This case is being dismissed Sua Sponte for lack of a clear second party under Court rule 2.1
The court has come to the understanding when in search of a second party to summon (something that isn't the court's responsiblity to do), that the plaintiff, Cope Holdings, purchased Vanguard Martket...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Executive has failed in it's duties and Judicial intervention is required.
2. JSAA should be law as the president failed to give assent or veto in the required...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Lucaaasserole v. Naezaratheus et al. [2025] FCR 50
I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff entered into a contract with an alt of the defendant for 578 shares of BB.A in exchange of $100,000.
2. The defendant failed uphold their end...
Motion to Dismiss granted.
As the Plaintiff lost their counsel and seems to be unresponsive towards the court, the court must infer that the plaintiff does not want to continue this case by their lack of participation. All freezes on Vanguard Co and their assets placed during this case are...
Objection Overruled. The 5 question limit only applies to interrogations and not witness questioning.
OBJECTION COMPOUND QUESTION
Sustained, please rephrase the question
OBJECTION CALLS FOR CONCLUSION, SPECULATION
Overruled. The question is not asking for an opinion but the typical response...
OBJECTION 1 LEADING QUESTION
Sustained, please rephrase all 3 questions.
OBJECTION 2+3 RELEVANCE/INFLAMMATORY
Sustained.
OBJECTION 4 ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
Sustained.
Motion to Dismiss denied. There were active objections on the questions which is the reason they were left unanswered.
Motion to Compel denied. The information being sought seems to have been already provided in closed court.
Motion for Default Judgement granted.
The defense has made multiple discovery violations even after previously being warned, including ignoring court orders to compel, The AG at the time...
Motion to Dismiss granted under rule 5.5
This case is being dismissed for the sole reason that it lacked standing at it's filing. The funds in question were frozen from June 4th-June 8th due to fluffywaafelz v. undatheradar [2025] FCR 54. As this case was filed on June 6th when the funds were...
Motion to dismiss granted under rule 5.5
The only claim of this case is a violation of the plaintiff's 13th right. "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair...
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.