courts.
   4. Under the Executive Standards Act Section 14, the Department of Education is charged with advancing knowledge, skills, and retention through arts and education initiatives, and maintaining the historical national archives. The Act gives no authority to suspend examinations for lawyers with no set end date.
   5. Congress enacted a specific list of powers over legal examinations in Bar Association of Redmont Act Part VII, Section 1(1). The power to "develop, maintain, and update" exams does not encompass the power to impose an open-ended suspension. Where Congress provided a mechanism to alter exams, it strictly bounded that power with a 14-day notice requirement (Section 1(1)(d)).
   6. Broad clauses directing an agency to "ensure examination security" (Section 2(2)(a)) cannot override the specific procedural constraints.
   7. While a security leak or the desire to design a new examination system may warrant drafting new questions or developing new platforms, a complete and open-ended cessation of every legal examination is inconsistent with the statutory duty to maintain the examination system.
   8. Where the Department implements changes to the examination system, it must comply with the lawful procedures imposed by Part VII, including the 14 days notice and BAR consultation.
   9. A Writ of Mandamus is the established remedy for Failure to Perform Statutory Duty. A Writ of Mandamus compelling the DoE to resume administration of legal examinations within a fixed deadline is appropriate.
2. Denial of Due Process
   1. Under RCCA Part XI, Section 6, a government officer or body commits Denial of Due Process where it makes a decision affecting the plaintiff's rights or interests and "(b) fails to provide the plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to be heard; or (c) fails to follow procedures required by law."
   2. The DoE's decision, announced jointly with the DoJ, to immediately impose an open-ended suspension of all legal examinations directly affects the Plaintiff's professional rights and business interests as a licensed Solicitor seeking advancement to Barrister under the Bar Association of Redmont Act.
   3. The Department of Education committed multiple procedural violations of law:
      1. Bar Association of Redmont Act Part VII, Section 1(1)(d) empowers the DoE to implement changes to the examination system only "With at least 14 days notice." The DoE gave zero days notice, ordering the closure "effective immediately."
      2. Bar Association of Redmont Act Part VII, Section 1(2)(a) mandates that the DoE "must consult with the Council of the BAR before implementing changes to the legal exams." Upon information and belief, the DoE failed to consult with the BAR or adhere to the BAR's authority to oversee examination content under Part IV, Section 2(4)(d).
   4. The statutory remedies under Section 6 are an order to provide proper process and reversal of the decision. An order vacating and reversing the unlawful open-ended suspension is appropriate.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. A Writ of Mandamus compelling the Department of Education to resume administration of legal examinations within a fixed deadline established by the Court, in a manner compliant with Part VII of the Bar Association of Redmont Act.
2. An Order reversing the open-ended suspension of legal examinations announced on August 23, 2026.
3. A Declaratory Judgment that the Department of Education lacks the statutory authority under the Executive Standards Act and Bar Association of Redmont Act to impose an open-ended suspension of legal examinations outside the procedures prescribed by law.
4. A Declaratory Judgment that the August 23, 2026 suspension constituted a change to the operation of the legal examination system and was therefore subject to the procedural requirements of Bar Association of Redmont Act Part VII, Section 1.
5. $2,500.00 in Nominal Damages to recognize the infringement of the Plaintiff's statutory and procedural rights arising from the unlawful administration of the legal examination system.
   1. Part III, Section 4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act establishes nominal damages which recognize the infringement of a right even in the absence of substantial damages.
   2. In xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62, the Federal Court awarded nominal damages of $2,500.00 after ruling in favor of the plaintiff and granting a modified prayer for relief.
   3. The Plaintiff seeks a consistent amount of $2,500.00 in nominal damages.
6. $3,000.00 in Legal Fees, payable to Slime_Mario, per the mandatory minimum for District Court civil cases under Civil Code Part III, Section 7(2)(d).

EVIDENCE

• P-001: Screenshot of Discord Announcement posted in the #government-annoucements channel by Secretary Matthew100x on August 23, 2026, at 8:03 PM, titled "LEGAL EXAMS CLOSED PENDING ONGOING INVESTIGATION."
  • 
• P-002: In-game screenshots of the Minecraft Exam-sign room confirming that legal examinations are currently inaccessible. The signs state to "Click the lectern!", but no lectern is present.
  • 
  • 

WITNESSES

• None

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 12th day of September, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

Slime_Mario
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Solicitor

 

[Muggy21]

Recused. I'm involved in this action as a staff member.

 

[Poker]

Writ of Summons

Attorney General (@Matthew100x) and BAR Chairperson (@CreeperTD) are required to appear before the District Court in the case of Slime_Mario v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 166

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.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The Court is concerned that the Bar Association of Redmont, which is not expressly named as a party to this matter, may have a material interest in this case. Within 72 hours, the Bar Association of Redmont is ordered to provide the Court with a brief addressing the following:

1) Any material and non-material interest the Bar Association may have in this case; and (if there is interest),
2) If the DoJ will be litigating this matter for the Association.

First, Under RCCA, Part IV, §6(1)(b) and §6(1)(a), The court may order the joinder of additional parties where: (1) The additional party claims an interest in the subject matter such that disposing of the case without them may impair their ability to protect that interest and/or (2) complete relief cannot be granted without the additional party.

Second, under RCEA, Part XVI, §63(1) and §63(2), The Department of Justice is the legal representative of the executive departments, and may not represent a governmental entity that is not an executive department. DoJ is also charged with defending the national legal interest (ESA, §8).

Third, under the Bar Act, Part II, §3, the BAR shall be the exclusive body regulating the legal field in Redmont, and shall encompass all individuals who are licensed to represent other individuals before the Courts of Redmont.​

As a result, this information is necessary to determine if the BAR should join this case.

 

[Matthew100x]

Present.

 

[CreeperTD]

Present, your honor, although the BAR has no power to open the legal exams at this time.

 

[Poker]

Present, your honor, although the BAR has no power to open the legal exams at this time.

Thank you for appearing, Councillor. This Court is considering a joinder for the BAR Association in this case.

The Bar Act provides that the BAR shall be the exclusive body responsible for regulating the legal field in Redmont. I am concerned that, if Prayers 1 and 2 were granted, they could impair the BAR’s statutory responsibility to exercise and protect the regulation over the legal field.

However, per RCCA, i can't do this joinder if the additional party doesn't claims an interest in this case. So, i gently request a brief from you regarding this matter as ordered in the writ of mandamus in post #3.

 

[Poker]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
ORDER - CONTEMPT OF COURT

No Brief was provided under the deadline set in post #3.

Thereby, i find Councilors NoMoreUno, Hello1341, Jim_Pickens02 and xVoltrix in Contempt of Court, as in CCA, for disobeying a lawful order of the Court. Councilors failed to ensure the BAR's compliance with the Writ of Mandamus. The Chairperson's responsibility is only to act as first among equals (The Bar Act, Part IV, 1(2)(a)).

I also find Ex-Chairperson CreeperTD in contempt of court, as in CCA, for obstructing the administration of justice. He deliberately delayed this proceeding by choosing not to respond (although he could've delegate the matter to the DoJ or to another Councilor) (C-001, C-002).

Each of them shall be fined 5 PUs.

@Matthew100x or any delegated prosecutor shall provide an answer to complaint within 48 hours.​

 

[Nacho]

You’re Honor,

I do apologize for the delay in response - as for this instance with a change in Attorney General the department has been left in a bit of disarray due to a sudden change in leadership. I am not currently read into the case as well as am currently out of town on a vacation in the middle of the Rockie mountains in Colorado. I currently have limited reception and access to internet and won’t be able to provide proper guidance / direction to department resources at this time.

I was not made aware prior to the appointment of the ag to the bench and wasn’t made aware of the absence of leadership until yesterday. I only have access to my phone at this time.

I am requesting the court to provide the commonwealth an extension until 10/1 at that time I will have a response and proper filing for the court.

 

[Poker]

You’re Honor,

I do apologize for the delay in response - as for this instance with a change in Attorney General the department has been left in a bit of disarray due to a sudden change in leadership. I am not currently read into the case as well as am currently out of town on a vacation in the middle of the Rockie mountains in Colorado. I currently have limited reception and access to internet and won’t be able to provide proper guidance / direction to department resources at this time.

I was not made aware prior to the appointment of the ag to the bench and wasn’t made aware of the absence of leadership until yesterday. I only have access to my phone at this time.

I am requesting the court to provide the commonwealth an extension until 10/1 at that time I will have a response and proper filing for the court.

Greetings, thank you for appearing, Attorney General. @Slime_Mario, you have 48 hours to respond to this extension request.

 

[Slime_Mario]

I agree to the extension request.

 

[Poker]

Extension granted

 

[pepper5980]

Your honor, I will be representing the Commonwealth in this case.

The defense counsel would like to thank the generosity of this court and the quick agreement of the Plaintiff in granting the extension.

I will submit an Answer to Complaint within that time.

 

[pepper5980]

Motion

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

Rule 5.17 states:

A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted where the plaintiff has failed to accumulate at least six hours of in-game activity within the thirty day period preceding the filing of the motion, provided that the presiding judge shall first issue a warning affording the plaintiff seven days to resume participation in the proceeding. Where the plaintiff returns within that period, or otherwise shows good cause for the deficiency, the presiding judge retains full discretion to deny the motion and allow the case to proceed.

Your honor, the Plaintiff has failed to accumulate 6 hours of in-game activity within the past 30 days. I therefore move that this case be dismissed.

If this court so desires, I can provide photo evidence showing that the Plaintiff indeed failed to accumulate 6 hours of in-game activity in the 30 days prior to 9/12/2026, the date of the filing of this case.

 

[pepper5980]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff claims in Fact 6:

Upon information and belief, the Defendant did not consult with the Council of the BAR prior to ordering the immediate closure of all legal examinations.

This is a fact that the Plaintiff brings forth as an arguement for his Claim of Denial of Due Process (Claim 2(3)(2)).

Your honor, the defense recognizes that each counsel may enter evidence and material during the Discovery period, pursuant to Rule 4.

However, Fact 6 is neither a known fact, publicly accepted fact, nor an established one. Neither is the Plaintiff attempting to make a "legal arguement" (see verbage from Rule 4.2) that the defendant did NOT consult the Bar Association of Redmont (BAR) concerning the closure of exams, but is listing this as a fact due to "information and belief" that the Plaintiff so possesses, and is using this "fact" to legally argue other points.

Therefore, your honor, the defense moves to compel the Plaintiff to provide the evidence and the "information" that they possess related to Fact 6.

 

[pepper5980]

Your honor, I have edited my Motion to Dismiss to clarify that the Plaintiff has not "accumulated 6 hours of in-game activity within the past 30 days."

 

[Poker]

Motion

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

Rule 5.17 states:


Your honor, the Plaintiff has failed to accumulate 6 hours of in-game activity within the past 30 days. I therefore move that this case be dismissed.

If this court so desires, I can provide photo evidence showing that the Plaintiff indeed failed to accumulate 6 hours of in-game activity in the 30 days prior to 9/12/2026, the date of the filing of this case.

Denied. This proceeding is progressing normally.

Motion

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

The Plaintiff claims in Fact 6:


This is a fact that the Plaintiff brings forth as an arguement for his Claim of Denial of Due Process (Claim 2(3)(2)).

Your honor, the defense recognizes that each counsel may enter evidence and material during the Discovery period, pursuant to Rule 4.

However, Fact 6 is neither a known fact, publicly accepted fact, nor an established one. Neither is the Plaintiff attempting to make a "legal arguement" (see verbage from Rule 4.2) that the defendant did NOT consult the Bar Association of Redmont (BAR) concerning the closure of exams, but is listing this as a fact due to "information and belief" that the Plaintiff so possesses, and is using this "fact" to legally argue other points.

Therefore, your honor, the defense moves to compel the Plaintiff to provide the evidence and the "information" that they possess related to Fact 6.

Denied. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof and we are not in discovery.

 

[pepper5980]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Slime_Mario
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont (Department of Education)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part II, Section 1(3) contains this text.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS.
3. The Defendant AFFIRMS.
4. The Defendant AFFIRMS that this is indeed the text of the announcement made 8/23/2026 by the honorable Matthew100x, with superficial punctuation differences between the Plaintiff’s text and the actual announcement resulting from a benign copy-and-paste between Discord and Forums.
5. The Defendant AFFIRMS that this notice came less than one day before the execution of that decision.
6. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES.
7. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES.
8. The Defendant AFFIRMS this fact; however, as of 9/30/2026, the Solicitor exams have been reopened.
9. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES this fact as of 9/12/2026, noting again that as of 9/30/2026, the Solicitor exams have been reopened.
10. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES the Plaintiff’s current licensure and aspirations.
11. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VI, Section 3(1)(a), is the only specific qualification the Act requires for a Solicitor to obtain the rank of Barrister.
12. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Plaintiff has not qualified for the rank of Barrister, and is unable to represent clients in the Federal Court of Redmont because of this fact. The Defendant also NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Plaintiff is currently unable to qualify for the rank of Barrister because the examinations are closed to the public as of 9/12/2026.
13. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the Plaintiff has not qualified for the rank of Barrister and the privileges thereof. The Defendant DENIES that this is because of a deprivation of statutory rights resulting from a Failure to Perform Statutory Duty and a Denial of Due Process by the Defendant.

II. DEFENSES

1. Claim 1: Failure to Perform Statutory Duty (Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XI, Section 7)
According to the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XI, Section 7:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) being a government officer or body, fails to perform a duty required by law; and
(b) the failure causes harm to the plaintiff.
This violation shall not occur where:
(c) the failure was due to circumstances beyond the defendant’s control.

The Defense argues that there was no failure to perform a duty required by law.

The Plaintiff claims that the removal of the examinations was due to the Defendant’s failure to “maintain” the examinations, as laid out in the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VII, Section 1(1)(a). However, the Plaintiff has defined that word ambiguously. Section 1(1)(a) charged the Defendant, concerning the legal examinations, to:
a. “Develop,” meaning create or grow;
b. “Maintain,” defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary to mean:

To keep in an existing state (as of repair, efficiency, or validity): preserve from failure or decline

(D-001); and
c. “Update,” meaning bringing something up to date.
The Defense argues that the cheating alleged by the Defendant, including but not limited to the Exhibit D-002, made the examinations of 8/23/2026 impossible to maintain “preserve[d] from failure or decline” for any length of time. The Defense argues that allowing those examinations to continue would have also fallen short of the standards required by the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VII, Sections 1(2)(c) and 2(2)(a).

Very briefly, the Plaintiff also cites Section 2(1) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VII, which states that

All legal examinations shall be conducted through the Minecraft Exam-sign system, unless otherwise specified or directed by the Department of Education.

The Defense finds the use of this paragraph as a source in the Plaintiff’s claim to be a moot point, considering this paragraph specifically grants the Defendant the authority to direct and specify otherwise.

The Plaintiff quotes the Executive Standards Act, Section 14, and claims that that Act gives the Defendant no authority to suspend examinations. The Defense argues that this Act merely attempts to broadly define the responsibilities of the Department of Education. The Defense finds this statement from the Plaintiff to be a contradiction to previous statements made by the Plaintiff in Fact 2 of their Filing:

The Department of Education's statutory authority regarding legal examinations is specifically delegated by Congress in Part VII of the Bar Association of Redmont Act.

The Plaintiff cites the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VII, Section 1(1)(d)(i), and claims that the Defendant was required by law to submit a notice 14 days before the execution to remove the examinations. The Defense finds this claim incorrect for the following reasons:
a. The 14-day requirement as stated by this subparagraph of the Bar Association of Redmont Act is reserved for implementing “changes to the examination system.” Although “examination system” seems to be an ambiguous definition, perhaps the Act gives us a clue to its meaning with subparagraph (ii), which is the other action that requires a 14-day notice:

Create or remove specialisations within the Barrister rank.

The Defense argues that “changes to the examination system” entails changes, perhaps drastic, to the organizational, structural, or systemic aspects of the examinations. This includes changes to the examination format, or perhaps changes to the examination fundamental process itself.
b. The Defendant’s decision not to release any advance notice of the execution of this decision was made in good faith. Reasonable fears existed that enabling the examinations to be made available to the public for any length of time following the announcement would be detrimental to the integrity of the legal institution. (Cf. D-003 for an example.)
c. Most importantly, the Defense argues that limiting the examinations from public access does NOT constitute an actual change - or, as the Plaintiff stated it in Claim 1(5), an alteration - to the examination system. The Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part VII, Section 1(2)(b), merely commands that “public notice” be given when making changes to the examinations or examination requirements, but does not specify how much in advance the notice must be sent, if any. The Defense argues that removing the examinations from public accessibility not an alteration to the legal examination system, and thus does not require a 14-day notice to do so.

2. Claim 2: Denial of Due Process (Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XI, Section 6)
Denial of Due Process does not apply here as the Defendant:

1. Provided the Plaintiff with notice regarding the decision affecting the Plaintiff, as evidenced by P-001; and
2. No statutory requirement exists for the Plaintiff to be heard on this matter.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant committed “multiple” (meaning two) procedural violations of law. In response to these repetitive claims, the Defense reiterates the points made in Defense 1 at this time.

III. EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES

Spoiler: D-001

Definition of the word "Maintain"

Spoiler: D-002

Case Filing of Commonwealth of Redmont v. kisskissy [2026] FCR 84, in which the Commonwealth alleges violations of Nuisance and Breach of Academic Integrity against the Defendant, kisskissy.

Spoiler: D-003

Case Filing of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Carrottt_ [2026] FCR 82, in which the Commonwealth charges the Defendant, Carrottt_, with Legal Qualification Fraud.

The Defendant reserves the right to admit any additional evidence and witnesses during the course of Discovery.

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 30th day of September, 2026.

 

[Poker]

Discovery is open for 5 days

 

[Slime_Mario]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES AND EVIDENCE

I. INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following questions for the Defendant, the Department of Education, which the Defendant must answer within 48 hours:

1. Before closing the legal examinations on 23 August 2026, did the Department of Education (DoE) consult the Bar Association of Redmont Council (BAR Council) about the closure? If so, state the date, the Councillor(s) consulted, and the channel of communication used.
2. Since 23 August 2026, has the DoE changed the questions, answers, format, process, or passing criteria for any legal examinations? If so, state each legal examination that changed and the date it took effect.
3. Before implementing each change listed in your answer to Question 2, did the DoE consult the BAR Council? If so, state the date, the Councillor(s) consulted, and the channel of communication used.
4. Which specialization examinations can candidates currently take through the Exam system? For each one that cannot be taken, state the date the Department intends to reopen it.
5. Did the cheating relied on in the Answer to Complaint, including the cheating videos referenced in Exhibit D-002, involve any specialization examination for the Barrister rank? If so, identify each specialization examination involved.

II. EVIDENCE

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), the Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

P-003: Screenshots of Discord statements made by Secretary Matthew100x in #legal on 10 September 2026, including "We're making changes now".

P-004: Screenshot of the Bar Association of Redmont Record of Motions forum page for both Passed Motions and Failed/Repealed Motions, which Part II, Section 2(2)(b) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act requires to publish all "Motions put before the Council, including their outcome and the votes of each Councillor," showing no motion concerning the closure of the legal examinations between 12 May 2026 and 2 October 2026.

P-005: In-game screenshot of the Lawyer exam room taken on 2 October 2026, showing that the specialization examinations remain unavailable.

 

[Poker]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES AND EVIDENCE

I. INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following questions for the Defendant, the Department of Education, which the Defendant must answer within 48 hours:

1. Before closing the legal examinations on 23 August 2026, did the Department of Education (DoE) consult the Bar Association of Redmont Council (BAR Council) about the closure? If so, state the date, the Councillor(s) consulted, and the channel of communication used.
2. Since 23 August 2026, has the DoE changed the questions, answers, format, process, or passing criteria for any legal examinations? If so, state each legal examination that changed and the date it took effect.
3. Before implementing each change listed in your answer to Question 2, did the DoE consult the BAR Council? If so, state the date, the Councillor(s) consulted, and the channel of communication used.
4. Which specialization examinations can candidates currently take through the Exam system? For each one that cannot be taken, state the date the Department intends to reopen it.
5. Did the cheating relied on in the Answer to Complaint, including the cheating videos referenced in Exhibit D-002, involve any specialization examination for the Barrister rank? If so, identify each specialization examination involved.

II. EVIDENCE

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), the Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

P-003: Screenshots of Discord statements made by Secretary Matthew100x in #legal on 10 September 2026, including "We're making changes now".

View attachment 100866

P-004: Screenshot of the Bar Association of Redmont Record of Motions forum page for both Passed Motions and Failed/Repealed Motions, which Part II, Section 2(2)(b) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act requires to publish all "Motions put before the Council, including their outcome and the votes of each Councillor," showing no motion concerning the closure of the legal examinations between 12 May 2026 and 2 October 2026.

View attachment 100865

View attachment 100864

P-005: In-game screenshot of the Lawyer exam room taken on 2 October 2026, showing that the specialization examinations remain unavailable.

View attachment 100863

View attachment 100862

@pepper5980 You have 48 hours to either object to or respond to this interrogatory.

 

[pepper5980]

Objection

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

Your honor, the Defense objects to the Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 1 as the Plaintiff is asking this question in order to attempt to confirm Fact 6 of their Case Filing.

 

[pepper5980]

Edited to remove the unnecessary “[/CENTER]” at the end due to copy-and-paste discrepancies.

 

[Poker]

Objection

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

Your honor, the Defense objects to the Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 1 as the Plaintiff is asking this question in order to attempt to confirm Fact 6 of their Case Filing.

Overruled. This question does not suggest the desired answer, nor include information the examiner seeks to confirm.

You have 30 hours to respond to the interrogatories.

 

[Poker]

Discovery has ended. @pepper5980 you have further 24 hours to address post #19 under pain of contempt of court

 

[Poker]

I find pepper5980 in Contempt of Court, as in CCA, for failing to obey a lawful order of the Court. He shall be fined 5 PUs. The Department of Justice is ordered to continue this lawsuit within 48 hours (@Nacho). Adverse inferences may be drawn in omission. Any question non objected shall be responded within the aforementioned time.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

I appreciate the extension to this - We will address the lack of follow up by the prosecutor accordingly and will work to get the responses logged and filed within the allowed timeframe.

 

[Nacho]

1. Yes - August 20th DOE officials began discussions with the Redmont BAR association. Communication occurred through the BAR discord with Chairperson CreeperTD.

2. Yes - The Department has only reviewed and processed changes to questions and passing criteria for the Solicitor Exam. The Department intends to adjust and review all exams upon completion.

3. Yes - the Department of Education had fluid discussions with the BAR. Communication occurred through the BAR discord

4. Solicitor is the only examination open to completion. Other examinations have fluid return dates.

5. Not in particular, All specializations are being reviewed for exam integrity and being modified to maintain exam integrity.