Lawsuit: In Session AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95

ToadKing · Nov 18, 2025

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

asexualdinosaur (represented by ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

Plaintiff was terminated from their position as a State Prosecutor with the Department of Justice without prior warning or opportunity to address any alleged concerns. The reasons provided for Plaintiff's termination were materially inaccurate. Throughout Plaintiff's tenure at the Department of Justice, Plaintiff performed their duties diligently and received no formal warnings or review of their work or performance. This arbitrary termination has caused Plaintiff significant harm both financially and professionally.

I. PARTIES

1. asexualdinosaur
2. Kaiserin_ (Attorney General)
3. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS

1. On or around 18 August 2025, Plaintiff was hired as a State Prosecutor by the Department of Justice. (P-001)
2. Throughout Plaintiff's tenure, Plaintiff provided legal representation for the Commonwealth in numerous cases.
3. Plaintiff was actively serving as counsel for the Commonwealth in the case of Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86, which had reached Closing Statements at the time of Plaintiff's termination, as well as Justice Compass, Ltd. v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 98. (P-002)
4. On or around 25 October 2025, in [2025] FCR 86, a discovery dispute arose wherein the presiding judicial officer charged Plaintiff with Contempt of Court for failure to submit evidence within the discovery deadline. (P-003)
5. Plaintiff had informed Attorney General Kaiserin_ that Plaintiff would not be submitting the requested evidence, as reflected in communications where Plaintiff stated: "Nothing was missed, I informed you I wouldnt be submitting those." (P-004)
6. The Attorney General acknowledged this communication failure, responding: "ah, i thought we'd decided it'd be better to submit them. though im realising you didnt respond to that message so i def shouldve followed up haha not a huge deal in this case as i was able to just go in and submit it." (P-004)
7. Despite the Attorney General's acknowledgement that the incident was "not a huge deal" and that the AG "should've followed up," this single contempt charge was later cited as one of the primary reasons for Plaintiff's termination.
8. On 18 November 2025, at approximately 17:43 UTC, Plaintiff was terminated from employment with a Server message stating: "DOJ » You have been fired as a State Prosecutor!" (P-005)
9. Approximately two minutes later, at 17:45 UTC, Attorney General provided the following explanation: "hello, informing you that you have been terminated from your position in the DOJ for multiple charges of contempt of court, concerns about courtroom behaviour, and as part of a wider effort in increasing department informational security." (P-006)
10. The stated reasons for termination were materially inaccurate and misleading:
(a) The Attorney General claimed "multiple charges of contempt," when in fact Plaintiff received only a single contempt charge.
(b) The Attorney General cited "concerns about courtroom behaviour," yet Plaintiff's behaviour was never discussed or raised as a concern prior to termination.
(c) The reference to "informational security" concerns followed discussions about a news channel posting leaks from the DOJ, with the Attorney General later clarifying she had concerns that Plaintiff may be a source of leaks. (P-006)
11. Plaintiff received no prior notice [or] warning~~, or opportunity to respond to any allegations or~~ [about] "behaviour" concerns before termination.
12. In contrast to Plaintiff's treatment, Special Prosecutor xEndeavour has engaged in substantially similar - and more severe - conduct without termination:
(a) In YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, xEndeavour received multiple warnings about courtroom behaviour, including a "final warning" about outbursts and pings, and was subsequently found in contempt of court and fined $500 for pinging the presiding officer and debating the Judge. (P-007)
(b) In Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of Construction and Transportation [2025] FCR 78, xEndeavour was warned about speaking without approval, then found in contempt of court and fined $5,000 plus 10 minutes jail. The Court noted that "as a former Chief Justice and regular in the courts, xEndeavour should know the proceedings by now." (P-008)
(c) In that same case, xEndeavour was charged with a second count of contempt for self-removing a wanted point to avoid jail time (later removed), and received yet another "final warning" that further issues would be considered perjury and/or contempt. (P-008)
13. Despite multiple contempt charges across multiple cases and numerous warnings about courtroom behaviour - reasons cited for Plaintiff's termination - xEndeavour remains employed as a Special Prosecutor with the Department of Justice.
14. During the subsequent conversation with the Attorney General, Plaintiff contested the accuracy of the stated reasons and requested that the decision be settled out of court. Plaintiff explicitly stated: "Not asking for a reversal, I would contest this in court and usually a re-hiring isn't par for the course. I am asking you to settle it before hitting the courts." (P-006)
15. The Attorney General declined to settle, stating: "im not reversing the decision at the moment [...] see you in court." (P-006)
16. The Attorney General acknowledged that Plaintiff's firing was partly due to "informational security concerns regarding anchor watch and the solidarity of the DOJ's internal information." (P-005)
17. The Attorney General provided no evidence to substantiate the claims that Plaintiff was involved with any information leaks or issues with "informational security".
18. The Department of Justice had previously issued a public apology in October 2025 following a similar unfair dismissal case (T04DS74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 65), wherein Acting Attorney General Dearev stated: "The Department of Justice sincerely apologizes for the lack of notice given to ToadKing upon his firing. We will work towards providing more notice in the future [...] We will therefore establish clear protocols for notice periods in firings, as well as specific guidance for firings in general, in our policy." (P-009)
19. Despite these promises, the Department has not implemented the promised protocols, resulting in the same pattern of arbitrary termination without notice being repeated against Plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Unfair Dismissal

Defendant's termination of Plaintiff constitutes unfair dismissal in violation of Section 7(1) of the Commercial Standards Act. The termination was unjust under Section 7(1)(d), which permits:

(d) other metrics that courts find necessary to consider in accordance with what may be considered unfair dismissal by any reasonable person and is consistent with the previous language and intent of this section.

No reasonable person would consider this termination just or fair. The Attorney General terminated Plaintiff citing three reasons: "multiple charges of contempt of court, concerns about courtroom behaviour, and as part of a wider effort in increasing department informational security." Each of these stated reasons fails to withstand basic scrutiny.

First, the claim of "multiple charges of contempt" is demonstrably false. Plaintiff received a single contempt charge, not multiple. Moreover, that single charge arose from a miscommunication that the Attorney General herself acknowledged was "not a huge deal" and for which she admitted she "should've followed up." No reasonable person would consider a single contempt charge - stemming from a miscommunication the employer admits fault in - grounds for immediate termination without warning.

Second, the citation of "concerns about courtroom behaviour" is wholly unsupported. Plaintiff's courtroom behaviour was never discussed, documented, or raised as a concern at any point during Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff received no warnings or indication that any aspect of their conduct was problematic. A reasonable person would expect that if an employer had genuine concerns about an employee's behavior, those concerns would be communicated to the employee with an opportunity to respond or improve. Terminating an employee for behavioural concerns that were never raised is arbitrary and unfair.

Third, the reference to "informational security" concerns is entirely without evidentiary foundation. The Attorney General provided no evidence whatsoever that Plaintiff was responsible for any leak of Department information. When pressed on this point, the Attorney General could offer nothing but suspicion, stating only that she had "informational security concerns regarding anchor watch and the solidarity of the DOJ's internal information." Suspicion alone, without any evidence, cannot justify termination. A reasonable person would find it absurd and unjust to terminate an employee based on unsubstantiated suspicion of wrongdoing. The Attorney General's willingness to fire Plaintiff on mere speculation - without conducting any investigation, gathering any evidence, ~~or even asking Plaintiff about the matters -~~ represents precisely the type of arbitrary and capricious conduct that Section 7(1) is designed to prevent.

The termination also fails under Section 7(1)(a) and (b). There was no financial necessity requiring Plaintiff's termination, as the Department was not engaged in any type of downsizing operations. Plaintiff's continued employment would not have been a detriment to the workflow, reputation, or legal standing of the Department - to the contrary, Plaintiff was actively serving as counsel in Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86 and Justice Compass, Ltd. v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 98.

2. Violation of DOJ Policy Handbook

The Department of Justice violated its own Policy Handbook (P-010) in terminating Plaintiff, which establishes progressive discipline procedures that were entirely disregarded.

The Defendant provided no documentation supporting Plaintiff's termination and offered reasons that were either demonstrably false or entirely unsupported by evidence. The Department cannot defend a decision based on "multiple charges of contempt" when only one charge existed. The Department cannot cite "concerns about courtroom behaviour" that were never documented or communicated to the Plaintiff. The Department cannot invoke "informational security" concerns without any evidence linking Plaintiff to any security breach.

The Policy Handbook establishes that termination should be a last resort following other disciplinary measures, not an immediate first response. The section on "Handling Conflicts of Interest" provides that failure to comply "could result in forced recusal or disciplinary action, up to and potentially including termination of employment from the department." The phrase "up to and potentially including" clearly establishes a graduated approach where termination represents the maximum sanction after lesser disciplinary measures have been considered or implemented. Similarly, the "Evidence Confidentiality" provision states that failure to follow this principle "will result in disciplinary action, up to and potentially including termination of employment from the department," again establishing progressive discipline. Plaintiff received no prior disciplinary action, no warnings, and no opportunity to respond before being immediately terminated, in direct violation of the progressive discipline framework established by the Policy Handbook.

3. Unfair Discrimination

Defendant's actions constitute unfair discrimination in violation of Section 32(13) of the Constitution, which guarantees that:

(13) 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 discrimination based on political belief or social status.

Special Prosecutor xEndeavour has committed substantially similar - and objectively more severe - conduct to that cited for Plaintiff's termination, yet remains employed by the Department of Justice.

In YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, xEndeavour received multiple warnings about courtroom behaviour from the presiding judicial officer, including a "final warning" that any further outbursts or pings would result in contempt charges. xEndeavour was subsequently found in contempt of court for pinging the presiding officer and debating the Judge, and was fined $500.

In Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of Construction and Transportation [2025] FCR 78, xEndeavour was again warned about speaking without approval from the Attorney General, then found in contempt of court and fined $5,000 plus 10 minutes jail. The Court specifically noted that "as a former Chief Justice and regular in the courts, xEndeavour should know the proceedings by now and know when to speak and not speak within the court." xEndeavour was subsequently charged with a second count of contempt for self-removing a wanted point to avoid jail time, and received yet another "final warning" that further issues would be considered perjury and/or contempt.

The disparate treatment between Plaintiff and xEndeavour is stark and indefensible. Plaintiff received one contempt charge arising from a miscommunication acknowledged by the Attorney General as "not a huge deal" and was immediately terminated. xEndeavour received multiple contempt charges across multiple cases, multiple warnings about courtroom behaviour, fines and jail time, yet continues to serve as a Special Prosecutor.

This unequal application of disciplinary standards demonstrates that Plaintiff's termination was not based on legitimate workplace concerns but rather arbitrary or retaliatory motives that cannot withstand scrutiny under the equal protection guarantee.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from this Court:

~~1. Compensatory Damages under Section 4 of the Legal Damages Act for unpaid salary and compensation for work performed on behalf of the Department of Justice during November 2025.~~

2. $15,000 in Consequential Damages for Loss of Enjoyment under Section 7(1)(III) of the Legal Damages Act, specifically for the loss of ability to practice law on behalf of the Commonwealth and the work invested in ongoing cases, including [2025] FCR 86 and [2025] FCR 98.

3. $15,000 in Punitive Damages under Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act, which authorises damages "awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future."

4. A declaration that the Defendant's termination of Plaintiff was unlawful and constituted unfair dismissal in violation of Section 7(1) of the Commercial Standards Act.

5. An order directing the Department of Justice to implement the termination protocols it publicly committed to following T04DS74 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 65, including notice periods and specific guidance for firings, and to update the DOJ Policy Handbook to reflect these procedures.

6. A formal written apology from the Defendant acknowledging the improper termination and violation of Plaintiff's rights.

7. 30% legal fees as provided under Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.

EVIDENCE

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/asexualdinosaur-prosecutor-application.30983/post-114250

M

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86'

Nov 17, 2025

Thank you @End, as well as @pricelessAgrari & @Dogeington for participating as witnesses. You are now dismissed.

We will now be doing closing statements. I am going to be granting additional time to write the closing statements because I want this done in a specific format. I ask that you utilize IRAC format (or some other form of legal writing) to explain the factual and legal issues. (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont as a primer on legal writing). I want this closing statement written as a brief. Please follow the...

Lawsuit: In Session Thread 'Justice Compass, Ltd. v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 98'

Sep 24, 2025

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Justice Compass, Ltd. (CEO Dartanboy representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Justice Compass, Ltd. worked a long, difficult case that, under the law, requires legal fees to be paid. Furthermore, the Federal Court ordered that the DHS ensure these legal fees be paid.

The Commonwealth has refused to fulfill their duty, and refused to comply with the Court Order.

I. PARTIES
1. Justice...

M

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86'

Oct 24, 2025

It has been one hour since discovery has ended. Under Rule 4.7, if a request for discovery is granted by a presiding judge, the material must be given by the opposing party under sanction of contempt of court and perjury. (Information - Court Rules and Procedures). I have additionally given a directive, and have given judicial notice required to charge contempt of court. (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures. see also https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/2024-fcr-110-contempt-appeal-appeal.22388/post-86758; Appeal: Accepted - FCR 63 - Contempt Appeal)...

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76'

Sep 15, 2025

End said:
Your honour, requesting that you compel the plaintiff to reply to the Defence’s request for information in relation to:

The defence asked for this on Monday and has since pinged the plaintiff several times to no response.

The plaintiff is clearly aware of the happenings of the case as they have been giving interviews to the media about the happenings of the case.

The defence is happy to answer to the plaintiff’s claims, however, noting that they have changed several times we would like clarification on what remains unanswered.

Franciscus said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE...

M

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76'

Nov 17, 2025

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Local Rules for Judge Mug

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

This is a massive case, I will take a day or so to fully re-read and grasp the...

M

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76'

Nov 18, 2025

Franciscus said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Your Honor:

This is an extraordinary motion, but the Plaintiff must raise it here as the behavior by the Commonwealth's Counsel here breaches all norms and expectations of this Court, as well as the law.

The Plaintiff has been made aware of various ex-parte communications made by Commonwealth Counsel xEndeavour regarding this very case, included in the spoilers below. Under the Judicial Standards Act 29(1), which discusses ex-parte communications:

The JSA goes on to specify that ex-parte...

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78'

Jul 21, 2025

CoolChacha97 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to this lawsuit coming shortly before the eviction date, we request the DCT be enjoined (prevented) from evicting the plots in this case (c454, c279, c226, c607) for the duration of this case

End said:
The Department carries out the eviction process in a non-partisan fashion, and any reference that suggests otherwise is untrue.

The plaintiff had seven of their properties reported recently, and of those seven, all were reviewed by the Secretary. One was placed on hold pending more information from the...

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78'

Jul 24, 2025

ToadKing said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, using the Defendant's previous argument:

In Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42, #3 the plaintiff's counsel argued that: "An amicus brief is a legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof." The Defendant "agreed with this and argues the same here."

To allow this amicus brief, violates the principles argued in an abhorrent manner. The brief submitter is quite literally a...

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78'

Jul 28, 2025

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COURT ORDER

I am charging @End with a new count of Contempt of Court for self-removing the wanted point to avoid jail time from the first Contempt Charge.

The DHS is to fine End $5,000 and jail them for 10 minutes for this new charge, and readminister the 10 minutes of jail time from the original count.

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78'

Jul 28, 2025

Franciscus said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

Under the Criminal Code Act, “perjury is defined as follows:

As you have acknowledged, this was a mere lapse of mind, not a knowing effort to provide false testimony to you in this Court. I respectfully ask you to reconsider this decision, as the alleged crime has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as required by the Criminal Code Act’s definition.

Motion is approved. This is a final warning that any more issues shall be considered perjury and/or contempt of...

See DoJ Policy Handbook.pdf

WITNESSES

1. Kaiserin_
2. Dearev
3. xEndeavour
4. asexualdinosaur

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 18th day of November 2025

ToadKing · Nov 18, 2025

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

Plaintiff requests that Magistrate dearev, the sole Magistrate in the DCR, recuse from this case as they are a named witness.
Plaintiff requests that an FCR judge be assigned to this case.

dearev · Nov 18, 2025

ToadKing said:
Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

Plaintiff requests that Magistrate dearev, the sole Magistrate in the DCR, recuse from this case as they are a named witness.
Plaintiff requests that an FCR judge be assigned to this case.

Granted.

Muggy21 · Nov 18, 2025

@ToadKing

For the moment, I'll be the PO on this case pending internal discussion. A summons will occur within a few days for docket management.

Vennefly · Tuesday at 6:07 PM

Writ of Summons

@Attorney General (@Kaiserin_) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Asexualdinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for such responses shall be 48 hours after the motion was filed.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

juniperfig · Tuesday at 7:54 PM

Commonwealth is present, your honour.

Vennefly · Tuesday at 8:15 PM

juniperfig said:
Commonwealth is present, your honour.

Thank you! You have 48 hours to present an Answer to Complaint.

juniperfig · Wednesday at 3:30 AM

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

AsexualDinosaur
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirm.
2. Affirm.
3. Affirm.
4. Affirm.
5. Affirm.
6. Affirm.
7. Affirm.
8. Affirm.
9. Affirm.
10. Deny. The stated reasons for AsexualDinosaur's termination were not materially inaccurate or misleading.
(a) Deny. AsexualDinosaur received a contempt charge while under the employ of the Department of Justice in 12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89 (D-001).
(b) Affirm.
(c) Affirm.
11. Deny. AsexualDinosaur was approached regarding the ownership of Anchor Watch on 14 November 2025 (P-010), before his firing (P-005). This was an opportunity to "respond to the allegations". Affirm the remainder.
12. Affirm.
(a) Affirm.
(b) Affirm.
(c) Affirm.
13. Affirm.
14. Affirm.
15. Affirm.
16. Affirm.
17. Affirm.
18. Affirm.
19. Deny. Plaintiff was not terminated arbitrarily.

II. DEFENCES
I. The Commercial Standards Act 7(b) states that it must be considered whether or not the employee’s continued employment would have been a detriment to the workflow, reputation, or legal standing of the business. AsexualDinosaur was a detriment to the workflow, the reputation, and the legal standing of the Department of Justice.

I.a. Workflow: The Attorney General was required to step in to prevent AsexualDinosaur from receiving one contempt charge for each hour he did not comply with a court order, despite the Attorney General telling AsexualDinosaur to comply with the court order to the best of their abilities (P-003, P-004, D-002). The Attorney General cannot micromanage each case her prosecutors are on to ensure they are not recieving a contempt charge for each hour a court order is not complied with.

I.b. Reputation: AsexualDinosaur's conduct in court, including multiple contempt charges (P-003, D-001), asking if a Justice was "hard of hearing" (D-003), and snarkily requesting a "non-ai response" (D-004) is a detriment to the reputation of the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice also has reasonable suspicion that AsexualDinosaur is involved with Anchor Watch News, whose leaks came into question in the ongoing Senate hearing into the Department of Justice (D-005, D-006, D-007).

I.c. Legal Standing: AsexualDinosaur has already released the name of a classified government plan, suggesting they may release more (D-008). The Department of Justice also has reasonable suspicion that AsexualDinosaur is involved with Anchor Watch News, which has released a DOJ/Judiciary ticket (D-007) and attorney-client communications (D-006) publicly.

II. The DOJ Policy Handbook does not establish a progressive discipline system. Plaintiff selectively interprets the phrase “up to and potentially including termination of employment from the department” (P-010) as requiring a sequence of escalating punishments. It does not. The plain meaning of “up to and including” is that any disciplinary measure within that range may be imposed. No mention of a progressive system is made in the Policy Handbook.

III. Plaintiff is not similarly situated to Special Prosecutor xEndeavour. Their threat to workflow, reputation, and legal standing differ materially. Their roles, duties, and access differ materially. The Constitution does not require a uniform disciplinary approach where the termination of one employee for conduct that includes contempt requires the Department to terminate all individuals who receive contempt charges, particularly when those individuals serve in fundamentally different roles with distinct scopes of responsibility.

III. EVIDENCE

ameslap said:
Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
12700k v. MattTheSavvy - [2025] FCR 89
Civil Action

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

The Defendant breached their contract.

The Defense failed to contest any facts or provide any evidence.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION

“I think… thank you”

Contract is “wack”

III. THE COURT OPINION
Let me get this out of the way. This is an obvious situation of breach of contract and the Defendant failed to uphold their terms. The Contract allows for the recovery of the balance owed AND/OR take possession of the collateral. The Defendant knew this when they signed.

Now onto the more troublesome matter. The matter that the defense counsel has presented themselves in this case is inappropriate and highly unprofessional. They wasted this courts time, the citizens' time, and more importantly, violated that trust between a defendant and their attorney. The court will find the Counsel in Contempt, refer them to the DoJ with Perjury, and refer them to the Chief Justice for their actions as a public defender.

IV. DECISION
I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff and order the following:

The plots S104 and C745 shall be transferred to the Plaintiff.

$250,000 in Compensatory Damages.

$75,000 in Legal Fees to the Plaintiff’s attorney.

ASexualDinosaur is found in Contempt and fined $5,000 penalty units and 10 minutes of imprisonment.

ASexual Dinosaur is referred to the DoJ for Perjury.

The time in prison shall run together for a total of 10 minutes.

The Federal Court thanks all involved. This Court is now adjourned.

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread '12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89'

Nov 1, 2025

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
12700k v. MattTheSavvy - [2025] FCR 89
Civil Action

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

The Defendant breached their contract.
The Defense failed to contest any facts or provide any evidence.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION

“I think… thank you”
Contract is “wack”

III. THE COURT OPINION
Let me get this out of the way. This is an obvious situation of breach of contract and the Defendant failed to uphold their terms. The Contract allows for the recovery of the balance...

asexualdinosaur said:
Your honor,

The defense would like to suggest your honor is hard of hearing and asks for a review from another Judicial officer over the closed court hearing as we submitted that it was attorney client privilege and elaborated how.

Thank you.

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86'

Oct 21, 2025

Matthew100x said:
Rejected. As held in the sidebar, in order for an objection of privilege to be upheld, the party objecting must state and explain the privilege used.

Your honor,

The defense would like to suggest your honor is hard of hearing and asks for a review from another Judicial officer over the closed court hearing as we submitted that it was attorney client privilege and elaborated how.

Thank you.

asexualdinosaur said:
Your honor, do you have a non-ai response?

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86'

Nov 17, 2025

Matthew100x said:
Thank you @End, as well as @pricelessAgrari & @Dogeington for participating as witnesses. You are now dismissed.

We will now be doing closing statements. I am going to be granting additional time to write the closing statements because I want this done in a specific format. I ask that you utilize IRAC format (or some other form of legal writing) to explain the factual and legal issues. (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont as a primer on legal writing). I want this closing statement written as a brief. Please follow the...

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

discord.com

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 26th day of November 2025.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honour,

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), dismissal may occur "for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge".

Plaintiff's first prayer for relief, requesting compensatory damages, has no evidence suggesting AsexualDinosaur has not been compensated for his work at the DOJ in November. To the contrary, the Department of Justice has compensated AsexualDinosaur for his work at the DOJ in November (D-009). There is no need for compensatory damages for wages that have already been paid.

This prayer for relief should be struck.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honour,

Plaintiff states multiple times that AsexualDinosaur only received one contempt charge while employed at the Department of Justice.

ToadKing said:
10.(a) The Attorney General claimed "multiple charges of contempt," when in fact Plaintiff received only a single contempt charge.

ToadKing said:
First, the claim of "multiple charges of contempt" is demonstrably false. Plaintiff received a single contempt charge, not multiple. Moreover, that single charge arose from a miscommunication that the Attorney General herself acknowledged was "not a huge deal" and for which she admitted she "should've followed up." No reasonable person would consider a single contempt charge...

ToadKing said:
The Department cannot defend a decision based on "multiple charges of contempt" when only one charge existed.

ToadKing said:
Plaintiff received one contempt charge arising from a miscommunication acknowledged by the Attorney General as "not a huge deal" and was immediately terminated.

This is demonstrably false. AsexualDinosaur received an additional contempt charge in 12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89 (D-001) while employed at the Department of Justice. There is no reasonable basis to conclude that Plaintiff’s omission was accidental. As an experienced attorney, Plaintiff would unquestionably be aware of the criminal charges they personally received. Their sworn denial cannot be reconciled with the objective record and therefore supports that the Plaintiff knowingly withheld this information and provided false statements under oath.

All statements referencing a single contempt charge should be struck.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honour,

Plaintiff states multiple times that AsexualDinosaur was not given the chance to respond to the allegations regarding their involvement with Anchor Watch News.

ToadKing said:
Plaintiff received no prior notice, warning, or opportunity to respond to any allegations or "behaviour" concerns before termination.

ToadKing said:
The Attorney General's willingness to fire Plaintiff on mere speculation ... or even asking Plaintiff about the matters

This is demonstrably false. The record clearly shows that the Attorney General and the Plaintiff discussed the relevant allegations directly (D-010). Plaintiff’s sworn statements cannot be attributed to mistake or misunderstanding, as Plaintiff was a direct participant in the conversation at issue. Their sworn denial cannot be reconciled with the objective record and therefore supports that Plaintiff knowingly withheld this information and provided false statements under oath.

The bolded statements should be struck.

ToadKing · Wednesday at 5:26 AM

juniperfig said:
Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honour,

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), dismissal may occur "for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge".

Plaintiff's first prayer for relief, requesting compensatory damages, has no evidence suggesting AsexualDinosaur has not been compensated for his work at the DOJ in November. To the contrary, the Department of Justice has compensated AsexualDinosaur for his work at the DOJ in November (D-009). There is no need for compensatory damages for wages that have already been paid.

This prayer for relief should be struck.

Response

Your Honour,
Plaintiff agrees with the Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss.

If the Department of Justice has compensated AsexualDinosaur for all outstanding salary and wages from his employment during November 2025, then Prayer for Relief 1 seeking compensatory damages is moot.

Final payments were made after the filing of this case, and the Complaint was not amended to reflect these subsequent payments. Plaintiff withdraws Prayer for Relief 1.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honour,

Plaintiff states multiple times that AsexualDinosaur only received one contempt charge while employed at the Department of Justice.

This is demonstrably false. AsexualDinosaur received an additional contempt charge in 12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89 (D-001) while employed at the Department of Justice. There is no reasonable basis to conclude that Plaintiff’s omission was accidental. As an experienced attorney, Plaintiff would unquestionably be aware of the criminal charges they personally received. Their sworn denial cannot be reconciled with the objective record and therefore supports that the Plaintiff knowingly withheld this information and provided false statements under oath.

All statements referencing a single contempt charge should be struck.

Response

Your Honour,
The Commonwealth's perjury objection should be denied for the following reasons:

I. THE COMPLAINT REFERENCED THE SPECIFIC CONTEMPT CHARGE AT ISSUE

The Complaint's facts section (Facts 4-7) specifically referenced the contempt charge in Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86. This was the contempt charge discussed in the conversation between Plaintiff and Attorney General Kaiserin_ (P-004), where the Attorney General acknowledged it was "not a huge deal" and that she "should've followed up."

The claims section discussing whether a "single contempt charge" justified termination was referring to this specific charge - the one the Attorney General herself had cited in the termination conversation and the one she had previously minimised as inconsequential.

II. PRIVATE MATTERS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO EMPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE

The contempt charge in 12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89 occurred in a private civil matter where Plaintiff was NOT representing the Commonwealth of Redmont as a State Prosecutor.

The Attorney General's termination message (P-006) did not refer to any contempt charge in private litigation. She stated Plaintiff was being fired for "multiple charges of contempt of court, concerns about courtroom behaviour, and as part of a wider effort in increasing department informational security." When Plaintiff immediately challenged this characterisation, stating "I only got one charge of contempt under employment in the DOJ," the Attorney General clarified: "apologies, you were charged with one contempt and punished multiple times on a repeating cycle for it."

The Commonwealth cannot now, in litigation, claim the "multiple charges" language referred to a contempt charge in private litigation (D-001) that was never mentioned in the termination conversation and that the Attorney General expressly clarified she was NOT referring to when challenged by Plaintiff. Her own words - "you were charged with one contempt and punished multiple times on a repeating cycle for it" - demonstrate she was describing the Inknet contempt charge's hourly punishment mechanism, not multiple separate contempt charges.

III. PERJURY REQUIRES CRIMINAL BURDEN OF PROOF

As the Federal Court held in Privacy Matters v. Nexalin [2025] FCR 36:

The perjury objection is denied on the grounds that perjury is a criminal charge, and therefore the courts shall apply the burden of proof standards that any criminal charge is held to.

The Commonwealth has not met the criminal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff knowingly made false statements with the intent to deceive. At most, there may be an ambiguity about whether "contempt charges" include private matters - but ambiguity is not perjury.

IV. NO MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT

Even if the Court were to find the statements imprecise, they were not material to the claims. The core argument remains valid whether there was one or two contempt charges: the Attorney General terminated Plaintiff for conduct she herself acknowledged was not serious ("not a huge deal"), while retaining employees with worse records of multiple contempt charges, multiple warnings, and fines.

The Commonwealth's objection should be overruled.

Vennefly · Wednesday at 6:07 AM

juniperfig said:
Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honour,

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), dismissal may occur "for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge".

Plaintiff's first prayer for relief, requesting compensatory damages, has no evidence suggesting AsexualDinosaur has not been compensated for his work at the DOJ in November. To the contrary, the Department of Justice has compensated AsexualDinosaur for his work at the DOJ in November (D-009). There is no need for compensatory damages for wages that have already been paid.

This prayer for relief should be struck.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Commonwealth on 26 November 2025.

Upon review of the pleadings and record, consideration of the applicable law, and being fully advised, the Court issues the following findings and conclusions:

It is undisputed that the Plaintiff is not owed wages for work performed on behalf of the Department of Justice during November 2025.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that:

The Commonwealth's (partial) Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief numbered 1 is DISMISSED and struck from the record.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

Vennefly · Wednesday at 6:26 AM

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honour,

Plaintiff states multiple times that AsexualDinosaur only received one contempt charge while employed at the Department of Justice.

This is demonstrably false. AsexualDinosaur received an additional contempt charge in 12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89 (D-001) while employed at the Department of Justice. There is no reasonable basis to conclude that Plaintiff’s omission was accidental. As an experienced attorney, Plaintiff would unquestionably be aware of the criminal charges they personally received. Their sworn denial cannot be reconciled with the objective record and therefore supports that the Plaintiff knowingly withheld this information and provided false statements under oath.

All statements referencing a single contempt charge should be struck.

OVERRULED. Given that this additional Contempt Charge occurred in Plaintiff's private practice, I am inclined to give the Plaintiff some creative liberty in his argument here. The Commonwealth has included evidence of this Contempt Charge in Plaintiff's private practice in their Answer, so I can take the facts into consideration fully.

ToadKing · Wednesday at 6:31 AM

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff will file a substantive response to the Commonwealth's 2nd Objection within the timeframe permitted under Court Rules. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court refrain from ruling on the objection until Plaintiff's response has been filed and considered.

ToadKing · Wednesday at 1:35 PM

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honour,

Plaintiff states multiple times that AsexualDinosaur was not given the chance to respond to the allegations regarding their involvement with Anchor Watch News.

This is demonstrably false. The record clearly shows that the Attorney General and the Plaintiff discussed the relevant allegations directly (D-010). Plaintiff’s sworn statements cannot be attributed to mistake or misunderstanding, as Plaintiff was a direct participant in the conversation at issue. Their sworn denial cannot be reconciled with the objective record and therefore supports that Plaintiff knowingly withheld this information and provided false statements under oath.

The bolded statements should be struck.

Response

Your Honour,
The Commonwealth's perjury objection should be denied for the following reasons:

I. THE COMMONWEALTH MISCHARACTERISES THE COMPLAINT THROUGH SELECTIVE QUOTATION

The Commonwealth quotes:

The Attorney General's willingness to fire Plaintiff on mere speculation ... or even asking Plaintiff about the matters.

This selective quotation creates a misleading impression. The complete statement reads:

The Attorney General's willingness to fire Plaintiff on mere speculation - without conducting any investigation, gathering any evidence, or even asking Plaintiff about the matters - represents precisely the type of arbitrary and capricious conduct that Section 7(1) is designed to prevent.

Read in full context with the preceding sentence, the statement criticises the Attorney General for firing Plaintiff "without conducting any investigation, gathering any evidence" - meaning a proper investigation that would gather evidence to support the suspicion. Asking a single question ("do you own anchor watch?"), receiving a denial, gathering no corroborating evidence, and terminating anyway is not a proper investigation - it is precisely the arbitrary conduct the statement describes.he Attorney General said they would obtain a warrant to gather evidence ("I could go file a warrant to see who owns it"), but presumably never did so. She terminated Plaintiff four days later without ever gathering any evidence to support her suspicion. This is termination based on speculation without evidence - exactly what the Complaint alleges.

II. D-010 PROVES PLAINTIFF WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO EMPLOYMENT ALLEGATIONS

The Commonwealth claims that because a conversation occurred on 14th November, Plaintiff
was given "the chance to respond to the allegations" and therefore Plaintiff's statements
are false.

This fundamentally misunderstands what constitutes an "opportunity to respond to
allegations" in an employment context. D-010 demonstrates the opposite of what the
Commonwealth claims.

D-010 shows:

The Attorney General asked: "do you happen to know who owns anchor watch news?"
Plaintiff responded: "I might"
The Attorney General pressed: "is it you?"
The Plaintiff denied ownership, stating: "I wish"
The Attorney General continued, "i could go file a warrant to see who owns it but it’ll be much easier if you just tell me whether or not it’s you"
The Plaintiff again denied: "It’s not me, nor do I think a crime has been committed that would warrant a warrant."
Four days later, Plaintiff was terminated citing "informational security" concerns

This is not an "opportunity to respond to employment allegations." This is an
accusatory interrogation where:

Plaintiff was never informed that his employment was at risk
Plaintiff was never told this was part of a disciplinary process
Plaintiff was never given the opportunity to present evidence or witnesses
Plaintiff's denial was not investigated or credited
Plaintiff was terminated based on suspicion, despite his denial

An employee who is accused, denies the accusation, and is fired anyway, without evidence
has NOT been given a meaningful opportunity to respond that could prevent termination.
That is exactly what occurred here.

The distinction is not whether words were exchanged - it is whether Plaintiff was given
notice and due process in an employment disciplinary context. D-010 shows he was not.

The Commonwealth cannot reconcile its OWN position with the objective record. D-010 shows an
employee was accused, denied involvement, and was fired based on unsubstantiated
suspicion - precisely what Plaintiff alleged in the Complaint.

III. PERJURY REQUIRES CRIMINAL BURDEN OF PROOF

As the Federal Court held in Privacy Matters v. Nexalin [2025] FCR 36:

The perjury objection is denied on the grounds that perjury is a criminal charge, and therefore the courts shall apply the burden of proof standards that any criminal charge is held to.

At most, there is a good-faith difference in characterisation between:

Being questioned by a supervisor in an investigation (which occurred)
Being given notice and opportunity to respond to employment allegations with due process (which did not occur)

This distinction is legally and factually sound, not perjury.

Vennefly · Wednesday at 4:05 PM

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honour,

Plaintiff states multiple times that AsexualDinosaur was not given the chance to respond to the allegations regarding their involvement with Anchor Watch News.

This is demonstrably false. The record clearly shows that the Attorney General and the Plaintiff discussed the relevant allegations directly (D-010). Plaintiff’s sworn statements cannot be attributed to mistake or misunderstanding, as Plaintiff was a direct participant in the conversation at issue. Their sworn denial cannot be reconciled with the objective record and therefore supports that Plaintiff knowingly withheld this information and provided false statements under oath.

The bolded statements should be struck.

SUSTAINED. Please note that the Commonwealth only requested that the bolded sections be struck. Those sections have been demonstrated to be false, given Plaintiff was given the opportunity to respond to allegations regarding their involvement in Anchor Watch News. Furthermore, an objection for Perjury is something different entirely than a Criminal Charge for Perjury, as supported by the Verdict from the Supreme Court in [2025] FCR 78 - Appeal. Therefore, this objection does not carry the same evidentiary burden as a Criminal Charge would.

The bolded sections will be struck and I will fix the resulting broken sentence structure sua sponte with [brackets].

In the interest of efficient Courtroom Proceedings, I would advise counsel to keep responses to objections short and to the point (which is also applicable to objections themselves).

Vennefly · Wednesday at 4:19 PM

We will now enter Discovery, which shall last 5 days. Discovery may be ended early if both Parties agree.

@ToadKing @juniperfig

ToadKing · Wednesday at 4:25 PM

Evidence

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), the Plaintiff submits the following into evidence:

juniperfig · Wednesday at 4:58 PM

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth requests the Plaintiff answer the following question truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. State whether AsexualDinosaur, under any name or alias, directly or indirectly operates, manages, or controls Anchor Watch News.

ToadKing · Wednesday at 5:32 PM

juniperfig said:
Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth requests the Plaintiff answer the following question truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. State whether AsexualDinosaur, under any name or alias, directly or indirectly operates, manages, or controls Anchor Watch News.

From the Plaintiff:
"I do not directly or indirectly operate, manage, or control Anchor Watch"

ToadKing · Wednesday at 5:33 PM

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

~~1. All case assignments and work product for State Prosecutor Nacho from April 2025 to present, including:~~

~~List of all cases assigned to Nacho since April 2025~~
~~Records of any work performed by Nacho on assigned cases~~
~~Any communications regarding Nacho's activity or inactivity~~

2. Complete list of all current DOJ employees as of 26 November 2025.

~~3. Any documents related to the implementation of "notice periods in firings" and "specific guidance for firings in general" as promised in the Department's public apology dated 8 October 2025~~

4. All documents and communications regarding the investigation into who owns or operates Anchor Watch News, including (see Court-amended version here):

All evidence, documents, or communications linking AsexualDinosaur to Anchor Watch News or to any information leaks.
All documents identifying which DOJ employees had access to the information that was leaked to Anchor Watch News.

5. All communications between Attorney General Kaiserin_ and any other DOJ employees regarding (see Court-amended version here):

The Anchor Watch leaks
Suspicions about who leaked information

~~6. All communications involving Supreme Court Justice Matthew100x regarding:~~

~~Whistleblowing the FOI ticket information~~
~~The legality or propriety of releasing information to the public~~
~~Any discussions about releasing information as a whistleblowing report~~

7. All communications involving State Prosecutor NovaKerbal regarding:

The leaked information
Any statements about releasing or leaking information
Access to confidential DOJ information

8. Any warrant applications, subpoenas, or other investigative measures taken to identify the owner of Anchor Watch News or the source of leaks.

9. All documents and communications regarding the decision to terminate AsexualDinosaur

~~10. All communications between Attorney General Kaiserin_ and other DOJ employees regarding AsexualDinosaur's performance, conduct, or employment status.~~

11. Any documentation of "concerns about courtroom behaviour" cited as a reason for termination

~~12. All communications regarding whether xEndeavour should be disciplined or terminated, or any other action following his warning and contempt charges~~

ToadKing · Wednesday at 6:08 PM

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

13. Any and all documents or information relating to the purported "classified government plan" known as "slipknot" (D-008), including any information proving that this is a "classified government plan."

Vennefly · Wednesday at 7:01 PM

ToadKing said:
Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. All case assignments and work product for State Prosecutor Nacho from April 2025 to present, including:

List of all cases assigned to Nacho since April 2025

Records of any work performed by Nacho on assigned cases

Any communications regarding Nacho's activity or inactivity

2. Complete list of all current DOJ employees as of 26 November 2025.

3. Any documents related to the implementation of "notice periods in firings" and "specific guidance for firings in general" as promised in the Department's public apology dated 8 October 2025

4. All documents and communications regarding the investigation into who owns or operates Anchor Watch News, including:

All evidence, documents, or communications linking AsexualDinosaur to Anchor Watch News or to any information leaks.

All documents identifying which DOJ employees had access to the information that was leaked to Anchor Watch News.

5. All communications between Attorney General Kaiserin_ and any other DOJ employees regarding:

The Anchor Watch leaks

Suspicions about who leaked information

6. All communications involving Supreme Court Justice Matthew100x regarding:

Whistleblowing the FOI ticket information

The legality or propriety of releasing information to the public

Any discussions about releasing information as a whistleblowing report

7. All communications involving State Prosecutor NovaKerbal regarding:

The leaked information

Any statements about releasing or leaking information

Access to confidential DOJ information

8. Any warrant applications, subpoenas, or other investigative measures taken to identify the owner of Anchor Watch News or the source of leaks.

9. All documents and communications regarding the decision to terminate AsexualDinosaur

10. All communications between Attorney General Kaiserin_ and other DOJ employees regarding AsexualDinosaur's performance, conduct, or employment status.

11. Any documentation of "concerns about courtroom behaviour" cited as a reason for termination

12. All communications regarding whether xEndeavour should be disciplined or terminated, or any other action following his warning and contempt charges

ToadKing said:
Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the Defendant to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

13. Any and all documents or information relating to the purported "classified government plan" known as "slipknot" (D-008), including any information proving that this is a "classified government plan."

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court has conducted sua sponte review of Plaintiff's discovery requests and finds that several of the demands appear facially overbroad and disproportionate in the light of the instant litigation. The Court intends to strike a substantial portion of these requests and Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why such an order should not be entered.

The Court notes, in particular, that the submitted requests seem wildly disproportionate to the scope and needs of this case, reaching well beyond the issues presented in the Complaint and the Answer to Complaint. Counsel is reminded that discovery is not a vehicle for unfocused inquiry or speculative investigation, and the Court expects attorneys to tailor their requests with reasonable precision and restraint.

Plaintiff shall, within 48 hours, file a written response identifying (1) the specific claim or defence to which each request relates, (2) the relevance of the requested information to that claim or defence, and (3) why the scope of the request is proportional to the needs of the case. Speculation or unsupported conjecture will not satisfy this requirement. Counsel is encouraged to amend requests to limit the scope where possible or necessary.

Failure to timely or adequately respond may result in the striking of discovery requests without further notice, along with any additional measures the Court deems necessary to ensure orderly and proportional discovery.

From the moment Plaintiff files their response, the Commonwealth will similarly have 48 hours to respond and to file objections against (amended) discovery requests. In the interim, objections against the discovery requests quoted above are not permitted.

Discovery will be EXTENDED by 3 days to accommodate for this, now ending on 4 December 2025 at 21:19 UTC.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

ToadKing · Thursday at 6:02 AM

Response

Your Honour,
Plaintiff responds to the Court's ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE regarding discovery requests.

I. FRAMEWORK OF CLAIMS AND DEFENCES

To provide context, Plaintiff's claims are:

Claim 1: Unfair Dismissal under Section 7(1) of the Commercial Standards Act, specifically Section 7(1)(d) permitting courts to consider "other metrics... in accordance with what may be considered unfair dismissal by any reasonable person."

Claim 2: Violation of the DOJ Policy Handbook, specifically the progressive discipline framework and promised notice protocols.

Claim 3: Unfair Discrimination under Section 32(13) of the Constitution, based on disparate treatment compared to similarly-situated employees.

Defendant's Defences (from Answer to Complaint) are:

Defence I: Termination was justified under Section 7(1)(b) because Plaintiff's continued employment would be a detriment to:
I.a - Workflow
I.b - Reputation (citing courtroom behaviour and multiple contempts)
I.c - Legal standing (citing disclosure of "classified government plan")

Defence II: DOJ Policy Handbook does not require progressive discipline.

Defence III: Plaintiff not similarly situated to xEndeavour.

II. JUSTIFICATION OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS

REQUEST 1

All case assignments and work product for State Prosecutor Nacho from April 2025 to present

Claim/Defence: Claim 3 (Unfair Discrimination/Disparate Treatment)

Relevance: Defendant argues (Defence III) that Plaintiff is "not similarly situated" to other employees. Plaintiff alleges that the Department retained State Prosecutor Nacho despite months of inactivity, while terminating Plaintiff for alleged misconduct. To prove disparate treatment under Section 32(13), Plaintiff must show that employees with equal or worse performance issues were retained while Plaintiff was terminated.

Proportionality: This request is narrowly tailored to one specific employee for a limited time period (April 2025-present). It seeks only case assignments and work records, not all communications or unrelated materials. This is the minimum information necessary to establish whether Nacho was inactive and whether such inactivity was tolerated, while Plaintiff's alleged conduct was not.

REQUEST 2

Complete list of all current DOJ employees as of 26 November 2025

Claim/Defence: Defence I.c (Legal Standing - Anchor Watch investigation)

Relevance: Defendant claims termination was justified due to "informational security" concerns related to Anchor Watch News leaks. To rebut this defence, Plaintiff must identify which other DOJ employees had access to the leaked information. Without knowing who was employed by DOJ at the relevant time, Plaintiff cannot establish that others with equal access were not investigated or disciplined.

Proportionality: A simple list of employee names and positions is minimally burdensome and directly necessary to identify the individuals who had access to allegedly leaked information.

REQUEST 3

Any documents related to the implementation of "notice periods in firings" and "specific guidance for firings in general" as promised in the Department's public apology dated 8 October 2025

Claim/Defence: Claim I (Unfair Dismissal) and Claim II (Violation of DOJ Policy)

Relevance: Defendant's public apology (P-009) in T04DS74 v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 65 specifically promised: "We will therefore establish clear protocols for notice periods in firings, as well as specific guidance for firings in general, in our policy." Plaintiff alleges the Department failed to implement these protocols and failed to follow them in Plaintiff's termination. To prove this claim, Plaintiff must show either (a) no protocols were implemented, or (b) protocols were implemented but not followed.

This directly relates to Section 7(1)(d)'s "reasonable person" standard - would a reasonable person consider it fair to promise "specific guidance for firings", fail to implement them, and then fire someone without notice?

Proportionality: This request is limited to documents regarding one specific promised policy change over a two-month period. It is essential to prove whether the Department broke its public commitment.

REQUEST 4

All documents and communications regarding the investigation into who owns or operates Anchor Watch News

Claim/Defence: Defence I.b (Reputation) and I.c (Legal Standing)

Relevance: Defendant specifically cites "informational security" as a basis for termination and claims Plaintiff poses a threat to legal standing. In its Answer, Defendant states: "The Department of Justice also has reasonable suspicion that AsexualDinosaur is involved with Anchor Watch News" (Defence I.b and I.c).

To rebut this defence, Plaintiff must show: (a) no actual investigation was conducted, (b) no evidence links Plaintiff to Anchor Watch, (c) other employees with equal access were not investigated, demonstrating selective and arbitrary enforcement.

This also relates to Claim I's "reasonable person" standard - would a reasonable person consider it fair to fire someone based on "reasonable suspicion" without conducting an actual investigation to gather evidence?

Proportionality: This request is limited to documents regarding one specific investigation central to Defendant's stated reason for termination. Without these documents, Plaintiff cannot rebut Defendant's defence that the termination was justified by informational security concerns.

REQUEST 5

All communications between Attorney General Kaiserin_ and any other DOJ employees regarding Anchor Watch leaks

Claim/Defence: Defence I.b and I.c; Claim III (Disparate Treatment)

Relevance: Directly related to Request 4. To prove that the investigation was selective and arbitrary, Plaintiff must show whether other individuals were suspected or investigated. Defendant claims Plaintiff was a threat to informational security, but Plaintiff alleges that others had equal access and expressed intention to leak the information (P-011/15), yet were not investigated.

Proportionality: This request is limited to communications about a specific topic (Anchor Watch leaks and suspicions about who leaked) during a specific relevant time period (when leaks occurred and when the termination decision was made).

REQUEST 6

All communications involving Supreme Court Justice Matthew100x regarding whistleblowing

Claim/Defence: Defence I.b and I.c; Claim III (Disparate Treatment)

Relevance: Defendant claims informational security concerns justified termination. Plaintiff has provided evidence showing Justice Matthew100x stated, "I honestly might whistleblow the FOI ticket" (P-012) and "If I can I am going to release the ticket" (P-013) regarding the same information leaked to Anchor Watch News. To prove selective enforcement, Plaintiff must show whether Matthew100x was investigated as Plaintiff was.

This is essential to the disparate treatment claim and to rebutting Defendant's informational security defence.

Proportionality: This request is limited to one individual's communications about one specific topic (the FOI information) during the relevant time period.

REQUEST 7

All communications involving State Prosecutor NovaKerbal regarding leaks

Claim/Defence: Defence I.b and I.c; Claim III (Disparate Treatment)

Relevance: Identical reasoning to Request 6. Plaintiff has evidence showing NovaTukerbal stated "I can just release it XD" regarding leaked information. To prove selective enforcement, Plaintiff must show whether NovaTukerbal was investigated.

Proportionality: Limited to one individual, one topic, relevant time period.

REQUEST 8

Any warrant applications, subpoenas, or other investigative measures taken to identify the owner of Anchor Watch News or the source of leaks.

Claim/Defence: Defence I.b and I.c; Claim I (Unfair Dismissal)

Relevance: In the conversation with Plaintiff on 14 November 2025, Attorney General stated: "look lol, i could go file a warrant to see who owns it but it'll be much easier if you just tell me whether or not it's you." Plaintiff needs to show whether the AG actually pursued this warrant or any other investigative measures, or whether she simply fired Plaintiff based on suspicion without investigation.

This is essential to proving the termination was arbitrary and not based on actual evidence.

Proportionality: This is a very narrow request - it asks only whether any formal investigative steps were taken.

REQUEST 9

All documents and communications regarding the decision to terminate AsexualDinosaur

Claim/Defence: All claims and all defences

Relevance: To prove unfair dismissal, Plaintiff must understand what the employer actually considered when making the termination decision. To rebut Defendant's defences, Plaintiff must show whether the stated reasons (contempt, courtroom behaviour, informational security) were actually the basis for the decision or an after-the-fact rationalisation.

Section 7(1)(d) requires courts to consider whether termination would be considered unfair by "any reasonable person." To make this determination, the Court must understand what the employer knew and considered at the time of termination.

Proportionality: While this request is broader than others, it is essential and standard in employment cases. Without understanding the decision-making process, Plaintiff cannot prove or disprove whether the termination was arbitrary.

REQUEST 10

All communications between Attorney General Kaiserin_ and other DOJ employees regarding AsexualDinosaur's performance, conduct, or employment status.

Claim/Defence: Defence I.a (Workflow) and I.b (Reputation/Courtroom Behaviour); Claim II (Policy Violation)

Relevance: Defendant cites "concerns about courtroom behaviour" as a basis for termination, specifically the Attorney General claims "your prior behaviour has already raised eyebrows with leadership" (P-006). Plaintiff alleges these concerns were never documented or communicated before termination. To prove this, Plaintiff must show whether any such communications exist. If they don't exist, this proves the concerns were fabricated post-termination.

This also relates to the DOJ Policy Handbook's progressive discipline framework - if concerns existed, why weren't they addressed through progressive discipline?

Proportionality: This request is limited to communications about one specific employee (Plaintiff) regarding performance and conduct.

REQUEST 11

Any documentation of "concerns about courtroom behaviour" cited as a reason for termination

Plaintiff strikes this request as Request 10 would satisfy this.

REQUEST 12

All communications regarding whether xEndeavour should be disciplined or terminated, or any other action following his warning and contempt charges

Claim/Defence: Claim III (Disparate Treatment); Defence III (Not Similarly Situated)

Relevance: Defendant argues Plaintiff is "not similarly situated" to xEndeavour. Plaintiff alleges xEndeavour committed substantially worse conduct (multiple contempt charges, fines, jail time) yet was retained while Plaintiff was terminated for lesser conduct.

To prove disparate treatment under Section 32(13), Plaintiff must show that the Department considered xEndeavour's conduct and chose not to terminate, while choosing to terminate Plaintiff for lesser conduct. This demonstrates an arbitrary and discriminatory application of employment standards.

Proportionality: This request is limited to communications about one employee's discipline for conduct similar to what Plaintiff was fired for.

REQUEST 13

Any and all documents or information relating to the purported "classified government plan" known as "slipknot" (D-008), including any information proving that this is a "classified government plan."

Claim/Defence: Defence I.c (Legal Standing)

Relevance: Defendant's Answer (Defence I.c) specifically claims: "AsexualDinosaur has already released the name of a classified government plan, suggesting they may release more (D-008)." This is a factual assertion that Plaintiff disputes.

To rebut this defence, Plaintiff must obtain: (a) evidence of whether "slipknot" is actually a "classified government plan," (b) when it was classified.

Plaintiff has evidence that he was Attorney General when the "slipknot" channel was created and was a member of the channel in his official capacity when it was not classified. If Defendant cannot prove it was classified or that Plaintiff was notified, this defence fails.

Proportionality: This request is limited to documents regarding one specific matter that the Defendant raised as a defence. Defendant cannot assert something as fact in its Answer and then refuse to provide evidence supporting that assertion.

III. PROCEDURAL CONCERN REGARDING SUA SPONTE REVIEW

Your Honour, while Plaintiff complies with this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, Plaintiff notes a procedural concern with constitutional implications.

Section 32(9) of the Constitution guarantees:

Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.

The right to a "fair trial" necessarily includes the right to gather evidence to prove one's claims or rebut one's opponent's defences. The right to be "confronted with the evidence against them" requires the ability to obtain that evidence through discovery. Striking discovery requests sua sponte before the opposing party even claims they are objectionable risks undermining these constitutional protections.

Rule 4.7 contemplates that discovery requests are "signed off by the presiding judge if opposed by the opposing party." The Commonwealth has not yet objected to these discovery requests. Indeed, the Court's order specifically states that "objections against the discovery requests quoted above are not permitted" during this interim period.

Plaintiff is therefore in the unusual position of justifying discovery requests before the opposing party has even claimed they are objectionable, burdensome, or disproportionate.

Rule 4.1 states that the "scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness" and "to enable fairness by allowing the parties to view the information so that they may properly formulate their legal arguments." The rule directs that "Presiding judges shall be guided by this principle."

Moreover, Rule 3.3 explicitly permits plaintiffs to amend their Complaint during discovery to change "Parties, Facts, Claims for Relief, [and] Prayer for Relief." This rule necessarily reflects that discovery may reveal new information warranting amendment of the complaint. The Court's approach appears to reverse this logic - treating discovery as limited to the initial complaint's scope, when the rules explicitly allow the complaint's scope to expand based on discovery findings.

If discovery reveals that additional DOJ employees were involved in the termination decision, Plaintiff may amend to add parties. If discovery reveals additional policy violations or discrimination, Plaintiff may amend to add claims. If discovery reveals greater damages, Plaintiff may amend the prayer for relief. Discovery must therefore be sufficiently broad to uncover information that might warrant such amendments.

Plaintiff submits that:

1. The Commonwealth should be permitted to object (or not object) to specific requests before the Court rules on proportionality, so that Plaintiff can respond to actual objections rather than hypothetical concerns;

2. Striking discovery requests sua sponte before the opposing party even objects risks undermining both the fairness that Rule 4.1 is designed to protect and the constitutional right to a "fair trial" under Section 32(9).

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff submits that each discovery request is:
(1) Tied to specific claims or defences
(2) Relevant and necessary to prove or disprove those claims/defences
(3) Proportional to the needs of this unfair dismissal case

ToadKing · Thursday at 10:46 AM

I notify the court that I will be withdrawing from this case as the Plaintiff's counsel.

Vennefly · Thursday at 11:01 AM

Writ of Summons

@asexualdinosaur is required to appear before the District Court in the case of AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

asexualdinosaur · Thursday at 11:52 AM

Hewwo, I am arrived.

Vennefly · Thursday at 11:54 AM

asexualdinosaur said:
Hewwo, I am arrived.

Thank you. Do you wish to amend your previous counsel's Discovery Requests or his Response to the Order to Show Cause?

asexualdinosaur · Thursday at 12:11 PM

Vennefly said:
Thank you. Do you wish to amend your previous counsel's Discovery Requests or his Response to the Order to Show Cause?

*Blushes*
Your honour,

I have no amendments, who has time to read all that.

Thank you

Vennefly · Thursday at 12:14 PM

The Commonwealth has 48 hours to respond to Plaintiff's Response to the Order to Show Cause and to make any Objections it wishes against the Plaintiff's Discovery Requests.

@juniperfig

juniperfig · Thursday at 12:28 PM

Evidence

The Commonwealth submits the following into evidence under Rule 4.6.

Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98'

Thursday at 10:45 AM

The Court, having requested Order 2 of the above Court Order be actioned by the Staff Team, enters the following documents received into the record.

See attachment Ticket.pdf

Accordingly, the Court identifies the Owner/Operator of "Anchor Watch" to be @asexualdinosaur.

Magistrate Venne.

juniperfig · Thursday at 12:41 PM

ToadKing said:
From the Plaintiff:
"I do not directly or indirectly operate, manage, or control Anchor Watch"

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honour,

As proven by both the warrant obtained by Solicitor General juniperfig (D-011, D-012, D-013) and the District Court's findings in ToadKing v. AnchorWatch (D-014), this statement is false.

The Commonwealth requests this response be struck.

asexualdinosaur · Thursday at 12:43 PM

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honour,

As proven by both the warrant obtained by Solicitor General juniperfig (D-011, D-012, D-013) and the District Court's findings in ToadKing v. AnchorWatch (D-014), this statement is false.

The Commonwealth requests this response be struck.

Respectfully, all thats been made clear is that I requested the hook- not that I own or operate AnchorWatch. Which I do not.

Vennefly · Thursday at 12:58 PM

asexualdinosaur said:
Respectfully, all thats been made clear is that I requested the hook- not that I own or operate AnchorWatch. Which I do not.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court, based on the submissions by the Commonwealth, considers it extremely unlikely that Plaintiff does not directly or indirectly operate, manage or control Anchor Watch. At the very least, Plaintiff had some involvement with Anchor Watch and knows and should be able to prove who does operate, manage or control it, through which he could prove his statement to be factually correct. Accordingly, the Plaintiff @asexualdinosaur is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the response to which the Commonwealth has Objected should not be stricken and why he should not be held in Contempt of Court.

Plaintiff has 48 hours to file a Response detailing:

What Plaintiff's precise involvement with Anchor Watch is or was;
Who, according to Plaintiff, operates, manages and/or controls Anchor Watch, and,
Why the statement to which the Commonwealth Objected is not perjurious.

With his response, Plaintiff may also submit any evidence with which he wishes to support his claims.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

juniperfig · Thursday at 5:42 PM

Your honour,

I apologize for the barrage of objections.

To preface this all: Discovery is not an opportunity for Plaintiff to assemble a case they failed to investigate before filing. The Commonwealth is not required to build Plaintiff’s case, nor to compensate for Plaintiff’s lack of investigation through FOI requests, affidavits, or any other basic pre-filing steps. Overly broad discovery requests distract from the core question at issue and discovery requests must be relevant to the case directly (Malka v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 87).

Plaintiff argues they have a constitutional right to be confronted with the evidence against them. I remind Plaintiff that they are the one who initiated this litigation; the Commonwealth is not prosecuting or accusing them of wrongdoing. This interpretation improperly attempts to reframe discovery as a mechanism for the Plaintiff to shift their own evidentiary burden onto the Department of Justice, with a logically unsound interpretation of the Constitution.

The burden of proof rests on the Plaintiff in civil cases (Dartanman v. Commonwealth [2022] FCR 72, UnityMaster v. xEndeavour [2025] FCR 16). If there is an argument made with no evidence supporting it, the burden of proof falls to the person making the argument (GnomeWhisperer v Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11). Several of Plaintiff’s requests attempt to shift the burden of proof by demanding that the Commonwealth produce documents solely so Plaintiff can test speculative, unevidenced theories.

Thank you.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

ToadKing said:
All case assignments and work product for State Prosecutor Nacho from April 2025 to present, including:

List of all cases assigned to Nacho since April 2025

Records of any work performed by Nacho on assigned cases

Any communications regarding Nacho's activity or inactivity

AsexualDinosaur was fired for "multiple charges of contempt of court, concerns about courtroom behaviour, and as part of a wider effort in increasing department informational security" (P-006). Inactivity is not mentioned in this case. State Prosecutor Nacho's alleged inactivity is not relevant to how the Department of Justice punishes contempt of court, courtroom behaviour, and/or suspected (now proven, see D-011, D-012, D-013, D-014) leaks of information.

Plaintiff states "Defendant argues (Defence III) that Plaintiff is "not similarly situated" to other employees" as a justification for this request. The Commonwealth is arguing that AsexualDinosaur is not similarly situated to xEndeavour, the employee used in Plaintiff's case as an example of courtroom misconduct and contempt charges. Other employees are not mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint or in the Commonwealth's response.

Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support their suspicion that State Prosecutor Nacho has been inactive. Nothing on record supports this assertion. There are no facts related to this assertion. It is speculation to assert State Prosecutor Nacho is inactive, and it is not Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

ToadKing said:
3. Any documents related to the implementation of "notice periods in firings" and "specific guidance for firings in general" as promised in the Department's public apology dated 8 October 2025

Plaintiff attempts to justify this request by stating "to prove this claim, Plaintiff must show either (a) no protocols were implemented, or (b) protocols were implemented but not followed". However, the fact this request would support is not in dispute.

The Commonwealth does not deny that the Department has not implemented the promised protocols. This is simply a waste of time.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

ToadKing said:
4. All documents and communications regarding the investigation into who owns or operates Anchor Watch News, including:

All evidence, documents, or communications linking AsexualDinosaur to Anchor Watch News or to any information leaks.

All documents identifying which DOJ employees had access to the information that was leaked to Anchor Watch News.

Your Honour, you stated: “Speculation or unsupported conjecture will not satisfy this requirement.” Plaintiff’s justification relies entirely on speculation. Their argument is essentially: “We believe no investigation occurred, so produce every investigative document to prove we are correct.”

The only fact on record that even touches on this topic is:
17. The Attorney General provided no evidence to substantiate the claims that Plaintiff was involved with any information leaks or issues with ‘informational security’.

This does not establish that no investigation occurred, nor does it show that no other individuals were considered. It establishes that AsexualDinosaur was not provided evidence to substantiate the claims that Plaintiff was involved with any information leaks or issues with informational security. Plaintiff is speculating that no investigation occurred despite no factual or evidentiary basis supporting that assumption, and seeks to use the Commonwealth’s resources to test a theory Plaintiff has not grounded in fact.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

ToadKing said:
5. All communications between Attorney General Kaiserin_ and any other DOJ employees regarding:

The Anchor Watch leaks

Suspicions about who leaked information

Similarly to above, Plaintiff has not established any factual basis for their suspicion that the DOJ did not investigate any other parties. It is speculation to assume no other investigation occurred without actual evidence pointing to the fact.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

ToadKing said:
6. All communications involving Supreme Court Justice Matthew100x regarding:

Whistleblowing the FOI ticket information

The legality or propriety of releasing information to the public

Any discussions about releasing information as a whistleblowing report

Matthew100x is, notably, not a Department of Justice employee, and the Attorney General cannot fire him. This case is about alleged unjust termination and disparity of treatment when firing employees. This is completely immaterial to the case at hand. Additionally, Plaintiff yet again relies on their speculation that no investigation occured.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

ToadKing said:
7. All communications involving State Prosecutor NovaKerbal regarding:

The leaked information

Any statements about releasing or leaking information

Access to confidential DOJ information

Again, this also does not come from any factual basis. Plaintiff has not asserted in fact that no investigation has occurred, merely speculated about it. There is no evidence suggesting NovaKerbal actually released the name of Slipknot to the public. AsexualDinosaur did (D-008). These are not equivalent situations.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

ToadKing said:
8. Any warrant applications, subpoenas, or other investigative measures taken to identify the owner of Anchor Watch News or the source of leaks.

Again, Plaintiff relies on their speculation that no investigation occurred to justify this request. Again, there is no factual or evidentiary basis to support this assumption.

AGAIN, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

ToadKing said:
10. All communications between Attorney General Kaiserin_ and other DOJ employees regarding AsexualDinosaur's performance, conduct, or employment status.

Plaintiff justifies this request by stating "Plaintiff alleges these concerns were never documented or communicated before termination".

It is not in dispute that the concerns were not communicated before termination, so this justification is irrelevant. Plaintiff does not need to further prove this fact. Plaintiff is speculating that there was no documentation and that the reasons were fabricated post-termination. Plaintiff has no factual or evidentiary basis to support this assumption.

AGAIN, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

ToadKing said:
12. All communications regarding whether xEndeavour should be disciplined or terminated, or any other action following his warning and contempt charges.

Plaintiff justifies this request by stating "Plaintiff alleges xEndeavour committed substantially worse conduct (multiple contempt charges, fines, jail time) yet was retained while Plaintiff was terminated for lesser conduct" and "Plaintiff must show that the Department considered xEndeavour's conduct and chose not to terminate".

The facts relevant to this argument (12, 12a, 12b, 12c, 13) are not in dispute. xEndeavour's conduct in court is not in dispute. xEndeavour's continued employment as a Special Prosecutor is not in dispute.

AGAIN, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

ToadKing said:
13. Any and all documents or information relating to the purported "classified government plan" known as "slipknot" (D-008), including any information proving that this is a "classified government plan."

Plaintiff justifies this request by stating "Defendant cannot assert something as fact in its Answer and then refuse to provide evidence supporting that assertion". This is an empty claim, legally speaking. Defendant cites no law, court rules, or precedent to justify this assertion. Defendant absolutely can assert something as fact and refuse to provide supporting evidence, it's just an awful legal strategy.

Plaintiff also justifies this request by stating "Plaintiff has evidence that he was Attorney General when the "slipknot" channel was created and was a member of the channel in his official capacity when it was not classified." Commonwealth suggests Plaintiff submit this evidence, then.

This is an irrelevant request, considering Plaintiff has the evidence they seem to seek. Barring that, it is far too broad in scope: only proof that Slipknot is classified would suffice for Plaintiff's goals (which we do plan on submitting, as not backing up your arguments with evidence is (as said above) an awful legal strategy).

asexualdinosaur · Thursday at 5:46 PM

Your honour,

I am but a humble dye farmer.

I have been blindsided by the CommonWealth in an attempt to recoup what I consider to be valid losses -- In a criminal case against me.

I must unfortunately attempt to seek outside counsel, or Nolle Prosequi for lack of resource -- Not lack of want.

Will your honour permit me 72 hours to seek counsel for my case?

asexualdinosaur · Thursday at 5:47 PM

Vennefly said:
Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court, based on the submissions by the Commonwealth, considers it extremely unlikely that Plaintiff does not directly or indirectly operate, manage or control Anchor Watch. At the very least, Plaintiff had some involvement with Anchor Watch and knows and should be able to prove who does operate, manage or control it, through which he could prove his statement to be factually correct. Accordingly, the Plaintiff @asexualdinosaur is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the response to which the Commonwealth has Objected should not be stricken and why he should not be held in Contempt of Court.

Plaintiff has 48 hours to file a Response detailing:

What Plaintiff's precise involvement with Anchor Watch is or was;

Who, according to Plaintiff, operates, manages and/or controls Anchor Watch, and,

Why the statement to which the Commonwealth Objected is not perjurious.

With his response, Plaintiff may also submit any evidence with which he wishes to support his claims.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

And I would like to put this request off until I'm able to seek said counsel if possible -- Sorry for the double-posting your honour.

Vennefly · Thursday at 9:08 PM

asexualdinosaur said:
Your honour,

I am but a humble dye farmer.

I have been blindsided by the CommonWealth in an attempt to recoup what I consider to be valid losses -- In a criminal case against me.

I must unfortunately attempt to seek outside counsel, or Nolle Prosequi for lack of resource -- Not lack of want.

Will your honour permit me 72 hours to seek counsel for my case?

asexualdinosaur said:
And I would like to put this request off until I'm able to seek said counsel if possible -- Sorry for the double-posting your honour.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

GRANTED. This case is STAYED until Plaintiff's new counsel enters an appearance or until 1 December 2025 at 02:00 UTC, whichever occurs first. The stay will lift automatically when either condition is met.

Upon the lifting of the stay, Plaintiff shall have 24 hours to respond to the Commonwealth's Objections to his Discovery Requests, if necessary, and 48 hours to file a response to the second Order to Show Cause.

Discovery is extended through Friday 5 December 2025 at 02:00 UTC.

During the pendency of the stay, no filings from either party are permitted, except those necessary for counsel's appearance.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

ko531 · Friday at 9:18 PM

Vennefly said:
Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

GRANTED. This case is STAYED until Plaintiff's new counsel enters an appearance or until 1 December 2025 at 02:00 UTC, whichever occurs first. The stay will lift automatically when either condition is met.

Upon the lifting of the stay, Plaintiff shall have 24 hours to respond to the Commonwealth's Objections to his Discovery Requests, if necessary, and 48 hours to file a response to the second Order to Show Cause.

Discovery is extended through Friday 5 December 2025 at 02:00 UTC.

During the pendency of the stay, no filings from either party are permitted, except those necessary for counsel's appearance.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

Your Honor, I am the new counsel for the plaintiff and we can get this case moving.

Vennefly said:
Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court, based on the submissions by the Commonwealth, considers it extremely unlikely that Plaintiff does not directly or indirectly operate, manage or control Anchor Watch. At the very least, Plaintiff had some involvement with Anchor Watch and knows and should be able to prove who does operate, manage or control it, through which he could prove his statement to be factually correct. Accordingly, the Plaintiff @asexualdinosaur is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the response to which the Commonwealth has Objected should not be stricken and why he should not be held in Contempt of Court.

Plaintiff has 48 hours to file a Response detailing:

What Plaintiff's precise involvement with Anchor Watch is or was;

Who, according to Plaintiff, operates, manages and/or controls Anchor Watch, and,

Why the statement to which the Commonwealth Objected is not perjurious.

With his response, Plaintiff may also submit any evidence with which he wishes to support his claims.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

Your Honor,

My client respectfully pleads the fifth to this Order to Show Cause. The defense is currently prosecuting the plaintiff in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Asexualdinosaur [2025] FCR 127 in regards to actions taken by Anchor News. The prosecution in that case has also showed their willingness to use court statements from other cases to prove their cause as seen in Exhibit P-036 of that case. Due to this, my client feels that any information given will be used or twisted in a way by the defense to indicate him of the crime he is being prosecuted for and maybe more.

juniperfig said:
Your honour,

I apologize for the barrage of objections.

To preface this all: Discovery is not an opportunity for Plaintiff to assemble a case they failed to investigate before filing. The Commonwealth is not required to build Plaintiff’s case, nor to compensate for Plaintiff’s lack of investigation through FOI requests, affidavits, or any other basic pre-filing steps. Overly broad discovery requests distract from the core question at issue and discovery requests must be relevant to the case directly (Malka v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 87).

Plaintiff argues they have a constitutional right to be confronted with the evidence against them. I remind Plaintiff that they are the one who initiated this litigation; the Commonwealth is not prosecuting or accusing them of wrongdoing. This interpretation improperly attempts to reframe discovery as a mechanism for the Plaintiff to shift their own evidentiary burden onto the Department of Justice, with a logically unsound interpretation of the Constitution.

The burden of proof rests on the Plaintiff in civil cases (Dartanman v. Commonwealth [2022] FCR 72, UnityMaster v. xEndeavour [2025] FCR 16). If there is an argument made with no evidence supporting it, the burden of proof falls to the person making the argument (GnomeWhisperer v Commonwealth [2025] FCR 11). Several of Plaintiff’s requests attempt to shift the burden of proof by demanding that the Commonwealth produce documents solely so Plaintiff can test speculative, unevidenced theories.

Thank you.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

AsexualDinosaur was fired for "multiple charges of contempt of court, concerns about courtroom behaviour, and as part of a wider effort in increasing department informational security" (P-006). Inactivity is not mentioned in this case. State Prosecutor Nacho's alleged inactivity is not relevant to how the Department of Justice punishes contempt of court, courtroom behaviour, and/or suspected (now proven, see D-011, D-012, D-013, D-014) leaks of information.

Plaintiff states "Defendant argues (Defence III) that Plaintiff is "not similarly situated" to other employees" as a justification for this request. The Commonwealth is arguing that AsexualDinosaur is not similarly situated to xEndeavour, the employee used in Plaintiff's case as an example of courtroom misconduct and contempt charges. Other employees are not mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint or in the Commonwealth's response.

Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support their suspicion that State Prosecutor Nacho has been inactive. Nothing on record supports this assertion. There are no facts related to this assertion. It is speculation to assert State Prosecutor Nacho is inactive, and it is not Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Plaintiff attempts to justify this request by stating "to prove this claim, Plaintiff must show either (a) no protocols were implemented, or (b) protocols were implemented but not followed". However, the fact this request would support is not in dispute.

The Commonwealth does not deny that the Department has not implemented the promised protocols. This is simply a waste of time.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honour, you stated: “Speculation or unsupported conjecture will not satisfy this requirement.” Plaintiff’s justification relies entirely on speculation. Their argument is essentially: “We believe no investigation occurred, so produce every investigative document to prove we are correct.”

The only fact on record that even touches on this topic is:
17. The Attorney General provided no evidence to substantiate the claims that Plaintiff was involved with any information leaks or issues with ‘informational security’.

This does not establish that no investigation occurred, nor does it show that no other individuals were considered. It establishes that AsexualDinosaur was not provided evidence to substantiate the claims that Plaintiff was involved with any information leaks or issues with informational security. Plaintiff is speculating that no investigation occurred despite no factual or evidentiary basis supporting that assumption, and seeks to use the Commonwealth’s resources to test a theory Plaintiff has not grounded in fact.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Similarly to above, Plaintiff has not established any factual basis for their suspicion that the DOJ did not investigate any other parties. It is speculation to assume no other investigation occurred without actual evidence pointing to the fact.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

Matthew100x is, notably, not a Department of Justice employee, and the Attorney General cannot fire him. This case is about alleged unjust termination and disparity of treatment when firing employees. This is completely immaterial to the case at hand. Additionally, Plaintiff yet again relies on their speculation that no investigation occured.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

Again, this also does not come from any factual basis. Plaintiff has not asserted in fact that no investigation has occurred, merely speculated about it. There is no evidence suggesting NovaKerbal actually released the name of Slipknot to the public. AsexualDinosaur did (D-008). These are not equivalent situations.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Again, Plaintiff relies on their speculation that no investigation occurred to justify this request. Again, there is no factual or evidentiary basis to support this assumption.

AGAIN, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

Plaintiff justifies this request by stating "Plaintiff alleges these concerns were never documented or communicated before termination".

It is not in dispute that the concerns were not communicated before termination, so this justification is irrelevant. Plaintiff does not need to further prove this fact. Plaintiff is speculating that there was no documentation and that the reasons were fabricated post-termination. Plaintiff has no factual or evidentiary basis to support this assumption.

AGAIN, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Plaintiff justifies this request by stating "Plaintiff alleges xEndeavour committed substantially worse conduct (multiple contempt charges, fines, jail time) yet was retained while Plaintiff was terminated for lesser conduct" and "Plaintiff must show that the Department considered xEndeavour's conduct and chose not to terminate".

The facts relevant to this argument (12, 12a, 12b, 12c, 13) are not in dispute. xEndeavour's conduct in court is not in dispute. xEndeavour's continued employment as a Special Prosecutor is not in dispute.

AGAIN, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Plaintiff justifies this request by stating "Defendant cannot assert something as fact in its Answer and then refuse to provide evidence supporting that assertion". This is an empty claim, legally speaking. Defendant cites no law, court rules, or precedent to justify this assertion. Defendant absolutely can assert something as fact and refuse to provide supporting evidence, it's just an awful legal strategy.

Plaintiff also justifies this request by stating "Plaintiff has evidence that he was Attorney General when the "slipknot" channel was created and was a member of the channel in his official capacity when it was not classified." Commonwealth suggests Plaintiff submit this evidence, then.

This is an irrelevant request, considering Plaintiff has the evidence they seem to seek. Barring that, it is far too broad in scope: only proof that Slipknot is classified would suffice for Plaintiff's goals (which we do plan on submitting, as not backing up your arguments with evidence is (as said above) an awful legal strategy).

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION
We ask the court to sustain this objection as we are no longer requesting the information

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
We ask the court to sustain this objection as we are no longer requesting the information

OBJECTION - SPECULATION
A major reason for Asexualdino's dismissal was for possible "increasing department informational security" as seen by exhibit P-006. It is important to establish whether an investigation did occur and to what extent to understand whether the dismissal was justitified. As this information is ideally classified, this would be the only way to seek such information as an FOI request would be denied.

OBJECTION - SPECULATION
Again, this goes to look at the justification for Asexualdino's dismissal. This information can't be sought through an FOI so we must do it here. As of right now we are not speculating whether an investigation did or did not happen but trying to establish what did happen.

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION
We ask the court to sustain this objection as we are no longer requesting the information

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION
This goes to show selective treatment. Again these communications are most likely classified a FOI request would not sufice. Clearly P-015 shows that a DOJ employee stated they would release classified information. As this information was released we must see why Asexualdino got fired and not NovaKerbal.

OBJECTION - SPECULATION
Clearly by D-013 a warrant was filed and granted. This also shows that the warrant was initally denied. It is important for this case and for your honor when deciding to see the full extent of the warrant, not the hand picked section shown by the defense. It is also important to see why the warrant was denied in the first place. Such a failure to include the full extent of this warrant including the original denial and reason may violate Duty to Disclose as set in the Criminal Code Act part III section 14 as any questionability in that warrant may and could be beneficial to the plaintiff's case.

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION
We ask the court to sustain this objection as we are no longer requesting the information as the fact is not in dispute.

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
We ask the court to sustain this objection as we are no longer requesting the information

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
We ask the court to sustain this objection as we are no longer requesting this information directly. If such information does exist it should be included if other discovery request are ordered to be provided. Specifically the one dealing with investigation documents and communication into Asexualdino and Anchor News

juniperfig · Saturday at 1:57 AM

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Such a failure to include the full extent of this warrant including the original denial and reason may violate Duty to Disclose as set in the Criminal Code Act part III section 14 as any questionability in that warrant may and could be beneficial to the plaintiff's case.

Duty to Disclose is regarding exculpatory evidence (CCA § III 14), as in "information that increases a defendant’s probability of innocence or absolutely relieves them of liability" (Cornell Legal Information Institute). The Commonwealth is the defendant in this case. Counsel seems to have confused exculpatory with inculpatory. Stating this applies to plaintiffs is incorrect, and this statement should be struck.

juniperfig · Saturday at 2:06 AM

Evidence

2. Complete list of all current DOJ employees as of 26 November 2025
Kaiserin_
Sir_Dogeington
juniperfig
xEndeavour
ameslap
gribble19
la_dano_34
Mask3D_WOLF
Multiman155
Nacholebraa
NovaKerbal
AETHER1AN
Budgiebud
Culls
Rookieblue14

Vennefly · Saturday at 11:30 AM

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honour,

As proven by both the warrant obtained by Solicitor General juniperfig (D-011, D-012, D-013) and the District Court's findings in ToadKing v. AnchorWatch (D-014), this statement is false.

The Commonwealth requests this response be struck.

SUSTAINED. Although the Plaintiff is entitled to invoke his Fifth Charter Right, this is a civil proceeding, and the Court is permitted to draw an adverse inference from his refusal to clarify his involvement with Anchor Watch News. Accordingly, for the purposes of this case, the Court finds it a settled matter of fact that the Plaintiff operates, manages, and/or controls Anchor Watch News.

Plaintiff's statement to the contrary will be struck from the record.

Vennefly · Saturday at 12:31 PM

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

AsexualDinosaur was fired for "multiple charges of contempt of court, concerns about courtroom behaviour, and as part of a wider effort in increasing department informational security" (P-006). Inactivity is not mentioned in this case. State Prosecutor Nacho's alleged inactivity is not relevant to how the Department of Justice punishes contempt of court, courtroom behaviour, and/or suspected (now proven, see D-011, D-012, D-013, D-014) leaks of information.

Plaintiff states "Defendant argues (Defence III) that Plaintiff is "not similarly situated" to other employees" as a justification for this request. The Commonwealth is arguing that AsexualDinosaur is not similarly situated to xEndeavour, the employee used in Plaintiff's case as an example of courtroom misconduct and contempt charges. Other employees are not mentioned in Plaintiff's complaint or in the Commonwealth's response.

Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support their suspicion that State Prosecutor Nacho has been inactive. Nothing on record supports this assertion. There are no facts related to this assertion. It is speculation to assert State Prosecutor Nacho is inactive, and it is not Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

SUSTAINED, per the request of Plaintiff's counsel. The Court notes that, in general, it will not permit extensive or unfocused public inquiry into the conduct of other DOJ employees, as such inquiry is unduly burdensome and infringes upon the privacy rights of the employees involved. The Plaintiff's broad request also risks the disclosure of classified or privileged information.

If the Plaintiff wishes to advance a comparator-based argument, the Court will permit only limited and narrowly tailored evidence directly relevant to the specific comparator asserted. Any such request must be precise, justified, and confined to what is strictly necessary for the issue at hand.

Plaintiff's first Discovery Request will be struck.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Plaintiff attempts to justify this request by stating "to prove this claim, Plaintiff must show either (a) no protocols were implemented, or (b) protocols were implemented but not followed". However, the fact this request would support is not in dispute.

The Commonwealth does not deny that the Department has not implemented the promised protocols. This is simply a waste of time.

SUSTAINED, per the request of Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff's third Discovery Request will be struck.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your Honour, you stated: “Speculation or unsupported conjecture will not satisfy this requirement.” Plaintiff’s justification relies entirely on speculation. Their argument is essentially: “We believe no investigation occurred, so produce every investigative document to prove we are correct.”

The only fact on record that even touches on this topic is:
17. The Attorney General provided no evidence to substantiate the claims that Plaintiff was involved with any information leaks or issues with ‘informational security’.

This does not establish that no investigation occurred, nor does it show that no other individuals were considered. It establishes that AsexualDinosaur was not provided evidence to substantiate the claims that Plaintiff was involved with any information leaks or issues with informational security. Plaintiff is speculating that no investigation occurred despite no factual or evidentiary basis supporting that assumption, and seeks to use the Commonwealth’s resources to test a theory Plaintiff has not grounded in fact.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

PARTIALLY SUSTAINED. As Plaintiff alleges an unfair dismissal, he has a significant and legitimate interest in obtaining all documents that supported the decision to terminate his employment. Accordingly, the Court will order the disclosure of all materials related to the investigation into the Plaintiff's connection to Anchor Watch News and his alleged involvement in the leaking of DOJ communications prior to his dismissal, including communications with other employees on this subject.

The Court will sustain this objection insofar as it pertains to any investigations into this after Plaintiff's dismissal, including as part of the Criminal Investigations that led to [2025] FCR 127.

The Commonwealth is therefore ORDERED to disclose the requested documents to the extent set out by the Court above.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Similarly to above, Plaintiff has not established any factual basis for their suspicion that the DOJ did not investigate any other parties. It is speculation to assume no other investigation occurred without actual evidence pointing to the fact.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

PARTIALLY SUSTAINED. Similarly to above, the Court will order the disclosure of these documents insofar as they pertain to the Plaintiff specifically, and only prior to the termination of his employment.

The Commonwealth is therefore ORDERED to disclose the requested documents to the extent set out by the Court above.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

Matthew100x is, notably, not a Department of Justice employee, and the Attorney General cannot fire him. This case is about alleged unjust termination and disparity of treatment when firing employees. This is completely immaterial to the case at hand. Additionally, Plaintiff yet again relies on their speculation that no investigation occured.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

SUSTAINED, per the request of Plaintiff's counsel. The Plaintiff's sixth Discovery Request will be struck.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

Again, this also does not come from any factual basis. Plaintiff has not asserted in fact that no investigation has occurred, merely speculated about it. There is no evidence suggesting NovaKerbal actually released the name of Slipknot to the public. AsexualDinosaur did (D-008). These are not equivalent situations.

Again, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

OVERRULED. The Plaintiff has a legitimate comparator argument to make here, and the information requested is limited enough in scope that it is not overly burdensome to the Department or the employee involved to disclose this information. The Commonwealth is ORDERED to comply with the Plaintiff's seventh Discovery Request.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Again, Plaintiff relies on their speculation that no investigation occurred to justify this request. Again, there is no factual or evidentiary basis to support this assumption.

AGAIN, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

OVERRULED. There is no reason to withhold this information. The Commonwealth is ORDERED to comply with the Plaintiff's eighth Discovery Request.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, SPECULATION

Plaintiff justifies this request by stating "Plaintiff alleges these concerns were never documented or communicated before termination".

It is not in dispute that the concerns were not communicated before termination, so this justification is irrelevant. Plaintiff does not need to further prove this fact. Plaintiff is speculating that there was no documentation and that the reasons were fabricated post-termination. Plaintiff has no factual or evidentiary basis to support this assumption.

AGAIN, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

SUSTAINED, per the request of Plaintiff's counsel. The Plaintiff's tenth Discovery Request will be struck.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Plaintiff justifies this request by stating "Plaintiff alleges xEndeavour committed substantially worse conduct (multiple contempt charges, fines, jail time) yet was retained while Plaintiff was terminated for lesser conduct" and "Plaintiff must show that the Department considered xEndeavour's conduct and chose not to terminate".

The facts relevant to this argument (12, 12a, 12b, 12c, 13) are not in dispute. xEndeavour's conduct in court is not in dispute. xEndeavour's continued employment as a Special Prosecutor is not in dispute.

AGAIN, it is not the Commonwealth's burden to prove this fact for Plaintiff.

SUSTAINED, per the request of Plaintiff's counsel. The Plaintiff's twelfth Discovery Request will be struck.

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Plaintiff justifies this request by stating "Defendant cannot assert something as fact in its Answer and then refuse to provide evidence supporting that assertion". This is an empty claim, legally speaking. Defendant cites no law, court rules, or precedent to justify this assertion. Defendant absolutely can assert something as fact and refuse to provide supporting evidence, it's just an awful legal strategy.

Plaintiff also justifies this request by stating "Plaintiff has evidence that he was Attorney General when the "slipknot" channel was created and was a member of the channel in his official capacity when it was not classified." Commonwealth suggests Plaintiff submit this evidence, then.

This is an irrelevant request, considering Plaintiff has the evidence they seem to seek. Barring that, it is far too broad in scope: only proof that Slipknot is classified would suffice for Plaintiff's goals (which we do plan on submitting, as not backing up your arguments with evidence is (as said above) an awful legal strategy).

SUSTAINED, per the request of Plaintiff's counsel. The Plaintiff's thirteenth Discovery Request will be struck.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

Vennefly · Saturday at 12:45 PM

juniperfig said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Duty to Disclose is regarding exculpatory evidence (CCA § III 14), as in "information that increases a defendant’s probability of innocence or absolutely relieves them of liability" (Cornell Legal Information Institute). The Commonwealth is the defendant in this case. Counsel seems to have confused exculpatory with inculpatory. Stating this applies to plaintiffs is incorrect, and this statement should be struck.

OVERRULED. The Plaintiff did not present a materially false fact here, they presented their legal opinion. The Plaintiff and their counsel are entitled to make legal arguments as they see fit, even if they are wrong, without fear of perjuring themselves.

ko531 · Saturday at 1:43 PM

Vennefly said:
SUSTAINED. Although the Plaintiff is entitled to invoke his Fifth Charter Right, this is a civil proceeding, and the Court is permitted to draw an adverse inference from his refusal to clarify his involvement with Anchor Watch News. Accordingly, for the purposes of this case, the Court finds it a settled matter of fact that the Plaintiff operates, manages, and/or controls Anchor Watch News.

Plaintiff's statement to the contrary will be struck from the record.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

You are actively harming the plaintiff with a declaration like this. He pleaded the fifth to avoid self incrimination as he is being actively prosecuted. With you declaring facts that could go towards incriminate him it makes almost no difference. Your previous delcarations in Toadking v. AnchorNews [2025] DCR 98 is already being used by the prosecution as a quasi-admission of guilt. This declaration now only fuels the flames.

We have the right to try this case and yet the DOJ is prosecuting my client and the court is now giving them fuel to do so. We came to this court to seek justice for a wrongful termination and yet we are met at knife point by both the presiding officer and the DOJ.

We ask that you reverse your declaration that Asexualdino operates, manages and/or controls of Anchor News Watch.

Vennefly · Saturday at 1:57 PM

ko531 said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

You are actively harming the plaintiff with a declaration like this. He pleaded the fifth to avoid self incrimination as he is being actively prosecuted. With you declaring facts that could go towards incriminate him it makes almost no difference. Your previous delcarations in Toadking v. AnchorNews [2025] DCR 98 is already being used by the prosecution as a quasi-admission of guilt. This declaration now only fuels the flames.

We have the right to try this case and yet the DOJ is prosecuting my client and the court is now giving them fuel to do so. We came to this court to seek justice for a wrongful termination and yet we are met at knife point by both the presiding officer and the DOJ.

We ask that you reverse your declaration that Asexualdino operates, manages and/or controls of Anchor News Watch.

DENIED. The standards of evidence in a civil case, such as the one before the Court, differ substantially from those in a criminal proceeding. The Court has not ruled that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff operates, manages, and/or controls Anchor Watch News. Rather, the Court has found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Plaintiff more likely than not exercises such control. This finding is made solely for the purposes of resolving the issues in this civil action and does not substitute for, nor interfere with, any fact-finding in the criminal matter currently before the Federal Court.

ko531 · Saturday at 2:08 PM

Vennefly said:
DENIED. The standards of evidence in a civil case, such as the one before the Court, differ substantially from those in a criminal proceeding. The Court has not ruled that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff operates, manages, and/or controls Anchor Watch News. Rather, the Court has found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Plaintiff more likely than not exercises such control. This finding is made solely for the purposes of resolving the issues in this civil action and does not substitute for, nor interfere with, any fact-finding in the criminal matter currently before the Federal Court.

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDNINGS

As the DOJ is prosecuting my client which is forcing him to take the fifth and in turn harming his ability to try this case. We ask for a Stay in these proceedings until the Prosecution in Commonwealth of Redmont v. Asexualdinosaur [2025] FCR 127 as completed.

We can not try this case to it's fullest due to the prosecution and we feel we should not be harmed for what is not inside our control. We ask for these proceedings to be stayed so the issue of ownership of Anchor News Watch can be addressed at a later date when fear of prosecution is not preventing factor.

Lawsuit: In Session AsexualDinosaur v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 95

Illegal Lawyer

Case Filing

I. PARTIES​

​

II. FACTS​

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Unfair Dismissal​

​

2. Violation of DOJ Policy Handbook​

​

3. Unfair Discrimination​

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

​

EVIDENCE​

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86'

Lawsuit: In Session Thread 'Justice Compass, Ltd. v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 98'

Case Filing

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86'

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76'

Objection

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76'

Court Order

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76'

Motion

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78'

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78'

Objection

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78'

Court Order

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78'

Motion

WITNESSES​

Attachments

Illegal Lawyer

Motion

Legal!

Motion

Citizen

Moderator

Writ of Summons

god's favourite princess

Moderator

god's favourite princess

Answer to Complaint

Verdict

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread '12700k v. MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 89'

Verdict

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86'

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'Inknet v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 86'

Motion

Objection

Objection

Illegal Lawyer

Motion

Response

Objection

Response

I. THE COMPLAINT REFERENCED THE SPECIFIC CONTEMPT CHARGE AT ISSUE​

​

II. PRIVATE MATTERS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO EMPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE​

​

III. PERJURY REQUIRES CRIMINAL BURDEN OF PROOF​

​

IV. NO MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT​

Moderator

Motion

Court Order

Moderator

Objection

Illegal Lawyer

Illegal Lawyer

Objection

Response

I. THE COMMONWEALTH MISCHARACTERISES THE COMPLAINT THROUGH SELECTIVE QUOTATION​

​

II. D-010 PROVES PLAINTIFF WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO EMPLOYMENT ALLEGATIONS​

​

I. PARTIES

II. FACTS

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Unfair Dismissal

2. Violation of DOJ Policy Handbook

3. Unfair Discrimination

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

EVIDENCE

WITNESSES

I. THE COMPLAINT REFERENCED THE SPECIFIC CONTEMPT CHARGE AT ISSUE

II. PRIVATE MATTERS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO EMPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE

III. PERJURY REQUIRES CRIMINAL BURDEN OF PROOF

IV. NO MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT

I. THE COMMONWEALTH MISCHARACTERISES THE COMPLAINT THROUGH SELECTIVE QUOTATION

II. D-010 PROVES PLAINTIFF WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO EMPLOYMENT ALLEGATIONS

III. PERJURY REQUIRES CRIMINAL BURDEN OF PROOF

I. FRAMEWORK OF CLAIMS AND DEFENCES

II. JUSTIFICATION OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS

REQUEST 1

REQUEST 2

REQUEST 3

REQUEST 4

REQUEST 5

REQUEST 6

REQUEST 7

REQUEST 8

REQUEST 9

REQUEST 10

REQUEST 11

REQUEST 12

REQUEST 13