Lawsuit: In Session Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 66

[Alexander P. Love]

I am moving as well. In light of all this, I motion for a recess until Monday.

 

[JoeGamer]

The Court will stand in recess until Monday.

 

[JoeGamer]

The Court is back in session.

I believe Mr. Love was examining the witnesses. Mr. Love, do you have any further questions for the witness?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Court is back in session.

I believe Mr. Love was examining the witnesses. Mr. Love, do you have any further questions for the witness?

Yes, your honor.

@Galavance I have a few more questions for you:

1. Did Congress remove you from office?
2. Did the Department of State itself and directly remove you from office?
3. Did the President remove you from office?
4. How did you take office as the Mayor of Oakridge in the first place?
   1. To clarify, who or what put you in power?
5. Does Oakridge have its own Constitution and set of laws, as of the time you were Mayor?
6. Does Oakridge have its own procedures for the election and removal of public officials, particularly the Mayor, as of the time you were Mayor?

 

[Dartanman]

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The questions posted are not follow-up questions that depended on previous answers and should have been asked in the original list of questions.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The questions posted are not follow-up questions that depended on previous answers and should have been asked in the original list of questions.

I argue the contrary. Many of these questions fill in gaps where the first question answers did not suffice. Further, it is not a strict requirement they ALL be listed in one big post at first.

 

[JoeGamer]

OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The questions posted are not follow-up questions that depended on previous answers and should have been asked in the original list of questions.

Objection Overruled.

The witness has 24 hours to answer the questions.

 

[Galavance]

1. Did Congress remove you from office?
   No.
   
   
2. Did the Department of State itself and directly remove you from office?
   No.
   
   
3. Did the President remove you from office?
   No, Cabinet did.
   
   
4. How did you take office as the Mayor of Oakridge in the first place?
   1. To clarify, who or what put you in power?
      The people who voted for me.
      
5. Does Oakridge have its own Constitution and set of laws, as of the time you were Mayor?
   Yes.
   
   
6. Does Oakridge have its own procedures for the election and removal of public officials, particularly the Mayor, as of the time you were Mayor?
   Yes.

 

[JoeGamer]

Does the plaintiff's counsel have any further questions for the witnesses?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Does the plaintiff's counsel have any further questions for the witnesses?

No, your honor.

 

[JoeGamer]

The Commonwealth may cross-examine the witness. Please post questions within the next 24 hours.

 

[Dartanman]

The Commonwealth has no questions for Galavance.

 

[JoeGamer]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Staff Team is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Galavance v. Commonwealth of Redmont as a witness.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once the witness has declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, subject to the penalties of perjury.

The Witness is to identify themselves in this case thread in the next 48 hours. Failure to comply with this summons may result in being held in Contempt of Court.​

 

[Staff Team]

Present

 

[Dartanman]

Your honor, should the Plaintiff or the Defense begin questioning?

Your post says the Plaintiff, but the Defense called Staff Team as a witness.

 

[JoeGamer]

Your honor, should the Plaintiff or the Defense begin questioning?

Your post says the Plaintiff, but the Defense called Staff Team as a witness.

The defendant should begin with their direct examination of the witness. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[Dartanman]

Questions for Staff Team:
1. Was this Executive Order (Executive Order - Executive Order 19/23 - Town Revisions) approved by at least one Owner?
2. Was that same Executive Order actively encouraged by at least one Owner?

 

[Staff Team]

1) Yes
2) Ownership indicated intent to the President that Towns be available to all to be elected as mayor at intervals throughout the year

 

[JoeGamer]

Do you have any further questions Dartanman?

 

[JoeGamer]

Hearing no further questions, the Court will move to a period of cross examination. The plaintiff has 24 hours to provide its questions to the staff team.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Ownership indicated intent to the President that Towns be available to all to be elected as mayor at intervals throughout the year

Please elaborate / rephrase for clarity.

I may have more follow-up questions pending the witness's answer.

 

[JoeGamer]

Staff, please respond within the next 24 hours.

 

[Dartanman]

Your honor,

For the sake of a speedy trial, can we continue?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor,

If we continue, I motion to strike the entirety of the staff team testimony. It is not fair for them to deliver direct answers and not cross answers.

 

[Matthew100x]

Sorry for the late reply. I unfortunately must be recessing this case until a new judge is appointed due to a conflict of interest I have from defending the criminal side of this case (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Galavance [2023] FCR 59).

 

[Dartanman]

I am informing the Court that I am no longer the Attorney General. @drew_hall is and I will no longer be involved in this case.