Search results

And so it has. The prosecution (@TheSnowGuardian) shall have seventy-two hours to post their opening statement.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court declines what we believe to be a motion for reconsideration. We will not, and likely will never, host an in-game trial in full. To begin with, the matter of scheduling is at issue. On top of the hassle of trying to get both parties and their counsel on...

I will be presiding officer in this matter. The Supreme Court of Redmont grants review to this appeal. Appellee's estate will be represented by the public defender's office, with all deliberate speed.

First, case name administratively modified to fit court convention. Second, I make a note as an administrative clerk for the Court that the initial filing does not satisfy the appeal format as outlined here; specifically, any additional information and whether you intend to seek oral argument...

Go ahead.

Granted. Court is in recess, pending verdict.

While in theory it is allowed to go below five days ("shall last up to five days") it is absolutely convention to always give the full five, and I do not have any reason to do otherwise, merely forgetting that not all deadlines were seventy-two hours. Someone get this man a true. Add forty-eight...

You can. Aesthetic fixes only.

The Court recognizes Defendant's plea of not guilty on all counts. Discovery will begin and last for seventy-two hours.

Defendant (@NoMoreUno) shall have seventy-two hours to file their plea.

Lovely, I hope to see a post by tomorrow, 6:13 PM EST.

@Fletchingrs is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth of Redmont v. Fletchingrs [2026] SCR 16. I will preside.

Will seventy-two hours from this post suffice?

Plaintiff Wayne_Kerr12 (“Plaintiff”) filed suit with the District Court regarding an alleged breach of contract arising from the retainer of legal services. The controversy arose after Plaintiff paid Deloitte (“Defendant”), a private legal firm, $10,000 for a retainer. In two issues, Plaintiff...

Thank you, I was not sure what was going on. Does Plaintiff (@YeetBoy1872325) have anything to say regarding this?

For interested parties. I neglected to update here, my apologies.

Pardon, counselor; is this meant to be the reply of the Commonwealth as well, or just Oakridge?

I trust you have informed Plaintiff?

You may.

Chief Justice Fries writes the opinion of the Court, joined by Senior Associate Justice Matthew100x. Junior Associate Justice Muggy21 does not participate in discussion or voting. The Federal Court of Redmont submits quaestio certioriari—certified question—to the Supreme Court as to the status...