Search results

No questions from me, your honour

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT Your honour, I believe the evidence is enough to prove my claims in full. I therefore move for summary judgement as agreed to in the sidebar by both parties.

Your honour, I am submitting the following pieces of evidence:

Welcome back! Please join the Judiciary server.

Your honour, I am requesting a sidebar. In the meantime I would like to notify @RiggoSoft that your client’s assets are still under injunction. I do not understand why his assets were moved while they were under court order.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - SPECULATION Your honour, this question is asking the witness to speculate ("do you think you will invest") as to future events which the witness has not directly observed. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION, LEADING, AMBIGUOUS This question is asking for the opinion of the witness (calls for a conclusion), it imposes a condition at the beginning of the question (leading) and "how do you think of bonds offered"...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - RELEVANCE Again, this does not pertain to this case. See #66.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - SPECULATION, RELEVANCE The Defense objects to these questions on the grounds that they are asking the witness to speculate on whether they might deposit money or buy bonds in the future. Since the witness has not directly...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, LEADING, COMPOUND These questions assume that my client is the borrower behind bond OCB-003, which has not been proven by any evidence provided by the Plaintiff. The burden is on them to prove this...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - LEADING The question seems to imply that my client defaulted on a bond. The only thing in question is whether my client defaulted on a loan.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - RELEVANCE Your honour, These questions are not relevant to the issue at hand, which is to ascertain whether my client committed breach of contract or not. The contract or Discord conversation never mentioned there being a bond...

Hi @Maxib02, sorry about the long wait. Could you please state whether you are still interested in applying for this grant and if so, clarify which grant pool you are applying to? The reason I ask is because the Active Business Bonus Grant has a cap of $2,000 every 4 weeks, which is less than...

The Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that the Defendant showing up does not change the material facts of the case. We suggest moving on. Opposing counsel can change their original answer in Discovery should anything new be revealed stemming from their discussion with the...

It is already an irregular thing (to say the least) that the Defendant did not post the December investors' update or failed to communicate at all with investors despite constant reminders and Discord pings. The Plaintiff feels as though this irregularity does pose a risk. The own evidence...

Your honour, May I weigh in to respond to and address this newly-presented evidence and overall asset flight risk?

Your honour, The contract shown in P-01 is ambiguous, and as such unenforceable in this Court. To begin, the contract stipulates that: "[...] the borrowed amount will accrue 4% MPY on the initial principal amount of $20,000 [...]" The Act of Congress - Credit Standards Act specifically states...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER Your honour, there are two cases involved here. Reconsidering the extension on this case would mean one of the two Plaintiffs (even if both are awarded damages) would take priority over the other, as said...

May the Plaintiff respond?

Additionally, I ask that Magistrate Vennefly’s contempt of court charges are not enforced until the conclusion of this appeal, following what was done in the following appeal: Post in thread '[2025] DCR 106 - Appeal' Appeal: Accepted - [2025] DCR 106 - Appeal