Lawsuit: Pending Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign [2026] DCR 27

[Brzzzes]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Fletchingrs
Plaintiff

v.

UrbanDesign (Represented by Kiwi_Boi_Gamer)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

"On or about February 26, 2026, I entered into a professional agreement with UrbanDesign to renovate my property at S079. Despite inspecting the site days prior and knowing exactly what the job required, the Defendant sat on the project for three days, performed zero structural work, and then quit using dishonest excuses about 'permissions' and 'complexity.' This wasn't just a change of heart; it was a bad-faith abandonment that cost me time and money. While they returned my deposit, that doesn't fix the days of lost progress or the fact that I now have to pay more for a new builder to fix their mess. I am seeking full compensation for the time wasted and the legal fees I've been forced to incur to hold them accountable."

I. PARTIES

Fletchingrs (Plaintiff) - Legal leaseholder of Plot S079.

UrbanDesign / Kiwi_Boi_Gamer (Defendant) - Contractor hired for renovation services.

II. FACTS

On or about February 23, 2026, the Defendant conducted an on-site inspection of Plot S079, explicitly noting the floor height requirements and plot dimensions.

On or about February 25, 2026, the Parties executed a binding Renovation Contract for a total sum of D$21,000.

Between on or about February 25, 2026, and on or about February 28, 2026, the Defendant held active "Member" permissions on the plot but failed to perform any material structural work.

On or about February 28, 2026, the Defendant unilaterally terminated the agreement, claiming the project was "too big"—an excuse directly contradicted by their own prior inspection.

On or about March 1, 2026, the Plaintiff was forced to mitigate damages by securing a new builder (Wayne Kerr) for the same scope of work at a higher cost of D$22,500.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Material Breach of Contract: The Defendant failed to perform the core structural obligations of the agreement (Section 5.9), resulting in a total failure of consideration.

Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The Defendant utilized dishonest pretexts regarding building permissions to escape a vetted professional obligation.

Estoppel: The Defendant is legally barred from claiming "unforeseen complexity" after having performed a site survey on or about Feb 23.

Liability for Cost of Cover: Under Redmont law, a breaching party is liable for the price difference between the original contract and the replacement contract required to finish the work.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

Lost Opportunity Costs: D$6,000.00 (For 3 days of total plot inactivity at D$2,000/day).

Cost of Cover: D$1,500.00 (Price difference between original and replacement contract).

Punitive Damages: D$3,550.00 (For bad-faith conduct and deceptive trade practices).

Legal Fees: D$4,050.00 (Broken down as: D$300 Contract Review, D$750 Discovery, D$1,000 Filing, D$2,000 Trial Representation.

Total Sum Requested: D$15,100.00

Evidence:

Exhibit A: Renovation Contract signed on or about Feb 25, 2026. (Contract added as an attachment.)

Exhibit B: New Master Construction Indenture with Wayne Kerr dated on or about Mar 1, 2026. (Contract added as an attachment.)

Exhibit C: Discord logs confirming inspection on or about Feb 23, 2026, and termination on or about Feb 28, 2026.

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Witnesses: N/A

Fletchingrs (Plaintiff)

Wayne Kerr (Secondary Contractor - to testify on project feasibility)

By making this submission, I agree that 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 2nd day of March 2026

 

[dearev]

@Brzzzes please provide proof of representation within 72 hours.

 

[Brzzzes]

@Brzzzes please provide proof of representation within 72 hours.

Sorry right here

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Kiwi_Boi_Gamer, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign [2026] DCR 27

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.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Present your Honour,
I've been authorised by Urban Design's Director (DaanBanaan5673) to represent them.

 

[dearev]

Present your Honour,
I've been authorised by Urban Design's Director (DaanBanaan5673) to represent them.

Present an answer within 48 hours.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Answer to Complaint

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

Fletchingrs (represented by Brzzzes)
Plaintiff

v.

UrbanDesign (Represented by Kiwi_Boi_Gamer)
Defendant


I. FACTS
All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

1. Affirms that before signing the contract the Defendant did inspect the property then explicitly mentioned the plot’s “max height limit” (A-009) and suggested increasing floor heights (A-012); Noting the increased floor height was included in the contract (clause 5.9) and the contract is the complete agreement between the parties which supersedes all prior “written or oral” agreements (clause 13).

2. Affirms that on 26/2/2026 at 2:52AM (A-003) the parties signed the Renovation Contract, which fulfilled all the requirements of formation (Contracts Act), Noting that consideration (clause 11) was established and cannot be invalidated or revoked.

3. Affirms no structural work was done Noting that the Defendant was only given permissions on 28/2/2026 (A-006) and after permissions were granted there were ongoing negotiations (A-006).

4. Affirms we gave notice to terminate the contract (clause 8) on the 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM (A-007) Noting that either party could have given notice to "unilaterally" terminate the contract at any time (clause 8) and the Defendant returned the $9k non-refundable deposit (clause 8) as a show of “goodwill” (A-007 & A-022).

5. Except as hereinbefore expressly affirmed or expressly neither affirmed nor denied, each and every other factual allegation and claim for relief is Denied as if set out herein.


II. DEFENCES
Defendant asserts these defences in the alternative and reserves the right to amend/add defences as facts and discovery develops.

1. Unavailable Cause of Action: The Plaintiff claims there was a “material” breach of contract, but the Defendant never failed to perform their obligations. The Defendant validly terminated the contract (clause 8) before the “5-day deadline” (A-003 & A-007). All obligations ended after termination; it is impossible to breach obligations you don't have.

2. Failure to State a Claim: The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of dishonesty, lack of integrity, or unfairness that has breached the implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Contracts Act). The Defendant acted in good faith and honestly throughout their business transaction.

3. Unavailable Cause of Action: Estoppel has not been recognised as a legitimate cause of action within DemocracyCraft and has been expressly rejected by the Supreme Court [1950minecrafter v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 18]. Although Collateral Estoppel (rule 5.9) does exist, it is not a cause of action but rather a procedural rule.

4. Unavailable Cause of Action: The Plaintiff claims "Cost of Cover" is both a legitimate cause of action and remedy under "Redmont Law" without providing any Acts or cases to support their claim. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to establish proper authority and as none has been provided the "Cost of Cover" cause of action is unjustified and must fail.

6. Lack of Damages: The Plaintiff lost no money from the termination; they were made whole after the 9k non-refundable deposit was returned. The Plaintiff only started losing money after they decided to take legal action. Both parties lost an equal amount of time in this transaction.

7. Speculative Damages: The Plaintiff claims to have suffered "lost opportunity costs” but has failed to explain what "opportunity" exactly was lost. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence justifying the "$2,000 per day" figure for "plot inactivity"; the figure has no logical basis.

8. Punitive Damages not Warranted: Defendant did not act with the requisite malice/outrageousness to justify punitive damages, and any punitive damages request is excessive, unsupported, and contrary to governing damages principles.


III. Evidence

Spoiler: A-003

Spoiler: A-006

Spoiler: A-007

Spoiler: A-009

Spoiler: A-012

Spoiler: A-022

IV. Witness List
1. Fletchingrs
2. sarf123


V. Attestation
By making this submission, I agree and 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: 18th March 2026 (UTC+12:00)

 

[dearev]

discovery shall start lasting 5 days.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Motion

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

The last image in Exhibit C (Discord Messages) of the Plaintiff's Case Filing is redundant and vague:
1. The messages in the last image are redundant as they provide no additional facts to the Court. All facts contained in the messages are available in their original form (A-006, Renovation Contract).

2. The messages in the last image make vague claims of "wasting time" and "bad faith" which are purely the Plaintiff’s opinion. These messages presume the Defendant is guilty without any evidence and call for a conclusion to matters in dispute.

The last image in Exhibit C of the Plaintiff's Case Filing should be struck from the record as it is redundant and vague.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the Court compel the Plaintiff to produce the following documents…
1. In-game "member" (build and destroy) permission logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

1.1. These logs can definitively determine a key factual dispute in this case, when exactly "member" (build and destroy) permissions were granted to the Defendant.

1.2. The existence of these logs has been confirmed by Staff (A-023).

2. In-game rent logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

2.1. Rent logs will be useful for determining if there is any damage or loss to the Plaintiff.

Spoiler: A-023

NOTE: All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Motion

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

The defence moves that Exhibit B (New Contract) in its entirety be struck from the record as it is immaterial to this case...
1. The New Contract concerns a completely different plot (C343).

2. The New Contract was created and signed after contractual relationship between the parties ended. The contractual terms of new contract don’t bind the defendant.

3. The Plaintiff freely chose to contract with a third party. Defendant did not “force” or “cause” the Plaintiff to contract with a third party, and the Defendant had no influence or participation in the “new contract”.

4. New Master Construction was not a party to the original Renovation Agreement or these proceedings.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has removed "Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign (Complaint).pdf", which has changed the information available to the Court and Defendant (F-004 & F-005).

The Plaintiff has breached either one or both of the following Court Rules and Procedures...
1. The Plaintiff has breached Rule 3.3 by failing to declare and explain the amendment of their Complaint to the Court.

2. The Plaintiff has breached Rule 3.5 by failing to get approval from the Court before removing a file containing information from their Complaint.

Spoiler: F-004

Spoiler: F-005

 

[Brzzzes]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (REGARDING EVIDENCE)

The Plaintiff, Fletchingrs, respectfully submits this opposition to the Defendant’s latest motion. The Defendant is attempting to have this case dismissed over a minor clerical error that has already been corrected.

1. No Prejudice to the Defendant: The Plaintiff accidentally removed a file and immediately replaced it. The evidence is now fully available for the Court and the Defendant to review. The Defendant has not been "harmed" or "blindly led" by this 2-minute error. Dismissing a case over a temporary link issue would be a massive overreach and a waste of judicial resources.

2. A Tactical Distraction: The Defendant is hyper-focusing on the Plaintiff’s "edits" because they cannot answer for the actual evidence. The logs from on or about February 23rd clearly show the Defendant knew about the 12 floors before signing. The Defendant is simply trying to use a technicality to avoid answering for their bad-faith breach of contract.

3. Request to Dismiss WITH PREJUDICE: The Plaintiff moves that this motion be denied with prejudice. The Defendant is repeatedly filing frivolous motions (including their previous attempt to file in the wrong court venue) to delay the trial.

CONCLUSION We ask the Court to ignore this distraction and move forward with the case. The evidence is present, the breach is clear, and the Plaintiff deserves a ruling on the merits.

 

[Brzzzes]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS & MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

The Plaintiff, Fletchingrs, objects to the Defendant’s latest attempt to dismiss this case. The Defendant is using minor clerical corrections and a partial refund to dodge a clear-cut breach of contract.

I. RESPONSE TO CLAIM 1: CLERICAL EDITS ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

The Defendant is asking to throw out a D$15,100 claim because a link was briefly updated.

• This update took minutes and ensured the Court had the most accurate version of the evidence.
• The Defendant has suffered zero prejudice. They have the files, they know the facts, and they are simply using this as a tactical distraction. We move to deny this claim with prejudice.

II. RESPONSE TO CLAIM 2: A REFUND IS NOT A KNOWN AS A SETTLEMENT

The Defendant argues that returning the deposit ends the case. This is legally baseless.

• A refund only returns the Plaintiff’s own money. It does not compensate for the D$1,500 cost of cover (the extra cost of the replacement builder), the three days of lost plot utility, or the D$4,050 in legal fees the Plaintiff was forced to spend.
• Returning a deposit after a breach does not magically erase the financial damage caused by that breach.

III. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

The Defendant’s entire defense is that "staff" or "permissions" stopped them from seeing the build logs. This is a fake excuse.

We move for the Court to order the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Communication: Screenshots of any chat with DemocracyCraft Staff regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Error Proof: Screenshots of "No Permission" messages while standing on the plot.
3. /ticket Logs: Records of any official support tickets opened to resolve these "issues."

This matters because on Feb 26, the Defendant stated, "build should cover it." If they didn't talk to staff or open a ticket, they lied to the Plaintiff to escape their professional obligations.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Defendant knew the scope was 12 floors on Feb 23, two days before signing. They held the perms for three days, did zero work, and then quit. We ask the Court to deny the motion to dismiss and grant Discovery so the truth can come out.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes of Titan Legal Group Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[dearev]

rulings are being written.

 

[Franciscus]

Stepping in here as the new presiding officer. Please give me 72 hours to review the case and write answers to pending rulings.

Deadlines are tolled until I say otherwise. Seeing as there are active motions regarding discovery itself on the floor, Discovery is re-opened from the time of the posting of this message until 60 hours after I write my next post in this thread, which should be a ruling in pending motions/objections.

 

[Franciscus]

Upon review of the case material: change of plans. There are a few motions I'd like responses on from the parties before I rule on them, though one objection was handled.

---

Motion

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

The last image in Exhibit C (Discord Messages) of the Plaintiff's Case Filing is redundant and vague:
1. The messages in the last image are redundant as they provide no additional facts to the Court. All facts contained in the messages are available in their original form (A-006, Renovation Contract).

2. The messages in the last image make vague claims of "wasting time" and "bad faith" which are purely the Plaintiff’s opinion. These messages presume the Defendant is guilty without any evidence and call for a conclusion to matters in dispute.

The last image in Exhibit C of the Plaintiff's Case Filing should be struck from the record as it is redundant and vague.

@Brzzzes please provide the Court a response to this motion to strike within the next 48 hours if you wish to oppose it. If you do not, please provide a statement of non-opposition in that same timeframe.

---

Motion

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

The defence moves that Exhibit B (New Contract) in its entirety be struck from the record as it is immaterial to this case...
1. The New Contract concerns a completely different plot (C343).

2. The New Contract was created and signed after contractual relationship between the parties ended. The contractual terms of new contract don’t bind the defendant.

3. The Plaintiff freely chose to contract with a third party. Defendant did not “force” or “cause” the Plaintiff to contract with a third party, and the Defendant had no influence or participation in the “new contract”.

4. New Master Construction was not a party to the original Renovation Agreement or these proceedings.

@Brzzzes, please provide the Court a response to this motion to strike within the next 48 hours if you wish to oppose it. If you do not, please provide a statement of non-opposition in that same timeframe.

---

Motion

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

The defence moves that the Court compel the Plaintiff to produce the following documents…
1. In-game "member" (build and destroy) permission logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

1.1. These logs can definitively determine a key factual dispute in this case, when exactly "member" (build and destroy) permissions were granted to the Defendant.

1.2. The existence of these logs has been confirmed by Staff (A-023).

2. In-game rent logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

2.1. Rent logs will be useful for determining if there is any damage or loss to the Plaintiff.

Spoiler: A-023

View attachment 77223

NOTE: All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

@Brzzzes, please provide the Court a response to this motion to compel within the next 48 hours if you wish to oppose it. If you do not, please provide a statement of non-opposition in that same timeframe.

---

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (REGARDING EVIDENCE)

The Plaintiff, Fletchingrs, respectfully submits this opposition to the Defendant’s latest motion. The Defendant is attempting to have this case dismissed over a minor clerical error that has already been corrected.

1. No Prejudice to the Defendant: The Plaintiff accidentally removed a file and immediately replaced it. The evidence is now fully available for the Court and the Defendant to review. The Defendant has not been "harmed" or "blindly led" by this 2-minute error. Dismissing a case over a temporary link issue would be a massive overreach and a waste of judicial resources.

2. A Tactical Distraction: The Defendant is hyper-focusing on the Plaintiff’s "edits" because they cannot answer for the actual evidence. The logs from on or about February 23rd clearly show the Defendant knew about the 12 floors before signing. The Defendant is simply trying to use a technicality to avoid answering for their bad-faith breach of contract.

3. Request to Dismiss WITH PREJUDICE: The Plaintiff moves that this motion be denied with prejudice. The Defendant is repeatedly filing frivolous motions (including their previous attempt to file in the wrong court venue) to delay the trial.

CONCLUSION We ask the Court to ignore this distraction and move forward with the case. The evidence is present, the breach is clear, and the Plaintiff deserves a ruling on the merits.

@Brzzzes the Court does not identify a motion to dismiss as having been filed. What motion is this post referring to? Please provide the name of the motion and the post number.

---

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS & MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

The Plaintiff, Fletchingrs, objects to the Defendant’s latest attempt to dismiss this case. The Defendant is using minor clerical corrections and a partial refund to dodge a clear-cut breach of contract.

I. RESPONSE TO CLAIM 1: CLERICAL EDITS ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

The Defendant is asking to throw out a D$15,100 claim because a link was briefly updated.

• This update took minutes and ensured the Court had the most accurate version of the evidence.
• The Defendant has suffered zero prejudice. They have the files, they know the facts, and they are simply using this as a tactical distraction. We move to deny this claim with prejudice.

II. RESPONSE TO CLAIM 2: A REFUND IS NOT A KNOWN AS A SETTLEMENT

The Defendant argues that returning the deposit ends the case. This is legally baseless.

• A refund only returns the Plaintiff’s own money. It does not compensate for the D$1,500 cost of cover (the extra cost of the replacement builder), the three days of lost plot utility, or the D$4,050 in legal fees the Plaintiff was forced to spend.
• Returning a deposit after a breach does not magically erase the financial damage caused by that breach.

III. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

The Defendant’s entire defense is that "staff" or "permissions" stopped them from seeing the build logs. This is a fake excuse.

We move for the Court to order the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Communication: Screenshots of any chat with DemocracyCraft Staff regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Error Proof: Screenshots of "No Permission" messages while standing on the plot.
3. /ticket Logs: Records of any official support tickets opened to resolve these "issues."

This matters because on Feb 26, the Defendant stated, "build should cover it." If they didn't talk to staff or open a ticket, they lied to the Plaintiff to escape their professional obligations.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Defendant knew the scope was 12 floors on Feb 23, two days before signing. They held the perms for three days, did zero work, and then quit. We ask the Court to deny the motion to dismiss and grant Discovery so the truth can come out.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes of Titan Legal Group Counsel for the Plaintiff

Again, I'm not seeing a motion to dismiss as having been filed. What are you referring to there, @Brzzzes?

Separately, @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer, please provide the Court a response to Section III of this motion within the next 48 hours if you wish to oppose it. If you do not, please provide a statement of non-opposition in that same timeframe.

---

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has removed "Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign (Complaint).pdf", which has changed the information available to the Court and Defendant (F-004 & F-005).

The Plaintiff has breached either one or both of the following Court Rules and Procedures...
1. The Plaintiff has breached Rule 3.3 by failing to declare and explain the amendment of their Complaint to the Court.

2. The Plaintiff has breached Rule 3.5 by failing to get approval from the Court before removing a file containing information from their Complaint.

Spoiler: F-004

View attachment 77232

Spoiler: F-005

View attachment 77233

SUSTAINED. @Brzzzes you may not edit the Complaint without leave of the Court. You are ordered to refrain from doing so unless this Court grants you permission, on pain of Contempt of Court.

---

Discovery is extended until 3 April 2026 at 10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4). This overrides any other deadlines previously given.

 

[Brzzzes]

Your Honor, I am sorry that I provided the motion to dismiss; it went over my head, and I was working on something that also had a deadline. I send my apologies to the court, and it will never happen again.

 

[Brzzzes]

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS & CROSS-MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENSES​

The Plaintiff, Fletchingrs, by and through Counsel, respectfully requests that this Court DENY any of the Defendant’s Motion to Strike in its entirety. Furthermore, the Plaintiff moves to strike the Defendant's "Refund Defense" as legally insufficient.

I. OPPOSITION TO DISMISSAL​

The Defendant moves for dismissal based on a minor clerical update to an evidence link.

• No Prejudice: The Defendant has failed to show any harm or "blind-siding" caused by this update. The evidence remains the same logs from Feb 23–28.
• Judicial Economy: Dismissing a D$15,100 claim over a 2-minute link correction would be a gross waste of this Court’s resources. The Plaintiff moves to deny this ground with prejudice.

II. MOTION TO STRIKE THE "REFUND DEFENSE"​

The Defendant argues that returning the deposit has "cured" the breach. This is a misunderstanding of Redmont Contract Law.

• Partial Restitution is not a cure: Returning a deposit only returns the Plaintiff's own money. It does not address the Expectation Damages or the Cost of Cover.
• The Gap: Because the Defendant abandoned the 12-floor project, the Plaintiff was forced to hire a new builder (Wayne Kerr) at a D$1,500 premium. This is a direct financial loss caused by the Defendant's breach that the refund does not cover.

III. THE "PERMISSION" PRETEXT​

The Defendant’s motion relies on the claim that they were "unable" to build. As this Court has reopened Discovery, the Plaintiff asserts that this is a pretextual excuse.

• The Defendant knew the scope was 12 floors on Feb 23 (pre-contract).
• They failed to open a /ticket or name a Staff member who restricted them.
• Without proof of these "errors," their Motion to Dismiss is based on a falsehood.

CONCLUSION​

The Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and allow the case to proceed to a ruling on the merits. The facts remain: a contract was signed, the scope was known, and the Defendant walked away, causing real financial harm.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor, I am sorry that I provided the motion to dismiss; it went over my head, and I was working on something that also had a deadline. I send my apologies to the court, and it will never happen again.

What motion to dismiss are you talking about?

 

[Brzzzes]

What motion to dismiss are you talking about?

I just posted it sorry I thought I filed it.

 

[Franciscus]

I just posted it sorry I thought I filed it.

You are the Plaintiff's counsel. A motion to dismiss would be a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's case. I do not see you having sought to do that.

What I see is a "OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS" repeated several times in the absence of any MTD having been filed by the Defendant.

 

[Brzzzes]

You are the Plaintiff's counsel. A motion to dismiss would be a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's case. I do not see you having sought to do that.

What I see is a "OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS" repeated several times in the absence of any MTD having been filed by the Defendant.

Your Honor,

I apologize to the Court for any confusion regarding the titles of my previous filings. As Counsel, I was reacting to the Defendant’s repeated requests within their statements to have the case "thrown out" or settled by their partial refund. I labeled my responses as an "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss" to address those specific arguments.

I hear the Court’s point clearly: there is no formal MTD on the record. I will ensure my future filings reflect the actual state of the docket.

Moving Forward:
The core of our current focus is the Motion to Compel Discovery (That I am drafting). Regardless of the titles used in previous posts, the Plaintiff is still seeking the "Staff Logs" and "Permission Errors" that the Defendant claims are the reason they couldn't finish the job.

We are grateful for the 48-hour window the Court has given the Defendant to respond to that specific issue. We will wait for their response (or lack thereof) before making our next move.

Thank you for the guidance, Your Honor.

---
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes
Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Brzzzes]

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY​

To the Honorable Judge,

I’d like to move past the procedural back-and-forth and get to the heart of why we are actually here. The Defendant, UrbanDesign, has based their entire defense on one claim: that "staff permissions" or "height errors" made it impossible for it to finish the contract.

In a professional setting, if you can’t do your job because of a technical error, you have to document it. You take a screenshot, you open a ticket, or you talk to a staff member. My client, Fletchingrs, has asked for this proof repeatedly, and so far, the Defendant has produced nothing but words.

We are formally asking the Court to COMPEL (force) the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Logs: Any chat, Discord DM, or telegram with a DemocracyCraft Staff member regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Visual Proof: Any screenshot showing a "No Permission" or height error message while they were on the plot.
3. Support Records: Proof of any /ticket they opened to try to resolve these issues before they walked away from the project.

Why this is necessary: Now, without the Defendant’s story, it is just a story. We believe these logs don't exist because the "errors" never happened. My client’s plot sat stagnant for three days while the Defendant held the permissions—if they were actually struggling with errors, they should be able to show us the proof in 30 seconds.

If they cannot or will not produce these documents within the 48-hour window the Court mentioned, we ask the Court to view their defense as a "pretext" for a bad-faith breach.

We just want the truth so we can move this case to a final ruling.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Franciscus]

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY​

To the Honorable Judge,

I’d like to move past the procedural back-and-forth and get to the heart of why we are actually here. The Defendant, UrbanDesign, has based their entire defense on one claim: that "staff permissions" or "height errors" made it impossible for it to finish the contract.

In a professional setting, if you can’t do your job because of a technical error, you have to document it. You take a screenshot, you open a ticket, or you talk to a staff member. My client, Fletchingrs, has asked for this proof repeatedly, and so far, the Defendant has produced nothing but words.

We are formally asking the Court to COMPEL (force) the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Logs: Any chat, Discord DM, or telegram with a DemocracyCraft Staff member regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Visual Proof: Any screenshot showing a "No Permission" or height error message while they were on the plot.
3. Support Records: Proof of any /ticket they opened to try to resolve these issues before they walked away from the project.

Why this is necessary: Now, without the Defendant’s story, it is just a story. We believe these logs don't exist because the "errors" never happened. My client’s plot sat stagnant for three days while the Defendant held the permissions—if they were actually struggling with errors, they should be able to show us the proof in 30 seconds.

If they cannot or will not produce these documents within the 48-hour window the Court mentioned, we ask the Court to view their defense as a "pretext" for a bad-faith breach.

We just want the truth so we can move this case to a final ruling.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

Before this Court rules on this motion, would you please explain to the Court the difference in the records sought in this request from those sought in Post No. 12, Section III?

 

[Brzzzes]

Your Honor,

Yes, of course and thank you for the opportunity to clarify. While the types of records I am looking for haven't changed, the legal necessity for this specific Motion has.

The Difference between Post No. 12 and this Motion:

1. Post No. 12 was a Request: In my initial filing, I identified these logs (Staff chats, error screenshots) as evidence I intended to seek during the trial process. It was a notice to the Defendant and the Court that these records were central to the case.
2. This Motion is an Enforcement: Since that initial post, the Defendant has had ample time to voluntarily provide those records to prove their defense. Instead, they have offered only verbal claims. Now that the Court has officially reopened Discovery, this Motion to Compel is the formal legal mechanism to move from "asking" to "requiring."

In short: Post No. 12 said, "I am going to need these." This Motion says, "The Defendant hasn't produced them yet, and I need the Court to step in so we can finally see the truth."

I am seeking the same logs because they are the only way to prove or disprove the Defendant’s "permission error" excuse. Without a formal order to compel, we are stuck in a loop of "he-said, she-said."

I hope this clarifies the intent behind the filing.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Separately, @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer, please provide the Court a response to Section III of this motion within the next 48 hours if you wish to oppose it. If you do not, please provide a statement of non-opposition in that same timeframe.

We move for the Court to order the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Communication: Screenshots of any chat with DemocracyCraft Staff regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Error Proof: Screenshots of "No Permission" messages while standing on the plot.
3. /ticket Logs: Records of any official support tickets opened to resolve these "issues."

This matters because on Feb 26, the Defendant stated, "build should cover it." If they didn't talk to staff or open a ticket, they lied to the Plaintiff to escape their professional obligations.

All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

Your Honour @Franciscus,
The Defendant Opposes the Plaintiff's motion to compel for the following reasons...

1. Staff communications: The Defendant had no communication with Staff between Feb 25 and Feb 28; there are no screenshots to admit into evidence. Noting that the Defendant was not aware they lacked permissions until Feb 28 (A-006). Defendant had no reason to communicate with or open a ticket with Staff, as Defendant requested the permissions for a 2nd time on Feb 28 at 1:32 pm, and the Plaintiff granted permissions on Feb 28 at 3:39 pm (A-006).

2. Error Proof: The Defendant did not take any screenshots of "No Permission" messages while standing on the plot before permissions were granted, shortly before termination of the contract (A-006). Noting the in-game permission logs that Staff confirmed "exist" can definitively prove when build and destroy permissions were granted to the Defendant (A-023). As highlighted by Staff, the Plaintiff could voluntarily request the in-game permission logs, or the Defendant could request them via a court order (A-023).

3. /ticket Logs: The Defendant only opened one ticket with Staff. This ticket has been disclosed in the Defendant's motion to compel (A-023).

4.Professional Obligations: The Defendant Denies breaching any professional obligations.
It was the Plaintiff's obligation to grant build and destroy permissions to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff expressly agreed to grant both build and destroy permissions (A-003). The Plaintiff appears to have realised they had forgotten to grant permissions and then granted them to the Defendant, saying "you both have been added [to the permissions for the Plot]" (A-006).

NOTE: A-006 messages were sent on the 28th Feb

NOTE: A-003 and A-006 have been cropped down to focus on key messages, but full messages are still available in the Defendant's "Answer to Compaint".

Spoiler: A-003

Spoiler: A-006

Spoiler: A-023

 

[Brzzzes]

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE & RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS​

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Please be advised that Utterly Amazing Group LLC has been retained as legal counsel for the Plaintiff, Fletchingrs. All future motions, rulings, and correspondence should be directed to the undersigned firm.

---

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

The Defendant's filing (Post #25) is a definitive admission of both professional negligence and a lack of any factual basis for their defense. Utterly Amazing Group LLC, on behalf of the Plaintiff, highlights the following for the Court:

1. The Total Absence of Evidence The Defendant has built their entire case on the claim that "technical errors" and "staff" prevented them from fulfilling their contract. However, they have now formally admitted to this Court that:

• They have no logs of any communication with DemocracyCraft Staff. (Feb 25-28)
• They have no screenshots of any "No Permission" errors.
• They failed to even check their access levels for the first 72 hours of the contract.

2. Breach of Professional Duty A professional firm like UrbanDesign has a duty to ensure they can perform the work they are paid for. Admitting they "were not aware" of permission issues until three days into the contract is not a defense—it is a confession of negligence. They held our client's plot stagnant, preventing any other builder from working, while failing to perform even the most basic due diligence.

3. Acceptance of the Defendant's Proposal for Server Logs The Defendant suggested that the Court order the in-game permission logs for plot S079. We enthusiastically join that request. * The Motion: We move the Court to issue a Discovery Order for the official server logs of S079 from February 25 to February 28.

• The Goal: If those logs show permissions were active at any point during those three days, it proves the Defendant's "error" excuse was fabricated to escape a 12-floor commitment they no longer wished to honor.

CONCLUSION: The Defendant has admitted they have no evidence. We ask the Court to grant the order for the server logs so we can move immediately to a final ruling on damages, including the D$1,500 cost of cover and the lost utility of the plot.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes' Lead Counsel, Utterly Amazing Group LLC

 

[Brzzzes]

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDER: PRODUCTION OF SERVER PERMISSION LOGS​

TO THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT:

The Plaintiff, represented by Utterly Amazing Group LLC, respectfully moves this Court to issue a formal Discovery Order for the production of official server logs regarding plot S079.

I. THE RECORDS SOUGHT The Plaintiff requests that the Court, or a designated Court official, obtain the internal server logs for plot S079 for the period of February 25, 2026, through February 28, 2026. Specifically, we seek the "Build" and "Destroy" permission history to identify exactly when the Defendant, UrbanDesign (and its agents), was granted or stripped of access.

II. RATIONALE AND RELEVANCE The Defendant’s sole defense against this breach of contract claim is that they were "unable to build" due to technical permission errors and staff restrictions. However, in Post #25, the Defendant admitted they have:

1. No screenshots of these alleged errors.
2. No logs of communication with the staff to resolve these errors.
3. No proof that they even attempted to build during the first 72 hours of the contract.

The Defendant itself suggested that these logs "definitively prove" when permissions were granted. The Plaintiff agrees. These logs are the only objective evidence available to determine if the Defendant is being truthful or if they fabricated a "technical glitch" to abandon a 12-floor project they no longer wished to complete.

III. THE GOAL OF THIS MOTION If the server logs reveal that the Defendant had active permissions at any point between February 25th and 28th, it proves the Defendant's "error" excuse was a pretext. It would demonstrate that the Defendant intentionally held the Plaintiff’s plot in a stagnant state, causing the D$1,500 in "Cost of Cover" damages and lost plot utility currently sought by the Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION To ensure a ruling based on facts rather than unsupported claims, the Plaintiff requests the Court grant this motion and order the production of the S079 permission logs immediately.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Lead Counsel, Utterly Amazing Group LLC

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - PERJURY AND CONTEMPT OF COURT

The Court orders Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, to show cause as to why this Court should not summarily convict them of Perjury and Contempt of Court, and issue a conduct strike.

Perjury is a summary offense that occurs when a person "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law" (CCA, Part III, Section 1). Historically, this phrase of "false testimony" has included knowingly false representations made by counsel (see, for example, YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, Post No. 138).

Contempt of Court is a summary offense that occurs when a person "disobeys a lawful order of the court; or... engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice" (CCA, Part III, Section 2).

Conduct Strikes may be issued to lawyers upon conviction of Perjury, Contempt of Court, Frivolous Court Case, or any crime that occurs in Court (JSA, Part VII, Section 1). They may only be issued when "the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession" (JSA, Part VII, Section 2).

Summary offenses do not require a full trial; on the contrary "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings" (CCA, Part I, Section 6(2)(c)).

Throughout this case, Plaintiff's counsel has made plainly false or misleading representations to this Court:

1. In Post No. 11, Plaintiff's counsel alleged that "[t]he Defendant is attempting to have this case dismissed over a minor clerical error that has already been corrected." The Court finds no evidence that there was any motion or other effort to dismiss the whole case; no Motion to Dismiss was even filed.
2. In Post No. 11, Plaintiff's counsel alleged that the Defendant had made a "previous attempt to file in the wrong court venue... to delay the trial". The Court has scoured the forums and cannot find any instance in which the Defendant made any filings related to this case outside of this thread.
3. In Post No. 12, Plaintiff's counsel refers to "Defendant’s latest attempt to dismiss this case" and asked "the Court to deny the motion to dismiss". Again, no motion to dismiss had been filed in this case.
4. In Post No. 12, Plaintiff's counsel "move[d] for the Court to order the Defendant" to produce certain documents. In Post No. 24, Plaintiff's counsel characterized this as merely "a notice to the Defendant and the Court that these records were central to the case" and a declaration of "evidence [Plaintiff's counsel] intended to seek during the trial process".
5. After the Court informed the Plaintiff's counsel in Post No. 15 that it could not identify any motions to dismiss as having been filed, Plaintiff's counsel in Post No. 17 falsely stated that "[t]he Defendant moves for dismissal based on a minor clerical update to an evidence link" and asked the Court to "deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss".

The Court is concerned that this may constitute perjury and contempt of court under the criminal code, as Plaintiff's counsel may have knowingly invented a "motion to dismiss", mischaracterized their earlier statements in subsequent filings, and continued to assert that a "motion to dismiss" had been filed even after this Court had informed them otherwise. Making misrepresentations to this Court may also interfere with the administration of justice.

Should the Plaintiff's counsel have anything they would like to say, they may inform the Court of their decision within 72 hours. Every citizen has the right to not produce self-incriminating evidence (Const., Section 35(5)), so should the Plaintiff's counsel not to respond within the same time period this Court would merely ask that a statement indicating that they do not intend to respond be presented to this Court.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Brzzzes]

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE​

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE MULTIMAN155:

Utterly Amazing Group LLC, appearing as Counsel for the Plaintiff, formally submits this response to the Order to Show Cause. Counsel treats these allegations with the utmost gravity and wishes to clarify the record to demonstrate that there was no criminal intent to deceive or obstruct this Court.

I. The "Motion to Dismiss" Terminology The Court is correct: no formal "Motion to Dismiss" was filed by the Defendant. Counsel’s repeated use of this phrase was a procedural error in nomenclature, not a fabrication of fact.

In the early stages of this case, the Defendant argued that the case was "settled" by their refund and should not proceed. Counsel improperly labeled these defensive arguments as a "Motion to Dismiss" in our filings. While this was technically inaccurate, it was intended as a legal shorthand to "oppose" the Defendant's efforts to end the litigation. We apologize for the confusion this caused the Court and acknowledge that precision in titling is a requirement we failed to meet.

II. The "Wrong Venue" Claim Counsel acknowledges the Court’s finding that no filings exist outside this thread. This representation was based on information gathered during the client's initial intake. Counsel deeply regrets failing to independently verify this specific claim on the public forums before presenting it to the Court. This was a failure of due diligence, for which we take full responsibility, but it was not a "knowing" lie intended to delay proceedings.

III. Characterization of Discovery (Post No. 12 vs. Post No. 24) The discrepancy noted by the Court regarding our Discovery request was an attempt to explain the procedural evolution of our strategy.

• In Post No. 12, we were aggressively moving for the production of documents.
• In Post No. 24, we were attempting to explain to the new Judge that the need for these documents was established early on. The shift in wording was an attempt to provide context to the new presiding officer, not to rewrite history or mislead the Court on our original intent.

IV. Conclusion regarding Perjury and Contempt Perjury requires a "guilty mind" (mens rea)—a specific intent to provide false testimony. Counsel’s filings were clumsy, procedurally imprecise, and at times based on unverified information, but they were never intended to be "false testimony."

Utterly Amazing Group LLC is committed to the highest standards of the Redmont Bar. We ask the Court to view these actions as the mistakes of a zealous advocate struggling with procedural precision, rather than a criminal attempt to obstruct justice. We respectfully request that the Court decline to issue a conviction or conduct strike.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Lead Counsel, Utterly Amazing Group LLC

 

[Franciscus]

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE & RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS​

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Please be advised that Utterly Amazing Group LLC has been retained as legal counsel for the Plaintiff, Fletchingrs. All future motions, rulings, and correspondence should be directed to the undersigned firm.

---

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

The Defendant's filing (Post #25) is a definitive admission of both professional negligence and a lack of any factual basis for their defense. Utterly Amazing Group LLC, on behalf of the Plaintiff, highlights the following for the Court:

1. The Total Absence of Evidence The Defendant has built their entire case on the claim that "technical errors" and "staff" prevented them from fulfilling their contract. However, they have now formally admitted to this Court that:

• They have no logs of any communication with DemocracyCraft Staff. (Feb 25-28)
• They have no screenshots of any "No Permission" errors.
• They failed to even check their access levels for the first 72 hours of the contract.

2. Breach of Professional Duty A professional firm like UrbanDesign has a duty to ensure they can perform the work they are paid for. Admitting they "were not aware" of permission issues until three days into the contract is not a defense—it is a confession of negligence. They held our client's plot stagnant, preventing any other builder from working, while failing to perform even the most basic due diligence.

3. Acceptance of the Defendant's Proposal for Server Logs The Defendant suggested that the Court order the in-game permission logs for plot S079. We enthusiastically join that request. * The Motion: We move the Court to issue a Discovery Order for the official server logs of S079 from February 25 to February 28.

• The Goal: If those logs show permissions were active at any point during those three days, it proves the Defendant's "error" excuse was fabricated to escape a 12-floor commitment they no longer wished to honor.

CONCLUSION: The Defendant has admitted they have no evidence. We ask the Court to grant the order for the server logs so we can move immediately to a final ruling on damages, including the D$1,500 cost of cover and the lost utility of the plot.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes' Lead Counsel, Utterly Amazing Group LLC

Under the Court's rules and precedents, "[r]esponses to responses aren't permitted" (IgnitedTnT v. RiggoSoft and LeafLuxury LLC [2026] FCR 12, Post No. 13; ThePufferOffical v. xEndeavour [2025] DCR 69, Post No. 29). The "PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO COMPEL", therefore, is stricken sua sponte.

If Plaintiff's counsel would like to make a filing not explicitly permitted by the Court rules, Plaintiff's counsel must ask the Court for leave to do so. Plaintiff's counsel (@Brzzzes) is warned that future such impermissible filings may result in a charge of Contempt of Court.

 

[Brzzzes]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - PERJURY AND CONTEMPT OF COURT

The Court orders Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, to show cause as to why this Court should not summarily convict them of Perjury and Contempt of Court, and issue a conduct strike.

Perjury is a summary offense that occurs when a person "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law" (CCA, Part III, Section 1). Historically, this phrase of "false testimony" has included knowingly false representations made by counsel (see, for example, YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, Post No. 138).

Contempt of Court is a summary offense that occurs when a person "disobeys a lawful order of the court; or... engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice" (CCA, Part III, Section 2).

Conduct Strikes may be issued to lawyers upon conviction of Perjury, Contempt of Court, Frivolous Court Case, or any crime that occurs in Court (JSA, Part VII, Section 1). They may only be issued when "the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession" (JSA, Part VII, Section 2).

Summary offenses do not require a full trial; on the contrary "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings" (CCA, Part I, Section 6(2)(c)).

Throughout this case, Plaintiff's counsel has made plainly false or misleading representations to this Court:

1. In Post No. 11, Plaintiff's counsel alleged that "[t]he Defendant is attempting to have this case dismissed over a minor clerical error that has already been corrected." The Court finds no evidence that there was any motion or other effort to dismiss the whole case; no Motion to Dismiss was even filed.
2. In Post No. 11, Plaintiff's counsel alleged that the Defendant had made a "previous attempt to file in the wrong court venue... to delay the trial". The Court has scoured the forums and cannot find any instance in which the Defendant made any filings related to this case outside of this thread.
3. In Post No. 12, Plaintiff's counsel refers to "Defendant’s latest attempt to dismiss this case" and asked "the Court to deny the motion to dismiss". Again, no motion to dismiss had been filed in this case.
4. In Post No. 12, Plaintiff's counsel "move[d] for the Court to order the Defendant" to produce certain documents. In Post No. 24, Plaintiff's counsel characterized this as merely "a notice to the Defendant and the Court that these records were central to the case" and a declaration of "evidence [Plaintiff's counsel] intended to seek during the trial process".
5. After the Court informed the Plaintiff's counsel in Post No. 15 that it could not identify any motions to dismiss as having been filed, Plaintiff's counsel in Post No. 17 falsely stated that "[t]he Defendant moves for dismissal based on a minor clerical update to an evidence link" and asked the Court to "deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss".

The Court is concerned that this may constitute perjury and contempt of court under the criminal code, as Plaintiff's counsel may have knowingly invented a "motion to dismiss", mischaracterized their earlier statements in subsequent filings, and continued to assert that a "motion to dismiss" had been filed even after this Court had informed them otherwise. Making misrepresentations to this Court may also interfere with the administration of justice.

Should the Plaintiff's counsel have anything they would like to say, they may inform the Court of their decision within 72 hours. Every citizen has the right to not produce self-incriminating evidence (Const., Section 35(5)), so should the Plaintiff's counsel not to respond within the same time period this Court would merely ask that a statement indicating that they do not intend to respond be presented to this Court.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE​

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE MULTIMAN155:

Utterly Amazing Group LLC, appearing as Counsel for the Plaintiff, formally submits this response to the Order to Show Cause. Counsel treats these allegations with the utmost gravity and wishes to clarify the record to demonstrate that there was no criminal intent to deceive or obstruct this Court.

I. The "Motion to Dismiss" Terminology The Court is correct: no formal "Motion to Dismiss" was filed by the Defendant. Counsel’s repeated use of this phrase was a procedural error in nomenclature, not a fabrication of fact.

In the early stages of this case, the Defendant argued that the case was "settled" by their refund and should not proceed. Counsel improperly labeled these defensive arguments as a "Motion to Dismiss" in our filings. While this was technically inaccurate, it was intended as a legal shorthand to "oppose" the Defendant's efforts to end the litigation. We apologize for the confusion this caused the Court and acknowledge that precision in titling is a requirement we failed to meet.

II. The "Wrong Venue" Claim Counsel acknowledges the Court’s finding that no filings exist outside this thread. This representation was based on information gathered during the client's initial intake. Counsel deeply regrets failing to independently verify this specific claim on the public forums before presenting it to the Court. This was a failure of due diligence, for which we take full responsibility, but it was not a "knowing" lie intended to delay proceedings.

III. Characterization of Discovery (Post No. 12 vs. Post No. 24) The discrepancy noted by the Court regarding our Discovery request was an attempt to explain the procedural evolution of our strategy.

• In Post No. 12, we were aggressively moving for the production of documents.
• In Post No. 24, we were attempting to explain to the new Judge that the need for these documents was established early on. The shift in wording was an attempt to provide context to the new presiding officer, not to rewrite history or mislead the Court on our original intent.

IV. Conclusion regarding Perjury and Contempt Perjury requires a "guilty mind" (mens rea)—a specific intent to provide false testimony. Counsel’s filings were clumsy, procedurally imprecise, and at times based on unverified information, but they were never intended to be "false testimony."

Utterly Amazing Group LLC is committed to the highest standards of the Redmont Bar. We ask the Court to view these actions as the mistakes of a zealous advocate struggling with procedural precision, rather than a criminal attempt to obstruct justice. We respectfully request that the Court decline to issue a conviction or conduct strike.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Lead Counsel, Utterly Amazing Group LLC

 

[Franciscus]

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDER: PRODUCTION OF SERVER PERMISSION LOGS​

TO THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT:

The Plaintiff, represented by Utterly Amazing Group LLC, respectfully moves this Court to issue a formal Discovery Order for the production of official server logs regarding plot S079.

I. THE RECORDS SOUGHT The Plaintiff requests that the Court, or a designated Court official, obtain the internal server logs for plot S079 for the period of February 25, 2026, through February 28, 2026. Specifically, we seek the "Build" and "Destroy" permission history to identify exactly when the Defendant, UrbanDesign (and its agents), was granted or stripped of access.

II. RATIONALE AND RELEVANCE The Defendant’s sole defense against this breach of contract claim is that they were "unable to build" due to technical permission errors and staff restrictions. However, in Post #25, the Defendant admitted they have:

1. No screenshots of these alleged errors.
2. No logs of communication with the staff to resolve these errors.
3. No proof that they even attempted to build during the first 72 hours of the contract.

The Defendant itself suggested that these logs "definitively prove" when permissions were granted. The Plaintiff agrees. These logs are the only objective evidence available to determine if the Defendant is being truthful or if they fabricated a "technical glitch" to abandon a 12-floor project they no longer wished to complete.

III. THE GOAL OF THIS MOTION If the server logs reveal that the Defendant had active permissions at any point between February 25th and 28th, it proves the Defendant's "error" excuse was a pretext. It would demonstrate that the Defendant intentionally held the Plaintiff’s plot in a stagnant state, causing the D$1,500 in "Cost of Cover" damages and lost plot utility currently sought by the Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION To ensure a ruling based on facts rather than unsupported claims, the Plaintiff requests the Court grant this motion and order the production of the S079 permission logs immediately.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Lead Counsel, Utterly Amazing Group LLC

Defendant ( cc @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ) shall have 48 hours to respond to this motion before the Court rules on whether or not to order production of documents. This motion is treated as a Motion to Compel, even as it is mistitled.

 

[Franciscus]

I am creating a sidebar with the Plaintiff's and Defendant's counsels to discuss procedure among other items. I will be sending an invitation to the Judiciary discord to each shortly.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - SUMMARY CONVICTIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT AND PERJURY

I. Background​

Perjury is a summary offense that occurs when a person "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law" (CCA, Part III, Section 1). Knowingly false representations made by counsel in court filings have been held by the Federal Court to fall within that prohibition (see, for example, Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9, Post No. 14).

Contempt of Court is a summary offense that occurs when a person "disobeys a lawful order of the court; or... engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice" (CCA, Part III, Section 2).

Summary offenses do not require a full trial; on the contrary, "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings" (CCA, Part I, Section 6(2)(c)). Because these are criminal findings, the Court will not convict unless it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt (JSA, Part II, Section 3(1)(b)). Conduct strikes may be issued to lawyers upon conviction of Perjury or Contempt of Court (JSA, Part VII, Section 1(1)), but only where "the lawyer's conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession" (JSA, Part VII, Section 1(2)).

The Court does not conclude that every inaccurate, imprecise, or sloppily titled filing in this thread amounts to Perjury. Perjury requires proof of a knowing falsehood, not merely confusion, negligence, or imprecise drafting (Compare rulings of perjury under the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act, which defined Perjury as "The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court": Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10, Post No. 71; Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, Post No. 17). Likewise, a mislabeled motion may ordinarily be addressed first by striking it or warning counsel, rather than by immediate criminal conviction (Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, Post No. 33, regarding an improperly labeled Nolle Prosecui).

The Court, thus, has examined the whole record of this case, which this Court incorporates into the record of this Order by reference. This record includes (among other items) all the Plaintiff's counsel's posts, an Order to Show Cause (Post No. 28), the Plaintiff's response thereto published 8 minutes later (Post No. 29), and the Plaintiff's second and largely duplicative response to the Order to Show Cause (Post No. 31).

II. Discussion​

II.A. The Plaintiff's Counsel is found Guilty of two instances of Perjury​

Upon examining the record, the District Court finds two instances of Perjury proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Firstly, one instance of perjury arises from repeated attestations by the Plaintiff's counsel about a phantasmic "motion to dismiss" purportedly submitted by the Defendant in this case. No Motion to Dismiss was filed by the Defendant. The Defendant instead filed a Motion to Strike (Post No. 9), a Motion to Compel (also Post No. 9), a second Motion to Strike (Post No. 10), and an Objection on the basis of Breach of Procedure (also Post No. 10). Even so, Plaintiff’s counsel filed Post No. 11 as an “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss” and Post No. 12 as an “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss & Motion for Discovery,” in each instance representing that the Defendant was attempting to have the case dismissed.

The Court then directly informed Plaintiff’s counsel that it could not identify any motion to dismiss, asked counsel to specify what motion was being referenced, and mad plain that what the Court saw was repeated opposition to a nonexistent motion (Post No. 15). Plaintiff's counsel thereafter apologized to the Court for "that [Plaintiff's Counsel] provided the motion to dismiss" (Post No. 16), even as Plaintiff's Counsel had not done so.

Plaintiff’s counsel then, once again, stated that the Defendant moved for dismissal based on a minor clerical update to an evidence link, and again asked the Court to deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Post No. 17). That statement was false when made. By that stage, counsel had already been told by the Court that no such motion had been filed. The Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this later repetition was knowing, and therefore constituted Perjury under Part III, Section 1 of the Criminal Code Act.

Secondly, Post No. 24 knowingly mischaracterized Post No. 12. In Section III of the latter post, Plaintiff's counsel wrote: "We move for the Court to order the Defendant to produce..." specific categories of records (emphasis mine). That is a motion by any ordinary meaning of the term, as if a misnamed attempt to seek a Motion to Compel (see: Motions Guide; Rule 4.7). The Court itself treated it as a motion in granting Defendant right to respond to "Section III of this motion" (Post No. 15). Yet in Post No. 24, counsel told the Court that Post No. 12 "was a Request" and merely "a notice to the Defendant and the Court" of evidence counsel intended to seek later. Counsel's own response to the OSC then admitted that in Post No. 12 they were "aggressively moving for the production of documents" (Posts No. 29 and 31). On this record, the Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Post No. 24 was not clarification; it was a knowingly false rewriting of an earlier filing. As such, this constituted another instance of Perjury under Part III, Section 1 of the Criminal Code Act.

II.B. The Plaintiff's Counsel is found Guilty of Contempt of Court​

Contempt of Court under the obstruction/interference prong does not require a prior warning under Court Rule 1.4 or some other lawful order ([2025] FCR 119 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal, Verdict "In none of Appellant’s arguments is Court Rule 1.4 invoked, and the Appellant is right to not do so as that rule was designed to protect against abuses from subsection (a) 'disobeys a lawful order of the court.'"; [2025] FCR 128 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal, Verdict, "Under this second prong, the trial court is not required to give a warning, order, or other initial pretext before conviction"). But it does require actual obstructive or interfering conduct, not mere judicial annoyance (id.). That standard is met here. The falsehood in Post No. 17 misstated the existence of a dispositive defense motion after the Court had already corrected counsel once (Section II.A). The falsehood in Post No. 24 then attempted to recast an earlier motion as mere notice despite the filing's text and the Court's own treatment of it (id.). Taken together, these filings distorted the motion posture before the Court, required repeated judicial clarification, and necessitated an Order to Show Cause. That is conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice and thus constitutes Contempt of Court.

II.C. On Conduct Strikes​

Conduct Strikes may be issued to lawyers upon conviction of Perjury, Contempt of Court, Frivolous Court Case, or any crime that occurs in Court (JSA, Part VII, Section 1). They may only be issued when "the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession" (JSA, Part VII, Section 2).

This Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's counsel's conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession. Knowingly misstating the contents of the docket, and then mischaracterizing a filed motion after the Court had already clarified the issue, is not zealous advocacy. It is incompatible with the minimum standards expected of counsel before the Courts, and a conduct strike is thusly warranted (c.f.: Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9, Post No. 14, "[T]he Federal Court finds: ... that [counsel]'s conduct is an affront to the standards expected of Counselors before the Courts. A conduct strike shall be issued.").

III. Order of the Court​

In light of the above, the District Court thus Orders as follows:

• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, is found GUILTY on two counts of Perjury;
• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, is found GUILTY on one count of Contempt of Court;
• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, shall be fined a total of $45,000 and jailed for 130 minutes, broken down as follows:
  • For the first count of perjury, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $20,000 and sentenced to 60 minutes in prison.
  • For the second count of perjury, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $20,000 and sentenced to 60 minutes in prison.
  • For the charge of Contempt of Court, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $5,000 and sentenced to 10 minutes in prison.
• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, shall be issued one conduct strike pursuant to JSA, Part VII, Section 1.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Franciscus]

Having taken some time to review the responses (or lack thereof) regarding various open motions listed in Post No. 15, the Court rules as follows:

Motion

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

The last image in Exhibit C (Discord Messages) of the Plaintiff's Case Filing is redundant and vague:
1. The messages in the last image are redundant as they provide no additional facts to the Court. All facts contained in the messages are available in their original form (A-006, Renovation Contract).

2. The messages in the last image make vague claims of "wasting time" and "bad faith" which are purely the Plaintiff’s opinion. These messages presume the Defendant is guilty without any evidence and call for a conclusion to matters in dispute.

The last image in Exhibit C of the Plaintiff's Case Filing should be struck from the record as it is redundant and vague.

Denied.

The Court cannot strike evidence because the merely because the text content in that image makes "vague claims" or states opinion. The Court does not assume that every statement made by every person in every piece of evidence is true (see, e.g. YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, Verdict, Opinion of the Court, Section V.D); this evidence points to that something was written by Plaintiff. I am also not going to strike evidence on basis of alleged redundancy.

Motion

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

The defence moves that Exhibit B (New Contract) in its entirety be struck from the record as it is immaterial to this case...
1. The New Contract concerns a completely different plot (C343).

2. The New Contract was created and signed after contractual relationship between the parties ended. The contractual terms of new contract don’t bind the defendant.

3. The Plaintiff freely chose to contract with a third party. Defendant did not “force” or “cause” the Plaintiff to contract with a third party, and the Defendant had no influence or participation in the “new contract”.

4. New Master Construction was not a party to the original Renovation Agreement or these proceedings.

Denied as moot. At present, there are two files attached to the Complaint: one that is Exhibit A and another that appears to be some sort of internal case theory document that is not actually listed as evidence. The file described in Exhibit B is not present; I can't strike a file that isn't actually attached.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the Court compel the Plaintiff to produce the following documents…
1. In-game "member" (build and destroy) permission logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

1.1. These logs can definitively determine a key factual dispute in this case, when exactly "member" (build and destroy) permissions were granted to the Defendant.

1.2. The existence of these logs has been confirmed by Staff (A-023).

2. In-game rent logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

2.1. Rent logs will be useful for determining if there is any damage or loss to the Plaintiff.

Spoiler: A-023

View attachment 77223

NOTE: All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

Seeing no opposition from Plaintiff, granted in full. Plaintiff ( @Brzzzes ) is hereby ordered to produce the following to the Court within the next 48 hours, on pain of Contempt:

1. In-game "member" (build and destroy) permission logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM
2. In-game rent logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

II. MOTION TO STRIKE THE "REFUND DEFENSE"​

The Defendant argues that returning the deposit has "cured" the breach. This is a misunderstanding of Redmont Contract Law.

• Partial Restitution is not a cure: Returning a deposit only returns the Plaintiff's own money. It does not address the Expectation Damages or the Cost of Cover.
• The Gap: Because the Defendant abandoned the 12-floor project, the Plaintiff was forced to hire a new builder (Wayne Kerr) at a D$1,500 premium. This is a direct financial loss caused by the Defendant's breach that the refund does not cover.

Denied. This motion is not cognizable; the Court cannot find the string "Refund Defense" nor "cured" in the Answer to Complaint. If you would like the Court to strike something, the Court needs to be able to identify exactly what you are seeking to strike.

III. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

The Defendant’s entire defense is that "staff" or "permissions" stopped them from seeing the build logs. This is a fake excuse.

We move for the Court to order the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Communication: Screenshots of any chat with DemocracyCraft Staff regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Error Proof: Screenshots of "No Permission" messages while standing on the plot.
3. /ticket Logs: Records of any official support tickets opened to resolve these "issues."

This matters because on Feb 26, the Defendant stated, "build should cover it." If they didn't talk to staff or open a ticket, they lied to the Plaintiff to escape their professional obligations.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY​

To the Honorable Judge,

I’d like to move past the procedural back-and-forth and get to the heart of why we are actually here. The Defendant, UrbanDesign, has based their entire defense on one claim: that "staff permissions" or "height errors" made it impossible for it to finish the contract.

In a professional setting, if you can’t do your job because of a technical error, you have to document it. You take a screenshot, you open a ticket, or you talk to a staff member. My client, Fletchingrs, has asked for this proof repeatedly, and so far, the Defendant has produced nothing but words.

We are formally asking the Court to COMPEL (force) the Defendant to produce:

1. Staff Logs: Any chat, Discord DM, or telegram with a DemocracyCraft Staff member regarding plot S079 between Feb 25 and Feb 28.
2. Visual Proof: Any screenshot showing a "No Permission" or height error message while they were on the plot.
3. Support Records: Proof of any /ticket they opened to try to resolve these issues before they walked away from the project.

Why this is necessary: Now, without the Defendant’s story, it is just a story. We believe these logs don't exist because the "errors" never happened. My client’s plot sat stagnant for three days while the Defendant held the permissions—if they were actually struggling with errors, they should be able to show us the proof in 30 seconds.

If they cannot or will not produce these documents within the 48-hour window the Court mentioned, we ask the Court to view their defense as a "pretext" for a bad-faith breach.

We just want the truth so we can move this case to a final ruling.

All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

Your Honour @Franciscus,
The Defendant Opposes the Plaintiff's motion to compel for the following reasons...

1. Staff communications: The Defendant had no communication with Staff between Feb 25 and Feb 28; there are no screenshots to admit into evidence. Noting that the Defendant was not aware they lacked permissions until Feb 28 (A-006). Defendant had no reason to communicate with or open a ticket with Staff, as Defendant requested the permissions for a 2nd time on Feb 28 at 1:32 pm, and the Plaintiff granted permissions on Feb 28 at 3:39 pm (A-006).

2. Error Proof: The Defendant did not take any screenshots of "No Permission" messages while standing on the plot before permissions were granted, shortly before termination of the contract (A-006). Noting the in-game permission logs that Staff confirmed "exist" can definitively prove when build and destroy permissions were granted to the Defendant (A-023). As highlighted by Staff, the Plaintiff could voluntarily request the in-game permission logs, or the Defendant could request them via a court order (A-023).

3. /ticket Logs: The Defendant only opened one ticket with Staff. This ticket has been disclosed in the Defendant's motion to compel (A-023).

4.Professional Obligations: The Defendant Denies breaching any professional obligations.
It was the Plaintiff's obligation to grant build and destroy permissions to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff expressly agreed to grant both build and destroy permissions (A-003). The Plaintiff appears to have realised they had forgotten to grant permissions and then granted them to the Defendant, saying "you both have been added [to the permissions for the Plot]" (A-006).

NOTE: A-006 messages were sent on the 28th Feb

NOTE: A-003 and A-006 have been cropped down to focus on key messages, but full messages are still available in the Defendant's "Answer to Compaint".

Spoiler: A-003

View attachment 78100

Spoiler: A-006

View attachment 78101

Spoiler: A-023

View attachment 78099

Granted in part.

This Court cannot find a single instance where the Defense has used the term "height errors", nor in which the defense has used the term "staff permissions". The Court is confused by the use of direct quotations where none appear in the current record. The Court will not compel screenshots that Defendant, under of penalty of perjury, has represented not to exist; we will simply take judicial notice in our analysis going forward. The Court is also not going to subpoena messages between Defendant and individual staff members; such messages do not constitute the word of the staff team, so they are not relevant to this case.

That being said, Exhibit A-023 does appear to not show the entirety of the relevant staff ticket; a message is cut off. Defendant ( cc: @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ) is ordered to produce the full ticket transcript of any staff ticket in which the Defendant (or Defendant's counsel) discussed this case and/or Plot S079. This shall be provided to this Court within 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

---

Separately: this Court will note that if external tools are being used to help generate text for filings, that it is the ultimate responsibility of each counsel to ensure that their filings are factually accurate. If any counsel engages in negligent misrepresentation of facts before the Court, even if as a result of using such a tool, this Court warns that we may hand out contempt charges (and conduct strikes) liberally.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Franciscus]

​

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

FLETCHINGRS Plaintiff

v.

URBANDESIGN Defendant

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ORDER: PRODUCTION OF SERVER PERMISSION LOGS​

TO THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT:

The Plaintiff, represented by Utterly Amazing Group LLC, respectfully moves this Court to issue a formal Discovery Order for the production of official server logs regarding plot S079.

I. THE RECORDS SOUGHT The Plaintiff requests that the Court, or a designated Court official, obtain the internal server logs for plot S079 for the period of February 25, 2026, through February 28, 2026. Specifically, we seek the "Build" and "Destroy" permission history to identify exactly when the Defendant, UrbanDesign (and its agents), was granted or stripped of access.

II. RATIONALE AND RELEVANCE The Defendant’s sole defense against this breach of contract claim is that they were "unable to build" due to technical permission errors and staff restrictions. However, in Post #25, the Defendant admitted they have:

1. No screenshots of these alleged errors.
2. No logs of communication with the staff to resolve these errors.
3. No proof that they even attempted to build during the first 72 hours of the contract.

The Defendant itself suggested that these logs "definitively prove" when permissions were granted. The Plaintiff agrees. These logs are the only objective evidence available to determine if the Defendant is being truthful or if they fabricated a "technical glitch" to abandon a 12-floor project they no longer wished to complete.

III. THE GOAL OF THIS MOTION If the server logs reveal that the Defendant had active permissions at any point between February 25th and 28th, it proves the Defendant's "error" excuse was a pretext. It would demonstrate that the Defendant intentionally held the Plaintiff’s plot in a stagnant state, causing the D$1,500 in "Cost of Cover" damages and lost plot utility currently sought by the Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION To ensure a ruling based on facts rather than unsupported claims, the Plaintiff requests the Court grant this motion and order the production of the S079 permission logs immediately.

---

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Brzzzes Lead Counsel, Utterly Amazing Group LLC

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO COMPEL STAFF LOGS

On motion from Plaintiff, the Court orders the production of logs.

@Staff Team
The Court orders the production of logs as described.

===============================================
Time Period: 00:00:00 UTC+14 on 25 February 2026 to 23:59:59 UTC-12 on 28 February 2026.
Location: S079.

Content: Any and all logs in the time period granting or revoking a user's access to build, destroy, or otherwise become a member of S079.

===============================================
The Court will open a staff ticket and request that a Staff Member (or Staff Team) respond in this thread if possible. If not, the Court will post the entirety of the ticket thread to this forum.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

That being said, Exhibit A-023 does appear to not show the entirety of the relevant staff ticket; a message is cut off. Defendant ( cc: @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ) is ordered to produce the full ticket transcript of any staff ticket in which the Defendant (or Defendant's counsel) discussed this case and/or Plot S079. This shall be provided to this Court within 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

Your Honour @Franciscus,
I have attached the requested complete transcript of the staff ticket between the Defendant and the Staff.

Spoiler: A-024

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO COMPEL STAFF LOGS

On motion from Plaintiff, the Court orders the production of logs.

@Staff Team
The Court orders the production of logs as described.

===============================================
Time Period: 00:00:00 UTC+14 on 25 February 2026 to 23:59:59 UTC-12 on 28 February 2026.
Location: S079.

Content: Any and all logs in the time period granting or revoking a user's access to build, destroy, or otherwise become a member of S079.

===============================================
The Court will open a staff ticket and request that a Staff Member (or Staff Team) respond in this thread if possible. If not, the Court will post the entirety of the ticket thread to this forum.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

The referenced staff ticket is attached to this post. It may be referred to as "Exhibit Staff-001".

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

The defence moves that the Court compel the Plaintiff to produce the following documents…
1. In-game "member" (build and destroy) permission logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

1.1. These logs can definitively determine a key factual dispute in this case, when exactly "member" (build and destroy) permissions were granted to the Defendant.

1.2. The existence of these logs has been confirmed by Staff (A-023).

2. In-game rent logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

2.1. Rent logs will be useful for determining if there is any damage or loss to the Plaintiff.

Spoiler: A-023

View attachment 77223

NOTE: All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

Seeing no opposition from Plaintiff, granted in full. Plaintiff ( @Brzzzes ) is hereby ordered to produce the following to the Court within the next 48 hours, on pain of Contempt:

1. In-game "member" (build and destroy) permission logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM
2. In-game rent logs for plot S079 between 26/2/2026 at 3:00AM and 28/2/2026 at 4:06PM.

The Court does not appear to have received these logs from the Plaintiff. @Brzzzes: Are you or your client in possession of any such logs, or is it simply the case that you don't have them and thus didn't submit them?

 

[Brzzzes]

I am sorry, Your Honur I am trying to connect with my client, but he will not respond to me.

 

[Brzzzes]

Your Honor @Franciscus,

Counsel for the Plaintiff wishes to clarify and formalize my previous statement regarding client communication.

I. DILIGENT EFFORT TO COMMUNICATE I have sent multiple formal requests to the Plaintiff via [Discord] regarding the Court-ordered rent logs. While the Plaintiff has not yet provided those specific personal files, Counsel is continuing to monitor all channels for a response.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE STAFF LOGS Counsel emphasizes that the Staff-verified logs (Exhibit Staff-001)already provided by the Court provide the objective, backend data that the Court requested. These logs confirm the permissions were granted on March 1st. We humbly suggest that these independent records are the most reliable evidence available and should satisfy the Discovery Order, regardless of the Plaintiff's current availability.

III. COMMITMENT TO THE CASE Counsel remains fully committed to this matter and asks the Court for patience as we wait for the Plaintiff to re-establish contact. We move that the Court proceed based on the verified Staff Evidence provided.

Respectfully submitted,

Brzzzes, Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor @Franciscus,

Counsel for the Plaintiff wishes to clarify and formalize my previous statement regarding client communication.

I. DILIGENT EFFORT TO COMMUNICATE I have sent multiple formal requests to the Plaintiff via [Discord] regarding the Court-ordered rent logs. While the Plaintiff has not yet provided those specific personal files, Counsel is continuing to monitor all channels for a response.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE STAFF LOGS Counsel emphasizes that the Staff-verified logs (Exhibit Staff-001)already provided by the Court provide the objective, backend data that the Court requested. These logs confirm the permissions were granted on March 1st. We humbly suggest that these independent records are the most reliable evidence available and should satisfy the Discovery Order, regardless of the Plaintiff's current availability.

III. COMMITMENT TO THE CASE Counsel remains fully committed to this matter and asks the Court for patience as we wait for the Plaintiff to re-establish contact. We move that the Court proceed based on the verified Staff Evidence provided.

Respectfully submitted,

Brzzzes, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Noted. The Defendant ( @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ) will have 48 hours to respond to this note. If no response is received, or if the Court finds the staff-provided logs sufficiently responsive to the motion to compel, we will move to opening statements thereafter.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Objection

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

Your Honour @Franciscus,

The Plaintiff has committed perjury in their case filing by asserting it was a fact that the Defendant held "active "Member" permissions" between on or about 25th Feb.

The Plaintiff's asserted fact is misleading and false, as "Exhibit Staff-001" shows permissions were only granted to the Defendant on 28th Feb.

Spoiler: Fact 3 of Case Filing

 

[Brzzzes]

Your Honor @Franciscus,

The Plaintiff categorically denies the allegation of perjury. The Defendant ( @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer )is attempting to weaponize a minor chronological discrepancy to distract from their own material breach of contract.

I. LACK OF INTENT Perjury requires a "knowing and willful" intent to deceive the Court. The Plaintiff’s statement regarding permissions was based on his best recollection of when the /as addfriend commands were executed. A mistake in calculating the exact date from memory is not perjury; it is a human error.

II. THE DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION Even using the Defendant's own interpretation of Exhibit Staff-001, they admit they had permissions by the 28th. Yet, the record shows they performed zero work after that point and instead chose to terminate the contract.

III. MATERIALITY Whether the permissions were granted on the 26th, 27th, or 1st is secondary to the material fact: The Defendant was a "Member" of the plot, could build, and failed to do so.

We ask the Court to overrule this objection and focus on the merits of the breach of contract.

Respectfully submitted,
Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

The Court does not appear to have received these logs from the Plaintiff. @Brzzzes: Are you or your client in possession of any such logs, or is it simply the case that you don't have them and thus didn't submit them?

I. DILIGENT EFFORT TO COMMUNICATE I have sent multiple formal requests to the Plaintiff via [Discord] regarding the Court-ordered rent logs. While the Plaintiff has not yet provided those specific personal files, Counsel is continuing to monitor all channels for a response.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE STAFF LOGS Counsel emphasizes that the Staff-verified logs (Exhibit Staff-001)already provided by the Court provide the objective, backend data that the Court requested. These logs confirm the permissions were granted on March 1st. We humbly suggest that these independent records are the most reliable evidence available and should satisfy the Discovery Order, regardless of the Plaintiff's current availability.

III. COMMITMENT TO THE CASE Counsel remains fully committed to this matter and asks the Court for patience as we wait for the Plaintiff to re-establish contact. We move that the Court proceed based on the verified Staff Evidence provided.

Noted. The Defendant ( @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ) will have 48 hours to respond to this note. If no response is received, or if the Court finds the staff-provided logs sufficiently responsive to the motion to compel, we will move to opening statements thereafter.

Your Honour @Franciscus,

The Defendant must insist that the Plaintiff produce the "rent logs" if they exist. Noting "2.1. Rent logs will be useful for determining if there is any damage or loss to the Plaintiff."

Noting that the Court has already produced the "permission logs" and the Defendant no longer requires the Plaintiff to produce them.

The Defendant acknowledges that the Plaintiff's Counsel @Brzzzes may be having difficulties with the Plaintiff. But @Brzzzes must offer evidence to support his request for an extension of the 48-hour deadline.

Plaintiff's Counsel @Brzzzes has failed to provide any evidence to support their claimed "diligent effort to communicate" and @Brzzzes appears to have made no effort to contact staff to retrieve the "rent logs".

The Defendant humbly requests that the Court hold the Plaintiff "in contempt of Court" unless the Plaintiff can provide evidence to justify an extension to their 48-hour deadline OR the Plaintiff admits no "rent logs" exist to be admitted into evidence.
Noting Every citizen has a right under the Constitution to a "speedy and fair trial", and offering an extension without evidence justifying it would be unfair and cause undue delay.

 

[Brzzzes]

Your Honor @Franciscus,

The Defendant’s attempt to hold Counsel in contempt is a meritless distraction designed to avoid the reality of Exhibit Staff-001.

I. DILIGENCE OF COUNSEL Counsel for the Plaintiff has acted with the utmost professional diligence. Multiple attempts have been made to reach the Plaintiff via Discord and in-game mail. While the Plaintiff has not yet provided the specific rent files, Counsel has successfully fulfilled the spirit of the Discovery Order by securing independent, high-level Staff Logs from Judge Multiman155.

II. THE RENT LOGS ARE REDUNDANT The Defendant claims the rent logs are needed to determine "damage or loss." This is false. The Plaintiff's damages are based on the Cost of Cover (the $1,500 difference paid to Wayne Kerr) and Lost Opportunity, not simple rent payments. The Staff Logs already prove the permissions were active, which is the core of the liability dispute.

III. RESPONSE TO CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS The Defendant suddenly invokes a "Speedy Trial" right only after the Staff Logs. If the Defendant truly desires a speedy trial, the Plaintiff is ready to waive the production of further rent logs and proceed immediately to Opening Statements based on the evidence already on the record.

IV. CONCLUSION Counsel is not in contempt; Counsel is effectively managing a case where the objective evidence (The Staff logs and Exhibit Staff-001) has already rendered the missing client data unnecessary. We move to overrule the Defendant’s motion and proceed to trial.

Respectfully submitted,
Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Brzzzes]

Your Honour @Franciscus,

The Defendant must insist that the Plaintiff produce the "rent logs" if they exist. Noting "2.1. Rent logs will be useful for determining if there is any damage or loss to the Plaintiff."

Noting that the Court has already produced the "permission logs" and the Defendant no longer requires the Plaintiff to produce them.

The Defendant acknowledges that the Plaintiff's Counsel @Brzzzes may be having difficulties with the Plaintiff. But @Brzzzes must offer evidence to support his request for an extension of the 48-hour deadline.

Plaintiff's Counsel @Brzzzes has failed to provide any evidence to support their claimed "diligent effort to communicate" and @Brzzzes appears to have made no effort to contact staff to retrieve the "rent logs".

The Defendant humbly requests that the Court hold the Plaintiff "in contempt of Court" unless the Plaintiff can provide evidence to justify an extension to their 48-hour deadline OR the Plaintiff admits no "rent logs" exist to be admitted into evidence.
Noting Every citizen has a right under the Constitution to a "speedy and fair trial", and offering an extension without evidence justifying it would be unfair and cause undue delay.

Your Honur,
I have open a staff ticket for the rent logs and here is the full conversation with staff. But as shown here there is no rent logs between these dates.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor @Franciscus,

Counsel for the Plaintiff wishes to clarify and formalize my previous statement regarding client communication.

I. DILIGENT EFFORT TO COMMUNICATE I have sent multiple formal requests to the Plaintiff via [Discord] regarding the Court-ordered rent logs. While the Plaintiff has not yet provided those specific personal files, Counsel is continuing to monitor all channels for a response.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE STAFF LOGS Counsel emphasizes that the Staff-verified logs (Exhibit Staff-001)already provided by the Court provide the objective, backend data that the Court requested. These logs confirm the permissions were granted on March 1st. We humbly suggest that these independent records are the most reliable evidence available and should satisfy the Discovery Order, regardless of the Plaintiff's current availability.

III. COMMITMENT TO THE CASE Counsel remains fully committed to this matter and asks the Court for patience as we wait for the Plaintiff to re-establish contact. We move that the Court proceed based on the verified Staff Evidence provided.

Respectfully submitted,

Brzzzes, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Your Honour @Franciscus,

The Defendant must insist that the Plaintiff produce the "rent logs" if they exist. Noting "2.1. Rent logs will be useful for determining if there is any damage or loss to the Plaintiff."

Noting that the Court has already produced the "permission logs" and the Defendant no longer requires the Plaintiff to produce them.

The Defendant acknowledges that the Plaintiff's Counsel @Brzzzes may be having difficulties with the Plaintiff. But @Brzzzes must offer evidence to support his request for an extension of the 48-hour deadline.

Plaintiff's Counsel @Brzzzes has failed to provide any evidence to support their claimed "diligent effort to communicate" and @Brzzzes appears to have made no effort to contact staff to retrieve the "rent logs".

The Defendant humbly requests that the Court hold the Plaintiff "in contempt of Court" unless the Plaintiff can provide evidence to justify an extension to their 48-hour deadline OR the Plaintiff admits no "rent logs" exist to be admitted into evidence.
Noting Every citizen has a right under the Constitution to a "speedy and fair trial", and offering an extension without evidence justifying it would be unfair and cause undue delay.

Your Honur,
I have open a staff ticket for the rent logs and here is the full conversation with staff. But as shown here there is no rent logs between these dates.

Seeing as rent logs do not exist for the dates in question, and this has been entered into the record, the Court will move forward without sanction. The Court will not require a counsel to reveal their communications with their clients to substantiate effort.

 

[Franciscus]

Seeing no discovery items pending, we will move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (cc: @Brzzzes ) will have 72 hours from the time at which this statement was posted to file their opening statement. After the Plaintiff has delivered their opening statement, the Court will prompt the Defendant to provide theirs.

 

[Brzzzes]

PLAINTIFF’S OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This is a case of professional abandonment. On February 26, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered a binding contract for the renovation of Plot S079. My client fulfilled every obligation: he signed the agreement, he paid the $9,000 deposit, and he provided all necessary permissions for this plot.

I. THE BREACH OF PERFORMANCE The evidence will show that for the duration of the contract's active window, the Defendant performed zero structural work on the plot. Despite being professional contractors, the Defendant allowed the plot to sit in a state of stagnation.

II. THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE The Defendant has previously suggested that they could not build. However, Exhibit Staff-001—the backend logs provided by the Staff Team—conclusively prove that the Plaintiff successfully executed the <span>/as addfriend</span> commands. At the time of the dispute, the Defendant held "Member" status in the region. Showing that they had the legal and technical capacity to fulfill their side of the bargain, yet they chose to walk away.

III. THE COST OF COVER A contract is not a suggestion; it is a commitment. When the Defendant unilaterally terminated the agreement without cause, they forced the Plaintiff to seek an immediate replacement. Because of the delay and the need for urgent completion, the Plaintiff was forced to hire a new builder at a market rate of $22,500.

Even though the Defendant eventually returned the initial deposit, they have failed to compensate the Plaintiff for the $1,500 price difference (the "Cost of Cover") and the significant loss of time caused by their breach.

IV. CONCLUSION We are here to ask the Court to make the Plaintiff whole. We will prove that the Defendant breached the contract by failing to perform and that they are liable for the resulting financial damages.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Brzzzes Counsel for the Plaintiff

 

[Franciscus]

As the Plaintiff has swiftly submitted the Plaintiff's opening statements, the Defendant ( @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ) shall have 72 hours from the time of this post to present the Defendant's opening statements.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

This is a case of professional abandonment. On February 26, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered a binding contract for the renovation of Plot S079. My client fulfilled every obligation: he signed the agreement, he paid the $9,000 deposit, and he provided all necessary permissions for this plot.

I. THE BREACH OF PERFORMANCE The evidence will show that for the duration of the contract's active window, the Defendant performed zero structural work on the plot. Despite being professional contractors, the Defendant allowed the plot to sit in a state of stagnation.

II. THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE The Defendant has previously suggested that they could not build. However, Exhibit Staff-001—the backend logs provided by the Staff Team—conclusively prove that the Plaintiff successfully executed the <span>/as addfriend</span> commands. At the time of the dispute, the Defendant held "Member" status in the region. Showing that they had the legal and technical capacity to fulfill their side of the bargain, yet they chose to walk away.

III. THE COST OF COVER A contract is not a suggestion; it is a commitment. When the Defendant unilaterally terminated the agreement without cause, they forced the Plaintiff to seek an immediate replacement. Because of the delay and the need for urgent completion, the Plaintiff was forced to hire a new builder at a market rate of $22,500.

Even though the Defendant eventually returned the initial deposit, they have failed to compensate the Plaintiff for the $1,500 price difference (the "Cost of Cover") and the significant loss of time caused by their breach.

IV. CONCLUSION We are here to ask the Court to make the Plaintiff whole. We will prove that the Defendant breached the contract by failing to perform and that they are liable for the resulting financial damages.

As the Plaintiff has swiftly submitted the Plaintiff's opening statements, the Defendant ( @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ) shall have 72 hours from the time of this post to present the Defendant's opening statements.

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DEFENDANTS OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour @Franciscus,

The Parties entered into a valid, binding contract for the renovation of Plot S079. While the Defendant did not complete any work on Plot S079. The Defendant did not breach the contract; rather, the Defendant validly terminated the contract.

NOTE: All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

I: Justified Termination
As proven by "Exhibit Staff-001", the Plaintiff granted the Defendant permissions on the 28th of February. Noting that the contract started on the 26th of February at 2:52 AM (A-003).

The Plaintiff failed to grant the Defendant "build and destroy" permissions for at least 48 hours, which altered the Contract. The Plaintiff's omission reduced available building time from 5 days to 3 days (Clause 6).

The Plaintiff's omission effectively unilaterally varied the Contract by reducing the building time, thereby breaching Clause 4 and constituting a material breach (Contracts Act, s 14(9)) that justifies termination (Contracts Act, s 9(1)) under Clause 8.

II: No Breach of Contract
As the Defendant validly terminated the contract before the 5-day deadline (Clause 6) lapsed, it is therefore impossible for a breach of contract to have occurred.

It is irrelevant how much work was completed at the time of termination, as termination was before the deadline. Hypothetically, the Defendant could have completed the work before the deadline and complied with the Renovation Contract.

III: Lack of Damage
1. "Cost of Cover"
After a valid termination, the terminating party is under no obligation to provide "Cost of Cover" under Redmont Law, and the Plaintiff has yet to cite any Act or caselaw supporting such a claim. The Plaintiff's claim for "Cost of Cover" lacks any standing and must fail. Noting that the Plaintiff has failed to produce this "new contract".

2. "Lost Opportunity Costs/Lost Time?"
As confirmed by Staff there are no "Rent Logs" for Plot S079. The Plaintiff has suffered no loss of income (rent) from the Defendant's renovation work.

The Plaintiff has only lost their "time", but how much time has the Plaintiff lost compared to the Defendant?
I would argue that both parties have lost an equal amount of time. The Plaintiff is yet to prove that they have lost any more "time" to this Contract than the Defendant.

The only way the Plaintiff could be awarded "Lost Opportunity Costs" based solely on lost time is if they can demonstrate that they had an Opportunity which was lost due to the Defendant's actions, which wasted their time. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of any "opportunity" which could be lost. The Plaintiff's claim for "Lost Opportunity Costs" must fail.

Everyone's time is equally valuable and finite. Without evidence to the contrary, the Court must assume that both parties spent roughly an equal amount of time and energy on the Contract. Noting that permissions were granted on the 28th of February at 3:39 PM (Exhibit Staff-001 & A-006) and the contract was terminated on the 28th of February at 4:06 PM (A-007). Plaintiff lost at most 30-40 mins of active building time on Plot S079.

3. "Punitive Damages"
Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to support their claim for punitive damages, and this claim for "D$3,550.00" should be denied.

IV: Conclusion
The Plaintiff's failure to grant permissions resulted in the Contract materially changing, allowing the Defendant to validly terminate the contract. The Plaintiff has failed to identify any valid breach of contract or to prove that any damage was caused by any breach of contract by the Defendant.

Spoiler: A-003

Spoiler: Rent Logs

Spoiler: A-006

Spoiler: A-007

 

[Franciscus]

Thank you, counselor.

Having received opening statements from both sides, we shall move to witness testimony.

The Court understands the witness list to be as follows:

Plaintiff:

1. Fletchingrs
2. Wayne Kerr

Defendant:

1. Fletchingrs
2. sarf123

As such, the Court will move to summon the witnesses. When we begin witness questioning, questioning will proceed as follows:

1. The Plaintiff will have the opportunity to ask questions of their summoned witnesses on direct examination. Both witnesses will be questioned simultaneously—questions to each witness should be submitted in separate lists for each witness. Follow-ups will be permitted only upon leave of the Court.
2. Following the conclusion of Plaintiff’s questioning, the Defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witnesses. Questions to each witness should be submitted in separate lists. Follow-ups will be permitted only upon leave of the Court.
3. After all cross examination by the Defendant has concluded, the Defendant will be permitted to have the opportunity to make questions of direct examination to the Defendant’s witnesses. Both witnesses will be questioned simultaneously—questions to each witness should be submitted in separate lists for each witness. Follow-ups will be permitted only upon leave of the Court.
4. Following the conclusion of Defendant’s direct examination, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to cross-examine the Defendant’s witnesses. Questions to each witness should be submitted in separate lists. Follow-ups will be permitted only upon leave of the Court.

Please wait until the Court instructs so before posting questions; the Court will notify relevant parties of when it is appropriate to do so.

The standard response time for the witness testimony phase is 24 hours. The Court will grant reasonable extensions when requested by Plaintiff, Defendant, or witness.

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

@Fletchingrs, @Wayne_Kerr12, and Sarf123 are ordered to appear before the Federal Court as witnesses in the case Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign [2026] DCR 27.

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.

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

I Wayne Kerr, have familiarized myself with the case and am able to willingly answer questions directed towards me.

Apologize in advance if this is not what is meant by "Identify themselves" as this is my first time appearing infront of a judge in a Redmont court.

 

[Fletchingrs]

I Fletchingrs, have familiarized myself with the case and am able to willingly answer questions directed towards me.

 

[Franciscus]

Seeing as the Plaintiff’s two witnesses have arrived, I see it fit that we might begin witness the Plaintiff’s direct questioning of witnesses.

The Plaintiff ( @Brzzzes ) will submit the witness questions within 24 hours of this post for the two witnesses that the Plaintiff has listed. After these questions are submitted, the Defense may object within 24 hours of the questions being posed, in line with Rule 6.6. Witnesses will be directed to answer questions after objections (and responses to them) are settled; objections to witness answers are due 24 hours after an answer is given. This process will iterate through follow-up questions (should leave be granted to ask them) until the Plaintiff’s direct questioning has concluded.

 

[Brzzzes]

QUESTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF (@Fletchingrs )

Please state your name for the record and your involvement with Plot S079.

On February 26th, what specific in-game commands did you execute to attempt to grant building permissions to the Defendant?

When did you first become aware that the permissions were not yet active for the Defendant?

What actions did you take once you were notified that the permissions were not working?

Following the termination, did you enter into a new contract for the same work? If so, what was the total cost of that new contract?

QUESTIONS FOR BUILDER (@Wayne_Kerr12 )

Mr. Kerr, please state your profession and your experience with construction projects in the Commonwealth.

I am showing you the contract signed between you and the Plaintiff. Does this document accurately represent the work you were hired to do on Plot S079?

Does the list of 17 renovation points in your contract match the 17 points listed in the original UrbanDesign contract?

How long did it take you to complete the renovations requested by the Plaintiff?

Is $22,500 a standard rate for a high-priority, short-notice renovation of a skyscraper plot?

 

[Franciscus]

QUESTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF (@Fletchingrs )

Please state your name for the record and your involvement with Plot S079.

On February 26th, what specific in-game commands did you execute to attempt to grant building permissions to the Defendant?

When did you first become aware that the permissions were not yet active for the Defendant?

What actions did you take once you were notified that the permissions were not working?

Following the termination, did you enter into a new contract for the same work? If so, what was the total cost of that new contract?

QUESTIONS FOR BUILDER (@Wayne_Kerr12 )

Mr. Kerr, please state your profession and your experience with construction projects in the Commonwealth.

I am showing you the contract signed between you and the Plaintiff. Does this document accurately represent the work you were hired to do on Plot S079?

Does the list of 17 renovation points in your contract match the 17 points listed in the original UrbanDesign contract?

How long did it take you to complete the renovations requested by the Plaintiff?

Is $22,500 a standard rate for a high-priority, short-notice renovation of a skyscraper plot?

Defendant ( @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ) may file objections within 24 hours. If no objections are had, the Court will proceed to instruct witnesses to ask the questions thereafter.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Defendant ( @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ) may file objections within 24 hours. If no objections are had, the Court will proceed to instruct witnesses to ask the questions thereafter.

QUESTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF (@Fletchingrs )
...
[2.] On February 26th, what specific in-game commands did you execute to attempt to grant building permissions to the Defendant?
....
[5.] Following the termination, did you enter into a new contract for the same work? If so, what was the total cost of that new contract?

QUESTIONS FOR BUILDER (@Wayne_Kerr12 )
...
[2.] I am showing you the contract signed between you and the Plaintiff. Does this document accurately represent the work you were hired to do on Plot S079?

[3.] Does the list of 17 renovation points in your contract match the 17 points listed in the original UrbanDesign contract?
...

Your Honour @Franciscus,

I have the following objections...

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTIONS - LEADING QUESTION & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 2 for Fletchingrs: "On February 26th, what specific in-game commands did you execute to attempt to grant building permissions to the Defendant?"

2.1. LEADING QUESTION: This question is leading as it prompts Fletchingrs into giving a specific answer by supplying the exact date, action (command), and who the action is towards (the Defendant). Fletchingrs' only has to give the "specific command/s", they are prompted to reply with "commands" that grant "building permissions".

2.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: There is no evidence of any "commands" being executed on the 26th of February. The permission logs (Exhibit Staff-001) supplied by Staff show no commands on the 26th of February.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 5 for Fletchingrs: "Following the termination, did you enter into a new contract for the same work? If so, what was the total cost of that new contract?"

5.1. RELEVANCE: The Defendant is not a party to this alleged "new contract" and is not legally bound by its terms. This alleged "new contract" arose after termination and has nothing to do with the Parties' legal relationship in this case. This alleged "new contract" only legally binds the new builder and the Plaintiff; it does not legally bind the Defendant.

5.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff has failed to admit this alleged "new contract" into evidence, and the Defendant is sceptical whether this alleged "new contract" even exists for plot S079.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 2 for Wayne_Kerr12: "I am showing you the contract signed between you and the Plaintiff. Does this document accurately represent the work you were hired to do on Plot S079?"

2.1. RELEVANCE: The Defendant is not a party to this alleged "new contract" and is not legally bound by its terms. This alleged "new contract" arose after termination and has nothing to do with the Parties' legal relationship in this case. This alleged "new contract" only legally binds the new builder and the Plaintiff; it does not legally bind the Defendant.

2.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff has failed to provide a signed copy of this alleged "new contract" to the Court or Defendant. The Defendant is sceptical whether this alleged "new contract" even exists for plot S079.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 3 for Wayne_Kerr12: "Does the list of 17 renovation points in your contract match the 17 points listed in the original UrbanDesign contract?"

3.1. RELEVANCE: The Defendant is not a party to this alleged "new contract" and is not legally bound by its terms. This alleged "new contract" arose after termination and has nothing to do with the Parties' legal relationship in this case. This alleged "new contract" only legally binds the new builder and the Plaintiff; it does not legally bind the Defendant.

3.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff has failed to admit this alleged "new contract" into evidence; the only way the Court can compare the contracts for similarity is by having both documents admitted in evidence. The Defendant is sceptical whether this alleged "new contract" even exists for plot S079.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour @Franciscus,

I have the following objections...

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTIONS - LEADING QUESTION & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 2 for Fletchingrs: "On February 26th, what specific in-game commands did you execute to attempt to grant building permissions to the Defendant?"

2.1. LEADING QUESTION: This question is leading as it prompts Fletchingrs into giving a specific answer by supplying the exact date, action (command), and who the action is towards (the Defendant). Fletchingrs' only has to give the "specific command/s", they are prompted to reply with "commands" that grant "building permissions".

2.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: There is no evidence of any "commands" being executed on the 26th of February. The permission logs (Exhibit Staff-001) supplied by Staff show no commands on the 26th of February.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 5 for Fletchingrs: "Following the termination, did you enter into a new contract for the same work? If so, what was the total cost of that new contract?"

5.1. RELEVANCE: The Defendant is not a party to this alleged "new contract" and is not legally bound by its terms. This alleged "new contract" arose after termination and has nothing to do with the Parties' legal relationship in this case. This alleged "new contract" only legally binds the new builder and the Plaintiff; it does not legally bind the Defendant.

5.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff has failed to admit this alleged "new contract" into evidence, and the Defendant is sceptical whether this alleged "new contract" even exists for plot S079.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 2 for Wayne_Kerr12: "I am showing you the contract signed between you and the Plaintiff. Does this document accurately represent the work you were hired to do on Plot S079?"

2.1. RELEVANCE: The Defendant is not a party to this alleged "new contract" and is not legally bound by its terms. This alleged "new contract" arose after termination and has nothing to do with the Parties' legal relationship in this case. This alleged "new contract" only legally binds the new builder and the Plaintiff; it does not legally bind the Defendant.

2.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff has failed to provide a signed copy of this alleged "new contract" to the Court or Defendant. The Defendant is sceptical whether this alleged "new contract" even exists for plot S079.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 3 for Wayne_Kerr12: "Does the list of 17 renovation points in your contract match the 17 points listed in the original UrbanDesign contract?"

3.1. RELEVANCE: The Defendant is not a party to this alleged "new contract" and is not legally bound by its terms. This alleged "new contract" arose after termination and has nothing to do with the Parties' legal relationship in this case. This alleged "new contract" only legally binds the new builder and the Plaintiff; it does not legally bind the Defendant.

3.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff has failed to admit this alleged "new contract" into evidence; the only way the Court can compare the contracts for similarity is by having both documents admitted in evidence. The Defendant is sceptical whether this alleged "new contract" even exists for plot S079.

The Court sees no reply within the standard 24 hour response time from when the objection post was originally made (see: Rule 6.6). However, seeing as the post was subsequently edited by the objecting counsel as recently as 5:14 PM EDT on 7 April, the respondent ( @Brzzzes ) will be given 24 hours after that time to respond before the Court rules on the objections as they currently stand.

Counselors ( @Brzzzes and @Kiwi_Boi_Gamer ): you are warned to not make edits to your submissions without explicit leave of the Court.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Thank you, counselor.

Having received opening statements from both sides, we shall move to witness testimony.

The Court understands the witness list to be as follows:

Plaintiff:

1. Fletchingrs
2. Wayne Kerr

Defendant:

1. Fletchingrs
2. sarf123

As such, the Court will move to summon the witnesses. When we begin witness questioning, questioning will proceed as follows:

1. The Plaintiff will have the opportunity to ask questions of their summoned witnesses on direct examination. Both witnesses will be questioned simultaneously—questions to each witness should be submitted in separate lists for each witness. Follow-ups will be permitted only upon leave of the Court.
2. Following the conclusion of Plaintiff’s questioning, the Defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witnesses. Questions to each witness should be submitted in separate lists. Follow-ups will be permitted only upon leave of the Court.
3. After all cross examination by the Defendant has concluded, the Defendant will be permitted to have the opportunity to make questions of direct examination to the Defendant’s witnesses. Both witnesses will be questioned simultaneously—questions to each witness should be submitted in separate lists for each witness. Follow-ups will be permitted only upon leave of the Court.
4. Following the conclusion of Defendant’s direct examination, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to cross-examine the Defendant’s witnesses. Questions to each witness should be submitted in separate lists. Follow-ups will be permitted only upon leave of the Court.

Please wait until the Court instructs so before posting questions; the Court will notify relevant parties of when it is appropriate to do so.

The standard response time for the witness testimony phase is 24 hours. The Court will grant reasonable extensions when requested by Plaintiff, Defendant, or witness.

Your Honour @Franciscus,

The Defendant wishes to amend their witness list by removing "sarf123" as a witness.

Reasons for removing "sarf123" as a witness:
1. The Defendant has no questions for "sarf123".
2. It will save time by removing "sarf123" as a witness. Noting the Constitutional right to a "speedy and fair trial".
3. There is no rule under the "Court Rules and Procedures" which prevents the amendment of a witness list after discovery has finished.

 

[Franciscus]

QUESTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF (@Fletchingrs )

Please state your name for the record and your involvement with Plot S079.

On February 26th, what specific in-game commands did you execute to attempt to grant building permissions to the Defendant?

When did you first become aware that the permissions were not yet active for the Defendant?

What actions did you take once you were notified that the permissions were not working?

Following the termination, did you enter into a new contract for the same work? If so, what was the total cost of that new contract?

QUESTIONS FOR BUILDER (@Wayne_Kerr12 )

Mr. Kerr, please state your profession and your experience with construction projects in the Commonwealth.

I am showing you the contract signed between you and the Plaintiff. Does this document accurately represent the work you were hired to do on Plot S079?

Does the list of 17 renovation points in your contract match the 17 points listed in the original UrbanDesign contract?

How long did it take you to complete the renovations requested by the Plaintiff?

Is $22,500 a standard rate for a high-priority, short-notice renovation of a skyscraper plot?

Your Honour @Franciscus,

I have the following objections...

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTIONS - LEADING QUESTION & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 2 for Fletchingrs: "On February 26th, what specific in-game commands did you execute to attempt to grant building permissions to the Defendant?"

2.1. LEADING QUESTION: This question is leading as it prompts Fletchingrs into giving a specific answer by supplying the exact date, action (command), and who the action is towards (the Defendant). Fletchingrs' only has to give the "specific command/s", they are prompted to reply with "commands" that grant "building permissions".

2.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: There is no evidence of any "commands" being executed on the 26th of February. The permission logs (Exhibit Staff-001) supplied by Staff show no commands on the 26th of February.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 5 for Fletchingrs: "Following the termination, did you enter into a new contract for the same work? If so, what was the total cost of that new contract?"

5.1. RELEVANCE: The Defendant is not a party to this alleged "new contract" and is not legally bound by its terms. This alleged "new contract" arose after termination and has nothing to do with the Parties' legal relationship in this case. This alleged "new contract" only legally binds the new builder and the Plaintiff; it does not legally bind the Defendant.

5.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff has failed to admit this alleged "new contract" into evidence, and the Defendant is sceptical whether this alleged "new contract" even exists for plot S079.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 2 for Wayne_Kerr12: "I am showing you the contract signed between you and the Plaintiff. Does this document accurately represent the work you were hired to do on Plot S079?"

2.1. RELEVANCE: The Defendant is not a party to this alleged "new contract" and is not legally bound by its terms. This alleged "new contract" arose after termination and has nothing to do with the Parties' legal relationship in this case. This alleged "new contract" only legally binds the new builder and the Plaintiff; it does not legally bind the Defendant.

2.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff has failed to provide a signed copy of this alleged "new contract" to the Court or Defendant. The Defendant is sceptical whether this alleged "new contract" even exists for plot S079.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Question 3 for Wayne_Kerr12: "Does the list of 17 renovation points in your contract match the 17 points listed in the original UrbanDesign contract?"

3.1. RELEVANCE: The Defendant is not a party to this alleged "new contract" and is not legally bound by its terms. This alleged "new contract" arose after termination and has nothing to do with the Parties' legal relationship in this case. This alleged "new contract" only legally binds the new builder and the Plaintiff; it does not legally bind the Defendant.

3.2. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: The Plaintiff has failed to admit this alleged "new contract" into evidence; the only way the Court can compare the contracts for similarity is by having both documents admitted in evidence. The Defendant is sceptical whether this alleged "new contract" even exists for plot S079.

Q2 (Fletchingrs) - Leading: Sustained.
Q5 (Fletchingrs) - Assumes Facts Not in Evidence: Sustained.

Q2 (Wayne_Kerr12) - Assumes Facts not in Evidence: Sustained.
Q3 (Wayne_Kerr12) - Assumes Facts not in Evidence: Sustained.

All other objections are noted but are moot. The Court will strike the questions against which objections have been sustained, and will instruct the witnesses to answer the remainder.

 

[Franciscus]

@Fletchingrs:

Please answer the following questions within 24 hours:

1. Please state your name for the record and your involvement with Plot S079.
2. When did you first become aware that the permissions were not yet active for the Defendant?
3. What actions did you take once you were notified that the permissions were not working?

 

[Franciscus]

@Wayne_Kerr12:

Please answer the following questions within 24 hours:

1. Mr. Kerr, please state your profession and your experience with construction projects in the Commonwealth.
2. How long did it take you to complete the renovations requested by the Plaintiff?
3. Is $22,500 a standard rate for a high-priority, short-notice renovation of a skyscraper plot?

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

I have just recently decided to put my passion for building into action on the server and S079 was my first large scale project. Since then I have taken part in the renovation of Jakkuwu's C-plot that will serve as the new "Two Guys Realty" head quarters. Meaning over the past month I have gained knowledge of the cost of materials as well as pasting fees that I didn't have prior to entering my contract with Fletchingrs.

The project took me roughly 3 weeks not accounting for a slight miscalculation in the design stage that required an extra week and a half to remedy before it the building was finally pasted on April 4th, 2026.

I would like to acknowledge the fact that in my bid of 22.5k for the project; I had initially understood that this would be a relatively low bid in relation to the scope of work, however I seen this bid more less as an opportunity to form a relationship with my client Fletchingrs, as well as to build up my portfolio on the server. So my bid cannot be seen purely for the monetary value that I bid, as there was greater value obtained through completion of the work. I would also like to point out the difference between the terminology of renovation versus the total reconstruction of a skyscraper, that I completed as per my agreement with my Fletchingrs. The difference would be at least the $13124.52 pasting fee for starter.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

@Fletchingrs:

Please answer the following questions within 24 hours:

1. Please state your name for the record and your involvement with Plot S079.
2. When did you first become aware that the permissions were not yet active for the Defendant?
3. What actions did you take once you were notified that the permissions were not working?

Your Honour @Franciscus,

@Fletchingrs has failed to provide answers to the Court within 24 hours.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour @Franciscus,

@Fletchingrs has failed to provide answers to the Court within 24 hours.

@Fletchingrs:

Please answer the following questions within 24 hours:

1. Please state your name for the record and your involvement with Plot S079.
2. When did you first become aware that the permissions were not yet active for the Defendant?
3. What actions did you take once you were notified that the permissions were not working?

@Fletchingrs: please answer the questions within 24 hours of this post, on pain of Contempt of Court.

 

[Fletchingrs]

1. My name is Fletchingrs, and I am the owner of s079.
2. I first became aware at around 2/28 at around 9:30 AM when I was messaged.
3. I went right over to my computer and gave permissions it took about 9 min from the time I first woke up and saw his message that was sent two hours earlier to executing the command.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

@Fletchingrs:

Please answer the following questions within 24 hours:

1. Please state your name for the record and your involvement with Plot S079.
2. When did you first become aware that the permissions were not yet active for the Defendant?
3. What actions did you take once you were notified that the permissions were not working?

1. My name is Fletchingrs, and I am the owner of s079.
2. I first became aware at around 2/28 at around 9:30 AM when I was messaged.
3. I went right over to my computer and gave permissions it took about 9 min from the time I first woke up and saw his message that was sent two hours earlier to executing the command.

Objection

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

Flechingrs has committed perjury in his response to questions 2 and 3.

Response 2: Flechingrs claims that he first became aware of the permission not being active on 2/28 at 9:30 AM.
When in reality Flechingrs expressly asked the Defendant if they needed permissions days before the 28th of Feb (A-003) Flechingrs question indicated that Flechingrs knew the Defendant had no permissions (A-003).

Response 3: Flechingrs further claims that he immediately "went right over to [their] computer".
In reality Flechingrs failed to provide permissions for 3 days and then granted them on the 28th after being reminded by the Defendant (A-006). No permissions were granted on the 25th or 26th of Feb (Exhibit Staff-001) as confirmed by Staff logs and therefore the Flechingrs has committed purjury.

Spoiler: A-003

Spoiler: A-006

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

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

Flechingrs has committed perjury in his response to questions 2 and 3.

Response 2: Flechingrs claims that he first became aware of the permission not being active on 2/28 at 9:30 AM.
When in reality Flechingrs expressly asked the Defendant if they needed permissions days before the 28th of Feb (A-003) Flechingrs question indicated that Flechingrs knew the Defendant had no permissions (A-003).

Response 3: Flechingrs further claims that he immediately "went right over to [their] computer".
In reality Flechingrs failed to provide permissions for 3 days and then granted them on the 28th after being reminded by the Defendant (A-006). No permissions were granted on the 25th or 26th of Feb (Exhibit Staff-001) as confirmed by Staff logs and therefore the Flechingrs has committed purjury.

Spoiler: A-003

View attachment 79259

Spoiler: A-006

View attachment 79260

Overruled. Perjury occurs when an individual knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law (CCA, Part III, Section 1; c.f. Objections Guide, "When a witness intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath", emphasis mine). Witnesses can have bad memories or misunderstand questions; movant must demonstrate actual knowledge and/or intent at the time of answering a question to have a perjury objection sustained, which movant has not.

 

[Franciscus]

Plaintiff's counsel (@Brzzzes) may ask follow-up questions within 24 hours of this post. Should none be asked, we will move to cross-examination thereafter.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Plaintiff's counsel (@Brzzzes) may ask follow-up questions within 24 hours of this post. Should none be asked, we will move to cross-examination thereafter.

Your honour @Franciscus,

It has been 24 hours since your post and the Defendant is ready to send cross-examination questions

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour @Franciscus,

It has been 24 hours since your post and the Defendant is ready to send cross-examination questions

The Court concurs as to timing. Please ask your cross-examination questions within 24 hours.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

The Court concurs as to timing. Please ask your cross-examination questions within 24 hours.

CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

Questions for @Fletchingrs
1. Do you think that granting permissions would make the Defendant’s permissions “active”? (yes/no)

2. Were you the only user (excluding Staff) between the 24th and 28th of Feb that could grant the Defendant permissions? (yes/no)

3. Were you aware that the Defendant had not been granted permissions before signing the contract? (yes/no)

4. Did you ask, “do you need permission to destroy property” (A-003) to establish which permissions to grant the Defendant? (yes/no)

5. Were you aware of the Defendant having permissions granted to them at any point before receiving the Defendant’s message on the 28th of Feb at 1:32 PM (A-006)? (yes/no)

6. Do you think that permissions would be “not working” if they were “not yet active”? (yes/no)

7. Would you consider the Defendant’s response, “I believe build should cover it. But to be sure, yes.” (A-003), as notice to you that the Defendant required permissions to be activated? (yes/no)

Spoiler: A-003

Spoiler: A-006

Questions for @Wayne_Kerr12
1. What date did you start your first building project on DemocracyCraft?

2. What factors do you consider when determining how much to charge for your building services?

3. Is "the project" in your responses to questions 2 & 3 referring to your building work on plot S079? (yes/no)

4. How much (in D$) was the total cost of the "pasting fee" for "the project"?

5. How much (in D$) was the "cost of materials" for “the project”?

6. Did you undercharge @Fletchingrs for “the project” based on the “opportunity to form a relationship”? (yes/no)

8. Do you typically consider relationships and other social factors when determining how much to charge for your building services? (yes/no)

 

[Franciscus]

Seeing no objections…

@Fletchingrs — Please answer the seven questions asked of you in Post No. 75.

@Wayne_Kerr12 — Please answer the seven questions asked of you in Post No. 75. (The seventh question is erroneously labeled as question 8.)

All answers should be submitted to the Court within 24 hours of this post.

 

[Fletchingrs]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3.No.
4. Yes
5. Yes, I thought I had granted them.
6. I don't wish to speculate as I am not fully familiar with the plugin.
7. Yes

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

All dates are formatted dd/mm/yyyy. Times are formatted 12:00 in Central European Time (GMT+1)

Questions for @Fletchingrs
...
2. Were you the only user (excluding Staff) between the 24th and 28th of Feb that could grant the Defendant permissions? (yes/no)

3. Were you aware that the Defendant had not been granted permissions before signing the contract? (yes/no)

4. Did you ask, “do you need permission to destroy property” (A-003) to establish which permissions to grant the Defendant? (yes/no)

Spoiler: A-003

View attachment 79496

2. Yes
3.No.
4. Yes

Objection

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

The Defendant alleges that Flechingrs has committed purjury in their Response to Question 3 by knowingly providing false testimony to the Court.

Actual Knowledge of the Truth
In Response to question 2; Flechingrs confirmed that only they could grant permissions to the Defendant Noting there is no evidence of Staff granting any permissions. As Flechingrs is the only person able to grant permissions it could be assumed that they would be "aware" of who does and does not have permissions on plot S079. As it would require a positive action from Flechingrs to grant permissions.

Flechingrs unpromoted question to the Defendant shortly after signing the contract; asking "do you need permissionto destory[?]" indicates that Flechingrs knew the Defendant lacked permissions (A-003). Flechingrs response to question 4: "yes", confirms that Flechingrs was asking the unpromoted question to determine which permissions to grant the Defendant; in other words, Flechingrs knew that the Defendant lacked permissions.

Flechingrs unpromoted question on the 26th (A-003), along with their response to question 4, confirms that Flechingrs knew and was "aware" that the Defendant "had not been granted permissions" before the contract was signed.

False Testimony
In response to question 3 Flechingrs responded "no" that they were not "aware" that the Defendant lacked permissions before signing the contract. This contradicts Flechingrs' unpromoted question on the 26th of February and their responses to questions 2 and 4. Flechingrs was the only user who could grant the Defendant permissions and actively inquired about which permissions the Defendant required without any prompting.

Flechingrs intentionally responded with an inconsistent and false answer to protect his earlier answer, which claimed that "[he] first became aware [that the defendant lacked permissions] at around 2/28 at around 9:30 AM".

Noting Flechingrs cannot claim to have "bad memory" when the evidence (discord chats) has been presented along with citations in the questions given to them.
Additionally, there is no indication that Flechingrs has misunderstood the question; the question is not complex or confusing.

5. Were you aware of the Defendant having permissions granted to them at any point before receiving the Defendant’s message on the 28th of Feb at 1:32 PM (A-006)? (yes/no)

Spoiler: A-006

View attachment 79497

5. Yes, I thought I had granted them.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE & SPECULATION

The Defendant objects to Flechingrs' Response to Question 5 as it assumes facts not in evidence and is speculative.

5.1. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: There is no evidence indicating that Flechingrs granted permissions to the Defendant at any point before the Defendant's message on the 28th of February at 1:32 PM. Flechingrs claims without any evidence that "Yes" he did grant permission to the Defendant before the 28th of February.

5.2. SPECULATION: Flechingrs speculates that he "thought" he granted permissions to the Defendant, but thinking you did something and actually doing something are completely different things. The Court cannot read minds, no one cannot verify if Flechingrs' throughts are fact or fiction.

Flechingrs misunderstood the question as it was a definitive question requiring a definitive answer of "yes" or "no". Either permissions were granted or they were not. By answering "Yes" then qualifying that answer with "I thought" Flechingrs made his answer inconclusive and speculative.

 

[Wayne_Kerr12]

1. Beginning of March, S079 was my first bid.

2. Size of the building would effect the material cost as well as pasting fee. Additionally any site preparations needed to be made, as well as the time cost required to put into the job.

3. Yes "the project" is in reference to my work on plot S079.

4. Pasting fee: D$13124.52

5. Cost of materials: D$18852.73

6. In short yes, I also had no experience in the price of materials and construction costs meaning I never intended to take a loss despite the fact that I knew my bid was low.

7. That is a factor when establishing a new business and portfolio. So yeah.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE & SPECULATION

The Defendant objects to Flechingrs' Response to Question 5 as it assumes facts not in evidence and is speculative.

5.1. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE: There is no evidence indicating that Flechingrs granted permissions to the Defendant at any point before the Defendant's message on the 28th of February at 1:32 PM. Flechingrs claims without any evidence that "Yes" he did grant permission to the Defendant before the 28th of February.

5.2. SPECULATION: Flechingrs speculates that he "thought" he granted permissions to the Defendant, but thinking you did something and actually doing something are completely different things. The Court cannot read minds, no one cannot verify if Flechingrs' throughts are fact or fiction.

Flechingrs misunderstood the question as it was a definitive question requiring a definitive answer of "yes" or "no". Either permissions were granted or they were not. By answering "Yes" then qualifying that answer with "I thought" Flechingrs made his answer inconclusive and speculative.

5.1 - OVERRULED. Witnesses may provide testimony about their own direct experiences and thoughts (c.f. Objections Guide), even when those experiences or thoughts are not in evidence.
5.2 - SUSTAINED. The use of "thought" here may read as "believed" rather than "had a concrete thought that". Witness will be instructed to re-answer the question.

 

[Fletchingrs]

5. Yes.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - SUMMARY CONVICTIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT AND PERJURY

I. Background​

Perjury is a summary offense that occurs when a person "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law" (CCA, Part III, Section 1). Knowingly false representations made by counsel in court filings have been held by the Federal Court to fall within that prohibition (see, for example, Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9, Post No. 14).

Contempt of Court is a summary offense that occurs when a person "disobeys a lawful order of the court; or... engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice" (CCA, Part III, Section 2).

Summary offenses do not require a full trial; on the contrary, "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings" (CCA, Part I, Section 6(2)(c)). Because these are criminal findings, the Court will not convict unless it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt (JSA, Part II, Section 3(1)(b)). Conduct strikes may be issued to lawyers upon conviction of Perjury or Contempt of Court (JSA, Part VII, Section 1(1)), but only where "the lawyer's conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession" (JSA, Part VII, Section 1(2)).

The Court does not conclude that every inaccurate, imprecise, or sloppily titled filing in this thread amounts to Perjury. Perjury requires proof of a knowing falsehood, not merely confusion, negligence, or imprecise drafting (Compare rulings of perjury under the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act, which defined Perjury as "The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court": Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10, Post No. 71; Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, Post No. 17). Likewise, a mislabeled motion may ordinarily be addressed first by striking it or warning counsel, rather than by immediate criminal conviction (Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, Post No. 33, regarding an improperly labeled Nolle Prosecui).

The Court, thus, has examined the whole record of this case, which this Court incorporates into the record of this Order by reference. This record includes (among other items) all the Plaintiff's counsel's posts, an Order to Show Cause (Post No. 28), the Plaintiff's response thereto published 8 minutes later (Post No. 29), and the Plaintiff's second and largely duplicative response to the Order to Show Cause (Post No. 31).

II. Discussion​

II.A. The Plaintiff's Counsel is found Guilty of two instances of Perjury​

Upon examining the record, the District Court finds two instances of Perjury proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Firstly, one instance of perjury arises from repeated attestations by the Plaintiff's counsel about a phantasmic "motion to dismiss" purportedly submitted by the Defendant in this case. No Motion to Dismiss was filed by the Defendant. The Defendant instead filed a Motion to Strike (Post No. 9), a Motion to Compel (also Post No. 9), a second Motion to Strike (Post No. 10), and an Objection on the basis of Breach of Procedure (also Post No. 10). Even so, Plaintiff’s counsel filed Post No. 11 as an “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss” and Post No. 12 as an “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss & Motion for Discovery,” in each instance representing that the Defendant was attempting to have the case dismissed.

The Court then directly informed Plaintiff’s counsel that it could not identify any motion to dismiss, asked counsel to specify what motion was being referenced, and mad plain that what the Court saw was repeated opposition to a nonexistent motion (Post No. 15). Plaintiff's counsel thereafter apologized to the Court for "that [Plaintiff's Counsel] provided the motion to dismiss" (Post No. 16), even as Plaintiff's Counsel had not done so.

Plaintiff’s counsel then, once again, stated that the Defendant moved for dismissal based on a minor clerical update to an evidence link, and again asked the Court to deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Post No. 17). That statement was false when made. By that stage, counsel had already been told by the Court that no such motion had been filed. The Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this later repetition was knowing, and therefore constituted Perjury under Part III, Section 1 of the Criminal Code Act.

Secondly, Post No. 24 knowingly mischaracterized Post No. 12. In Section III of the latter post, Plaintiff's counsel wrote: "We move for the Court to order the Defendant to produce..." specific categories of records (emphasis mine). That is a motion by any ordinary meaning of the term, as if a misnamed attempt to seek a Motion to Compel (see: Motions Guide; Rule 4.7). The Court itself treated it as a motion in granting Defendant right to respond to "Section III of this motion" (Post No. 15). Yet in Post No. 24, counsel told the Court that Post No. 12 "was a Request" and merely "a notice to the Defendant and the Court" of evidence counsel intended to seek later. Counsel's own response to the OSC then admitted that in Post No. 12 they were "aggressively moving for the production of documents" (Posts No. 29 and 31). On this record, the Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Post No. 24 was not clarification; it was a knowingly false rewriting of an earlier filing. As such, this constituted another instance of Perjury under Part III, Section 1 of the Criminal Code Act.

II.B. The Plaintiff's Counsel is found Guilty of Contempt of Court​

Contempt of Court under the obstruction/interference prong does not require a prior warning under Court Rule 1.4 or some other lawful order ([2025] FCR 119 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal, Verdict "In none of Appellant’s arguments is Court Rule 1.4 invoked, and the Appellant is right to not do so as that rule was designed to protect against abuses from subsection (a) 'disobeys a lawful order of the court.'"; [2025] FCR 128 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal, Verdict, "Under this second prong, the trial court is not required to give a warning, order, or other initial pretext before conviction"). But it does require actual obstructive or interfering conduct, not mere judicial annoyance (id.). That standard is met here. The falsehood in Post No. 17 misstated the existence of a dispositive defense motion after the Court had already corrected counsel once (Section II.A). The falsehood in Post No. 24 then attempted to recast an earlier motion as mere notice despite the filing's text and the Court's own treatment of it (id.). Taken together, these filings distorted the motion posture before the Court, required repeated judicial clarification, and necessitated an Order to Show Cause. That is conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice and thus constitutes Contempt of Court.

II.C. On Conduct Strikes​

Conduct Strikes may be issued to lawyers upon conviction of Perjury, Contempt of Court, Frivolous Court Case, or any crime that occurs in Court (JSA, Part VII, Section 1). They may only be issued when "the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession" (JSA, Part VII, Section 2).

This Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's counsel's conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession. Knowingly misstating the contents of the docket, and then mischaracterizing a filed motion after the Court had already clarified the issue, is not zealous advocacy. It is incompatible with the minimum standards expected of counsel before the Courts, and a conduct strike is thusly warranted (c.f.: Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9, Post No. 14, "[T]he Federal Court finds: ... that [counsel]'s conduct is an affront to the standards expected of Counselors before the Courts. A conduct strike shall be issued.").

III. Order of the Court​

In light of the above, the District Court thus Orders as follows:

• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, is found GUILTY on two counts of Perjury;
• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, is found GUILTY on one count of Contempt of Court;
• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, shall be fined a total of $45,000 and jailed for 130 minutes, broken down as follows:
  • For the first count of perjury, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $20,000 and sentenced to 60 minutes in prison.
  • For the second count of perjury, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $20,000 and sentenced to 60 minutes in prison.
  • For the charge of Contempt of Court, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $5,000 and sentenced to 10 minutes in prison.
• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, shall be issued one conduct strike pursuant to JSA, Part VII, Section 1.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Your Honour, I approach your Court as clerk.

The Federal Court has issued a ruling effecting this Order.
Appeal: Accepted - Brzzzes v. Honourable Judge Multiman155 [2026] FCR 22

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - SUMMARY CONVICTIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT AND PERJURY

I. Background​

Perjury is a summary offense that occurs when a person "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law" (CCA, Part III, Section 1). Knowingly false representations made by counsel in court filings have been held by the Federal Court to fall within that prohibition (see, for example, Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9, Post No. 14).

Contempt of Court is a summary offense that occurs when a person "disobeys a lawful order of the court; or... engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice" (CCA, Part III, Section 2).

Summary offenses do not require a full trial; on the contrary, "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings" (CCA, Part I, Section 6(2)(c)). Because these are criminal findings, the Court will not convict unless it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt (JSA, Part II, Section 3(1)(b)). Conduct strikes may be issued to lawyers upon conviction of Perjury or Contempt of Court (JSA, Part VII, Section 1(1)), but only where "the lawyer's conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession" (JSA, Part VII, Section 1(2)).

The Court does not conclude that every inaccurate, imprecise, or sloppily titled filing in this thread amounts to Perjury. Perjury requires proof of a knowing falsehood, not merely confusion, negligence, or imprecise drafting (Compare rulings of perjury under the Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act, which defined Perjury as "The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court": Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10, Post No. 71; Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32, Post No. 17). Likewise, a mislabeled motion may ordinarily be addressed first by striking it or warning counsel, rather than by immediate criminal conviction (Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, Post No. 33, regarding an improperly labeled Nolle Prosecui).

The Court, thus, has examined the whole record of this case, which this Court incorporates into the record of this Order by reference. This record includes (among other items) all the Plaintiff's counsel's posts, an Order to Show Cause (Post No. 28), the Plaintiff's response thereto published 8 minutes later (Post No. 29), and the Plaintiff's second and largely duplicative response to the Order to Show Cause (Post No. 31).

II. Discussion​

II.A. The Plaintiff's Counsel is found Guilty of two instances of Perjury​

Upon examining the record, the District Court finds two instances of Perjury proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Firstly, one instance of perjury arises from repeated attestations by the Plaintiff's counsel about a phantasmic "motion to dismiss" purportedly submitted by the Defendant in this case. No Motion to Dismiss was filed by the Defendant. The Defendant instead filed a Motion to Strike (Post No. 9), a Motion to Compel (also Post No. 9), a second Motion to Strike (Post No. 10), and an Objection on the basis of Breach of Procedure (also Post No. 10). Even so, Plaintiff’s counsel filed Post No. 11 as an “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss” and Post No. 12 as an “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss & Motion for Discovery,” in each instance representing that the Defendant was attempting to have the case dismissed.

The Court then directly informed Plaintiff’s counsel that it could not identify any motion to dismiss, asked counsel to specify what motion was being referenced, and mad plain that what the Court saw was repeated opposition to a nonexistent motion (Post No. 15). Plaintiff's counsel thereafter apologized to the Court for "that [Plaintiff's Counsel] provided the motion to dismiss" (Post No. 16), even as Plaintiff's Counsel had not done so.

Plaintiff’s counsel then, once again, stated that the Defendant moved for dismissal based on a minor clerical update to an evidence link, and again asked the Court to deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Post No. 17). That statement was false when made. By that stage, counsel had already been told by the Court that no such motion had been filed. The Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this later repetition was knowing, and therefore constituted Perjury under Part III, Section 1 of the Criminal Code Act.

Secondly, Post No. 24 knowingly mischaracterized Post No. 12. In Section III of the latter post, Plaintiff's counsel wrote: "We move for the Court to order the Defendant to produce..." specific categories of records (emphasis mine). That is a motion by any ordinary meaning of the term, as if a misnamed attempt to seek a Motion to Compel (see: Motions Guide; Rule 4.7). The Court itself treated it as a motion in granting Defendant right to respond to "Section III of this motion" (Post No. 15). Yet in Post No. 24, counsel told the Court that Post No. 12 "was a Request" and merely "a notice to the Defendant and the Court" of evidence counsel intended to seek later. Counsel's own response to the OSC then admitted that in Post No. 12 they were "aggressively moving for the production of documents" (Posts No. 29 and 31). On this record, the Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Post No. 24 was not clarification; it was a knowingly false rewriting of an earlier filing. As such, this constituted another instance of Perjury under Part III, Section 1 of the Criminal Code Act.

II.B. The Plaintiff's Counsel is found Guilty of Contempt of Court​

Contempt of Court under the obstruction/interference prong does not require a prior warning under Court Rule 1.4 or some other lawful order ([2025] FCR 119 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal, Verdict "In none of Appellant’s arguments is Court Rule 1.4 invoked, and the Appellant is right to not do so as that rule was designed to protect against abuses from subsection (a) 'disobeys a lawful order of the court.'"; [2025] FCR 128 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal, Verdict, "Under this second prong, the trial court is not required to give a warning, order, or other initial pretext before conviction"). But it does require actual obstructive or interfering conduct, not mere judicial annoyance (id.). That standard is met here. The falsehood in Post No. 17 misstated the existence of a dispositive defense motion after the Court had already corrected counsel once (Section II.A). The falsehood in Post No. 24 then attempted to recast an earlier motion as mere notice despite the filing's text and the Court's own treatment of it (id.). Taken together, these filings distorted the motion posture before the Court, required repeated judicial clarification, and necessitated an Order to Show Cause. That is conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice and thus constitutes Contempt of Court.

II.C. On Conduct Strikes​

Conduct Strikes may be issued to lawyers upon conviction of Perjury, Contempt of Court, Frivolous Court Case, or any crime that occurs in Court (JSA, Part VII, Section 1). They may only be issued when "the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession" (JSA, Part VII, Section 2).

This Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's counsel's conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession. Knowingly misstating the contents of the docket, and then mischaracterizing a filed motion after the Court had already clarified the issue, is not zealous advocacy. It is incompatible with the minimum standards expected of counsel before the Courts, and a conduct strike is thusly warranted (c.f.: Oakridge Community Bank & RiggoSoft v. dimitre977 [2026] FCR 9, Post No. 14, "[T]he Federal Court finds: ... that [counsel]'s conduct is an affront to the standards expected of Counselors before the Courts. A conduct strike shall be issued.").

III. Order of the Court​

In light of the above, the District Court thus Orders as follows:

• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, is found GUILTY on two counts of Perjury;
• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, is found GUILTY on one count of Contempt of Court;
• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, shall be fined a total of $45,000 and jailed for 130 minutes, broken down as follows:
  • For the first count of perjury, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $20,000 and sentenced to 60 minutes in prison.
  • For the second count of perjury, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $20,000 and sentenced to 60 minutes in prison.
  • For the charge of Contempt of Court, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $5,000 and sentenced to 10 minutes in prison.
• Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, shall be issued one conduct strike pursuant to JSA, Part VII, Section 1.

In the District Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Your Honour, I approach your Court as clerk.

The Federal Court has issued a ruling effecting this Order.
Appeal: Accepted - Brzzzes v. Honourable Judge Multiman155 [2026] FCR 22

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - RE-SENTENCING ON REMAND (In Re: Post No. 34)

The Federal Court has found that, in the District Court, a summary offense punishment ceiling of "no more than D$10,000 in fines and no more than 60 minutes imprisonment per individual conviction" (Brzzzes v. Honourable Judge Multiman155 [2026] FCR 22, emphasis mine) is required by the Constitution. As three individual convictions were made, the Court applies the cap and reduced fines to the maximum per-conviction amount where prior fines exceeded it:

Plaintiff's counsel, @Brzzzes, shall be fined a total of $25,000 and jailed for 130 minutes, broken down as follows:

• For the first count of perjury, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $10,000 and sentenced to 60 minutes in prison.
• For the second count of perjury, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $10,000 and sentenced to 60 minutes in prison.
• For the charge of Contempt of Court, the Plaintiff's counsel shall be fined $5,000 and sentenced to 10 minutes in prison.

So Ordered,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Vito Corleone]

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND SUBSTITUTION OF LEAD COUNSEL

Your Honor,

I, V_Corleone, respectfully notify the Court that I appear on behalf of the plaintiff, Fletchingrs, in the above-captioned matter. I hereby enter my appearance as counsel for the plaintiff and, effective immediately, will serve as lead counsel for plaintiff Fletchingrs in place of prior counsel.

In light of this substitution, plaintiff respectfully requests a brief extension of 72 hours as to familiarize myself with and review the record and proceed efficiently.

Proof of consent attached.

 

[Franciscus]

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND SUBSTITUTION OF LEAD COUNSEL

Your Honor,

I, V_Corleone, respectfully notify the Court that I appear on behalf of the plaintiff, Fletchingrs, in the above-captioned matter. I hereby enter my appearance as counsel for the plaintiff and, effective immediately, will serve as lead counsel for plaintiff Fletchingrs in place of prior counsel.

In light of this substitution, plaintiff respectfully requests a brief extension of 72 hours as to familiarize myself with and review the record and proceed efficiently.

Proof of consent attached.

Bongiorno, Don Corleone:

You shall be granted 72 hours to review the record and proceed efficiently. All deadlines are tolled during that time.

 

[Kiwi_Boi_Gamer]

Objection

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

The Defendant alleges that Flechingrs has committed purjury in their Response to Question 3 by knowingly providing false testimony to the Court.

Actual Knowledge of the Truth
In Response to question 2; Flechingrs confirmed that only they could grant permissions to the Defendant Noting there is no evidence of Staff granting any permissions. As Flechingrs is the only person able to grant permissions it could be assumed that they would be "aware" of who does and does not have permissions on plot S079. As it would require a positive action from Flechingrs to grant permissions.

Flechingrs unpromoted question to the Defendant shortly after signing the contract; asking "do you need permissionto destory[?]" indicates that Flechingrs knew the Defendant lacked permissions (A-003). Flechingrs response to question 4: "yes", confirms that Flechingrs was asking the unpromoted question to determine which permissions to grant the Defendant; in other words, Flechingrs knew that the Defendant lacked permissions.

Flechingrs unpromoted question on the 26th (A-003), along with their response to question 4, confirms that Flechingrs knew and was "aware" that the Defendant "had not been granted permissions" before the contract was signed.

False Testimony
In response to question 3 Flechingrs responded "no" that they were not "aware" that the Defendant lacked permissions before signing the contract. This contradicts Flechingrs' unpromoted question on the 26th of February and their responses to questions 2 and 4. Flechingrs was the only user who could grant the Defendant permissions and actively inquired about which permissions the Defendant required without any prompting.

Flechingrs intentionally responded with an inconsistent and false answer to protect his earlier answer, which claimed that "[he] first became aware [that the defendant lacked permissions] at around 2/28 at around 9:30 AM".

Noting Flechingrs cannot claim to have "bad memory" when the evidence (discord chats) has been presented along with citations in the questions given to them.
Additionally, there is no indication that Flechingrs has misunderstood the question; the question is not complex or confusing.

Your Honour @Franciscus,

I am still awaiting a ruling on my objection.