IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defense petitions the court to dismiss this case, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
Under Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim
As the Plaintiff has now been paid, the lawsuit has no claim.
On The Content of the Motion
1. While much of the facts in the Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider are true, #7 is misleading. Although a Default Judgement may be requested by a Plaintiff, it is not required -- the quote says that something could be grounds to request it, but does not specify that...
Speculation is when someone "testifies about something they have not directly observed" (see Objections Guide).
Homelander/the staff team was certainly there.
Your honor, I was hoping to avoid posting this appeal until this one has been resolved: Appeal: Pending - [2025] DCR 10 - Appeal
However, it has gone weeks with no response, so I had to post this one.
Username: Dartanboy
I am representing a client
Who is your Client?: juniperfig
File(s) attached
What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] DCR 10
Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. juniperfig [2025] DCR 10
Basis for Appeal: Magistrate...
To follow up to Q4, since this was in a staff capacity, we are not able to summon JediAJMan/Homelander as a witness, rather we summoned the Staff Team.
Can the staff team please provide Staff Member Homelander's testimony for the original Q4?
I could be missing it, because the Defense's lawyer and their now-banned cronies have flooded the lawsuit with useless objections.
But, I don't see such a permission.
And filing a Motion is certainly not a Breach of Procedure. I suggest that Vernicia read up on the Court Rules and Procedures.
Questions for Staff Team:
1. Do multiple clues appear in close proximity to each other when a murder produces a crime scene?
2. When a murder produces a crime scene, is it possible to place blocks where the clues appear?
3. In Exhibit P-003, JediAJMan (a.k.a. Homelander) is seen talking with...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
MegaMinerM
Plaintiff
v.
Blazora Corporation
Defendant
I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that “on 23 September 2024, Nexalin founded Easy Corporation and thereafter listed a bond with a face value of $1,000,000 on The...
BREACH OF PROCEDURE
AlexanderLove never showed proof of consent to represent the Defendant. He randomly appeared after twilight was banned and began representing the Defendant.
We request all of his posts be stricken and ignored.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.