Lawsuit: In Session The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200 [2026] DCR 154

Considering there are many objections, we will refer to them the following way

1) Name of the witness
2) Question Number
3) Objection Number (from top to bottom)
4) Objection type
5) Objection Reply

e.g: frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)
jsrkiwi said:

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Asking the witness to opine on what messages are “implying” is asking the witness to opine on a legal conclusion, which ought to be reserved to Your Honour. Counsel is always able to argue what a message is “implying” in his closing arguments.
Click to expand...
Failure to do so will be grounds for Contempt of Court charges.

@Y8l, you may respond to the objections within 48 hours.
 
Your honor, @Poker

I am requesting a 24-hour extension to finish my draft due to:

I am almost done with the task, but I still have to make it look presentable and finish the last three.

I am still revising for my Exams

I hope the court accepts this request sent by the @Y8l

Date: 22th September 2026
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS

Your Honor, @Poker

Due to the court's order, the plaintiff respectfully submits the following concerning the defendant's objections

I understand that the following may be confusing, so I will provide a key.

For example

In the entry frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION):
  • frodo1005 = Witness Name
  • 2 = Question Number
  • .3 = Objection Number (the 3rd objection under Question 2)
  • (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION) = Objection Type
  • And the reply is underneath


WITNESS: frodo1005

frodo1005, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Overrule: Probing a witness about what they saw in the public chat at a relevant time is a routine foundational question, not a leading question.

frodo1005, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: The words "statements" and "products" clearly refer to the contents of the public chat and armor sales mentioned in the Complaint.

frodo1005, 2.1 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Overrule: This questions asks about the Defendant's characterizations of the Player's items in a continuous public chat observation. If the Court wishes, the Plaintiff would be happy to break it into sub-questions.

frodo1005, 2.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: "Implying" clearly refers to the straightforward interpretation and impression of the text messages published in public chat.

frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: The question asks for testimony about what messages the witness saw in public chat, not a legal conclusion.

frodo1005, 2.4 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overrule: Examination of a witness provides the means of introducing testimonial evidence.

frodo1005, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: In a defamation and tortious interference matter, the perception of a reasonable third-party reader/listener is a factual issue, not a legal conclusion to be reached by counsel.

frodo1005, 4.2 (LEADING QUESTION)

Overrule: The question asks the witness to compare two different characterizations ("business rather than mere jokes") of the Player and ask them to testify what they actually saw in the chat.

frodo1005, 5.1 (LEADING QUESTION)

Overrule: The question focuses the witness's recollection on the reactions of the people in public chat following the statements at issue.

frodo1005, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Overrule: The question asks only for what the witness actually saw and noted in public chat ("did you note... in chat"), not about what they think someone else might have felt.

frodo1005, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overrule: Question 1 asks whether the witness was in the global chat at the time of the event, which provides the foundation.

frodo1005, 5.4 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: The question asks for the witness's observations about the chat reactions to the event, which is a request for factual testimony.

WITNESS: .august4496

.august4496, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Overrule: Asking if a witness was present during a certain time period in public chat is a foundational preliminary question.

.august4496, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: "Allegations" clearly refer to the statements made in public chat about the armor sales mentioned in the Complaint.

.august4496, 2.1 (HEARSAY)

Overrule: The statements of the Defendant Roy405 are party-opponent admissions and are introduced to show the effect on the listeners/market rather than the truth of the matter asserted.

.august4496, 2.2 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overrule: First-hand witness examination is the appropriate method of introducing chat statements into evidence.

.august4496, 2.3 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: The timing and content of the statements are clearly connected to the public chat incident mentioned in the filings.

.august4496, 2.4 (LEADING QUESTION)

Overrule: Asks a yes/no question about whether the witness personally read a published statement in the global chat.

.august4496, 2.5 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Overrule: This question asks about one subject: about whether the witness read the published statements accusing the Player.

.august4496, 3.1 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: "Claims" clearly refer to the Defendant's public statements that the product was a scam.

.august4496, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: Lay opinion about the effect of public statements on the perception of a merchant are admissible.

.august4496, 4.2 (RELEVANCE)

Overrule: What the statements said and their effect on readers of the global chat are directly relevant to proving commercial harm and reputation damage.

.august4496, 4.3 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overrule: The fact that the Plaintiff is a merchant selling products in the public chat is a fundamental element of this lawsuit.

.august4496, 5.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: The question asks the witness to testify what they know and have seen, i.e., whether there was a disruption in the business.

.august4496, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Overrule: The question asks only for the observable interactions and occurrences the witness saw in the public chat.

.august4496, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overrule: The fact that the witness was in the public chat at the time of the incident and following it provides the foundation.

.august4496, 5.4 (COMPOUND)

Overrule: Both parts of the question concern the same incident: public chat disruptions as a result of the statements made.

DATED: This 21st day of September 2026
 
frodo1005, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Sustained. the question includes information the examiner seeks to confirm (were made by Defendants roy405).

frodo1005, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained. which statement (that are in the evidence) are trying to be proven here? I wish this question was more precise.

frodo1005, 2.1 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Sustained. Plaintiff doesn't oppose to break down the question. And I think this would be great to reduce possible confusions.

frodo1005, 2.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained as moot (see below ruling).

frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. Plaintiff says "clearly refers to the straightforward interpretation and impression of the text messages published in public chat". Witness testimony is reserved to factual review.

frodo1005, 2.4 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overruled. Assumes facts not in evidence occurs "When a question presumes something as true that has not been established by evidence". Statement "does not work" wasn't assumed as true in the question.

frodo1005, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. A witness may testify to their own personal reaction or what they observed, but they cannot draw conclusions about the nature of the evidence or what the Defendants meant to do.

frodo1005, 4.2 (LEADING QUESTION)

Sustained. The question include information the examiner seeks to confirm (mere jokes)

frodo1005, 5.1 (LEADING QUESTION)

Sustained. The question include information the examiner seeks to confirm (caused confusion, hesitation or disinterest).

frodo1005, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Sustained. As seen in Post #69, statements in chat can be misleading. Councilor should have called possible buyers as witnesses.

frodo1005, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overruled. Plaintiff argues that "The fact that the witness was in the public chat at the time of the incident and following it provides the foundation". This court consider this acceptable (but still a speculation as in frodo1005, 5.2) (SPECULATION).

frodo1005, 5.4 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. The question calls frodo1005 to express an opinion on weather the statements caused "confusion, hesitation or disinterest" or not.

.august4496, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Sustained as in frodo1005, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS).

.august4496, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained as in frodo1005, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS).

.august4496, 2.1 (HEARSAY)

Overruled. As in .august4496, 2.3 (AMBIGUOUS), this is an ambiguous question.

august4496, 2.2 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Sustained. statement "don’t buy it it’s a scam" is not within evidence and is being assumed as a fact.

.august4496, 2.3 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained. It may be on the fillings, but we need it contextualized and, if possible, hyperlinked on the question.

.august4496, 2.4 (LEADING QUESTION)

Sustained. include information the examiner seeks to confirm (published by the Defendants).

.august4496, 2.5 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Overruled. This should not confuse the witnesses.

.august4496, 3.1 (AMBIGUOUS)

Sustained. Which public statements (claims)?

.august4496, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. "Lay opinion about the effect of public statements on the perception of a merchant are admissible". In which grounds? Please, mention authorities and legal arguments to substantiate your responses. Calls for a conclusion "Occurs when a question seeks an opinion rather than factual information".

.august4496, 4.2 (RELEVANCE)

Sustained. As in #96

.august4496, 4.3 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Partially Sustained. Merchant is a person/business "engaged in commerce" per Merian Webster dictionary, Plaintiff is a business that sells bulletproof armor. However, from the facts and evidence i cannot see prior standing and trustworthiness, and plantiff failed to explain in his response why this would be the case. As such i sustain this part.

.august4496, 5.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Sustained. "did these public chat statements harm the Plaintiffs trade reputation" is calling for a conclusion over the chat statements.

.august4496, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Sustained. Plaintiff should have called relevant witnesses to question if the statements made impacts against their decision line. As in #69, it's speculative to assume every chat about The Forge, even in the context present on the files, was made by a potential customer.

.august4496, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overruled. This is speculation.

.august4496, 5.4 (COMPOUND)

Sustained. This question is confusing, personaly i don't know if the second sentence is an explanation for the first sentence or is another question.
Click to expand...

The following questions are struck and ordered to be REFILED within 48 hours to be compliant with the ruling above. If Plaintiff deems any of the questions improper to refile, Plaintiff may elect not to refile them.

frodo1005
Question 1,2,4,5

.august4496
Question 1,2,4,5

Plaintiff is ordered, again, to comply to Court Rules and Procedures and Objections Guide, under pain of Contempt of Court.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S REFILED WITNESS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

Your Honor, @Poker

Due to the Court's direction, the Plaintiff submits the following questions for witness frodo1005 and witness .august4496.

WITNESS: frodo1005

Question 1: What was your in-game position and chat activity on August 7th?

Question 2: What messages, if any, did you see appear in global chat from Defendant roy405 at that time?

Question 4: Describe what you can remember of the messages that Defendant roy405 sent that you read in global chat, if any.

Question 5: Describe the global chat activity that occurred following the posting of those messages, if any.

WITNESS: .august4496

Question 1: What messages, if any, did you see appear in global chat from Defendant roy405 at that time?

Question 2: What statements, if any, did you see Defendant roy405 publish in global chat at that time?

Question 4: Describe what you can remember of the messages that Defendant roy405 sent that you read in global chat, if any.

Question 5: Describe the global chat activity that occurred following the posting of those messages, if any.

DATED: This 29th day of September 2026
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To make it easier to follow the objections against the refiled questions, I have numbered them according to Your Honour’s numbering methodology, with an additional master objection at the top.

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE RE TIMELINESS

The refiled questions were filed after the deadline had passed.

At 7:28 PM (UTC) on 26 September 2026, Your Honour set a 48-hour deadline for the refiling of questions by the Plaintiff. This deadline passed at 7:28 PM (UTC) on 28 September 2026. The Plaintiff refiled his questions at 5:34 pm (UTC) on 29 September 2026, approximately 22 hours late.

The Plaintiff had the option of asking for an extension, which he did not do. Also, the refiling of 8 questions is not a particularly onerous task requiring much time.

Therefore, the Defendant asks Your Honour to strike the refiled questions in full.


Y8l said:
Question 1: What was your in-game position and chat activity on August 7th?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – COMPOUND QUESTION

frodo1005 1.1 (Compound)

The question asks for two distinctly different things: “What was your in-game position?” and “What was your chat activity?”. These ought to be severed.


Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – AMBIGUOUS

frodo1005 1.2 (Ambiguous)

“In-game position” is unclear. It could refer to employment position (i.e. rank) at The Forge, or it could mean physical position (i.e. location) within Reveille.

“Chat activity” is very broad in scope, and could refer to global chat, local chat, murmur chat, ask chat, international chat, departmental chat or in-game direct messages. I’m presuming that the Plaintiff means a combination of global chat and local chat, but I could be wrong.


Y8l said:
Question 4: Describe what you can remember of the messages that Defendant roy405 sent that you read in global chat, if any.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – ASKED AND ANSWERED

frodo1005 4.1 (Asked and answered)

Question 2 already asks the witness what messages from Defendant roy405 he observed in global chat. Question 4 again asks the witness to recount those same messages. No additional testimony could be solicited.


Y8l said:
Question 5: Describe the global chat activity that occurred following the posting of those messages, if any.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – AMBIGUOUS

frodo1005 5.1 (Ambiguous)

The phrase “occurred following the posting of those messages” does not define a specific timeframe. Is the witness being asked about the period immediately following the messages; the remainder of that specific conversation; the remainder of the day; or some undefined later period?


Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – HEARSAY

frodo1005 5.2 (Hearsay)

This question solicits hearsay from the witness. If the Plaintiff wishes to find out how a specific player interpreted the messages by roy405, he should have called that player as a witness and put the question to him. The Plaintiff chose not to do so, and is attempting to introduce statements by third parties in an attempt to prove the impact roy405’s messages had on third parties’ perceptions.


Y8l said:
Question 2: What statements, if any, did you see Defendant roy405 publish in global chat at that time?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – ASKED AND ANSWERED

.august4496 2.1 (Asked and answered)

Question 1 asks the witness what “messages” from Defendant roy405 they saw appear in global chat at the relevant time. Question 2 asks what “statements” from Defendant roy405 they saw published in global chat at that same time. “Messages” and “statements” do not create a materially different inquiry. The witness is being asked for the same information twice.


Y8l said:
Question 4: Describe what you can remember of the messages that Defendant roy405 sent that you read in global chat, if any.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – ASKED AND ANSWERED

.august4496 4.1 (Asked and answered)

The witness has already been asked in Questions 1 and 2 to identify the messages or statements they observed Defendant roy405 say in global chat. Question 4 asks the witness for the same information for a third time, merely phrased as what messages they “remember”. There is no need to solicit this same information from the witness more than once.


Y8l said:
Question 5: Describe the global chat activity that occurred following the posting of those messages, if any.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – AMBIGUOUS

.august4496 5.1 (Ambiguous)

The phrase “occurred following the posting of those messages” does not define a specific timeframe. Is the witness being asked about the period immediately following the messages; the remainder of that specific conversation; the remainder of the day; or some undefined later period?


Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – HEARSAY

.august4496 5.2 (Hearsay)

This question solicits hearsay from the witness. If the Plaintiff wishes to find out how a specific player interpreted the messages by roy405, he should have called that player as a witness and put the question to him. The Plaintiff chose not to do so, and is attempting to introduce statements by third parties in an attempt to prove the impact roy405’s messages had on third parties’ perceptions.

 
I find counselor y8l in Contempt of Court for failing to refile the questions in time.

Breach of Procedure objection sustained, all refilled questions will be struck.

Question 3 for .august4496 will also be struck, as the objection against this question was sustained. I misread the ruling and didn't add it to the list of questions to be amended/struck in post #105 (but I would have allowed/asked Plaintiff to amend the refile, had the refiled version been provided within the deadline).

@frodo1005 shall answer the non stricked questions directed to him (Post #98) within 24 hours.
 
"What words or phrasing do you remember seeing posted in public chat by either Defendant regarding the Plaintiff?"

Answer:
I remebember PhatCat2200 posting an /ad "frodo1005 is a scammer" after I posted an /ad about my bulletproof armor.

I remember roy405 wanted to test the armor. I agreed. He proceeded to shoot me with a crossbow. I felt like he's trying to kill me, rather than testing the armor, so I ran away. Then he said "bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol", "holy scammer". I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets. Despite that he proceeded to call me a scammer in some way multiple times in public chat, announce to people to not buy my armor. Also throughout the whole month while this case was pending, he called me a scammer multiple times/discouraged people from buying it when i posted an /ad about the bulletproof armor. Some messages I remember: "frodo1005 is just scamming yall, dont buy his "bulletproof armor""; "it aint even arrow proof so bro is just lying"; "frodo1005 and .august4496's "bulletproof armor" is a scam, dont bother buying it".
 
frodo1005 said:
"What words or phrasing do you remember seeing posted in public chat by either Defendant regarding the Plaintiff?"

Answer:
I remebember PhatCat2200 posting an /ad "frodo1005 is a scammer" after I posted an /ad about my bulletproof armor.

I remember roy405 wanted to test the armor. I agreed. He proceeded to shoot me with a crossbow. I felt like he's trying to kill me, rather than testing the armor, so I ran away. Then he said "bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol", "holy scammer". I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets. Despite that he proceeded to call me a scammer in some way multiple times in public chat, announce to people to not buy my armor. Also throughout the whole month while this case was pending, he called me a scammer multiple times/discouraged people from buying it when i posted an /ad about the bulletproof armor. Some messages I remember: "frodo1005 is just scamming yall, dont buy his "bulletproof armor""; "it aint even arrow proof so bro is just lying"; "frodo1005 and .august4496's "bulletproof armor" is a scam, dont bother buying it".
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

At 2:54 PM CDT yesterday, you had said witness Frodo1005 had 24 hours to respond to the non struck questions. At 4:00 PM CDT, the witness responded to the questions. The witness took longer than 24 hours to respond, as such I ask you hold frodo1005 in contempt of court.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Defendant​



Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – PERJURY

Your Honor,

Witness Frodo1005 said:

I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets.
Click to expand...

Witness Frodo1005 knew that Roy405 was shooting buckshot through his crossbow, not arrows. Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow. I ask that your honor hold Witness Frodo1005 with perjury.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Defendant​

 
EmeraldGuuy said:

Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

At 2:54 PM CDT yesterday, you had said witness Frodo1005 had 24 hours to respond to the non struck questions. At 4:00 PM CDT, the witness responded to the questions. The witness took longer than 24 hours to respond, as such I ask you hold frodo1005 in contempt of court.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Defendant​



Objection



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – PERJURY

Your Honor,

Witness Frodo1005 said:



Witness Frodo1005 knew that Roy405 was shooting buckshot through his crossbow, not arrows. Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow. I ask that your honor hold Witness Frodo1005 with perjury.

Signed,
EmeraldGuuy
Co-Counsel for the Defendant​

Click to expand...

Counselor, i have two questions.

1) Where is established that Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow?
2) Can a crossbow shot buckshots? If so, can i have the source to this information?
 
Poker said:
Counselor, i have two questions.

1) Where is established that Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow?
2) Can a crossbow shot buckshots? If so, can i have the source to this information?
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

1. Claim 1 is based off of D-001, I apologize for not attaching it in my previous objection.

2. Claim 2 is based off of D-002, where the crossbow is loaded with buckshot, please disregard my messy and scattered inventory.

D-001.jpg

1790811589238.png
 
EmeraldGuuy said:
Your Honor,

1. Claim 1 is based off of D-001, I apologize for not attaching it in my previous objection.

2. Claim 2 is based off of D-002, where the crossbow is loaded with buckshot, please disregard my messy and scattered inventory.

View attachment 100657

View attachment 100656
Click to expand...
Defendant objects to witness question alleging perjury. He argues that Roy405 was using buckshots [during the test?] and Frodo1005 had acknowledged Roy405's statement of saying he used buck shot in his crossbow, and because of that statement "I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets" is perjury.

D-001 shows Roy405 and frodo1005 talking about this exact same mechanic. First, Roy405 says "fun fact" and "u can load buckshot into crossbows, and bows". frodo1005 says "ok and?", Roy405 replicated "therefore ur not immune to buckshot LOL". frodo1005 finalizes with "still not a gun?". D-002 proves a crossbown can hold a buckshot.

According to the CCA, a person commits perjury if he knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law.

This Court fails to see how the statement "I argued that crossbow arrows are not bullets" constitutes false testimony. The Defendant's argument that Frodo1005 knew Roy405 was shooting buckshot is irrelevant to the perjury in this matter. The witness was testifying about the existence of an argument they had, and D-001 corroborates that Frodo1005 did argue that point. The perjury objection is overruled.

Further, breach of procedure objection is overruled. As this is the first occurrence of a breach, the Witnesses are requested to respond within the prescribed time and request an extension if necessary.
 

Brief


Cross-examination questions for frodo1005​

Please note, Q2 is a followup to Q1; Q4 and Q5 are followups to Q3; Q6 is a followup to Q5; Q8 is a followup to Q7; and Q9 is a followup to Q8.

1. During the crossbow test you described under direct examination, did any of roy405's shots cause you to lose health?
2. Before the shots were fired, did you personally inspect the ammunition loaded into roy405's crossbow?

3. In P-002, roy405 stated ‘bulletproof armour my ass bro went down in 3 crossbow shots lol’, and his next message was ‘holy scammer’, correct?
4. So, anyone reading that exchange could see that roy405's criticism was based on the result of his crossbow test, correct?
5. During that argument, did roy405 say anything to you about what could be loaded into a crossbow?
6. If yes to Q5, what did he tell you?

7. Are you familiar with the signage displayed The Forge’s stores concerning the armour at issue in this case?
8. Is there a sign headed “Disclaimer” concerning that armour?
9. What does that disclaimer say about the armour’s protection against bullets?

The Defence has no questions for .august4496

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