Search results

@Nebrasken64 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The Commonwealth of Redmont v Nebrasken64 [2025] DCR 4

Motion Granted, you may amend complaint

@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of AmityBlamity v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 3

I'm dismissing this case Sua Sponte. I do not find standing for the lack of injury/damages suffered provided with the evidence shown. While the plaintiff claims that the damages are "unmeasurable", which may be true to their extent, has failed to provide or mention any evidence of damages. Even...

Discovery is now over.

Overruled This case is about defamation yes, but that defamation is based on obstruction of justice. In order for justice to be obstructed there had to be some sort of a process of justice taking place. The leaking of classified information shows what that process was about. Without a valid...

Substained

@ribs_221 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of superwoops v. ribs_221 [2025] DCR2

Sustained. An explanation of this magnitude with close to a dozen pieces of evidence is just too much. Something like this belongs in opening statements or somewhere else where arguments are meant to happen, not interrogations during discovery. The answer and evidence are struck. The...

Overruled The first screenshot gives context as to why the alleged defamatory comment was made and possible damages. Overruled Even though the answer was on the longer side, the answer gives a much fuller picture of the scenario being asked about. The more relevant information the court has...

Motion to reconsider is partly Substained. The ignorance claim in point B is no ones fault but the defense. Fact 4 of the complaint clearly says which part of the statement was allegedly false and therefore defamatory. I am no longer striking the question about the leaking of classified...

Sustained There is no need to ask clarifying questions about information not being alleged false. Those first two questions will be struck.

Due to this break in the trial pulling concern away from discovery I will be restarting the discovery timeline. Discovery will last 72 hours starting now.

Discovery is paused.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT Marissa4 v. SplashyBoi74 [2024] DCR 42. I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION 1. The defendant unlawfully killed 15 of their animals. 2. This act has caused Financial loss and emotional distress for the plaintiff 3. The actions by the defendant are heinous...

As both parties are present, we will now enter Discovery. Discovery will last 72 hours starting now

Motion to Dismiss is denied. As this motion only addresses lack of supporting evidence I will not entertain a motion like this at this time. The Plaintiff still has all of discovery to submit this evidence. Once discovery has ended then I will entertain claims for dismissal on the basis of...

Overruled. The edit was declared and explained as necessary by the court rules and procedures. I will ask the plaintiff from now on to ask first but I will not be striking anything or issuing any punishments.

Motion to Recuse is denied. There are two reason I am denying this recusal. Firstly I understand the prosecution against me and the previous prosecutions I have worked on against the defendant of this case. I also understand that for both myself and the defendant, prosecuting someone is a job...

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xEndeavour v. Alexanderlove [2025] DCR1