Lawsuit: In Session DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42

@DocsTheory

1. How much in-game playtime did you spend in prison?
2. At any point during your incarceration did you escape from prison?
3. In D-009, you are quoted as saying "can lie dont care if the jailtime is longer". Can you provide context to this statement?
4. In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?
5. To the best of your knowledge, did your previous counsel, Angryhamhog and Kaiserin_, provide your current counsel, Patototongo1, with all documents, evidence, communications, and anything else they had collected that was relevant to this case?
6. Do you recall who you killed during the Christmas event?
7. If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?

The defense reserves the right to ask additional questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kaiserin_ said:
The Plaintiff would like to tender the following additional witnesses:
2. Angryhamdog (DHS Secretary)
3. Staff
Click to expand...


Your honor,

It seems previous council did add another witness to the witness list during discovery (Lawsuit: In Session - DocTheory v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 42) who was not issued a writ of summons at the beginning of questioning, the Plaintiff would like to bring this issue to the court’s attention and respectfully request that a writ of summons be issued for the individual Angryhamdog to amend this oversight.

[Edited to fix issue with link]
 
Last edited:
AmityBlamity said:
5. To the best of your knowledge, did your previous counsel, Angryhamhog and Kaiserin_, provide your current counsel, Patototongo1, with all documents, evidence, communications, and anything else they had collected that was relevant to this case?
Click to expand...

Objection

FOUNDATION, PRIVILEGE

Your Honor,

This question improperly assumes that the witness is in a position to know or verify what prior counsel may have shared with current counsel, a matter that has not been established as within the personal knowledge of the witness and almost definitely isn't. Furthermore, the inquiry risks breaching attorney-client privilege, as it touches on communications and materials exchanged between the Plaintiff and their legal teams, communications that are confidential and legally protected.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

 
AmityBlamity said:
4. In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?
Click to expand...
AmityBlamity said:
7. If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?
Click to expand...

Objection

CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The question, “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” improperly seeks the witness’ reasoning, belief, or interpretation regarding their sentence, rather than asking for objective facts. Similarly, the question, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” calls upon the witness to provide their justification, explanation, or opinion about the timing of their conduct, rather than eliciting straightforward factual testimony. In both cases, counsel is asking the witness to draw conclusions or provide subjective reasoning, which invites speculation or opinion rather than limiting the inquiry to factual matters within the witness’ direct knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

 
AmityBlamity said:
3. In D-009, you are quoted as saying "can lie dont care if the jailtime is longer". Can you provide context to this statement?
Click to expand...

Objection

AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

The question's phrasing asks the witness to “provide context” for a prior statement, which fails to clearly define what specific information is being sought. The term “context” is inherently broad and undefined in this instance. It could refer to the factual circumstances surrounding when or where the statement was made, the intended audience/who it was addressed to, the witness’ purpose in making the statement, or the witness’ internal reasoning or intent. Because the question leaves these possibilities open, it is unclear what counsel is asking the witness to address.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

 
Patototongo1 said:

Objection

FOUNDATION, PRIVILEGE

Your Honor,

This question improperly assumes that the witness is in a position to know or verify what prior counsel may have shared with current counsel, a matter that has not been established as within the personal knowledge of the witness and almost definitely isn't. Furthermore, the inquiry risks breaching attorney-client privilege, as it touches on communications and materials exchanged between the Plaintiff and their legal teams, communications that are confidential and legally protected.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...

Motion


Response to Objection

Your Honor, you'll note I prefaced the question with "to the best of your knowledge". Regardless, it is absolutely reasonable to assume plaintiff has some idea as to what his counsel shared amongst one another. Furthermore, this inquiry does not risk breaching attorney-client privilege. All we require from the plaintiff is a yes or no response. We are not asking for specifics in regards to the documents.

 
Patototongo1 said:

Objection

CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The question, “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” improperly seeks the witness’ reasoning, belief, or interpretation regarding their sentence, rather than asking for objective facts. Similarly, the question, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” calls upon the witness to provide their justification, explanation, or opinion about the timing of their conduct, rather than eliciting straightforward factual testimony. In both cases, counsel is asking the witness to draw conclusions or provide subjective reasoning, which invites speculation or opinion rather than limiting the inquiry to factual matters within the witness’ direct knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...

Response


Response to Objection

Your Honor, as you are no doubt aware, more direct questioning is allowed on cross-examination. Regardless, this objection, as plaintiff's counsel is fond of saying, is entirely without merit. The question “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” isn't calling for a conclusion, because one was made by plaintiff himself. The question seeks to clarify why they thought this. Likewise, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” is purely based on the facts. Plaintiff was arrested on December 22nd, and, to the best of the defense's knowledge, only contacted the DHS on March 3rd. We are not looking for subjective reasoning, but the solid facts that fill in the gaps.

 
Patototongo1 said:

Objection

AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

The question's phrasing asks the witness to “provide context” for a prior statement, which fails to clearly define what specific information is being sought. The term “context” is inherently broad and undefined in this instance. It could refer to the factual circumstances surrounding when or where the statement was made, the intended audience/who it was addressed to, the witness’ purpose in making the statement, or the witness’ internal reasoning or intent. Because the question leaves these possibilities open, it is unclear what counsel is asking the witness to address.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...

Response


Response to Objection

Your Honor, Oxford Languages defines context as "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood". Plaintiff's counsel is attempting to muddy the waters and attempt to make our simple question more vague than it actually is.

 
Patototongo1 said:

Objection

FOUNDATION, PRIVILEGE

Your Honor,

This question improperly assumes that the witness is in a position to know or verify what prior counsel may have shared with current counsel, a matter that has not been established as within the personal knowledge of the witness and almost definitely isn't. Furthermore, the inquiry risks breaching attorney-client privilege, as it touches on communications and materials exchanged between the Plaintiff and their legal teams, communications that are confidential and legally protected.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The information is protected by attorney-client privilege especially with the adding of "To the best of your knowledge" as any knowledge used to answer this question would only be received from communications with the plaintiff and their counsel. The question will be struck.


Patototongo1 said:

Objection

CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The question, “In D-005, D-003, and D-002, you make several mentions that your sentence was the result of a glitch. What made you think this?” improperly seeks the witness’ reasoning, belief, or interpretation regarding their sentence, rather than asking for objective facts. Similarly, the question, “If you were arrested on December 22nd, why did it take you until March 3rd to reach out to the DHS?” calls upon the witness to provide their justification, explanation, or opinion about the timing of their conduct, rather than eliciting straightforward factual testimony. In both cases, counsel is asking the witness to draw conclusions or provide subjective reasoning, which invites speculation or opinion rather than limiting the inquiry to factual matters within the witness’ direct knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The witnesses is qualified to state reasoning or opinions for their own actions or statements. The questions are also not after opinions directly but the factual cause of the plaintiff's statements and actions.


Patototongo1 said:

Objection

AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

The question's phrasing asks the witness to “provide context” for a prior statement, which fails to clearly define what specific information is being sought. The term “context” is inherently broad and undefined in this instance. It could refer to the factual circumstances surrounding when or where the statement was made, the intended audience/who it was addressed to, the witness’ purpose in making the statement, or the witness’ internal reasoning or intent. Because the question leaves these possibilities open, it is unclear what counsel is asking the witness to address.

Respectfully submitted,
Patototongo1
On behalf of the Plaintiff "DocTheory"
Dated: 2 July 2025.

Click to expand...
Sustained. please rephrase the question.
 
ko531 said:
Sustained. The information is protected by attorney-client privilege especially with the adding of "To the best of your knowledge" as any knowledge used to answer this question would only be received from communications with the plaintiff and their counsel. The question will be struck.



Overruled. The witnesses is qualified to state reasoning or opinions for their own actions or statements. The questions are also not after opinions directly but the factual cause of the plaintiff's statements and actions.



Sustained. please rephrase the question.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, for the sake of avoiding prolonged testimony, the defense will be retracting question 3 entirely. We retain the right to ask additional questions dependant on the plaintiff's answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top