Search results

I would like to direct Your Honour to my previous point regarding the Motion to Reconsider the dismissal motion:

Discovery hasn't even began, as... the Commonwealth has yet to provide an answer to the complaint.

For reasons which will not become clear for around 200 years, I am withdrawing as the Defendant/CPlaintiff's counsel in this case.

Thank you for providing this information.

I'm not contesting this recusal, but are you able to provide some more clarity as to the nature of these interactions?

Your Honour, Respectfully, this period has now passed and no response to the motion, nor an answer to the counterclaim has been provided. Further, no request to extend this time has been asked for. Instead of just providing what they should have, the CDefendant simply... hasn't.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE The CPlaintiff objects to the CDefendant's answer to Interrogatory 4. The question asked was a simple yes or no: did the CDefendant observe the CPlaintiff's statement prior to filing this lawsuit? The CDefendant...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE Your Honour, The Plaintiff objects to the Commonwealth's request for an extension and respectfully submits that the Court should not grant it without acknowledging the conduct that has brought this matter to...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE Your Honour, The CDefendant has failed to answer the CPlaintiff's interrogatories in violation of Rule 4.8. Rule 4.8 states that answers to interrogatories "must be made within 48 hours of being asked." The...

Most likely, depending on the Defendant's answer. This court as of yet hasn't provided a definitive ruling on the Motion to Reconsider.

Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the CPlaintiff adds the following person as a witness to the Counterclaim: 1. Noadenmark

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the CPlaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the CDefendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability: 1. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established an agreed repayment of $2,100 rather than $1,050? 2. The...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Noadenmark Plaintiff v. Zombie_bro_ Defendant I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 1. AFFIRM 2. DENY The Defendant agreed to repay $1,050 in exchange for a loan of $1,000. The Defendant never agreed to repay $2,100. 3. DENY The...

The Applicant is inclined to waive these 48 hours if the Respondent is willing to do so.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT RESPONSE Your Honour, The Attorney General does not contest that RaiTheGuy07 satisfies the substantive criteria for expungement, acknowledging that this citizen "has grown into a better person." The sole basis for denial is procedural: that...

I affirm this statement. Seeing as this is a formal Federal Court proceeding, and I am duly qualified as an attorney to represent Mr. RaiTheGuy07, I request the opportunity to provide a response to the Attorney General's statements.

I wish to withdraw my brief, as it appears the substance of it has been the basis for a news article. I would not be providing this court with any new information not already in the public domain.

No.

Different era, different people. This RBA will not be bogged down by the same people who exploited it in the past. If it becomes a problem, it's one simple amendment away from fixing said problem.

Per Section 2(1) of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives: As well as Section 2(3): Under the Legislative Standards Act, Section 19: The bill does not meet Section 19(1) of the LSA as it lacks a valid co-sponsor and is therefore not validly introduced. Under Section 2(1) of...