Lawsuit: In Session Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 69

[Franciscus]

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES

4. Why specifically were these plots evicted?

You can refer to the secretary's response in each of the reports, which are part of evidence.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.8, "The Plaintiff and Defendant may ask up to 5 relevant questions while within discovery to each other that they must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability". This answer is a non-answer; it certainly does not answer the question to the best of the Defense's ability. For this reason, the Defense's Counsel is in breach of Rule 4.8.

The Plaintiff asks that the Court compel the Defense to provide a substantial and affirmative answer to this question to the best of their ability.

 

[Franciscus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS

In accordance with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following from the Defendant:
1. Any message containing the words "yeet" "ger" "galactic empire" "galactic empire of redmont" "yeet plot" "yeet plots" "yeet's plot" "yeets plot" "c607" "c226" "c279" "c454" in the department of construction and transportation discord, and the preceding and following 20 messages. (DCT) From March 1st of 2025 till July 24th of 2025 with any or no capital letters.
2. Any message containing the words "yeet" "ger" "galactic empire" "galactic empire of redmont" "yeet plot" "yeet plots" "yeet's plot" "yeets plot" "c607" "c226" "c279" "c454" in the direct messages of xEndeavour on discord, and the preceding and following 20 messages. From March 1st of 2025 till July 24th of 2025 with any or no capital letters.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth has been entirely unresponsive to this Discovery request; they have not objected, but also have they indicated whatsoever that they intend to provide this information. For this reason, the Plaintiff respectfully asks the court to compel the handover of these messages, which the Plaintiff believes may be relevant to the case.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth has been entirely unresponsive to this Discovery request; they have not objected, but also have they indicated whatsoever that they intend to provide this information. For this reason, the Plaintiff respectfully asks the court to compel the handover of these messages, which the Plaintiff believes may be relevant to the case.

Defendant requests a response to the motion, Your Honor.

Furthermore, as there are only 6 hours of discovery remaining with pending discovery-related motions, objections and/or requests from both parties, Defendant respectfully requests the Discovery period be extended.

 

[Franciscus]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7, the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

All documents, contracts, or agreements resulting in the beneficial ownership of the following plots by the Galactic Empire of Redmont, as well as a list of dates since which the Galactic Empire of Redmont has beneficial ownership of the following plots:
Plots c607, c226, c279, and c454.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is the GER; and Yeet_Boy is its founder. As there is no legal requirement to create physical documents to allow one’s own party to use and de facto own the properties beneficially, and the use of the properties is uncontested, the Plaintiff does not understand why such documents are relevant in this case.

 

[ameslap]

Defendant requests a response to the motion, Your Honor.

Furthermore, as there are only 6 hours of discovery remaining with pending discovery-related motions, objections and/or requests from both parties, Defendant respectfully requests the Discovery period be extended.

You may within the next 24 hours.

Discovery shall end 72 hours after my ruling on the objection and motion.

Furthermore, one of my goals as judge is to offer more in-game trials. Both parties are to respond by the end of discovery on if they would like an in-game trial or not.

 

[ameslap]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COURT ORDER

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

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

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth has been entirely unresponsive to this Discovery request; they have not objected, but also have they indicated whatsoever that they intend to provide this information. For this reason, the Plaintiff respectfully asks the court to compel the handover of these messages, which the Plaintiff believes may be relevant to the case.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS

In accordance with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following from the Defendant:
1. Any message containing the words "yeet" "ger" "galactic empire" "galactic empire of redmont" "yeet plot" "yeet plots" "yeet's plot" "yeets plot" "c607" "c226" "c279" "c454" in the department of construction and transportation discord, and the preceding and following 20 messages. (DCT) From March 1st of 2025 till July 24th of 2025 with any or no capital letters.
2. Any message containing the words "yeet" "ger" "galactic empire" "galactic empire of redmont" "yeet plot" "yeet plots" "yeet's plot" "yeets plot" "c607" "c226" "c279" "c454" in the direct messages of xEndeavour on discord, and the preceding and following 20 messages. From March 1st of 2025 till July 24th of 2025 with any or no capital letters.

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION
Your Honor,

The Defendant partly opposes the first discovery request. The Defendant agrees to submit any messages containing the words "yeet" "ger" "galactic empire" "galactic empire of redmont" "yeet plot" "yeet plots" "yeet's plot" "yeets plot" "c607" "c226" "c279" "c454" in the department of construction and transportation discord, from March 1st of 2025 till July 24th of 2025 with any or no capital letters.

The Defendant opposes to submit the preceding and following 20 messages for each of the aforementioned messages. The first part of this request will result in a submission of 33 messages. Many of these 33 are completely unrelated to the case at hand and submitting the preceding and following 20 messages to all of those 33 messages will approximately result in a further 1320 messages having to be submitted to the Court. This is unnecessary and infeasible. Defendant respectfully requests to only be compelled to submit the 33 messages themselves, after which the Plaintiff can separately make a discovery request for preceding and following messages to any of the 33 messages if they deem such necessary.

The Defendant agrees to the second discovery request, the Defendant will comply with the request to the best of their knowledge, noting that it is not possible to easily search all DM's.

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant enters the following evidence:

Spoiler: D-006

Spoiler: D-007

Spoiler: D-008

Spoiler: D-009

Spoiler: D-010

Spoiler: D-011

Spoiler: D-012

Spoiler: D-013

Spoiler: D-014

Spoiler: D-015

And in doing so has provided the material requested by Plaintiff's first request for discovery to which the Defendant did not oppose to the best of their ability.

The Defendant to the best of their ability has no documents to submit in response to Plaintiff's second request for discovery.

 

[gribble19]

The Defendant enters the following evidence, pursuant to Rule 4.6:

Spoiler: D-016

Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the Defendant submits the following witness list:
1. Yeet_Boy

 

[gribble19]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is the Grand Admiral of the GER; he is its founder. As there is no legal requirement to create physical documents to allow one’s own party to use and de facto own the properties beneficially, and the use of the properties is uncontested, the Plaintiff does not understand why such documents are relevant in this case.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff in this case is the Galactic Empire of Redmont, not its Grand Admiral or founder. This is knowledge that Plaintiff is surely aware of, as it is their own identity. Plaintiff in this objection states "The Plaintiff is the Grand Admiral of the Ger; he is its founder". In doing so Plaintiff has thus knowingly misrepresented facts under oath, and committed perjury.

The Defendant would further like to note that this is the second time within this proceeding that the Plaintiff has misrepresented facts and that the Court has previously warned plaintiff that a second instance of this would result in a perjury charge.

The Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff is found guilty of 1 count of Perjury and is sentenced to a fine of $50,000 and 60 minutes of imprisonment, the maximum punishment for 1 count of Perjury; See Criminal Code Act, III.1.

 

[gribble19]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is the Grand Admiral of the GER; he is its founder. As there is no legal requirement to create physical documents to allow one’s own party to use and de facto own the properties beneficially, and the use of the properties is uncontested, the Plaintiff does not understand why such documents are relevant in this case.

RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION

Your Honor,
Plaintiff previously claimed that the GER not legally but beneficially owns properties, and that the ability to beneficially own properties was legally recognized due to precedent set in Discover Bank v. _Pugsy [2024] FCR 51. Plaintiff themselves specified that this precedent was set due to the Court holding a contract enforceable. Beneficial ownership per this precedent thus stems from a contractual agreement between the beneficial owner and the legal owner. As Plaintiff's beneficial ownership of the plots which are the subject of this case is relevant to the case, the Defendant requests these documents such that it can be properly established that Plaintiff indeed beneficially owns those plots which the Plaintiff has claimed to beneficially own.

 

[ameslap]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

Under Rule 4.8, "The Plaintiff and Defendant may ask up to 5 relevant questions while within discovery to each other that they must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability". This answer is a non-answer; it certainly does not answer the question to the best of the Defense's ability. For this reason, the Defense's Counsel is in breach of Rule 4.8.

The Plaintiff asks that the Court compel the Defense to provide a substantial and affirmative answer to this question to the best of their ability.

An answer stating that the information you seek is in evidence, at least in this case, is satisfactory to me. That being said, I have reviewed the evidence provided by the Plaintiffs in the complaint that is the eviction reports. It is my opinion that the answers given in the reports are sufficient and specific enough, except for C226. The Defendant needs to provide specific reasoning when it comes to this plot in the next 48 hours.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth has been entirely unresponsive to this Discovery request; they have not objected, but also have they indicated whatsoever that they intend to provide this information. For this reason, the Plaintiff respectfully asks the court to compel the handover of these messages, which the Plaintiff believes may be relevant to the case.

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION
Your Honor,

The Defendant partly opposes the first discovery request. The Defendant agrees to submit any messages containing the words "yeet" "ger" "galactic empire" "galactic empire of redmont" "yeet plot" "yeet plots" "yeet's plot" "yeets plot" "c607" "c226" "c279" "c454" in the department of construction and transportation discord, from March 1st of 2025 till July 24th of 2025 with any or no capital letters.

The Defendant opposes to submit the preceding and following 20 messages for each of the aforementioned messages. The first part of this request will result in a submission of 33 messages. Many of these 33 are completely unrelated to the case at hand and submitting the preceding and following 20 messages to all of those 33 messages will approximately result in a further 1320 messages having to be submitted to the Court. This is unnecessary and infeasible. Defendant respectfully requests to only be compelled to submit the 33 messages themselves, after which the Plaintiff can separately make a discovery request for preceding and following messages to any of the 33 messages if they deem such necessary.

The Defendant agrees to the second discovery request, the Defendant will comply with the request to the best of their knowledge, noting that it is not possible to easily search all DM's.

The court agrees with the Defense on this. They shall submit any messages containing the words "yeet" "ger" "galactic empire" "galactic empire of redmont" "yeet plot" "yeet plots" "yeet's plot" "yeets plot" "c607" "c226" "c279" "c454" in the DoC and xEndeavour on discord, from March 1st of 2025 till July 24th of 2025 with any or no capital letters.

I do not want this court flooded with irrelevant messages, and so the Plaintiff shall have 48 hours after all evidence is submitted to request further messages as they deem fit after the initial submission.

So, because of this fun timeline we have going for us, I will give the Defendant 48 hours to submit all relevant evidence based on this order, which I request that they ping me so I can make note of this. As soon as the evidence is submitted, the Plaintiff shall have 48 hours to request any additional evidence from the messages. We will see where we are then to determine if we need to end discovery or keep it going.

Just a reminder that I need both parties to tell me if they want an in-game trial by the end of discovery.

I will rule on all the new stuff once I get a chance to really look at it as it was submitted as I was typing all this out.

 

[End]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COURT ORDER

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

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

I spent 2 hours answering tickets instead so pick your battles

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff in this case is the Galactic Empire of Redmont, not its Grand Admiral or founder. This is knowledge that Plaintiff is surely aware of, as it is their own identity. Plaintiff in this objection states "The Plaintiff is the Grand Admiral of the Ger; he is its founder". In doing so Plaintiff has thus knowingly misrepresented facts under oath, and committed perjury.

The Defendant would further like to note that this is the second time within this proceeding that the Plaintiff has misrepresented facts and that the Court has previously warned plaintiff that a second instance of this would result in a perjury charge.

The Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff is found guilty of 1 count of Perjury and is sentenced to a fine of $50,000 and 60 minutes of imprisonment, the maximum punishment for 1 count of Perjury; See Criminal Code Act, III.1.

Response

Your Honor,

I apologize for my confusion here and for my imprecision in wording. I had intended to emphasize the point that it would be absurd to require Yeet to essentially write a contract with himself to allow his own party that he founded and runs to have de facto beneficial ownership of the property, and I had accidentally mixed up and briefly forgotten the listed Plaintiff in this case before posting in that instance. In light of this, I propose the following amendment to rectify this issue:

Motion

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

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is the Grand Admiral of the GER; he is its founder. As there is no legal requirement to create physical documents to allow one’s own party to use and de facto own the properties beneficially, and the use of the properties is uncontested, the Plaintiff does not understand why such documents are relevant in this case.

The substantial text quoted objection Is amended to read the following:

The Plaintiff is the GER; Yeet_Boy is its founder. As there is no legal requirement to create physical documents to allow one’s own party to use and de facto own the properties beneficially, and the use of the properties is uncontested, the Plaintiff does not understand why such documents are relevant in this case.

 

[ameslap]

Response

Your Honor,

I apologize for my confusion here and for my imprecision in wording. I had intended to emphasize the point that it would be absurd to require Yeet to essentially write a contract with himself to allow his own party that he founded and runs to have de facto beneficial ownership of the property, and I had accidentally mixed up and briefly forgotten the listed Plaintiff in this case before posting in that instance. In light of this, I propose the following amendment to rectify this issue:

Motion

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



The substantial text quoted objection Is amended to read the following:

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff in this case is the Galactic Empire of Redmont, not its Grand Admiral or founder. This is knowledge that Plaintiff is surely aware of, as it is their own identity. Plaintiff in this objection states "The Plaintiff is the Grand Admiral of the Ger; he is its founder". In doing so Plaintiff has thus knowingly misrepresented facts under oath, and committed perjury.

The Defendant would further like to note that this is the second time within this proceeding that the Plaintiff has misrepresented facts and that the Court has previously warned plaintiff that a second instance of this would result in a perjury charge.

The Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiff is found guilty of 1 count of Perjury and is sentenced to a fine of $50,000 and 60 minutes of imprisonment, the maximum punishment for 1 count of Perjury; See Criminal Code Act, III.1.

As this is not the only time for lapses in this case and the Plaintiff has been warned in the past, I will be charging you with Perjury and sentencing you to a fine of $10,000 with no jail time as you are actively working to correct this.

Your motion to amend is accepted. Please edit your objection promptly.

 

[Franciscus]

As this is not the only time for lapses in this case and the Plaintiff has been warned in the past, I will be charging you with Perjury and sentencing you to a fine of $10,000 with no jail time as you are actively working to correct this.

Your motion to amend is accepted. Please edit your objection promptly.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

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

A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law

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

 

[ameslap]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

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



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

Motion is approved. This is a final warning that any more issues shall be considered perjury and/or contempt of court and will be handled as such. I am only giving grace in this instance because you worked to remedy the action, but this will not be given the same grace going forward.

 

[ToadKing]

I spent 2 hours answering tickets instead so pick your battles

Objection

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

Your Honour, the DCT Secretary continues to speak out of turn. We request that the court strike his comment from the record and hold him in contempt of court. This court previously stated, "[End cannot] continue to speak without written approval from the Attorney General". This court further stated, "xEndeavour should know the proceedings by now and know when to speak and not speak within the court"

 

[ameslap]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

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



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

Motion is approved. This is a final warning that any more issues shall be considered perjury and/or contempt of court and will be handled as such. I am only giving grace in this instance because you worked to remedy the action, but this will not be given the same grace going forward.

All, it has come to the attention to the Judiciary that Perjury is now an indictment that can only be prosecuted by the DoJ. As such, my warnings for it no longer apply, but this still applies to the Contempt of Court warnings.

 

[ameslap]

I spent 2 hours answering tickets instead so pick your battles

Is this owner end talking or DCT Secretary End talking?

 

[ToadKing]

Objection

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant states in their Answer to Complaint:

11. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge to form a belief about the truth of the statement that the GER is themed around the irl media franchise of Star Wars, and therefore DENIES this.

However, the Attorney General has previously stated openly and publicly: "why would you ever join GER rather than WPR besides for like star wars or being friends with GER people" (P-015) and "it's like the GER but without the star wars" (P-016)

Spoiler: P-015

Link to message

Spoiler: P-016

Link to message

These statements prove the Attorney General has the "information or knowledge" to show "the GER is themed around the irl media franchise of Star Wars"

Further to this, Your Honour, one only has to look at the GER's Party Registration to understand that the GER is themed around Star Wars.

The GER made use of two recognisable symbols from the franchise in their registration, the Imperial Crest (P-017) and a Stormtrooper (P-018)

Spoiler: P-017

Spoiler: P-018

The GER is either themed around Star Wars or it is not - the contradictory statements by the Defendant constitute Perjury. We respectfully ask the court to hold the Attorney General to account for her brazen attempts to lie to this court, and recommend to the DOJ that the AG be charged with Perjury. We also ask this court to strike the defendant's answer from the record.

 

[ameslap]

Objection

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant states in their Answer to Complaint:

However, the Attorney General has previously stated openly and publicly: "why would you ever join GER rather than WPR besides for like star wars or being friends with GER people" (P-015) and "it's like the GER but without the star wars" (P-016)

Spoiler: P-015

View attachment 58268
Link to message

Spoiler: P-016

View attachment 58269
Link to message

These statements prove the Attorney General has the "information or knowledge" to show "the GER is themed around the irl media franchise of Star Wars"

Further to this, Your Honour, one only has to look at the GER's Party Registration to understand that the GER is themed around Star Wars.

The GER made use of two recognisable symbols from the franchise in their registration, the Imperial Crest (P-017) and a Stormtrooper (P-018)

Spoiler: P-017

View attachment 58270

Spoiler: P-018

View attachment 58271

The GER is either themed around Star Wars or it is not - the contradictory statements by the Defendant constitute Perjury. We respectfully ask the court to hold the Attorney General to account for her brazen attempts to lie to this court, and recommend to the DOJ that the AG be charged with Perjury. We also ask this court to strike the defendant's answer from the record.

Denied. Only the DoJ can charge and prosecute people with perjury per the Criminal Code Act.

 

[End]

Is this owner end talking or DCT Secretary End talking?

Well you just punished me for a staff action.

I would love nothing more than to play the game and sit in the jail for 10 minutes.

Reality is: there are a lot of problems to solve and that takes up most of my time online.

 

[ToadKing]

Denied. Only the DoJ can charge and prosecute people with perjury per the Criminal Code Act.

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its denial of our perjury objection based on a fundamental error of law.

GROUNDS:

1. The Court denied our objection stating "Only the DoJ can charge and prosecute people with perjury per the Criminal Code Act." This reasoning reflects a misunderstanding of the relief sought. We were not requesting criminal prosecution - we were raising a procedural objection during court proceedings.

2. The Court's own Objections Guide explicitly lists "Perjury" as a valid objection, defined as: "When a witness intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath. Proof of perjury should be presented with the objection."
Furthermore, over five years of established court practice and precedent, this objection has been consistently extended beyond witness testimony to encompass any false statements made under oath by any party to the proceedings.

3. This demonstrates that perjury objections are a recognised procedural tool available to all parties during court proceedings. These objections are distinct from criminal perjury charges under the Criminal Code Act - they serve different purposes and follow different procedures.

4. Most significantly, the Defendant acknowledged the Court's authority over perjurious statements in their Answer to Complaint. At the conclusion of their filing, the defendant stated:

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

5. Our objection requested that the Court:

1. Hold the defendant accountable for false statements
2. Recommend (not order) DoJ investigation
3. Strike the defendant's answer from the record

All three remedies fall squarely within the Court's inherent authority to manage proceedings and ensure truthful testimony. Striking false answers is a standard judicial remedy that requires no DoJ involvement.

6. Your Honour's interpretation would overturn years of established judicial practice. Throughout Redmont's legal history, perjury has consistently been classified as an indictable offence, yet courts have always exercised direct authority over perjurious conduct during proceedings.

7. The Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act explicitly classified perjury as an "Indictable Criminal Offense" defined as "The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court". Similarly, the Crime Severity Act of 2020 listed perjury under "Indictable Offences" with identical classification.

8. Despite this indictable classification spanning multiple acts across years, courts have never interpreted this to mean they lack the authority to rule on perjury objections during proceedings. The classification as "indictable" simply means the offense requires formal prosecution for criminal penalties - it has never stripped courts of their inherent authority to manage truthfulness in their own proceedings through formal objections.

9. Notably, in Gnomewhisperer and Gnomecorp v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47, the presiding judge directly charged the previous Attorney General with perjury, ordering: "Attorney General Juniperfig will be charged with 1 count of perjury regarding actions and testimony inside the close court session. The DHS is to punish them accordingly."

This case definitively shows that courts retain authority over perjury in their proceedings, regardless of its criminal classification. To hold otherwise now would invalidate years of already established judicial practice.

10. Most troublingly, this interpretation creates an absurd and unjust result. If only the Department of Justice could address perjury in court proceedings, then the Attorney General - as head of the DoJ - would be solely responsible for prosecuting themselves when they lie to the court. This circular logic would grant the Attorney General de facto immunity from any consequences for making false statements in court proceedings.

11. Such an interpretation cannot stand. It would eviscerate the court's ability to ensure truthful proceedings and create a two-tiered system where government officials can lie with impunity while private citizens remain bound by truth.

12. The Defendant claimed to "lack information or knowledge" about GER's Star Wars theme, yet previously made public statements acknowledging exactly that connection (P-015, P-016). This is precisely the type of false statement that perjury objections are designed to address.

 

[ameslap]

Objection

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

Your Honour, the DCT Secretary continues to speak out of turn. We request that the court strike his comment from the record and hold him in contempt of court. This court previously stated, "[End cannot] continue to speak without written approval from the Attorney General". This court further stated, "xEndeavour should know the proceedings by now and know when to speak and not speak within the court"

Well you just punished me for a staff action.

I would love nothing more than to play the game and sit in the jail mine for 2 minutes.

Reality is: there are a lot of problems to solve and that takes up most of my time online.

The motion is hereby denied, as End in this instance was responding as a staff member.

Furthermore, this situation has been dealt with internally and is resolved.

 

[gribble19]

So, because of this fun timeline we have going for us, I will give the Defendant 48 hours to submit all relevant evidence based on this order, which I request that they ping me so I can make note of this.

The Defendant hereby refers the judge to their previous filing made in post #58 in this proceeding.

 

[ameslap]

The Defendant hereby refers the judge to their previous filing made in post #58 in this proceeding.

Thank you! The Plaintiff has around 31 hours to submit any requests for additional evidence.

 

[CoolChacha97]

Thank you! The Plaintiff has around 31 hours to submit any requests for additional evidence.

Your honor,
The plaintiff requests the following pursuant to Rule 4.7
On D-006, the 2nd message from the top, we ask that the following 20 messages be given and for the 5th message from the top, the following 40 messages
On D-008, the 5th message from the top, the following 30 messages
On D-009, the 3rd message from the top, the prior and following 20 messages
On D-010, the top message the prior and following 20 messages, and for the 4th and 5th from the top message the prior and following 20 messages for both messages
On D-011, the top message the prior and following 20 messages
On D-012, the top message the prior and following 20 messages
We also request that the deadline for requesting more messages be set to 24 hours after the response from the defendant with the information we requested. This allows plaintiff counsel to be able to discuss the new information we would receive and be able to decide if we need any more

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Your honor,
The plaintiff requests the following pursuant to Rule 4.7
On D-006, the 2nd message from the top, we ask that the following 20 messages be given and for the 5th message from the top, the following 40 messages
On D-008, the 5th message from the top, the following 30 messages
On D-009, the 3rd message from the top, the prior and following 20 messages
On D-010, the top message the prior and following 20 messages, and for the 4th and 5th from the top message the prior and following 20 messages for both messages
On D-011, the top message the prior and following 20 messages
On D-012, the top message the prior and following 20 messages
We also request that the deadline for requesting more messages be set to 24 hours after the response from the defendant with the information we requested. This allows plaintiff counsel to be able to discuss the new information we would receive and be able to decide if we need any more

In line with the above request, the Plaintiff asks that the Court compel the production of such evidence by the Defense within the next 48 hours.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor,

As the response to discovery requests by the Commonwealth has been piecemeal, and under the current timeline (as it understand it) it would be difficult to timely follow-up with further requests should the pending discovery materials not be provided with a cushion of time prior to the end of discovery, the Plaintiff asks for an extension of discovery. This extension would last until 48 hours after the above motion is ruled upon, or 24 hours after the Commonwealth submits all materials requested, whichever occurs later.

 

[ameslap]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its denial of our perjury objection based on a fundamental error of law.

GROUNDS:

1. The Court denied our objection stating "Only the DoJ can charge and prosecute people with perjury per the Criminal Code Act." This reasoning reflects a misunderstanding of the relief sought. We were not requesting criminal prosecution - we were raising a procedural objection during court proceedings.

2. The Court's own Objections Guide explicitly lists "Perjury" as a valid objection, defined as: "When a witness intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath. Proof of perjury should be presented with the objection."
Furthermore, over five years of established court practice and precedent, this objection has been consistently extended beyond witness testimony to encompass any false statements made under oath by any party to the proceedings.

3. This demonstrates that perjury objections are a recognised procedural tool available to all parties during court proceedings. These objections are distinct from criminal perjury charges under the Criminal Code Act - they serve different purposes and follow different procedures.

4. Most significantly, the Defendant acknowledged the Court's authority over perjurious statements in their Answer to Complaint. At the conclusion of their filing, the defendant stated:


5. Our objection requested that the Court:

1. Hold the defendant accountable for false statements
2. Recommend (not order) DoJ investigation
3. Strike the defendant's answer from the record

All three remedies fall squarely within the Court's inherent authority to manage proceedings and ensure truthful testimony. Striking false answers is a standard judicial remedy that requires no DoJ involvement.

6. Your Honour's interpretation would overturn years of established judicial practice. Throughout Redmont's legal history, perjury has consistently been classified as an indictable offence, yet courts have always exercised direct authority over perjurious conduct during proceedings.

7. The Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act explicitly classified perjury as an "Indictable Criminal Offense" defined as "The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court". Similarly, the Crime Severity Act of 2020 listed perjury under "Indictable Offences" with identical classification.

8. Despite this indictable classification spanning multiple acts across years, courts have never interpreted this to mean they lack the authority to rule on perjury objections during proceedings. The classification as "indictable" simply means the offense requires formal prosecution for criminal penalties - it has never stripped courts of their inherent authority to manage truthfulness in their own proceedings through formal objections.

9. Notably, in Gnomewhisperer and Gnomecorp v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47, the presiding judge directly charged the previous Attorney General with perjury, ordering: "Attorney General Juniperfig will be charged with 1 count of perjury regarding actions and testimony inside the close court session. The DHS is to punish them accordingly."

This case definitively shows that courts retain authority over perjury in their proceedings, regardless of its criminal classification. To hold otherwise now would invalidate years of already established judicial practice.

10. Most troublingly, this interpretation creates an absurd and unjust result. If only the Department of Justice could address perjury in court proceedings, then the Attorney General - as head of the DoJ - would be solely responsible for prosecuting themselves when they lie to the court. This circular logic would grant the Attorney General de facto immunity from any consequences for making false statements in court proceedings.

11. Such an interpretation cannot stand. It would eviscerate the court's ability to ensure truthful proceedings and create a two-tiered system where government officials can lie with impunity while private citizens remain bound by truth.

12. The Defendant claimed to "lack information or knowledge" about GER's Star Wars theme, yet previously made public statements acknowledging exactly that connection (P-015, P-016). This is precisely the type of false statement that perjury objections are designed to address.

I have not forgotten about this, I am doing some further research and will make a ruling shortly.

Motion​

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

Your Honor,



In line with the above request, the Plaintiff asks that the Court compel the production of such evidence by the Defense within the next 48 hours.

This motion is approved. The Defense may still object to any of the requested evidence but it is understood that they must submit the evidence within the next 48 hours.

Motion​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Your Honor,

As the response to discovery requests by the Commonwealth has been piecemeal, and under the current timeline (as it understand it) it would be difficult to timely follow-up with further requests should the pending discovery materials not be provided with a cushion of time prior to the end of discovery, the Plaintiff asks for an extension of discovery. This extension would last until 48 hours after the above motion is ruled upon, or 24 hours after the Commonwealth submits all materials requested, whichever occurs later.

Granted. Discovery will extend for 24 hours after the Defense submits all required evidence.

 

[ameslap]

Objection

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant states in their Answer to Complaint:

However, the Attorney General has previously stated openly and publicly: "why would you ever join GER rather than WPR besides for like star wars or being friends with GER people" (P-015) and "it's like the GER but without the star wars" (P-016)

Spoiler: P-015

View attachment 58268
Link to message

Spoiler: P-016

View attachment 58269
Link to message

These statements prove the Attorney General has the "information or knowledge" to show "the GER is themed around the irl media franchise of Star Wars"

Further to this, Your Honour, one only has to look at the GER's Party Registration to understand that the GER is themed around Star Wars.

The GER made use of two recognisable symbols from the franchise in their registration, the Imperial Crest (P-017) and a Stormtrooper (P-018)

Spoiler: P-017

View attachment 58270

Spoiler: P-018

View attachment 58271

The GER is either themed around Star Wars or it is not - the contradictory statements by the Defendant constitute Perjury. We respectfully ask the court to hold the Attorney General to account for her brazen attempts to lie to this court, and recommend to the DOJ that the AG be charged with Perjury. We also ask this court to strike the defendant's answer from the record.

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to reconsider its denial of our perjury objection based on a fundamental error of law.

GROUNDS:

1. The Court denied our objection stating "Only the DoJ can charge and prosecute people with perjury per the Criminal Code Act." This reasoning reflects a misunderstanding of the relief sought. We were not requesting criminal prosecution - we were raising a procedural objection during court proceedings.

2. The Court's own Objections Guide explicitly lists "Perjury" as a valid objection, defined as: "When a witness intentionally lies or misrepresents facts under oath. Proof of perjury should be presented with the objection."
Furthermore, over five years of established court practice and precedent, this objection has been consistently extended beyond witness testimony to encompass any false statements made under oath by any party to the proceedings.

3. This demonstrates that perjury objections are a recognised procedural tool available to all parties during court proceedings. These objections are distinct from criminal perjury charges under the Criminal Code Act - they serve different purposes and follow different procedures.

4. Most significantly, the Defendant acknowledged the Court's authority over perjurious statements in their Answer to Complaint. At the conclusion of their filing, the defendant stated:


5. Our objection requested that the Court:

1. Hold the defendant accountable for false statements
2. Recommend (not order) DoJ investigation
3. Strike the defendant's answer from the record

All three remedies fall squarely within the Court's inherent authority to manage proceedings and ensure truthful testimony. Striking false answers is a standard judicial remedy that requires no DoJ involvement.

6. Your Honour's interpretation would overturn years of established judicial practice. Throughout Redmont's legal history, perjury has consistently been classified as an indictable offence, yet courts have always exercised direct authority over perjurious conduct during proceedings.

7. The Corruption and Espionage Offenses Act explicitly classified perjury as an "Indictable Criminal Offense" defined as "The act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court". Similarly, the Crime Severity Act of 2020 listed perjury under "Indictable Offences" with identical classification.

8. Despite this indictable classification spanning multiple acts across years, courts have never interpreted this to mean they lack the authority to rule on perjury objections during proceedings. The classification as "indictable" simply means the offense requires formal prosecution for criminal penalties - it has never stripped courts of their inherent authority to manage truthfulness in their own proceedings through formal objections.

9. Notably, in Gnomewhisperer and Gnomecorp v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47, the presiding judge directly charged the previous Attorney General with perjury, ordering: "Attorney General Juniperfig will be charged with 1 count of perjury regarding actions and testimony inside the close court session. The DHS is to punish them accordingly."

This case definitively shows that courts retain authority over perjury in their proceedings, regardless of its criminal classification. To hold otherwise now would invalidate years of already established judicial practice.

10. Most troublingly, this interpretation creates an absurd and unjust result. If only the Department of Justice could address perjury in court proceedings, then the Attorney General - as head of the DoJ - would be solely responsible for prosecuting themselves when they lie to the court. This circular logic would grant the Attorney General de facto immunity from any consequences for making false statements in court proceedings.

11. Such an interpretation cannot stand. It would eviscerate the court's ability to ensure truthful proceedings and create a two-tiered system where government officials can lie with impunity while private citizens remain bound by truth.

12. The Defendant claimed to "lack information or knowledge" about GER's Star Wars theme, yet previously made public statements acknowledging exactly that connection (P-015, P-016). This is precisely the type of false statement that perjury objections are designed to address.

I am not one to hide from my mistakes, and it appears I have made one when it came to make new-found understanding of perjury. I will be striking my previous perjury ruling and approve the reconsideration. I will be making a new ruling on the perjury objection here soon.

I apologize for my mis-understanding.