Search results

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ORDER OF THE COURT Case [2025] FCR 36 Between: Privacy Matters, Class Action Group v Vanguard Securities, LLC CONTEMPT OF COURT The court hereby holds both parties, and their respective legal firms if one exists in one charge of contempt of...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ORDER OF THE COURT Case [2025] FCR 36 Between: Privacy Matters, Class Action Group v Vanguard Securities, LLC REGARDING DEPORTATION OF ONE CLASS ACTION MEMBER The motion to reconsider is denied. The court concurs with the movant that...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ORDER OF THE COURT Case [2025] FCR 37 Between: RylandW v v__d Issuance of Warning The court hereby issues a warning to @Dartanboy due to the latency, but will not hold in contempt, and their submission will be accepted. Another mistake, even...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ORDER OF THE COURT Case [2025] FCR 36 Between: Privacy Matters, Class Action Group v Vanguard Securities, LLC REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT The motion for summary judgement dated 25th of April is hereby denied. The court concurs that...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ORDER OF THE COURT The defendant may now submit their cross-examination questions for the witness, @MasterAshim. Both parties are bound by the following timelines: 1. The defendant must submit their questions within 48 hours of the issuance...

You may.

Response denied. I apologise of the insinuation. I had tried to clarify that I was not alleging that the defence had done such actions ("The court does not find an issue if the communication was initiated by the clients themselves. This is not a punishment, but simply a reminder." not a warning)...

Is this request still valid, and if so, the court asks the movant to justify their request.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ORDER OF THE COURT Case [2025] FCR 36 Between: Privacy Matters, Class Action Group v Vanguard Securities, LLC REGARDING CONSENT FORM AT DISPUTE The court acknowledges that the evidence presented by both sides is valid. The court concurs with...

Yes, please do answer them.

Please justify your request.

Thanks for the timely response - I did not even have time to post the discord summons. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ORDER OF THE COURT Case [2025] FCR 36 Between: Privacy Matters, Class Action Group v Vanguard Securities, LLC The defendant as summoned hereby must...

@Nexalin is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Privacy Matters (Class Action Group) v. Vanguard Securities LLC [2025] FCR 36.

I apologise for the delay, I did not get a notification for this response. The defendant has 72 hours to produce a response to complaint. As a sidenote, please feel free to let me know if I miss or have not responded for a while.

The objection is denied. Questions will be upheld in the interest of case integrity. The court hereby warns the plaintiff, and further such delays will result in contempt charges.

The breach of procedure is denied. The court sees that these answers are critical to a healthy and just verdict. The perjury objection is denied. The court concurs with the defendant, and, this is a conversation outside of the courtroom being submitted as a piece of evidence?... The submission...

However, Stoppers/Cope Holdings LLC is the owner company of Vanguard Securities correct? Can you please provide evidence as to Nexalin still being the main owner of defendant organisation to clear up the confusion?

@Stoppers is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Privacy Matters (Class Action Group) v. Vanguard Securities LLC [2025] FCR 36

48 hours granted from original deadline.

Granted from original deadline.