Search results

Your Honour, Anthropy & Associates will be representing the Defendant from this point forward.

Your Honour, the Defendant is present.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION Your Honour, Defendant Smami last logged into the DemocracyCraft server on the 7th of August, 2026 (P-001). She is therefore liable to have her balance pruned beginning on the 7th of November, pursuant to § 15...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT NOLLE PROSEQUI Your Honour, The Plaintiffs have acquired new legal counsel, and are therefore unable to amend the original Complaint, which continues to contain deficiencies. In addition, this case has not had an assigned Presiding Officer...

Your Honour, Plaintiffs request a ruling as the the Motion for Emergency Injunction filed alongside the Complaint. Every day that Queendom remains derecognised in response to its signature of the Treaty of Recognition and Special Autonomy is another day that the rights of the town and its...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: RESPONSE Your Honour, 1. The WAA and EO 63/26 do not directly or explicitly provide that Foreign Entities may sue before Redmont's courts. What they do do, however, is recognise the existence of Foreign Entities as a type...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs move for an emergency injunction preventing the Commonwealth from withdrawing recognition of the Dominion of Queendom. Its intent to do so may constitute unlawful interference in the affairs of...

Granted.

The deadline has technically passed for Defendant to answer these questions, but I'll presume that they were unaware that the timer starts when the questions are submitted. @rykazard you have 24 hours to answer these.

No. If I were to permit responses to responses, we would be here all day. Sustained on technicality, though no objection was necessary. Not granted. The Court finds that an outright dismissal of the charge would be premature at this time. The prosecution presents a cognisable theory under...

Certainly.

Discovery has ended. The prosecution ( @AmityBlamity ) shall have 72 hours to produce an opening statement.

Apologies for the delay here. Not granted. You yourself acknowledge that this motion is out of order. Also not granted. Complaints may not be amended post-discovery (Rule 3.3). Defendant foregoes the opportunity to deliver opening statements by failure to submit in a timely manner. No...

Thank you. The Defendant shall now have 72 hours to produce an opening statement.

Discovery shall continue as previously dictated.

Your plea is noted. MTD is denied at this time - motions pursuant to Rule 5.5 may only be submitted after Discovery has ended. The Prosecution still has time to submit evidence supporting their charge. Discovery shall now begin for a period of 5 days, or until otherwise ended by mutual agreement.

Discovery has ended. The Plaintiff ( @MMiqa ) shall now have 72 hours to produce an opening statement.

Not granted. You've failed to cite a rule under which this case can be dismissed, and I cannot identify one through which I could grant this. This is therefore a defence, not a valid reason for dismissal. Further, the bulk of your argument seems to come from congressional discussion from an...

A public defender will be called.

Granted. Feel free to edit the original post.