Recent content by Dartanboy

Username: Dartanboy I am representing myself What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 36 - Contempt Charges Link to the Original Case: Appeal: Denied - [2024] FCR 107 Appeal - Contempt Appeal Basis for Appeal: Without warning, the Judge gave both myself and my law firm Contempt of...

In addition, your honor, the Plaintiff is attempting to open-wide every form of document they can think of, from irrelevant information like balance sheets to Attorney-Client privileged documents like legal opinions on policies. To allow this request would make every business' internal affairs...

We would also like to note that this information is (probably) protected by IRL Intellectual Property laws. It will not be produced for a Minecraft court. (For IRL legal reasons, this is not IRL legal advice)

Your honor, the Plaintiff had the opportunity to post interrogatories already. Discovery was even extended to allow it. Since there is now much less than 72 hours remaining, we ask these requests be denied. The Plaintiff cannot indefinitely extend this lawsuit to keep digging. They should've...

Your Honor, @juniperfig May this case continue? It's been sitting without response for awhile now.

PERJURY There is a 3rd possibility, and it happens to be the truth: c) We know that a lot of people have used the system, because a lot of people have asked for support in some way. We can also deduce from a log of all transactions that there is a large amount, without actually counting them.

MOTION TO END DISCOVERY The Defense, while unaware of exactly how many users and transactions there were, is happy to admit both were significantly large numbers. We don't want this case to drag on and on and on chasing down the exact number. We ask the Plaintiff to agree to end discovery.

BREACH OF PROCEDURE Rule 4.7 allows the request, and by the Judge forcible showing, of documents from the opposing party. It does not allow 3rd parties to be forced into doing so.

Might we respond to the Motion? There seems to be an misunderstanding. Edit: Nevermind; I keep misreading. Tough day. Strike this request please.

DECLARATION TO AMEND: Answer 7 contains an error due to a misreading of the Facts. Answer 7 will be amended as follows: AFFIRM that Executive Order 24/23 defines "personal identifiable information (PII) is "any information related to an identifiable person"." However DENY that "The Defendant...

We also sold the technology, and no longer have the means to even access it.

The Defendant opposes an extension; Discovery has already gone on beyond the original length and we have answered all questions and shown all requested documents, within reason (we are not creating new documents that don't exist). My client has the right to a speedy trial.

The Terms of Service contain all we have, then. There were no additional documents.

Defendnat did not comply with the Plaintiff's interpretation of the Privacy Act, however as shown in the Answer to Complaint, our interpretations clearly differ. Defendant complied with the Privacy Act as far as we can tell.

We can certainly look at a list of transactions for an individual, but pulling up every single transaction and manually going through and counting out unique users is not as simple. Likewise, counting out a total of every single transaction is not easy. We didn't say it was impossible, simply...