Lawsuit: In Session mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32

TheSnowGuardian said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL [FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF]

Noting the Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department in the ticket (P-005) with TheSnowGuardian said "that is something from the bot not dependent on us now we have a policy not to share those with anyone. if these have been violated you are welcome to leave a report and that will be taken seriously".

Your Honour, the Plaintiff motions that the Court compel the Co-Defendant to produce the following:

1. Any and all documents that are or were in effect, acting as policies, that may be guiding or binding regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP.
2. Disciplinary actions taken against Plura72 by the Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant, if any, after the controversial message which contained the Plaintiff's application. (See P-005, Dearev said "fowarded to EC" after TheSnowGuardian sent him a message link pointing towards said message link)

Click to expand...
2.
1778435461066.png
1778435483567.png
 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL [FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF]

Noting the Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department in the ticket (P-005) with TheSnowGuardian said "that is something from the bot not dependent on us now we have a policy not to share those with anyone. if these have been violated you are welcome to leave a report and that will be taken seriously".

Your Honour, the Plaintiff motions that the Court compel the Co-Defendant to produce the following:

1. Any and all documents that are or were in effect, acting as policies, that may be guiding or binding regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP.
2. Disciplinary actions taken against Plura72 by the Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant, if any, after the controversial message which contained the Plaintiff's application. (See P-005, Dearev said "fowarded to EC" after TheSnowGuardian sent him a message link pointing towards said message link)

Click to expand...
Granted, in part.

The Court will not compel the production of (2), as it is not clear to the Court why this is being probed directly and the motion doesn’t really explain why such evidence would be relevant to the case.

As to (1), this seems reasonably enough related. The Co-Defendant (cc: @Johnes) shall provide the Court a copy of all Defendant’s policies and procedures, whether advisory or compulsory in scope, of the SDP “regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP”. This shall be submitted within 48 hours of the time of this post, on pain of contempt.
 
Franciscus said:
Granted, in part.

The Court will not compel the production of (2), as it is not clear to the Court why this is being probed directly and the motion doesn’t really explain why such evidence would be relevant to the case.

As to (1), this seems reasonably enough related. The Co-Defendant (cc: @Johnes) shall provide the Court a copy of all Defendant’s policies and procedures, whether advisory or compulsory in scope, of the SDP “regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP”. This shall be submitted within 48 hours of the time of this post, on pain of contempt.
Click to expand...
1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.
 
Johnes said:
1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

Screenshot_2026-05-15-23-42-09-19_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Objection


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

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

View attachment 82402

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

Click to expand...

Response


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION

Your Honour,
opposing counsel is quick to jump to conclusions and even quicker with the objections.
I have stated in response to Plaintiff's Compel request:

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.
Click to expand...
I have affirmed that Co-Defendant stores applications, and have therefore not perjured the Court or misled the Court, even if Plaintiff tries to paint as such.

Plaintiff in his Objection shows P-005, where Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department dearev shares the way Co-Defendant stores said applications.

Thefore, the Court should overrule this objection.

 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Objection


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

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

View attachment 82402

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

Click to expand...
Johnes said:

Response


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION

Your Honour,
opposing counsel is quick to jump to conclusions and even quicker with the objections.
I have stated in response to Plaintiff's Compel request:

I have affirmed that Co-Defendant stores applications, and have therefore not perjured the Court or misled the Court, even if Plaintiff tries to paint as such.

Plaintiff in his Objection shows P-005, where Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department dearev shares the way Co-Defendant stores said applications.

Thefore, the Court should overrule this objection.

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — OBJECTION FOR PERJURY (Post No. 107).

Co-Defendant’s counsel, in response to interrogatory, stated “Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications” (Post No. 105). Plaintiff objected on grounds of perjury, stating that Plaintiff’s Evidence (Exhibit P-005) contains a message from Dearev, whom Plaintiff alleges “willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications”.

Upon review of the evidence, Dearev indeed appears to have said “we have a policy not to share those with anyone”.

The District Court has recently examined what it has deemed the "prior public statements" of witnesses, that is, out-of-court statements made by some person who may testify in a case. The prohibition on hearsay may generally prohibit the use of statements by others outside of Court within a trial, but an exception exists when such statements are an admission against one's interest as a party (See: Objections Guide). When it comes to organizations that are parties to a case, the District Court found that "a court may equitably extend 'an admission by the opposing party' to those who have close ties to such a party (e.g. statements of employees of a business or a government department when that business or government department is a party to a suit)" (emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24, Post No. 65). The Federal Court has already fully adopted the DCR’s reasoning in that order as its own, but this was done in the context of the Order’s handling statements made by witnesses who are uninvolved third parties (see: ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21, Post No. 103). We thus take time to explicitly note the Federal Court’s adoption of the logic in emmythegremlin standard more broadly, so as to also apply to third parties who are closely involved with a second party organization. And, in that light, the Court can consider the statement.

Having worked through the hearsay concern, we return to the perjury question more directly. The phrase "we have a policy of" may refer to a literal formal written document that prescribes exactly with whom the material may or may not be shared, but in colloquial English may also be used to refer to something that is a habit, shared understanding, or some other non-written guiding principle by which people or a person would try to abide. It’s also plainly possible that the Co-Defendant lied to your client and is telling the truth in response to an interrogatory. None of this would be perjury because there would not be a knowingly false statement in Court.

The Court just doesn’t have enough evidence in front of it to conclude, even on balance of probabilities, that that the statement in the screenshot was true and that (consequently) the statement in Court was false. Perhaps one may which to ask the witness more about this matter on the stand, but we can’t speculatively sustain an objection without establishing truth of the matter.

As such, overruled.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
Franciscus said:
As discovery is now concluded, we move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (CC: @TheSnowGuardian ) shall have 72 hours to present their opening statement.
Click to expand...
Your Honour, considering the Co-Defendant responded to the motion right before Discovery ended, and in light of the recent ruling on the Perjury objection, we request that Your Honour exercise Rule 1.2 and permit the Plaintiff to add MrCheesGuy to the witness list.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, considering the Co-Defendant responded to the motion right before Discovery ended, and in light of the recent ruling on the Perjury objection, we request that Your Honour exercise Rule 1.2 and permit the Plaintiff to add MrCheesGuy to the witness list.
Click to expand...
(1) Witnesses must be added before the close of discovery; and (2) I fail to see how MrCheesGuy is related to Dearev’s out-of-court statement that seems to have caused the recently ruled upon perjury objection.

The former is sufficient, in its own to reject the request. The reference to the recent objection doesn’t really help move the needle. Request denied.
 

Motion


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

The Plaintiff moves that the Judicial Officer handling this lawsuit, Judge Franciscus, recuse himself from this case.

Before this case can get butchered any further and render a fair trial impossible, for the following reasons, we ask you, Judge Franciscus, to recuse yourself:

Application of JSA​

The Judicial Standards Act mandates recusal of a Judicial Officer, according to Part III, Section 1(5)(b), when the JO "[breaches] judicial conduct standards".

Unfair Rulings​


The Judicial Code of Ethics requires that Judges be fair. (Section 3.1 of Judical Code of Ethics, "Judges shall ensure that every proceeding is fair, orderly, and transparent.")

1. At the beginning of this lawsuit, the Co-Defendant moved to dismiss this case. The Plaintiff objected to this motion as the Co-Defendant aimed to dismiss claims of relief against the Defendant and not themself, and ultimately praying to the Court that on this basis, i.e., the basis that the Claims against the Defendant were not enough to keep the Co-Defendant in the case, the Court remove the Co-Defendant from this case.

To further back this point, the Plaintiff will read out the headings of the said motion to dismiss:

i. "Overview of the Information Shared", and the Co-Defendant then said, "For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential."
The Plaintiff never claimed that Co-Defendant breached confidentiality, so why was this in their Motion to Dismiss?

ii. "The information was shared in a public setting", "The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act." again, the Plaintiff never claimed the Co-Defendant shared the information.

iii. Section I. B. of the Co-Defendant's motion to dismiss also said, "The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy."
The Co-Defendant here mentioned "breach of privacy" explicitly, yet when reviewing the complaint, the "Breach of Privacy" claim was specifically made against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff was then obliged to respond to this wholly lacking Motion to Dismiss and then when I, Plaintiff's Counsel, did object to it, Judge Franciscus overruled the objection and just interchanged every mention of the Defendant in the Motion to Dismiss to Co-Defendant. Did that solve the severe legal issues of the motion? No. Was the Judge aware of it? Probably, yes.

How is it fair to the Plaintiff to respond to a Motion that, on its merits, should have instantaneously been denied?

2. However, Judge Franciscus, on his own accord, did deny a Motion to Compel, that too untimely, one might say, even when the Co-Defendant had ample time to object to it (and didn't). Infact, the Co-Defendant did voluntarily release these disciplinary actions in Court, before Judge Franciscus could even deny the specific part of the Motion to Compel.

The Plaintiff was not given any opportunity to explain relevance, even though it clearly sits on Judge Franciscus's docket. To further dive into the relevance of the matter, because the Court couldn't see its relevance, any disciplinary actions that must have arisen was because a rule or a policy of the Co-Defendant must have been broken. Yet, even though the Co-Defendant didn't object to it and the motion to compel those disciplinary actions weren't certainly unreasonable, Judge Franciscus indeed did deny this Motion to Compel.

3. The Plaintiff was never afforded any extra time to compensate for:
i. The Court's late ruling.
ii. The Co-Defendant's inability to produce those policies due to a claimed 'lack/non-existence of it'.

And then, when asked to add a witness to the list of witnesses due to this new findings of a non-existence of a policy when all actions of the Co-Defendant do imply such a policy does indeed exist, and asked to exercise Rule 1.2, Judge Franciscus denied it because "witnesses must be added before the close of discovery". I believe this statement to be an insult of my intelligence, as if Plaintiff's counsel didn't know witnesses were supposed to be added before the close of discovery, and I take offence to this aswell.

This ruling is not fair to the Plaintiff at all, even though the request was produced around 4 hours after the Court said discovery is closed, the Plaintiff cannot now examine if there was such a policy and if that policy was broken by the Defendant.

4. Summary,
Look at Point 1, a Motion to Dismiss on its merits and a plain read that should have been denied, got quite the lenghty response because the Court required it.

Now look at Point 2 and 3, relevance being the only matter of concern, without considering any prejudice that might have occured due to the Court's late ruling on the Motion to Compel, items moved by the Plaintiff being denied without even being objected to.

(Apart from the other severe legal errors in this case aswell, and the other delays caused by the Defences, one must ask, are these actions of the JO fair at all?)

For these reasons, I ask that Judge Franciscus, recuse himself from this lawsuit.

 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Motion


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

The Plaintiff moves that the Judicial Officer handling this lawsuit, Judge Franciscus, recuse himself from this case.

Before this case can get butchered any further and render a fair trial impossible, for the following reasons, we ask you, Judge Franciscus, to recuse yourself:

Application of JSA​

The Judicial Standards Act mandates recusal of a Judicial Officer, according to Part III, Section 1(5)(b), when the JO "[breaches] judicial conduct standards".

Unfair Rulings​


The Judicial Code of Ethics requires that Judges be fair. (Section 3.1 of Judical Code of Ethics, "Judges shall ensure that every proceeding is fair, orderly, and transparent.")

1. At the beginning of this lawsuit, the Co-Defendant moved to dismiss this case. The Plaintiff objected to this motion as the Co-Defendant aimed to dismiss claims of relief against the Defendant and not themself, and ultimately praying to the Court that on this basis, i.e., the basis that the Claims against the Defendant were not enough to keep the Co-Defendant in the case, the Court remove the Co-Defendant from this case.

To further back this point, the Plaintiff will read out the headings of the said motion to dismiss:

i. "Overview of the Information Shared", and the Co-Defendant then said, "For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential."
The Plaintiff never claimed that Co-Defendant breached confidentiality, so why was this in their Motion to Dismiss?

ii. "The information was shared in a public setting", "The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act." again, the Plaintiff never claimed the Co-Defendant shared the information.

iii. Section I. B. of the Co-Defendant's motion to dismiss also said, "The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy."
The Co-Defendant here mentioned "breach of privacy" explicitly, yet when reviewing the complaint, the "Breach of Privacy" claim was specifically made against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff was then obliged to respond to this wholly lacking Motion to Dismiss and then when I, Plaintiff's Counsel, did object to it, Judge Franciscus overruled the objection and just interchanged every mention of the Defendant in the Motion to Dismiss to Co-Defendant. Did that solve the severe legal issues of the motion? No. Was the Judge aware of it? Probably, yes.

How is it fair to the Plaintiff to respond to a Motion that, on its merits, should have instantaneously been denied?

2. However, Judge Franciscus, on his own accord, did deny a Motion to Compel, that too untimely, one might say, even when the Co-Defendant had ample time to object to it (and didn't). Infact, the Co-Defendant did voluntarily release these disciplinary actions in Court, before Judge Franciscus could even deny the specific part of the Motion to Compel.

The Plaintiff was not given any opportunity to explain relevance, even though it clearly sits on Judge Franciscus's docket. To further dive into the relevance of the matter, because the Court couldn't see its relevance, any disciplinary actions that must have arisen was because a rule or a policy of the Co-Defendant must have been broken. Yet, even though the Co-Defendant didn't object to it and the motion to compel those disciplinary actions weren't certainly unreasonable, Judge Franciscus indeed did deny this Motion to Compel.

3. The Plaintiff was never afforded any extra time to compensate for:
i. The Court's late ruling.
ii. The Co-Defendant's inability to produce those policies due to a claimed 'lack/non-existence of it'.

And then, when asked to add a witness to the list of witnesses due to this new findings of a non-existence of a policy when all actions of the Co-Defendant do imply such a policy does indeed exist, and asked to exercise Rule 1.2, Judge Franciscus denied it because "witnesses must be added before the close of discovery". I believe this statement to be an insult of my intelligence, as if Plaintiff's counsel didn't know witnesses were supposed to be added before the close of discovery, and I take offence to this aswell.

This ruling is not fair to the Plaintiff at all, even though the request was produced around 4 hours after the Court said discovery is closed, the Plaintiff cannot now examine if there was such a policy and if that policy was broken by the Defendant.

4. Summary,
Look at Point 1, a Motion to Dismiss on its merits and a plain read that should have been denied, got quite the lenghty response because the Court required it.

Now look at Point 2 and 3, relevance being the only matter of concern, without considering any prejudice that might have occured due to the Court's late ruling on the Motion to Compel, items moved by the Plaintiff being denied without even being objected to.

(Apart from the other severe legal errors in this case aswell, and the other delays caused by the Defences, one must ask, are these actions of the JO fair at all?)

For these reasons, I ask that Judge Franciscus, recuse himself from this lawsuit.

Click to expand...
Co-Defendant offers no response to the motion to recuse.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Motion


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

The Plaintiff moves that the Judicial Officer handling this lawsuit, Judge Franciscus, recuse himself from this case.

Before this case can get butchered any further and render a fair trial impossible, for the following reasons, we ask you, Judge Franciscus, to recuse yourself:

Application of JSA​

The Judicial Standards Act mandates recusal of a Judicial Officer, according to Part III, Section 1(5)(b), when the JO "[breaches] judicial conduct standards".

Unfair Rulings​


The Judicial Code of Ethics requires that Judges be fair. (Section 3.1 of Judical Code of Ethics, "Judges shall ensure that every proceeding is fair, orderly, and transparent.")

1. At the beginning of this lawsuit, the Co-Defendant moved to dismiss this case. The Plaintiff objected to this motion as the Co-Defendant aimed to dismiss claims of relief against the Defendant and not themself, and ultimately praying to the Court that on this basis, i.e., the basis that the Claims against the Defendant were not enough to keep the Co-Defendant in the case, the Court remove the Co-Defendant from this case.

To further back this point, the Plaintiff will read out the headings of the said motion to dismiss:

i. "Overview of the Information Shared", and the Co-Defendant then said, "For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential."
The Plaintiff never claimed that Co-Defendant breached confidentiality, so why was this in their Motion to Dismiss?

ii. "The information was shared in a public setting", "The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act." again, the Plaintiff never claimed the Co-Defendant shared the information.

iii. Section I. B. of the Co-Defendant's motion to dismiss also said, "The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy."
The Co-Defendant here mentioned "breach of privacy" explicitly, yet when reviewing the complaint, the "Breach of Privacy" claim was specifically made against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff was then obliged to respond to this wholly lacking Motion to Dismiss and then when I, Plaintiff's Counsel, did object to it, Judge Franciscus overruled the objection and just interchanged every mention of the Defendant in the Motion to Dismiss to Co-Defendant. Did that solve the severe legal issues of the motion? No. Was the Judge aware of it? Probably, yes.

How is it fair to the Plaintiff to respond to a Motion that, on its merits, should have instantaneously been denied?

2. However, Judge Franciscus, on his own accord, did deny a Motion to Compel, that too untimely, one might say, even when the Co-Defendant had ample time to object to it (and didn't). Infact, the Co-Defendant did voluntarily release these disciplinary actions in Court, before Judge Franciscus could even deny the specific part of the Motion to Compel.

The Plaintiff was not given any opportunity to explain relevance, even though it clearly sits on Judge Franciscus's docket. To further dive into the relevance of the matter, because the Court couldn't see its relevance, any disciplinary actions that must have arisen was because a rule or a policy of the Co-Defendant must have been broken. Yet, even though the Co-Defendant didn't object to it and the motion to compel those disciplinary actions weren't certainly unreasonable, Judge Franciscus indeed did deny this Motion to Compel.

3. The Plaintiff was never afforded any extra time to compensate for:
i. The Court's late ruling.
ii. The Co-Defendant's inability to produce those policies due to a claimed 'lack/non-existence of it'.

And then, when asked to add a witness to the list of witnesses due to this new findings of a non-existence of a policy when all actions of the Co-Defendant do imply such a policy does indeed exist, and asked to exercise Rule 1.2, Judge Franciscus denied it because "witnesses must be added before the close of discovery". I believe this statement to be an insult of my intelligence, as if Plaintiff's counsel didn't know witnesses were supposed to be added before the close of discovery, and I take offence to this aswell.

This ruling is not fair to the Plaintiff at all, even though the request was produced around 4 hours after the Court said discovery is closed, the Plaintiff cannot now examine if there was such a policy and if that policy was broken by the Defendant.

4. Summary,
Look at Point 1, a Motion to Dismiss on its merits and a plain read that should have been denied, got quite the lenghty response because the Court required it.

Now look at Point 2 and 3, relevance being the only matter of concern, without considering any prejudice that might have occured due to the Court's late ruling on the Motion to Compel, items moved by the Plaintiff being denied without even being objected to.

(Apart from the other severe legal errors in this case aswell, and the other delays caused by the Defences, one must ask, are these actions of the JO fair at all?)

For these reasons, I ask that Judge Franciscus, recuse himself from this lawsuit.

Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE

I have made every decision fairly, based on what was in front of me, and with equitable interests in this proceeding in mind. We will go through these allegations one-by-one:

As to the first item, the complaint is that the judicial officer overruled an objection on a motion to dismiss that was later denied. This does not plausibly prejudice a case.

As to the second item, the Plaintiff claims that they were not given an opportunity to explain relevance of material in their motion to compel prior to the judicial Officer denying it in part. Not so. The Plaintiff, as every Movant does, may explain the relevance within the Motion to Compel itself. It is up to the Plaintiff to ensure that their pleadings have the information that the Plaintiff wants, not for the judge to hand-hold and seek to extract that information after a motion is filed.

As to the third prong, the Plaintiff’s counsel took umbrage with the Judge’s decision to not allow new witnesses after discovery (which had already been extended by 6 days on request of the Plaintiff) closed. The Judge denied for this reason, and Plaintiff’s counsel felt insulted by the judge’s mention of the witness submission rules. While no insult was intended nor should be received by a from a mere restatement of the relevant rule, stating the relevant rule and then applying that rule does not create procedural unfairness.

In short—a judge does not need someone to post an objection bracket against a motion to deny a motion or a request. The judge reads the motion, applies the relevant rules, and then makes a decision. None of this Leeds to unfairness, even if a counsel takes offense to a judge restating the relevant rule to them. Recusal is neither required nor prudent here.

Motion Denied.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
Franciscus said:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE

I have made every decision fairly, based on what was in front of me, and with equitable interests in this proceeding in mind. We will go through these allegations one-by-one:

As to the first item, the complaint is that the judicial officer overruled an objection on a motion to dismiss that was later denied. This does not plausibly prejudice a case.

As to the second item, the Plaintiff claims that they were not given an opportunity to explain relevance of material in their motion to compel prior to the judicial Officer denying it in part. Not so. The Plaintiff, as every Movant does, may explain the relevance within the Motion to Compel itself. It is up to the Plaintiff to ensure that their pleadings have the information that the Plaintiff wants, not for the judge to hand-hold and seek to extract that information after a motion is filed.

As to the third prong, the Plaintiff’s counsel took umbrage with the Judge’s decision to not allow new witnesses after discovery (which had already been extended by 6 days on request of the Plaintiff) closed. The Judge denied for this reason, and Plaintiff’s counsel felt insulted by the judge’s mention of the witness submission rules. While no insult was intended nor should be received by a from a mere restatement of the relevant rule, stating the relevant rule and then applying that rule does not create procedural unfairness.

In short—a judge does not need someone to post an objection bracket against a motion to deny a motion or a request. The judge reads the motion, applies the relevant rules, and then makes a decision. None of this Leeds to unfairness, even if a counsel takes offense to a judge restating the relevant rule to them. Recusal is neither required nor prudent here.

Motion Denied.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Click to expand...
Your Honour, we request a review of the recusal motion from another JO as per the JSA.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, we request a review of the recusal motion from another JO as per the JSA.
Click to expand...

Reviewing. Judge Multiman155 is still the JO on this case for purposes of extensions and other procedural matters as I review the motion.
 
Franciscus said:
As discovery is now concluded, we move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (CC: @TheSnowGuardian ) shall have 72 hours to present their opening statement.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff requests a 48 hour extension as I have academic work to finish + I am going to the movies + I am not available for sometime.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
The Plaintiff requests a 48 hour extension as I have academic work to finish + I am going to the movies + I am not available for sometime.
Click to expand...
I will grant you this extension of 48 hours, once. Please ensure that your opening statement is in by the end of the extended time.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, we request a review of the recusal motion from another JO as per the JSA.
Click to expand...

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER

DENIED.

On review of the filings, Plaintiff's arguments are unavailing and recusal is unwarranted.


On certain points:
1) The Motion to Dismiss argument is flawed as the Court found in Plaintiff's favour.
2) The Motion to Compel is a decision reasonably left to a judicial officer with reasonably articulated reasonings. A failure to articulate completely doesn't immediately lead to an avenue to challenge the judicial officer

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

Your Honour,
The case before us is quite simple.

The Plaintiff, through witness testimony, will prove the following:

(a) The information that the Defendant disclosed is private, by the way it was treated and the way law sees it;
(b) The Plaintiff felt humilated, belittled and was made to look foolish by the actions of the Defendant.
(c) The Defendant in many ways acted outrageously, and infact had little remorse for his actions, thus warranting Punitive Damages.
(d) The Co-Defendant was negligent in ensuring the Privacy Rights of the Plaintiff were respected, and continues to be negligent in that regard.

The Defendants will try to make it look like this information was never private. However, as Discovery has already established, here are a few actions of the Defendants that goes to show that this information was indeed private:

1. Co-Defendant didn't release the specific information without written permission.
2. Co-Defendant said they dont disclose "anything" when responding to an interrogatory regarding the disclosure of applications.
3. Co-Defendant's Legal Department said they had a "policy not to share those", with 'those' referring to applications.

Witness testimony will continue to prove the above.

Does the Plaintiff's Application Details Constitute as Private Information?

According to the Privacy Act,

(1) For the purposes of this Act, "personal information" and "private information" shall have the same meaning and refer to any information relating to an identifiable individual, including but not limited to:
(a) Employment details, discipline records, termination details, and administrative actions
(b) Financial records with private organisations, including but not limited to:
(i) Account balances
(ii) Transaction history
(iii) Debts and other assets
Click to expand...

The first lines clearly say "information relating to an identifiable individual", and "administrative actions". Furthermore, it also says that the definitions of what constitutes Private Information is "not limited to" what the Act specifies.

On examining P-001, let us what the image leaked by the Plaintiff actually show.

1. It identified the Plaintiff.
2. It showed the Plaintiff's opinion about the LGBTQ+ opinion.
3. It showed the Plaintiff's agreement to tbe SDP Charter.
4. It showed to Plaintiff's application was denied.
5. It showed the reason for denial.
6. It showed when the application was submitted.
7. It showed the existence of the application.

The existence of the Application, its denial, are, in the Plaintiff's opinion, administrative actions. Additionally, the information/opinion collected by the Co-Defendant which no person could reasonablly infer without asking the Plaintiff, are private and personal information that should be covered by the Privacy Act.

The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff had a "duty to mitigate", this is only applicable to Compensatory Damages, which the Plaintiff is not claiming.

The Co-Defendant claims the "information by itself isn't confidential and the Plaintiff shared it without confirmation that it was", however, the Privacy Act doesn't require information to be confirmed that it is personal. There are already statutory definitions to what constitutes as "personal/private information", which as demonstrated above, reasonably meet those standards.

 
Johnes said:
Your Honour,
just to clarify, what is the deadline for Co-Defense to submit our opening statement?
Click to expand...
Defendant and Co-Defendant have 72 hours to provide their opening statements from now. Apologies for not having prompted you.
 
Franciscus said:
Defendant and Co-Defendant have 72 hours to provide their opening statements from now. Apologies for not having prompted you.
Click to expand...

Your honour,

Due to my busy schedule with exams, I would like to request an additional 24 hours to get this completed.
 
dodrio3 said:
Your honour,

Due to my busy schedule with exams, I would like to request an additional 24 hours to get this completed.
Click to expand...
Extension Granted. Opening due 4:30 A.M. on Sunday, Mountain Standard Time (U.S., Arizona, Phoenix).
 
Your Honour, the Plaintiff would not object to the Court granting another 24 hours of extension, even if the Defendants dont need it, however, we would ask the Court to duly note we will object to further extensions after this one is granted.

The Plaintiff would also like the Court to note that the Defendants are perfectly able to cover any points they may have missed in their closing statements.
 
dodrio3 said:
Your honnour, i have has some family issue come up, could i recive an extra 12 hours to get this posted
Click to expand...
I am going to give you until 11:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time on Sunday, May 24. Further extensions may require further specific justification.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,
Plaintiff's case hinges on the fact that the conduct done by the Co-Defendant was "reckless" and in "gross negligence."

To support Plaintiff's assertion, Plaintiff called the following persons as witnesses:
1. Dearev, current Co-Defendant's Chair of the Executive Committee;
2. Plura72, Defendant;
3. Dodrio3, current Co-Defendant's member of the Executive Committee, and
4. mar_mik, Plaintiff.
Plaintiff further asked, that witnesses no. 1, 2 and 3 shall be regarded as "hostile witnesses". Co-Defendant notes that both the Court Rules and Procedures and Objections Guide do not recognize "hostile witnesses" and therefore Co-Defendant requests that Plaintiff's request be ignored.

Plaintiff's claim for Punitive Damages from Co-Defendant hinges on the fact that Co-Defendant acted recklessly and in gross negligence to the conduct's consequences.

Part III § 3(2)(b) of the Redmont Civil Code Act defines outrageous conduct as the following:

(b) Outrageous conduct means conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, conduct is outrageous where any of the following are met:
(i) The defendant intended to cause harm or loss;
(ii) The defendant acted knowing that their conduct was likely to disadvantage, harm, or seriously inconvenience another person;
(iii) The defendant acted with reckless indifference as to whether harm or loss would occur;
(iv) The conduct involved dishonesty, deception, bad faith, or abuse of trust or power;
(v) The defendant engaged in persistent or repeated misconduct, or failed to change their conduct after becoming aware of its consequences; or
(vi) The conduct demonstrates gross negligence, being such a significant departure from the standard of care that it warrants punishment rather than compensation alone.
Click to expand...

Co-Defendant did not demonstrate gross negligence, as they have answered Plaintiff's questions in P-005, have acted within the realms of the law.

 

Opening Statement



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Information was not personal
The Plaintiff has posted that the following information is classed as private, as seen in P-001: His Name, His LGBTQ+ Opinion and whether he agrees to the charter of the SDP. Start with His name, which cannot be classified as private information, as it is publicly available when he is in the city or on Discord; anyone who wants access to this can get it with no issue.

Next, his LGBTQ+ opinion. This information is not private, as it only consists of an opinion on a group of people made in an application process. It does not contain any sensitive information that would be considered private.

Finally, if the Plaintiff's application had been successful and he had agreed to the SDP charter, that agreement would have been publicly available, as he would have been afforded certain roles within the SDP Discord.

Duty to Mitigate
Duty to Mitigate, as per the RCCA: “A party’s obligation to make reasonable efforts to limit the harm they suffer from another party’s actions. To reduce an award based on this defence, a party must prove that the other side did not exhaust reasonable measures to protect their own interest.”

As shown by the plaintiff in P-003, The Defendant had deleted the message in order to reduce harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff,f however, failed to present any proof of how they personally tried to mitigate the situation and only showed proof of themselves, and only gathered information to start a legal case, as shown in P-004 and P-005.

 

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Dearev (@dearev), PluraGlasshouse (@Plura72), mar_mik (@Bankowy), and Dodrio3 (@dodrio3) are required to appear as witnesses before the Federal Court in the case of mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32.

  • Witnesses are asked to ensure that they familiarize themselves with the case.
  • Witnesses shall to respond to the respective parties both when directly questioned and when cross-examined.
  • Witnesses are ordered to identify themselves as present on the forum thread within 72 hours.
In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 
Franciscus said:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Dearev (@dearev), PluraGlasshouse (@Plura72), mar_mik (@Bankowy), and Dodrio3 (@dodrio3) are required to appear as witnesses before the Federal Court in the case of mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32.

  • Witnesses are asked to ensure that they familiarize themselves with the case.
  • Witnesses shall to respond to the respective parties both when directly questioned and when cross-examined.
  • Witnesses are ordered to identify themselves as present on the forum thread within 72 hours.
In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Click to expand...

I am here.
 
Franciscus said:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Dearev (@dearev), PluraGlasshouse (@Plura72), mar_mik (@Bankowy), and Dodrio3 (@dodrio3) are required to appear as witnesses before the Federal Court in the case of mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32.

  • Witnesses are asked to ensure that they familiarize themselves with the case.
  • Witnesses shall to respond to the respective parties both when directly questioned and when cross-examined.
  • Witnesses are ordered to identify themselves as present on the forum thread within 72 hours.
In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Click to expand...
I am here
 
Franciscus said:

Court Order


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Dearev (@dearev), PluraGlasshouse (@Plura72), mar_mik (@Bankowy), and Dodrio3 (@dodrio3) are required to appear as witnesses before the Federal Court in the case of mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32.

  • Witnesses are asked to ensure that they familiarize themselves with the case.
  • Witnesses shall to respond to the respective parties both when directly questioned and when cross-examined.
  • Witnesses are ordered to identify themselves as present on the forum thread within 72 hours.
In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

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