Lawsuit: In Session Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78

[ameslap]

First, thank you all so much for giving me so much to look at rule on.

Objection

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

Your Honour,
The Defendant states in their Answer to Complaint:

However, the DCT's own Secretary has stated in their outburst to this court:


Furthermore, the Defendant has already AFFIRMED in answers 9 and 10 that:
"the GER has ran numerous political candidates in DC"
"the GER is a registered political party in Redmont"

The evidence clearly shows these plots are "built in a specific way to spread a political message", through the use of the GER logo banner, and the "GER" text:

Spoiler: P-019

Plot c607
View attachment 59091

Spoiler: P-020

Plot c226
View attachment 59092

Spoiler: P-021

Plot c279
View attachment 59093

Spoiler: P-022

Plot c454
View attachment 59094

The Defendant cannot simultaneously claim ignorance about whether a registered political party's branded properties spread political messages, while the Department's Secretary acknowledges these properties are "political in nature". This constitutes Perjury.

We respectfully ask the court to hold the Defendant to account for this false statement. We also ask this court to order the Defendant's answer to be amended.

Objection

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

Your Honour,
The Defendant states in their Answer to Complaint:

This is a deliberate mischaracterisation of the Plaintiff's stated fact. The Plaintiff's Fact #9 clearly states:

In context, "All of the builds with eviction notices" explicitly refers to the four plots identified in this case: c607, c226, c279, and c454. The Plaintiff was not making a claim about every eviction notice ever issued in Redmont.

The evidence (P-019/022) demonstrates that all four plots subject to this case contain GER banners/signs.

The Defendant's answer deliberately misconstrues a specific factual claim about four properties into a universal claim about all evictions across Redmont. This intentional misrepresentation of the Plaintiff's statement constitutes Perjury.

We respectfully ask the court to hold the Defendant to account for this false statement. We also ask this court to order the Defendant's answer to be amended.

Motions are Accepted. Counsel is hereby charged with 2 count of perjury and is ordered to pay a $15,000 fine, serve 10 minutes in jail, and to amend their answer to reflect.

Objection

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

Your honor:

This Court has previously ordered both Plaintiff's counsel and Commonwealth's Counsel as below:


While the Plaintiff's counsel has timely informed the Court of this, the Attorney General has not done so despite your explicit order.

As such, the Plaintiff asks that the Attorney General be held in contempt for failure to obey your Order here. In line with Criminal Code Act Part III, Section II(a), the Plaintiff asks that the Attorney General be issued a fine of $5,000 and sentenced to 10 minutes in jail for Contempt of Court.

Denied. I will allow some leeway in this regard due to the changing of counsel and it was within an hour of the deadline that they responded.

Objection

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

Your Honour, the Plaintiff objects to Secretary xEndeavour's attempt to represent the Commonwealth in this matter.

This Court has previously stated:

Furthermore, Secretary xEndeavour, to the Plaintiff's knowledge, is not a member of the DOJ; they are not a Prosecutor (P-023).

Spoiler: P-023

View attachment 59105

The screenshot provided shows only conditional, temporary permission from the President stating "you have the temporary go-ahead until i hear from gribble or deal with the doj situation."
This language is expressly vague in its intent:
1. There is an acknowledged "doj situation" requiring resolution
2. The President anticipates proper DOJ representation will resume

No proper authorisation exists for a non-DOJ Secretary to represent the commonwealth in court. The screenshot does not grant Secretary xEndeavour the authority to practice law or represent the government in judicial proceedings.

This situation is directly analogous to Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 13, where the case was delayed when the Attorney General resigned. In that case, the Deputy Attorney General requested: "that this case be put on hold until a new Attorney General can be chosen." The Supreme Court ultimately required proper prosecutorial representation before proceeding.

To allow this would set a dangerous precedent, permitting any Cabinet Secretary to self-represent in cases involving their department, circumventing the DOJ's legislated role to "defend the national legal interest."

The Plaintiff requests that the Court reject Secretary xEndeavour's attempt to represent the Commonwealth and either:
1. Require proper DOJ representation as previously ordered by this Court; or
2. Delay proceedings until a qualified prosecutor can be assigned or a new Attorney General appointed.

The court should note that there are at least 3 alternative Prosecutors currently employed by the DOJ, who could take over this case. (P-024)

Spoiler: P-024

View attachment 59106View attachment 59107View attachment 59108

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff's objection to my representation of the Commonwealth is against the fundamental principles of natural justice - the government has the right to be heard and to choose its representation. Not only that, but it completely undermines Presidential executive authority.

The Plaintiff is trying to argue that only the Department of Justice has the legal authority to represent the Commonwealth in court due to the Department of Justice being charged with the legal defence of the Commonwealth. There are a few issues with this argument:

Executive Power

s28 of the Constitution provides that Cabinet is a group of advisers to the President, consisting of Executive Officers, who collectively guide government decision-making and policy. It expressly states that Cabinet draws its executive authority through delegated Presidential executive authority.
A ruling in favour of this objection would effectively hold that the Dept. Justice can override the constitutional authority of the President to delegate representation in legal matters. The Executive Standards Act serves to provide statutory duties and responsibilities to Departments, but it cannot displace or limit the President’s executive powers as set out in the Constitution.

However, Let us accept, for argument's sake, the notion that the Dept. Justice is the only one who can represent the Commonwealth across the Executive:

Dept. Construction and Transport
The Department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department has routinely contracted or bought infrastructure from outside the Department, some even at the President's direction.

Dept. Health
The Department is charged with the maintenance and upkeep of the national health system.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department has a policy which allows for private healthcare.

Dept. Education
The Department is charged with maintaining a historical national archives to document and preserve national history.

Does this mean that only the Department can do this?

No - the Department regularly contracts its work out to players external to the department.

Dept. Justice
The idea that the Department of Justice must be the only entity permitted to represent the Commonwealth, regardless of circumstance and presidential authorisation is inconsistent with both practice and principle.

Just as no department exclusively executes the duties it is responsible for, the Department of Justice is not different - especially when:

1. The President has authorised the representation of their executive;
2. The Attorney General is unavailable; and
3. The person delegated is a suitable and intimately aware of the functions of the Department as a respondent.
4. The Department has a direct interest in defending its own actions.
5. It would be unreasonable and unjust to bar the Secretary, especially one with judicial experience, from defending the Department at the request of the President.

Precedent
This is not the same situation as Commonwealth v. Milqy [2022] SCR 13. That matter involved a prosecutorial action that could not proceed without a lawfully designated prosecutor. This case concerns a civil matter, and the comparisons do not compare to criminal prosecution.

No precedent prohibits Cabinet Secretaries from appearing in court when their own departments are the subject of litigation. If the Plaintiff’s argument were to be accepted, it would mean that Cabinet departments are legally powerless to defend their conduct. In fact, the ruling that the President cannot choose the Executive's representation may be against [2022] SCR 20 - Appeal which held that the respondent was not provided with the opportunity to represent themselves in a civil case (such as in this case, where the President is being denied the same on behalf of the Commonwealth).

Conclusion
The Plaintiff’s objection is a narrow and incorrect interpretation of the Executive Standards Act. The President’s authorisation is valid. The representation of a Department in a civil suit concerning its own conduct is within reason. The delegated representative is qualified.

I am qualified;

I am authourised; and

I am the most logical representative, noting I was the decision maker.

I respectfully submit that you deny the objection.

Objection is denied. Just because someone is not employed by the DOJ does not mean that they can't be delegated or asked to represent the nation. The DOJ is charged with representing the national legal interest and if they believe that outsourcing counsel is in the best legal interest then they are entitled to do so.

Your Honor,

Motion

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


I do not know how the above posted while hitting enter, and I apologize for that, though it is not the fist time something like this has happened on the forums. I ask that this erroneous post be stricken from the record.

Approved.

That being said:

Objection

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

Last night (Eastern Time), xEndeavour posted a brief and curt response to the objection previously filed. The response lacked detail and generally was vague.

However, when I woke up this morning, that response was gone - as if it had vanished into thin air. I raised this issue with the staff team, and the staff team confirmed that xEndeavour had gone back and edited his post.

Spoiler: Exhibit-ND2

See attached PDF "End edited the post"

This may mislead or obscure information from the court for a number of reasons:

1. The time of the post has been updated to that of this morning (see: Exhibit P-ND3), when in fact the original post was made last night.
2. The original content of the first post is not obviously available to the Court. In general, amendments must be declared to the presiding officer so that the presiding officer is informed and that the changes are noted for the record.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-ND3

View attachment 59142

The Court Rules and Procedures speak to the importance of rules around amending within the discovery period (and, the principles follow). And the court Motions Guide provides guidance for how to remove items - a Motion to Strike. xEndeavour has chosen not to explicitly declare the edit here, though xEndeavour did strike text previously submitted without declaration.

I kindly ask Your Honor to compel xEndeavour to restore the original post, or at least to provide a copy of that post to this court.

Granted. End is required to post the original response that was given so the records have it. I will not be striking the updated post at this time.

Okay, I think I'm caught up, please let me know if I missed something. The original deadline for the opening statements is still in place.

 

[End]

First, thank you all so much for giving me so much to look at rule on.


Motions are Accepted. Counsel is hereby charged with 2 count of perjury and is ordered to pay a $15,000 fine, serve 10 minutes in jail, and to amend their answer to reflect.


Denied. I will allow some leeway in this regard due to the changing of counsel and it was within an hour of the deadline that they responded.



Objection is denied. Just because someone is not employed by the DOJ does not mean that they can't be delegated or asked to represent the nation. The DOJ is charged with representing the national legal interest and if they believe that outsourcing counsel is in the best legal interest then they are entitled to do so.


Approved.

Granted. End is required to post the original response that was given so the records have it. I will not be striking the updated post at this time.

Okay, I think I'm caught up, please let me know if I missed something. The original deadline for the opening statements is still in place.

My apologies, I don’t have the capacity to re-post it or recover the information. It was a watered down version of what is currently posted your honour.

 

[ToadKing]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

This case presents a clear violation of two fundamental principles that protect citizens from government overreach: the doctrine of res judicata and the constitutional right to freedom of political communication.

The Doctrine of Res Judicata
In 2023, this very court - in The Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 27 - definitively ruled that plot c279 was wrongfully evicted by the DCT. The court conducted a comprehensive analysis and concluded: "According to the DCT, limited basic materials are blocks such as dirt, cobblestone, and anything similar. A reasonable person would not put quartz in the same category as dirt and cobblestone." The court ruled in favour of the GER and ordered the DCT to pay legal fees.

Now, over two years later, the DCT seeks to evict the exact same plot, owned by the same party, for substantially the same reasons. This is precisely what res judicata prohibits - relitigating matters that have already been conclusively decided. The DCT cannot simply update their policy to contradict a binding court ruling and retry the same case.

Freedom of Political Communication
The plots at issue - c607, c226, c279, and c454 - are not mere buildings. They are expressions of political identity and communication by the Galactic Empire of Redmont, a registered political party that has operated for over two years and fielded numerous candidates. These structures, adorned with GER banners and built in accordance with Star Wars themes that define the party's political identity, serve as vital platforms for political expression.

The Constitution's guarantee of "Freedom of Political Communication" is not merely decorative - it protects the right of political parties to express their message and identity through their chosen medium. When the government attempts to silence political expression by labeling it an "eyesore," it strikes at the heart of democratic participation.

The Pattern of Bias
The evidence will show that this is not neutral enforcement of building standards. As revealed in Dartanboy's amicus brief, both the reporting inspector Dearev (a member of the rival Workers' Party of Redmont) and DCT Secretary xEndeavour have documented histories of antagonism toward the GER. This case represents selective enforcement designed to silence political opposition.

The Eyesore Claims Lack Merit
The [2023] FCR 27 verdict established a precedent that quartz buildings cannot be classified as using "limited basic materials." The court specifically found the eviction reports "questionable at best" and ruled that "the buildings shouldn't have caused an eviction report." The DCT was ordered to pay legal fees for their improper actions.

Remarkably, the DCT appears to have responded to this adverse ruling by simply updating its policy to explicitly include "building a structure out of just quartz" as grounds for eviction. This represents an impermissible attempt to circumvent a judicial decision through executive policy changes. The DCT cannot legislatively overrule court precedent.

Moreover, even under their revised policy, these buildings feature diverse quartz variants - quartz blocks, quartz pillars, quartz stairs, decorative elements, multiple windows, and architectural complexity. They are not "structures out of just quartz" but sophisticated political monuments with varied materials and thoughtful design.

What We Will Prove
Your Honour, we will demonstrate that:

1. Plot c279 is protected by res judicata, having been the subject of identical litigation in 2023
2. All four plots represent constitutionally protected political communication
3. The buildings do not meet the DCT's own definition of "eyesores" under established policy
4. The DCT's actions constitute viewpoint discrimination against a legitimate political party
5. The evictions violate both established precedent and fundamental constitutional rights

The government cannot be permitted to use building regulations as a weapon against political opponents. We ask this Court to protect both the finality of judicial decisions and the fundamental right to political expression by granting our requested relief.

 

[ameslap]

Alright Defense you have 72 hours to post your opening statement.

 

[End]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

This case does not present a violation of the doctrine of res judicata nor an infringement on the constitutional right to freedom of political communication. Rather, it represents a lawful and necessary exercise of the Executive’s regulatory authority to maintain orderly building standards, consistent with current regulations and judicial interpretation.

Res Judicata Does Not Apply
The Plaintiff relies heavily on the [2023] ruling in the Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 27. That case examined the DCT’s then-existing definition of 'limited basic materials' - which included an example of blocks such as dirt and cobblestone. The Court ruled on those definitions as they stood in 2023 and did not see it that the DCT's regulation included quartz as part of their defintion on limited basic blocks.

However, the core issue here is that the DCT’s definitions and policies have since evolved, expressly incorporating 'built out of just quartz' within the scope of limited basic materials. This regulatory update came as a result of the 2023 decision, clarifying the court's earlier interpretation of the DCT's policy.

Res judicata does not bar litigation over a matter when the relevant facts or governing regulations have materially changed. The Judicial arm of government, as per the constitution, interprets laws as written by the legislature and administered by the Executive. Today, the Executive administers building standards differently, consistent with the legislature’s empowerment under the Executive Standards Act, and the Court must interpret these current laws as they stand today.

Freedom of Political Communication does not Excuse Non-Compliance
While freedom of political communication is constitutionally protected, it is not a blanket exemption from lawful building regulations designed to ensure aesthetics and community standards.

The Plaintiff’s claim that buildings adorned with political symbols or themed decoration cannot be subject to ordinary regulation would grant a political party privileged immunity inconsistent with the rule of law and responsible governance. In such an argument a dirt hut with a political party flag on it would be immune from eviction.

Selective Enforcement Claims are Not Supported
There are over 1,200 plots in Reveille, with approximately 350 eviction reports actioned since July. Of these, only around seven are connected to this case. The building regulation breaches are varying, but almost objectively prominent and in breach of the building regulations. The Secretary personally reviewed and quashed two contested reports. Additional time (without request of the plaintiff was afforded) and extensive feedback were afforded beyond standard practice to assist the Plaintiff in rectifying issues.

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c454-jul-24-2025.26789/

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c279-jul-22-2025.26876/

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c607-jul-29-2025.26874/

https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c226-jul-22-2025.26875/

This record does not show selective enforcement or bias - rather the Department acting fairly (and generously) to uphold building standards while accommodating political expression within reasonable bounds. As the DCT has noted to the plaintiff, we want to see the buildings rectified and not removed.

In fact, the DCT Secretary directed the department to not re-report a plot for a second set of issues when the report was marked as solved because it would be targeting. The Secretary takes the neutrality seriously and enforces without a view for owner nor affiliation - it is solely a build quality and standards based assessment.

New submission - submitted with your approval your honour.

Existing submission continued

Multiple Grounds for Regulation Exist
The Plaintiff ignores that these plots have multiple issues under building regulations, not just the 'quartz' issue. The DCT is empowered by the Executive Standards Act to update and enforce building regulations as necessary.

The Court’s role is not to substitute its own views on architectural merit or political messaging but to interpret whether the DCT’s current policies and their application comply with law. The regulations will and must evolve over time, and the Executive is within its legislative authority to adapt policies accordingly.

Conclusion
Your Honour, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claims of res judicata and unconstitutional restriction of political communication are without merit. The DCT’s actions are lawful, neutral, and consistent with evolving policy designed to maintain orderly community standards. The Plaintiff’s buildings remain subject to legitimate regulation, and this Court should uphold the DCT’s enforcement consistent with its statutory mandate.

We ask that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims and affirm the Department’s authority to administer and enforce current building standards.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection is denied. Just because someone is not employed by the DOJ does not mean that they can't be delegated or asked to represent the nation. The DOJ is charged with representing the national legal interest and if they believe that outsourcing counsel is in the best legal interest then they are entitled to do so.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Earlier, before Your Honor’s ruling was issued, a separate Judge in this Federal Court ruled that xEndeavour could only represent the Commonwealth if actually hired as a prosecutor within the following 72 hours.

The ruling by Your Honor seems to be in quite a bit of tension with the other ruling, as it would allow xEndeavour to represent even if not formally hired as a prosecutor. Simply put: is not a high bar for the DoJ to formally hire on xEndeavour as a prosecutor, and I do not see the reason for avoiding this formality given its ease.

Either xEndeavour can represent the Commonwealth in this current circumstance or he cannot. In order to resolve the inconsistency between the two cases in this Court, I respectfully ask for reconsideration of this ruling to be the same language as that in the linked case.

New submission - submitted with your approval your honour.
View attachment 59401

Objection

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

Your honor, the attempted inclusion of the new material in the Opening Statement is a breach of procedure with respect to the matter of the time of its submission:

• Evidence must have been entered before the closing of discovery. The Court Rules and Procedures page makes it in its section on Court Proceedings that "EVIDENCE FILING " occurs in discovery and before opening statements. This is foundational to the purpose of discovery, and making new filings in opening statements cuts both against the spirit of discovery under Rule 4.1 ("The scope and purpose of Discovery is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness") and the explicit requirements to use material in a trial under Rule 4.2 ("Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge"). Simply put, the material above was not included in the complaint, nor the answer, nor an amendment to a complaint, nor an amendment to an answer, nor a discovery submission. It is plainly inadmissible on procedural, and should be stricken from the opening statement of the Defense.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your honor, the attempted inclusion of the new material in the Opening Statement is a breach of procedure with respect to the matter of the content of the new material:

• Evidence cannot be altered. Under Rule 6.3 (Objections), "Objections to questions and arguments are actionable under the methods provided within the thread “Guide” Objection Guide". That guide defines "improper evidence" as occurring when evidence "is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately" (emphasis mine). In this case, the Defense has presented an altered image - it has been marked over and variously blacked out to remove information. As the information (such as the names of the individuals who are saying particular things) may be relevant in this case, or at least have allowed the Plaintiff the ability to question and/or cross-examine the writers on their statements at trial, the Plaintiff believes that the evidence is improperly altered without those names and should be ruled inadmissible as such.

 

[End]

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

Your Honor,

Earlier, before Your Honor’s ruling was issued, a separate Judge in this Federal Court ruled that xEndeavour could only represent the Commonwealth if actually hired as a prosecutor within the following 72 hours.

The ruling by Your Honor seems to be in quite a bit of tension with the other ruling, as it would allow xEndeavour to represent even if not formally hired as a prosecutor. Simply put: is not a high bar for the DoJ to formally hire on xEndeavour as a prosecutor, and I do not see the reason for avoiding this formality given its ease.

Either xEndeavour can represent the Commonwealth in this current circumstance or he cannot. In order to resolve the inconsistency between the two cases in this Court, I respectfully ask for reconsideration of this ruling to be the same language as that in the linked case.

Your honour, I respectfully request that you maintain your very reasonable position that sets precedent for future cases that the Commonwealth may choose it's representation.

The Commonwealth will be challenging the comment of the other judge who has denied the Commonwealth the ability to choose it's own represnetation, which all entities should be empowered to do.

 

[Franciscus]

Answer to Complaint

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

Galactic Empire of Redmont (Represented by MZLD law)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction and Transportation
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant AFFIRMS that eviction reports for the properties c364, c607, c226 and c279 were posted by an inspector for the DCT on July 1st.
2. The Defendant DENIES that the actions under I.1 were taken by "Dearey".
3. The Defendant DENIES that an eviction report for the property C454 was posted by an inspector for the DCT On July 1st.
4. The Defendant AFFIRMS that there are 10 possible reasons for a building to be considered an eyesore.
5. The Defendant DENIES that the reasons are those listed under II.3 of Plaintiff's complaint as two reasons are missing from this list.
6. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the eviction report of plot c364 has been "dropped", noting that the Defendant understands "dropped" to mean withdrawn and marked solved.
7. The Defendant DENIES that the DCT tried evicting c279 in [2023] FCR 27, it failed and was not allowed to evict the plot. The DCT does did not attempt to evict plot c279 through [203] FCR 27. The lawsuit in question was filed against the commonwealth in response to an eviction report made against plot c279.
8. The Defendant lacks information or knowledge to form a belief about the truth of the statement that the plots the GER owns are built in a specific way to spread a political message, and therefore DENIES this.
9. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the GER has ran numerous political candidates in DC.
10. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the GER is a registered political party in Redmont.
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.
12. The Defendant DENIES that all builds with eviction notices include Star Wars specific builds and GER banners/signs. Many examples of plots with eviction notices that do not include Star Wars specific builds and GER banners or signs can be found in the forum folder containing all active eviction reports.

II. DEFENCES
1. Plaintiff completely misunderstood and misused the principle of Res Judicata. Their first claim for relief is not a valid claim for relief.
2. Evicting a plot that happens to contain political communication does not violate the constitutional right to Freedom of Political Communication. As you would still be able to place political communication on any plots that do follow all laws and policies and are not evicted, you are still able to freely politically communicate. Furthermore there are also other ways to communicate politically that do not necessitate the ownership of a plot.

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

DATED: This 22nd day of July 2025

Motions are Accepted. Counsel is hereby charged with 2 count of perjury and is ordered to pay a $15,000 fine, serve 10 minutes in jail, and to amend their answer to reflect.

Given the amount of proof of this perjury, I will be granting this motion. The Attorney General is hereby charged with one count of perjury. They shall be sentenced as follows:

• 10 minutes of jail time.
• $5,000 fine.
• They must amend their complaint to reflect their knowledge.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

Despite your crystal-clear order, the Commonwealth does not appear to have thus far amended their answer to the complaint to strike the perjurious statements.

Under Rule 3.6 (Default Judgment, Failure to Submit Defense), "Defendants must amend any answer to have affirmations or denials on all facts in addition to having defenses under the law or fact prior to the end of discovery. Failure to include the necessary information is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant".

Your first ruling ordering the Defense to amend their answer to remedy their perjury came over five days ago, and your second well over 2. But neither of the remedies in your first nor second orders to remedy the perjury by amendment have been obeyed. Discovery has long-ended, and we are through Opening Statements.

To remedy this breach, the Plaintiff asks for the Court to grant the following:

1. That the Court hold the Commonwealth's counsel in Contempt of Court for failing to amend the answer to the complaint in a timely manner despite your orders;
2. That the Court order the Commonwealth to amend the Answer to Complaint to contain a truthful affirmation or denial for each of the 3 relevant facts within the next 24 hours, under pain of default judgement against the Commonwealth.

 

[End]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

Despite your crystal-clear order, the Commonwealth does not appear to have thus far amended their answer to the complaint to strike the perjurious statements.

Under Rule 3.6 (Default Judgment, Failure to Submit Defense), "Defendants must amend any answer to have affirmations or denials on all facts in addition to having defenses under the law or fact prior to the end of discovery. Failure to include the necessary information is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant".

Your first ruling ordering the Defense to amend their answer to remedy their perjury came over five days ago, and your second well over 2. But neither of the remedies in your first nor second orders to remedy the perjury by amendment have been obeyed. Discovery has long-ended, and we are through Opening Statements.

To remedy this breach, the Plaintiff asks for the Court to grant the following:

1. That the Court hold the Commonwealth's counsel in Contempt of Court for failing to amend the answer to the complaint in a timely manner despite your orders;
2. That the Court order the Commonwealth to amend the Answer to Complaint to contain a truthful affirmation or denial for each of the 3 relevant facts within the next 24 hours, under pain of default judgement against the Commonwealth.

Response

The Commonwealth respectfully requests the court clerk to make these amendments due to the AGs absence.