Lawsuit: Dismissed UnityMaster v. xEndeavour [2025] FCR 16

Status
Not open for further replies.

Twiscet

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
Statesman 5th Anniversary
Twiscet
Twiscet
Solicitor
Joined
Aug 6, 2024
Messages
37
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


UnityMaster, (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

xEndeavour falsely claimed at multiple occasions that President UnityMaster made themself secretary while The_Superior10 was still in the role without informing relevant parties. In reality, UnityMaster was asked by The Department of Construction and Transport leadership to assume the position, and the transition was properly communicated.

xEndeavour also falsely stated UnityMaster fired the previous secretary, stopped approved projects, stole a build from FlyingBlocks, and planned to move the racetrack. These claims are false: UnityMaster was part of a collective decision-making process, projects were postponed due to other plans, FlyingBlocks was properly compensated, and discussions about the racetrack were only in staff chats.

Further, xEndeavour falsely accused UnityMaster of promoting unqualified constructors, firing deputy secretaries, and not appointing a deputy. The Department of Construction and Transport has not had a deputy secretary for some time.

Additionally, xEndeavour has repeatedly leaked classified information to push political agendas and falsely accused UnityMaster of corruptly sharing information that was already public.

I. PARTIES
UnityMaster
xEndeavor

II. FACTS
1. On December 27th 2024 President UnityMaster hired himself as Secretary of Construction & Transportation.
2. On January 1st 2025 at 17:10 GMT xEndeavour posted a Discord message which claimed that President UnityMaster made themselves Secretary of Construction and Transportation while The_Superior10 was still in the role and fired him. xEndeavour also claimed that President UnityMaster stopped approving projects, stole a build from FlyingBlocks, planned to remove the racetrack, promoted unqualified constructors, firing deputy secretaries and not appointing new ones and leaking classified information.
3. On January 2nd 2025 Politico, xEndeavours news agency, released an article claiming that President Unitymaster is facing scrutiny for several actions taken during his presidency. It claimed that President UnityMaster dismissed the Secretary of Construction and Transport, The_Superior10, and appointed himself to the role without informing relevant parties. The article also aleges that President UnityMaster failed to respond to requests from the Department of Construction and Transport and did not attend his own confirmation hearing. The article also claims that President UnityMaster bypassed department leadership to hire individuals to senior positions, which allegedly raised legal concerns. The article claims as well that president UnityMaster authorized the seizure of Abbots property at a significantly lower price than its market value, resulting in a lawsuit. His proposed relocation of key buildings has allegedly caused public controversy. Additionally, the article claimed that President UnityMaster fired all deputy secretaries without appointing replacements and limited staff involvement in project updates. There are also alleged reports of unpaid commissions and department commitments. These actions have raised allegedly questions about President UnityMaster's leadership and legal adherence.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant has knowingly and wilfully defamed the Plaintiff, in violation of the No More Defamation Act. This Act defines defamation as a false statement or communication that causes injury to a third party's reputation. The Defendant's actions meet this definition as follows:
The Defendant made false and malicious statements about the Plaintiff.
These statements were communicated to third parties with the intent to harm the Plaintiff's reputation.
As a direct result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff has suffered reputational harm, emotional distress, and economic damages.
The Defendant's conduct constitutes both libel and slander under the provisions of the Act.
2. The Defendant has also specifically committed slander against the Plaintiff, as defined under the No More Defamation Act. Slander is characterized as a false statement, typically conveyed through discord or in-game messages, which injures another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization. The Defendant's actions satisfy these elements because:
The Defendant made false and derogatory remarks about the Plaintiff in discord and/or in-game messages.
These statements were made publicly or in a manner accessible to third parties, causing direct harm to the Plaintiff's reputation and credibility.
The Defendant's actions were undertaken with malice and intent to cause harm, leading to demonstrable losses, including damage to the Plaintiff’s professional standing and emotional well-being.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. A Public Apology.
A public apology from the Defendant, xEndeavour, for blatantly slandering and defaming President UnityMaster. The apology should be made in a manner that directly addresses the false statements and acknowledges the harm caused by them.
Damages:

2. Emotional Damages: $50 000.
The defamatory statements caused significant emotional distress, anxiety, and embarrassment to President UnityMaster. The harm to the Plaintiff’s mental well-being justifies this compensation, as it impacted their ability to function in both personal and professional settings.

3. Reputational Harm: $50 000.
The Defendant’s actions caused direct harm to the Plaintiff’s professional and personal reputation, resulting in loss of trust, credibility, and respect. This damage has far-reaching consequences in both the Plaintiff’s personal life and career.

4. Punitive Damages: $50 000.
Given the malice and reckless disregard for the truth displayed by the Defendant, punitive damages are necessary to punish the Defendant for their actions and to deter similar behaviour in the future. The severity of the Defendant’s conduct calls for a strong deterrent measure.

5. Emotional Damages: $50,000.
The defamatory statements caused significant emotional distress, angered and sadness to President UnityMaster. The harm to the Plaintiff’s mental well-being justifies this compensation, as it impacted their ability to serve as President.

6. Legal Fees: $60 000.
The Plaintiff incurred substantial legal expenses in pursuing this case, including attorney fees, filing fees, and other litigation-related costs. This amount represents 30% of the total damages, the maximum allowable under legal standards for legal fee recovery.A Public Apology.A public apology from the Defendant, xEndeavour, for blatantly slandering and defaming President UnityMaster. The apology should be made in a manner that directly addresses the false statements and acknowledges the harm caused by them.

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: 8th of February 2025
 

Writ of Summons


@End is required to appear before the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of UnityMaster v. xEndeavour [2025] FCR 16.

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.

 

Writ of Summons


@End is required to appear before the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of UnityMaster v. xEndeavour [2025] FCR 16.

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.

Due to initially having a typo in his name and editing it to fix it, I will ping again.

@End
 

Motion


MOTION TO DISMISS
Breach of Procedure

Plaintiff has failed to abide by court requirements in filing their case.

Operative word: Must

There are two forms of litigation: criminal and civil. Civil action can be filed by anyone, while criminal action is restricted to members of the Department of Justice.

When you file a case, you must use the template found here.

 

Motion


MOTION TO DISMISS
Breach of Procedure

Plaintiff has failed to abide by court requirements in filing their case.

Operative word: Must


Overruled. Breach of Procedure is not a valid reason for dismissal under Rule 5.
 
If you care about the rules, then I request you apply them equally.

The rules of the court dictate that this is not a valid submission.
It appears to be a copy/paste of the template without the [ opening ] tag, which as far as I'm concerned, is reasonably a copy of the template.

Furthermore, you are speaking out of turn with no Motion or Objection. Consider this your first and final warning for speaking out of turn.
 
Your honour, I'm raising a point of order with you.

The court requires the new templates to be used, hence the operative words 'must.'

I was on the Supreme Court when it was mandated this way to promote uniformity. Operative words were changed from 'should' to 'must' for a reason.

Just like you would not allow the format to be posted in neon green, there are stylistic expectations of using the provided bbcode to structure cases.

I ask that you enforce the rules equally.
 
Your honour, I'm raising a point of order with you.

The court requires the new templates to be used, hence the operative words 'must.'

I was on the Supreme Court when it was mandated this way to promote uniformity. Operative words were changed from 'should' to 'must' for a reason.

Just like you would not allow the format to be posted in neon green, there are stylistic expectations of using the provided bbcode to structure cases.

I ask that you enforce the rules equally.
End, I already gave you a warning and you are at this point disrupting court proceedings.

I hereby find xEndeavour in Contempt of Court and order the Department of Homeland Security to fine and/or jail him appropriately.
 
I am raising a point of order with you, please address my concern
End, I already gave you a warning and you are at this point disrupting court proceedings. You may use an Objection to raise a formal protest.

I hereby find xEndeavour in Contempt of Court again and order the Department of Homeland Security to fine and/or jail him appropriately.
 

Objection


POINT OF ORDER

The Plaintiff has incorrectly filed their case in accordance with Rule 3.1, which dictates that all cases must be filed in the appropriate format from the respective Creating a Lawsuit threads.

Rule 3.1 (Initial Complaint Format and Requirements)​

All complaints, even Small Claims, must use the appropriate “Creating a Lawsuit” format and must have:
  1. Details that meet the criteria set out in Rule 2 (Standing).
  2. All requested information filled out in some form, even if the information is a statement on the lack of information.

The Federal Court requires the following in it's Creating a Lawsuit thread:
CASE PRESENTATION
There are two forms of litigation: criminal and civil. Civil action can be filed by anyone, while criminal action is restricted to members of the Department of Justice.

When you file a case, you must use the template found here.

The Templates page provides that you must use the listed templates:
1739440871298.png


The terminology was shifted from should to must shortly after their introduction to standardise court proceeding formats.

Therefore, the case filing is in breach of court requirements and therefore the filing is invalid.

Everyone else uses this format, so why is the plaintiff not required to follow the rules?












As you can see, this is one of two active cases in the Federal court who are not compliant with court rules. Everyone else can follow the formatting requirements it seems but the plaintiff.

In fact, you pushed me to use an objection format, so you clearly care about formatting but have applied it inequitably.

 
In the interests of resolving this procedural issue, and due to IRL commitments, I request the response time be extended by 24 hours.
 

Objection


POINT OF ORDER

The Plaintiff has incorrectly filed their case in accordance with Rule 3.1, which dictates that all cases must be filed in the appropriate format from the respective Creating a Lawsuit threads.


The Federal Court requires the following in it's Creating a Lawsuit thread:


The Templates page provides that you must use the listed templates:
View attachment 51853

The terminology was shifted from should to must shortly after their introduction to standardise court proceeding formats.

Therefore, the case filing is in breach of court requirements and therefore the filing is invalid.

Everyone else uses this format, so why is the plaintiff not required to follow the rules?












As you can see, this is one of two active cases in the Federal court who are not compliant with court rules. Everyone else can follow the formatting requirements it seems but the plaintiff.

In fact, you pushed me to use an objection format, so you clearly care about formatting but have applied it inequitably.

Overruled. "Point of Order" is not a valid Objection.

I will also mention I didn't ask for you to use the bbcode objection tag necessarily, but to file an Objection.

I will also mention that if you copy/paste the template without opening the spoiler, you don't get the bbcode. I don't understand why you're making such a huge deal about the background color of a case filing.
 
In the interests of resolving this procedural issue, and due to IRL commitments, I request the response time be extended by 24 hours.
Granted.
 
Overruled. "Point of Order" is not a valid Objection.

I will also mention I didn't ask for you to use the bbcode objection tag necessarily, but to file an Objection.

I will also mention that if you copy/paste the template without opening the spoiler, you don't get the bbcode. I don't understand why you're making such a huge deal about the background color of a case filing.

How am I supposed to raise a point of order when you have no objection reason for someone doing something outside of court policy? You can see I’m correct, but you are choosing to ignore it based on there being no way to address it with you
 
How am I supposed to raise a point of order when you have no objection reason for someone doing something outside of court policy? You can see I’m correct, but you are choosing to ignore it based on there being no way to address it with you
I will not allow my courtroom to become a sparring ground for your fight against background colors, especially when you're doing so without an Objection or Motion to raise your protest or request. I hereby find xEndeavour in Contempt of Court again, and order the Department of Homeland Security to fine and/or jail him appropriately.

Mr. End, if you believe the Plaintiff has breached court policy or procedure, there is an Objection for that.

However, I will save your breath - as I have already mentioned, if you copy/paste the court-provided format without opening the spoiler, the above is what gets pasted. I see no reason why this wouldn't qualify, so unless you have something new to add, I'd stop arguing over background colors and start coming up with a defense for the actual case at hand.

Edit: I did not realize contempt of court was modified to provide the Judicial Officer with discretion for the punishment on Contempt of Court beyond the 2nd offense. As these are your 58th, 59th, and 60th Contempt of Court offenses, I must decide, thus:
For the first: $500 fine as it was a relatively minor misunderstanding but still, you ignore a court directive and began being disruptive.
For the second: $1,000 fine + 5 minutes in jail as you continued to argue and be disruptive after being told not to.
For the third: $1,500 fine + 5 minutes in jail as you continued to do so again.

None of these are the maximum punishment as these were not the most egregious of violations, but you certainly have been disruptive and ignoring the court's orders.
 
Last edited:

Answer to Complaint


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

UnityMaster
Plaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence DISPUTES that the President hired themself on this date.
2. The Defence AFFIRMS that a message was sent containing critiques.
3. The Defence AFFIRMS that an article was published by Politico through it's anonymous online submission form containing content of the type mentioned.

II. DEFENCES
1. When did Unity hire himself as Secretary?

He claims to have hired himself as Secretary, but this isn't supported by the evidence.

a. Nothing was announced to the department, congress, or the public.
b. Superior had all of his roles and was acting as Secretary up until the 29th when he was removed by Unity.
c. Superior was not aware that he was supposedly not the Secretary, which you would consider to be quite odd noting that he is the Secretary of the Department who was supposedly replaced.
d. Unity was in leadership channels at times in the week prior to dismissing Superior where he observed, without interfering in Superior making Secretary-level decisions about projects.
e. He publicly says everyone in leadership was spoken to, yet leadership are seen below just as surprised as everyone else two days after his supposed appointment.

D-001

1739544399145.png


D-002
1739544393098.png


D-003
1739544607146.png


D-004
1739544343628.png


On January 1st 2025 at 17:10 GMT xEndeavour posted a Discord message which claimed that President UnityMaster made themselves Secretary of Construction and Transportation while The_Superior10 was still in the role and fired him. xEndeavour also claimed that President UnityMaster stopped approving projects, stole a build from FlyingBlocks, planned to remove the racetrack, promoted unqualified constructors, firing deputy secretaries and not appointing new ones and leaking classified information.

This is all true, therefore it isn't slanderous.

a. Unity made himself Secretary on 29 December
b. Superior was still in the role and two people (he and unity) had the roles at the same time.
c. Unity was not reliably approving projects at this time and was ignoring pings for engagement.
d. Unity removed all deputies when he became Secretary
e. Unity promoted Dumpling and yeet from junior constructor roles and trainee roles to construction manager roles.

On January 2nd 2025 Politico, xEndeavours news agency, released an article claiming that President Unitymaster is facing scrutiny for several actions taken during his presidency. It claimed that President UnityMaster dismissed the Secretary of Construction and Transport, The_Superior10, and appointed himself to the role without informing relevant parties. The article also aleges that President UnityMaster failed to respond to requests from the Department of Construction and Transport and did not attend his own confirmation hearing. The article also claims that President UnityMaster bypassed department leadership to hire individuals to senior positions, which allegedly raised legal concerns. The article claims as well that president UnityMaster authorized the seizure of Abbots property at a significantly lower price than its market value, resulting in a lawsuit. His proposed relocation of key buildings has allegedly caused public controversy. Additionally, the article claimed that President UnityMaster fired all deputy secretaries without appointing replacements and limited staff involvement in project updates. There are also alleged reports of unpaid commissions and department commitments. These actions have raised allegedly questions about President UnityMaster's leadership and legal adherence.

a. This is political communication
b. This is true.
c. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that I personally wrote this piece.

Witnesses:
Goldblooded
Nacholebraa
Superior

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 15th day of February 2025

 
Last edited:
We will now enter Discovery, which will last 72 hours unless extended or both parties agree to end it early.
 
1. If Unity was Secretary from 27 December, and he told all of Department leadership, why did no one (inclusive of public, Congress, and the Department) know that he was Secretary on the 29th of December?

2. Why did Superior still have his Secretary roles on the 29th of December alongside Unity?

3. What was the longest period from project completion to payment that a Constructor waited for funds during Unitymaster's secretary tenure?

4. Who did Unity fire from their positions of Deputy Secretary?

5. Please provide evidence of the defence being the author of the article you claim.

Evidence

Verdict: Lawsuit: Adjourned - FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1

Showing the Government did in fact take the property without the proper authority, depriving FlyingBlocks of the value of the property.

The Commonwealth is hereby fined $15,000 in punitive damages for this departure from the eviction process, and for gross negligence in failing to address the matter when presented with concerns regarding said departure internally and externally, to be paid out to the Plaintiff.

Further evidence to follow after questions answered.
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUME FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

1. If Unity was Secretary from 27 December, and he told all of Department leadership, why did no one (inclusive of public, Congress, and the Department) know that he was Secretary on the 29th of December?

4. Who did Unity fire from their positions of Deputy Secretary?

Your Honor, the defendant has not provided evidence to conclusively show that "no one" was aware of Unity's role as Secretary.

In addition, evidence has not established that anyone has been fired from their position of Deputy Secretary.

I Motion to Strike both questions.

 

Objection



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

3. What was the longest period from project completion to payment that a Constructor waited for funds during Unitymaster's secretary tenure?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand, and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to smear the plaintiff.

I Motion to Strike the question.

 
The Defendant has 24 hours since they were posted to respond to the Objections.
 

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE, PERJURY

Evidence

Verdict: Lawsuit: Adjourned - FlyingBlocks v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 1

Showing the Government did in fact take the property without the proper authority, depriving FlyingBlocks of the value of the property.

Your Honor, everything written below the linked court case is irrelevant. It is neither evidence nor an interrogatory, and I move that it be struck.

More pressingly however, Your Honor, there is a serious matter I must raise. The defendant claims that the Government took the property "without the proper authority". This is blatantly false. Justice Dr_Eksplosive wrote in the court's opinion that the Court found "that the properties were legally seized".

Considering the defendant's massive involvement in this case, coupled with his willingness to cite it as evidence, it is all but certain he has willingly misrepresented the facts. I find it impossible to believe that this was a mere mistake. I motion that the evidence be struck, and the defendant charged with Perjury.

 
More pressingly however, Your Honor, there is a serious matter I must raise. The defendant claims that the Government took the property "without the proper authority". This is blatantly false. Justice Dr_Eksplosive wrote in the court's opinion that the Court found "that the properties were legally seized".

The court also found that the property was not sold in accordance with how it should have been, hence the order to do so.
 

Objection



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



This has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand, and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to smear the plaintiff.

I Motion to Strike the question.


A question that makes the plaintiff look bad is a byproduct of the plaintiff's actions.

This question serves to answer to the claim of:

there are also alleged reports of unpaid commissions and department commitments.

Which, once answered, I will provide further evidence on the matter. It is completely relevant to the case and accusations at hand. It's about establishing reasonability.
 
This is an interrogation? I will provide evidence during discovery after my questions have been answered.

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUME FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE



Your Honor, the defendant has not provided evidence to conclusively show that "no one" was aware of Unity's role as Secretary.

In addition, evidence has not established that anyone has been fired from their position of Deputy Secretary.

I Motion to Strike both questions.

 
Your honour I'm providing very basic and relevant lines of questioning, the Plaintiff just doesn't want to answer them. Please allow me to complete my line of questioning in full in order to establish my case.
 
Your Honor, I'll be submitting p-001 and p-002 into evidence. Also attached is proof of representation.
 

Attachments

  • p001 - Endeavor's Comments.png
    p001 - Endeavor's Comments.png
    208.4 KB · Views: 95
  • p002 - Politico Article.png
    p002 - Politico Article.png
    200.8 KB · Views: 102
  • Unity - Proof of Rep.png
    Unity - Proof of Rep.png
    17.5 KB · Views: 97
INTERROGATORY:

1. Who is the author of the article showcased in p-002?

Further questions may follow depending on defendant's response.
 
INTERROGATORY:

1. Who is the author of the article showcased in p-002?

Further questions may follow depending on defendant's response.
Politico uses an anonymous submissions form which we have many people contribute to. I don't know who writes all Politico articles.
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUME FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE



Your Honor, the defendant has not provided evidence to conclusively show that "no one" was aware of Unity's role as Secretary.

In addition, evidence has not established that anyone has been fired from their position of Deputy Secretary.

I Motion to Strike both questions.

On Q1, sustained, there is not evidence that "no one" knew. End, please rephrase the question.

On Q4, overruled. If Unity didn't fire anyone, "no one" is the correct answer. No fact is assumed.
 
Submitting p-003 into evidence.

INTERROGATORY:

2. Can you confirm that p-003 is the anonymous submission form used by Politico?
 

Attachments

  • p-003 - Politico Submission Form.png
    p-003 - Politico Submission Form.png
    133 KB · Views: 104

Objection



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



This has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand, and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to smear the plaintiff.

I Motion to Strike the question.

Overruled, I'm satisfied with the Defense's explanation.
 

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE, PERJURY



Your Honor, everything written below the linked court case is irrelevant. It is neither evidence nor an interrogatory, and I move that it be struck.

More pressingly however, Your Honor, there is a serious matter I must raise. The defendant claims that the Government took the property "without the proper authority". This is blatantly false. Justice Dr_Eksplosive wrote in the court's opinion that the Court found "that the properties were legally seized".

Considering the defendant's massive involvement in this case, coupled with his willingness to cite it as evidence, it is all but certain he has willingly misrepresented the facts. I find it impossible to believe that this was a mere mistake. I motion that the evidence be struck, and the defendant charged with Perjury.

Overruled, it was taken back from the auction without proper authority.
 
4. Who did Unity fire from their positions of Deputy Secretary?

4. There was no one to fire.

I'm reaching out to my client regarding Questions 2 and 3. Your Honor, in order to ensure we have the full picture (and due to pressing IRL matters), I'd like to request a 24 hour extension to respond to the remainder of the defendant's interrogatories.
 
Discovery is extended 24 hours, so that the Plaintiff's counsel may get the information needed to respond, and so that the Defendant may rephrase Question 1.
 
Politico uses an anonymous submissions form which we have many people contribute to. I don't know who writes all Politico articles.

Objection


Non-Responsive

End did not answer the question. We don’t care who writes the articles in general. We care who wrote this specific one. The witness should please clarify whether or not this particular article is anonymous or known, under threat of perjury.

 

Objection


Non-Responsive

End did not answer the question. We don’t care who writes the articles in general. We care who wrote this specific one. The witness should please clarify whether or not this particular article is anonymous or known, under threat of perjury.

Sustained, End, please answer the question.
 

Motion


Motion to Compel

So that we may get this in before discovery ends, this motion depends on the defendant's response. If the defense responds that the article was written by an anonymous source, we wish to compel proof of the Google form response with a time stamp.

 

Motion


Motion to Compel

So that we may get this in before discovery ends, this motion depends on the defendant's response. If the defense responds that the article was written by an anonymous source, we wish to compel proof of the Google form response with a time stamp.

I would like to hear under what authority the courts may order the production IRL private property, such as Google forms information before deciding on this.
 

Motion


Motion to Compel

So that we may get this in before discovery ends, this motion depends on the defendant's response. If the defense responds that the article was written by an anonymous source, we wish to compel proof of the Google form response with a time stamp.

Once submissions are processed they are deleted, so there are currently no articles showing as submitted.
 
4. There was no one to fire.

I'm reaching out to my client regarding Questions 2 and 3. Your Honor, in order to ensure we have the full picture (and due to pressing IRL matters), I'd like to request a 24 hour extension to respond to the remainder of the defendant's interrogatories.

The Department of Construction has, for a long time, had deputy secretaries for Inspections and construction. Under Secretary Superior, all Construction Managers and Inspection Managers were Deputy Secretaries. Evidence that supports this is no longer available, as all above members were in the Cabinet DIscord with the Deputy Secretary role and in the DCT Discord with the Discord role.

However, I will reach out to witnesses for testimony.

Here Unity is seen discussing the matter about how he fired Deputy Secretaries because it was his belief that, despite convention, departments could only have one deputy.



D-005
1739879481036.png


Again, I ask the question:
4. Who did Unity fire from their positions of Deputy Secretary?
 
Last edited:
Yes, its anonymous.

The article was submitted via the anonymous submissions form to also answer Q1.

Objection


Non-Responsive

End didn't answer the question, again. I asked if p-003 was the form used to submit articles to Politico, not if it was anonymous.

 

Objection


Non-Responsive

End didn't answer the question, again. I asked if p-003 was the form used to submit articles to Politico, not if it was anonymous.


The article was submitted to the form.

It was processed into an article.

It was deleted from the form submissions as with all politico articles.

The form is anonymous.

Does that answer your question, I cannot be more clear.
 
1. If Unity was Secretary from 27 December, and he claims to have publicly announced this information to Department leadership, Congress, and the Public, please provide evidence of these exchanges where he announces that he is Secretary.
 

Objection


Non-Responsive

End didn't answer the question, again. I asked if p-003 was the form used to submit articles to Politico, not if it was anonymous.

Sustained, End, please answer whether P-003 is a screenshot of the Politico form.
 
Evidence Submissions:

Unity provides that congress and the public know about him being secretary. You also see department leadership showing that they are surprised by his self appointment and confused over having dual secretaries.

D-007
1739880344474.png


D-008
1739880386328.png

D-009

1739880417667.png


D-010
1739880440288.png


D-011
1739880483127.png
 
Last edited:
1. If Unity was Secretary from 27 December, and he claims to have publicly announced this information to Department leadership, Congress, and the Public, please provide evidence of these exchanges where he announces that he is Secretary.
No
 
Unity provides that congress and the public know about him being secretary. You also see department leadership showing that they are surprised by his self appointment and confused over having dual secretaries.

Objection


Breach of Procedure

Counsel is speaking out of turn and testifying.

 
The Department of Construction has, for a long time, had deputy secretaries for Inspections and construction. Under Secretary Superior, all Construction Managers and Inspection Managers were Deputy Secretaries. Evidence that supports this is no longer available, as all above members were in the Cabinet DIscord with the Deputy Secretary role and in the DCT Discord with the Discord role.

However, I will reach out to witnesses for testimony.

Here Unity is seen discussing the matter about how he fired Deputy Secretaries because it was his belief that, despite convention, departments could only have one deputy.

Objection


Breach of Procedure and Counsel is Testifying

 

Objection


Breach of Procedure

Counsel is speaking out of turn and testifying.

Sustained, the comments are struck but the evidence is not.
 
2. Why did Superior still have his Secretary roles on the 29th of December alongside Unity?

3. What was the longest period from project completion to payment that a Constructor waited for funds during Unitymaster's secretary tenure?
2. Issues with Discord relating to firing people at the time.

3. My client no longer has access to DCT. Any answer would be speculation.
 
2. Issues with Discord relating to firing people at the time.

Can you please be more specific? What issues were you experiencing with Discord?
 
Evidence of non-payment:

Project Wooden Axe: Completed 29 Dec, Paid after he left office.


D-012
1739887981961.png


D-013
1739888071919.png
 
Last edited:
Sustained, the comments are struck but the evidence is not.

Motion


MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I provided evidence and annotated what that evidence was providing to the case. What part of providing evidence in Discovery and annotating the evidence is outside of court rules?

The alternative is I cold drop evidence which has no explanation as to what I'm trying to draw your attention to.



Motion stands for both objections on breach of procedure.
 
2. Issues with Discord relating to firing people at the time.

Can you please be more specific? What issues were you experiencing with Discord?

Objection



BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Per Rule 4.8, Plaintiff and Defendant may ask up to 5 relevant questions while within discovery to each other... The Defendant has asked his five questions. He can't ask anymore.

 

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xEndeavour
Counterplaintiff

v.

UnityMaster
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Unitymaster has filed a case against me which is frivolous in nature. It's a waste of my own time and effort to be litigating a case which has absolutely no standing, purpose, or value, and which I assess was filed vexatiously.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour (Counterplaintiff)
2. UNityMaster (Counterdefendant)

II. FACTS
1. UnityMaster has filed a case which has established no breach of law, nor established any value. Frivolous litigation is proven in that there is use of legal processes with complete disregard for the merit of one's own arguments.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act entitles the prevailing party to a minimum of $5,000 or 30% in legal fees. I self represent as a qualified individual, where I am utilising my own qualification that I paid for to defend myself. As such, I have spent less of my limited time online building and earning money in my primary role as a constructor due to this legal action. My monthly income is averaging over $100,000 currently and I've not been able to build in the last week since this case was filed.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 30% of $260,000 is $78,000, so the counterplaintiff seeks $12,000 in legal fees, or compensatory damages if legal fees are not accepted by this Court.
2. A public apology, approved by the court and posted to news.
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 19th day of February, 2025.

 

Objection



BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Per Rule 4.8, Plaintiff and Defendant may ask up to 5 relevant questions while within discovery to each other... The Defendant has asked his five questions. He can't ask anymore.

Motion


MOTION TO COMPELL

I asked a simple question your honour:

1. Why did Superior still have his Secretary roles on the 29th of December alongside Unity?

This is not a suitable answer as it is not sufficient in detail, as such I have asked it again:

Issues with Discord relating to firing people at the time

What issues is the individual experiencing? No issues appear in server announcements or change log relating to the plugin which links roles, in fact they show that they are working noting Unitymaster received his roles.

The Plaintiff has clearly just snubbed my question with a short and ambiguous response which barely answers the question. I am asking for tangible specifics, not esoterical excuses.

 

Objection



BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Per Rule 4.8, Plaintiff and Defendant may ask up to 5 relevant questions while within discovery to each other... The Defendant has asked his five questions. He can't ask anymore.

As with witness testimony, a reasonable follow-up question is still considered part of the same question.
 

Motion


MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I provided evidence and annotated what that evidence was providing to the case. What part of providing evidence in Discovery and annotating the evidence is outside of court rules?

The alternative is I cold drop evidence which has no explanation as to what I'm trying to draw your attention to.



Motion stands for both objections on breach of procedure.
You may amend your Answer during Discovery, there is no need to add additional information all over the place causing disorganization.
 

Motion


MOTION TO COMPELL

I asked a simple question your honour:

1. Why did Superior still have his Secretary roles on the 29th of December alongside Unity?

This is not a suitable answer as it is not sufficient in detail, as such I have asked it again:

Issues with Discord relating to firing people at the time

What issues is the individual experiencing? No issues appear in server announcements or change log relating to the plugin which links roles, in fact they show that they are working noting Unitymaster received his roles.

The Plaintiff has clearly just snubbed my question with a short and ambiguous response which barely answers the question. I am asking for tangible specifics, not esoterical excuses.

Sustained for the same reason the Objection was overruled. Amity please answer the question.
 

Motion


MOTION TO DISMISS
Frivolous Claims

Your honour, this case is nothing but frivolous.

The Plaintiff has claimed that:
1. I have defamed them by making malicious statements which have incurred damages which are damages unproven, unquantified, and not presented. Further, there is no clear evidence supporting any incorrect statements made.

2. I have slandered the plaintiff through public statements. There is no clear evidence supporting any incorrect statements made.

Lets talk about specific instances:

1. On December 27th 2024 President UnityMaster hired himself as Secretary of Construction & Transportation.

Evidence suggests that this occurred on the 29th of December and that no key stakeholders such as Department Leadership, the Public, or Congress were aware of his appointment. The Plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise, and it is improbable that this would have gone unnoticed by the nation for 72+ hours.

2. On January 1st 2025 at 17:10 GMT xEndeavour posted a Discord message which claimed that President UnityMaster made themselves Secretary of Construction and Transportation while The_Superior10 was still in the role and fired him. xEndeavour also claimed that President UnityMaster stopped approving projects, stole a build from FlyingBlocks, planned to remove the racetrack, promoted unqualified constructors, firing deputy secretaries and not appointing new ones and leaking classified information.

I have provided evidence of Superior being the Secretary on this date and making statements on the 29th of December claiming that he was still Secretary and not tracking any changes to his employment. He held roles concurrently to Secretary Superior, if his story lines up, for up to three days. The plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff has failed to show that Unity was approving projects.

The plaintiff's government was found to have wrongly taken FLyingBlock's building in a concurrent court proceeding.

The plaintiff says that the racetrack [bathurst] is moving in D-008.

The plaintiff promoted Justadumpling from Trainee Constructor to Construction Manager on or around 30 Dec (d-007). The members were removed from that role after Unity left office due to not being suitably qualified.

As you can see below, the Secretary provides that we had six deputies which were dismissed by unity, and which Unity discusses in evidence above himself.

D-017
1739891265096.png


The Dept. of Justice has not pursued a charges against me for leaking classified information. I invoked my rights as a whistleblower to release information as discussed with the Dept. of Justice.

3. On January 2nd 2025 Politico, xEndeavours news agency, released an article claiming that President Unitymaster is facing scrutiny for several actions taken during his presidency. It claimed that President UnityMaster dismissed the Secretary of Construction and Transport, The_Superior10, and appointed himself to the role without informing relevant parties. The article also aleges that President UnityMaster failed to respond to requests from the Department of Construction and Transport and did not attend his own confirmation hearing. The article also claims that President UnityMaster bypassed department leadership to hire individuals to senior positions, which allegedly raised legal concerns. The article claims as well that president UnityMaster authorized the seizure of Abbots property at a significantly lower price than its market value, resulting in a lawsuit. His proposed relocation of key buildings has allegedly caused public controversy. Additionally, the article claimed that President UnityMaster fired all deputy secretaries without appointing replacements and limited staff involvement in project updates. There are also alleged reports of unpaid commissions and department commitments. These actions have raised allegedly questions about President UnityMaster's leadership and legal adherence.

I invite the plaintiff to read the constitution and specifically pay attention to the right to political communication. Not only is this all true, as shown above, it's protected by rights, regardless of who authoured the article.

The Plaintiff is yet to prove any of their arguments, has had almost all of their arguments disproven by defence evidence, and is asking irrelevant questions about an article I didn't author.

This case is frivolous your honour, there is no two ways about it.

 

Motion


MOTION TO DISMISS
Frivolous Claims

Your honour, this case is nothing but frivolous.

The Plaintiff has claimed that:
1. I have defamed them by making malicious statements which have incurred damages which are damages unproven, unquantified, and not presented. Further, there is no clear evidence supporting any incorrect statements made.

2. I have slandered the plaintiff through public statements. There is no clear evidence supporting any incorrect statements made.

Lets talk about specific instances:



Evidence suggests that this occurred on the 29th of December and that no key stakeholders such as Department Leadership, the Public, or Congress were aware of his appointment. The Plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise, and it is improbable that this would have gone unnoticed by the nation for 72+ hours.



I have provided evidence of Superior being the Secretary on this date and making statements on the 29th of December claiming that he was still Secretary and not tracking any changes to his employment. He held roles concurrently to Secretary Superior, if his story lines up, for up to three days. The plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff has failed to show that Unity was approving projects.

The plaintiff's government was found to have wrongly taken FLyingBlock's building in a concurrent court proceeding.

The plaintiff says that the racetrack [bathurst] is moving in D-008.

The plaintiff promoted Justadumpling from Trainee Constructor to Construction Manager on or around 30 Dec (d-007). The members were removed from that role after Unity left office due to not being suitably qualified.

As you can see below, the Secretary provides that we had six deputies which were dismissed by unity, and which Unity discusses in evidence above himself.

D-017
View attachment 52028

The Dept. of Justice has not pursued a charges against me for leaking classified information. I invoked my rights as a whistleblower to release information as discussed with the Dept. of Justice.



I invite the plaintiff to read the constitution and specifically pay attention to the right to political communication. Not only is this all true, as shown above, it's protected by rights, regardless of who authoured the article.

The Plaintiff is yet to prove any of their arguments, has had almost all of their arguments disproven by defence evidence, and is asking irrelevant questions about an article I didn't author.

This case is frivolous your honour, there is no two ways about it.

 Overruled, you didnt specify a rule to dismiss under.
 

Motion


MOTION TO DISMISS
Frivolous Claims/Lack of Claim/Res Judicata

Your honour, this case is nothing but frivolous.

The Plaintiff has claimed that:
1. I have defamed them by making malicious statements which have incurred damages which are damages unproven, unquantified, and not presented. Further, there is no clear evidence supporting any incorrect statements made.

2. I have slandered the plaintiff through public statements. There is no clear evidence supporting any incorrect statements made.

Lets talk about specific instances:

1. On December 27th 2024 President UnityMaster hired himself as Secretary of Construction & Transportation.

Evidence suggests that this occurred on the 29th of December and that no key stakeholders such as Department Leadership, the Public, or Congress were aware of his appointment. The Plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise, and it is improbable that this would have gone unnoticed by the nation for 72+ hours.

2. On January 1st 2025 at 17:10 GMT xEndeavour posted a Discord message which claimed that President UnityMaster made themselves Secretary of Construction and Transportation while The_Superior10 was still in the role and fired him. xEndeavour also claimed that President UnityMaster stopped approving projects, stole a build from FlyingBlocks, planned to remove the racetrack, promoted unqualified constructors, firing deputy secretaries and not appointing new ones and leaking classified information.

I have provided evidence of Superior being the Secretary on this date and making statements on the 29th of December claiming that he was still Secretary and not tracking any changes to his employment. He held roles concurrently to Secretary Superior, if his story lines up, for up to three days. The plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff has failed to show that Unity was approving projects.

The plaintiff's government was found to have wrongly taken FLyingBlock's building in a concurrent court proceeding. (Res Judicata)

The plaintiff says that the racetrack [bathurst] is moving in D-008.

The plaintiff promoted Justadumpling from Trainee Constructor to Construction Manager on or around 30 Dec (d-007). The members were removed from that role after Unity left office due to not being suitably qualified.

As you can see below, the Secretary provides that we had six deputies which were dismissed by unity, and which Unity discusses in evidence above himself.

D-017
1739892145855.png


The Dept. of Justice has not pursued a charges against me for leaking classified information. I invoked my rights as a whistleblower to release information as discussed with the Dept. of Justice.

3. On January 2nd 2025 Politico, xEndeavours news agency, released an article claiming that President Unitymaster is facing scrutiny for several actions taken during his presidency. It claimed that President UnityMaster dismissed the Secretary of Construction and Transport, The_Superior10, and appointed himself to the role without informing relevant parties. The article also aleges that President UnityMaster failed to respond to requests from the Department of Construction and Transport and did not attend his own confirmation hearing. The article also claims that President UnityMaster bypassed department leadership to hire individuals to senior positions, which allegedly raised legal concerns. The article claims as well that president UnityMaster authorized the seizure of Abbots property at a significantly lower price than its market value, resulting in a lawsuit. His proposed relocation of key buildings has allegedly caused public controversy. Additionally, the article claimed that President UnityMaster fired all deputy secretaries without appointing replacements and limited staff involvement in project updates. There are also alleged reports of unpaid commissions and department commitments. These actions have raised allegedly questions about President UnityMaster's leadership and legal adherence.

I invite the plaintiff to read the constitution and specifically pay attention to the right to political communication. Not only is this all true, as shown above, it's protected by rights, regardless of who authoured the article.

The Plaintiff is yet to prove any of their arguments, has had almost all of their arguments disproven by defence evidence, and is asking irrelevant questions about an article I didn't author.

This case is frivolous your honour, there is no two ways about it.

 
This seems to be an inconsistency in the court rules. I'll allow the motion. The Defense has 24 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss before I make a decision.
Your Honor, does the original timeline for Discovery still apply?
 
Witness List:
1. End
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Improper Evidence

Your Honor, all exhibits presented by the defendant are cropped and exclude context.

In addition, D-004, D-005, D-007, D-008, D-009, D-010, and D-011 have been modified with a marker. Precedent from FCR 102 [ 2024] Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexander Love makes it very clear that tampered evidence is not allowed in court.

Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102

I move to strike all exhibits presented by the defendant.

 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Improper Evidence

Your Honor, all exhibits presented by the defendant are cropped and exclude context.

In addition, D-004, D-005, D-007, D-008, D-009, D-010, and D-011 have been modified with a marker. Precedent from FCR 102 [ 2024] Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexander Love makes it very clear that tampered evidence is not allowed in court.

Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Alexanderlove [2024] FCR 102

I move to strike all exhibits presented by the defendant.

Overruled, that is the most ridiculous argument for Improper Evidence I've ever heard. What do you expect? A video of every Discord message End has ever received?

This court seeks the truth, and will allow this evidence to be presented.

The case you cited shows evidence with ink covering portions of the evidence, not a screenshot which didn't contain as much info as you'd like.
 
Discovery has ended. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to file an Opening Statement.

Also recall the deadline to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
 
Overruled, that is the most ridiculous argument for Improper Evidence I've ever heard. What do you expect? A video of every Discord message End has ever received?

This court seeks the truth, and will allow this evidence to be presented.

The case you cited shows evidence with ink covering portions of the evidence, not a screenshot which didn't contain as much info as you'd like.

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

Follow your own precedent. Did you not read the objection? We are objecting to marked up evidence that literally has yellow marker all over the place.

 

Motion


Motion to Reconsider

Follow your own precedent. Did you not read the objection? We are objecting to marked up evidence that literally has yellow marker all over the place.

I will clarify the precedent: Evidence tampered with in such a way to cause significant difficulty in viewing it, such as opaque ink covering text, is  generally not permitted.

A highlight to emphasize something causes no difficulty and hides nothing.

I will not strike the completely reasonable evidence.
 
I will clarify the precedent: Evidence tampered with in such a way to cause significant difficulty in viewing it, such as opaque ink covering text, is  generally not permitted.

A highlight to emphasize something causes no difficulty and hides nothing.

I will not strike the completely reasonable evidence.

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, the Plaintiff respectfully requests you to reconsider this decision of clarifying the precedent. Looking at the description of Improper Evidence as stated in this court's guide to objections, we read: "Refers to evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately." This definition clearly specifies any evidence that may possibly be altered as Improper Evidence. In this case we have pieces of evidence that are not only possibly altered, but clearly altered, as you, Your Honor, have stated yourself when you mentioned a highlight having been applied to the evidence. Following the guidelines as set out by this court it is therefore improper evidence, and should be struck.

 
Your honour, If I may respond to the above motion:

The evidence is highlighted. When you are sending bulk amounts of text I would consider it completely appropriate to draw attention to parts of your evidence through the practice of highlighting.

The marking on the evidence does not obstruct or change any meaning of the material provided. It would be an absurdity to consider highlighting as improper alteration of evidence, and even more so, to make an individual resubmit all of their evidence again without lines of transparent yellow highlighter on it.
 
Your honour, If I may respond to the above motion:

The evidence is highlighted. When you are sending bulk amounts of text I would consider it completely appropriate to draw attention to parts of your evidence through the practice of highlighting.

The marking on the evidence does not obstruct or change any meaning of the material provided. It would be an absurdity to consider highlighting as improper alteration of evidence, and even more so, to make an individual resubmit all of their evidence again without lines of transparent yellow highlighter on it.

Objection


Breach of Procedure

Defendant is talking out of turn. Motions require permission to respond to.

 

Objection


Breach of Procedure

Defendant is talking out of turn. Motions require permission to respond to.

Objection overruled, as I was going to ask him to answer.

End, you're already on thin ice with speaking out of turn. Please refrain from doing so again.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, the Plaintiff respectfully requests you to reconsider this decision of clarifying the precedent. Looking at the description of Improper Evidence as stated in this court's guide to objections, we read: "Refers to evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately." This definition clearly specifies any evidence that may possibly be altered as Improper Evidence. In this case we have pieces of evidence that are not only possibly altered, but clearly altered, as you, Your Honor, have stated yourself when you mentioned a highlight having been applied to the evidence. Following the guidelines as set out by this court it is therefore improper evidence, and should be struck.

You're being ridiculous. Even if this was sustained, the Defense would simply resubmit the exact same information without highlights.

This is a courtroom, not a circus. This issue has been decided on.

Overruled.
 
You're being ridiculous. Even if this was sustained, the Defense would simply resubmit the exact same information without highlights.

This is a courtroom, not a circus. This issue has been decided on.

Overruled.

Motion


Motion to Recuse

The presiding judge has called my employee “ridiculous” not once but twice so far in this case. This suggests prejudice against the counsel handling this case on behalf of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the presiding judge is blatantly ignoring court procedure. He is allowing the admission of modified evidence, which could possibly harm my client in ways that can or cannot be foreseen. We therefore motion to recuse, I take it seriously when judges name call lawyers.

 

Motion


Motion to Recuse

The presiding judge has called my employee “ridiculous” not once but twice so far in this case. This suggests prejudice against the counsel handling this case on behalf of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the presiding judge is blatantly ignoring court procedure. He is allowing the admission of modified evidence, which could possibly harm my client in ways that can or cannot be foreseen. We therefore motion to recuse, I take it seriously when judges name call lawyers.

Motion denied, as there is no bias nor appearance of it. Both sides have acted completely ridiculous in this case, and I will not allow it.

End has written his magnum opus on bbcode and background colors and been punished (thrice) for his disruptions. Dragon Law has wasted the court's time and their own by arguing for hours over whether some highlighted text is allowable. I've said several times it's allowed but you've continued to fight me on it.

I've also said they're  being ridiculous. I didn't say they are.
 
This seems to be an inconsistency in the court rules. I'll allow the motion. The Defense has 24 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss before I make a decision.
I realize I made a mistake. The  Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond.

This is my mistake, so the timer starts now.
 
Motion denied, as there is no bias nor appearance of it. Both sides have acted completely ridiculous in this case, and I will not allow it.

End has written his magnum opus on bbcode and background colors and been punished (thrice) for his disruptions. Dragon Law has wasted the court's time and their own by arguing for hours over whether some highlighted text is allowable. I've said several times it's allowed but you've continued to fight me on it.

I've also said they're  being ridiculous. I didn't say they are.
The plaintiff would like to exercise its right to have another Judge review the motion.
 

Motion


MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff refusing to provide evidence to support legal argument.

Two situations are going to eventuate here your honour:

1. The plaintiff has brought a suit on frivolously because they cannot substantiate their claims, in turn supporting my motion to dismiss.

2. They are refusing to provide evidence to the defence in a case where the defence has the right to know all evidence against them

I ask that you compel the plaintiff to provide their evidence of these claims.

 
I realize I made a mistake. The  Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond.

This is my mistake, so the timer starts now.
Your Honor, I'm respectfully requesting a 24 hour extension due to mental health issues. I apologize for the trouble.
 
Your Honor, I'm respectfully requesting a 24 hour extension due to mental health issues. I apologize for the trouble.
Approved for both the Motion to Dismiss Response and Opening Statement, as I want the Response to the Motion prior to Opening Statements.

I'd also inform both parties that I'm still waiting for another Judge to review the Motion to Recuse. I informed the rest of the Judiciary just minutes after it was filed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top