Lawsuit: Pending lucaaasserole v. Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 85

[zLost]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lucaaasserole (Represented by zLost)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Public Affairs
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff was unjustly fired from the Department of Public Affairs for giving themselves a role with administrator permissions, while attempting to get rid of said role. I (zLost) had announced in the DPA union group chat that there was a secret role with admin that a previous Secretary made, to which luca responded with laughter. A while later, I stated that there was another role with admin secretly that I removed, and then some more time later, there was a 3rd role with secret admin. Luca, wanting to help, decided to also check for any secret roles with admin. While checking for these roles, he found one (the Bots role which had admin) and gave himself it to check for admin. Right after this, he forgot about it and was distracted by something else, causing him to still have this role. Luca didn't realize any changes in permissions as the Leadership role already had admin during this time. A while later, luca was abruptly fired for this while having zero behavioral issues in the past over the months of their time in the Department of Public Affairs.

I. PARTIES
1. lucaaasserole
2. Department of Public Affairs

II. FACTS
1. On the 27th of June 2025, zLost talked in the DPA union group chat about multiple secret roles that they had found in the DPA discord (Exhibit A).
2. On the 27th of June 2025, lucaaasserole gave himself the Bots role while checking if it had administrator permissions. Luca subsequently forgot about this and didn't notice as they already had administrator permissions from the Leadership role (Exhibit B).
3. On the 10th of July 2025, lucaaasserole was fired for this action while being told that appeals were not being accepted for this decision (Exhibit C).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Commercial Standards Act (link) states:
(1) Unfair dismissal - The unjust termination of an employee. In determining if a termination was unjust, the following criteria must rightfully be considered:
(a) if the employee’s termination made financial sense given the regular business activities and necessity to maintain operations of the terminating party (such as in the case of normal company downsizing);
(b) whether or not the employee’s continued employment would have been a detriment to the workflow, reputation, or legal standing of the business;
(c) whether or not the dismissal was made primarily on the basis of any personally identifiable characteristics, including, but not limited to, gender, race, or political affiliation;

For section (a), there would have been no financial harm to the DPA if luca was kept as an Event Manager.
For section (b), there would have been basically no harm to the workflow, reputation or legal standing of the business. What luca did was not illegal or disrupted the workflow (they already had admin, having the role would have zero effect on workflow). As for reputation, most people sympathized and understood luca's actions, as shown by the number of ayes in a petition for luca to be rehired (Exhibit D).
For section (c), we believe that luca's affiliation with the union (Exhibit E) was largely taken into account when he was fired for the following reasons:

An anonymous witness reported that xDarkkex, current DPA secretary, was attempting to get rid of union members if they contacted anyone from the event, or if they "disrupted" the event (Exhibit F). Representative Moyfr commented in a public channel, "Like when we were in vc the other day bro was talking about how all the union people are I love DemocracyCraft!ed because he is gathering evidence to find reasons to fire and have them all banned" ("bro" here refers to xDarkkex)(Exhibit G). xDarkkex has also given multiple negative comments about the union (Exhibit H). xDarkkex has also justified baseless claims without evidence to interrogate and threaten union members (Exhibit I). Juniperfig, who was acting in xDarkkex's stead when firing luca, has shown disdain for the union (Exhibit J).

Besides this, a DPA employee was seen maliciously abusing their perms in the DPA discord, which xDarkkex shrugged off since "they were about to quit" (Exhibit K). This DPA employee later decided to not quit, and neither xDarkkex nor juniperfig did anything about this perms abuse.

As we see, luca's firing meets all the criteria for being considered an unfair dismissal according to the Commercial Standards Act (link).

Your Honor, I ask you how it's fair for someone who has dedicated hundreds of hours into the Department of Public Affairs to be fired with zero warning for an action with good intentions, and to be essentially ignored by the Department of Public Affairs when they try to justify themselves and argue against this firing.

2. The Department of Public Affairs also committed union busting by firing luca, as the Commercial Standards Act (link) states:
(6) Employers who take action to disrupt or prevent the formation of a union, and or engage in conduct to dismantle a union, such as, but not limited to, terminating employees who try to start a union, shall be guilty of Union Busting, as defined:

Union Busting
Employers who take action to disrupt or engage in conduct to dismantle a union.
Per Offence: $2000 Fine

Juniperfig's actions meet the criteria for union busting in the first clause, as an employee who was in a union was terminated under their stead. Juniperfig's actions also meet the definition for union busting, as a union member being terminated from the workplace they are attempting to unionize in disrupts that union. Therefore, luca's firing was illegal in regards to union busting as well.

3. The Plaintiff is asking for $50,000 in punitive damages as the conduct by xDarkkex and juniperfig during this whole ordeal was outrageous.

4. The Plaintiff is asking for $100,000 in consequential damages in conjunction with the punitive damages as they missed out on being able to host events during summer. Summer is the most active period of the server, and the time when the Plaintiff is most free. They won't get to experience hosting events during summer vacation for a whole year, which is an immense amount of time for DemocracyCraft.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Rehiring of lucaaasserole to Event Manager.
2. $50,000 in punitive damages.
3. $100,000 in consequential damages for the Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, as the Plaintiff was unable to host events during a peak time for them (summer).

WITNESSES
juniperfig
xDarkkex
lucaaasserole
Moyfr

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 16th day of August 2025.

Spoiler: EXHIBIT A

Spoiler: EXHIBIT B

Spoiler: EXHIBIT C

Spoiler: EXHIBIT D

Spoiler: EXHIBIT E

Spoiler: EXHIBIT F

Spoiler: EXHIBIT G

Spoiler: EXHIBIT H

Spoiler: EXHIBIT I

Spoiler: EXHIBIT J

Spoiler: EXHIBIT K

(identity censored for privacy reasons)

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@juniperfig is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case ofThe lucaaasserole v. Department of Public Affairs [2025] FCR 85

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

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

 

[juniperfig]

Commonwealth is present, your honour.

 

[ko531]

Commonwealth has 48 hours to provide an answr to complaint

 

[juniperfig]

Answer to Complaint

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

lucaaasserole
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Neither affirm nor deny the source of these messages. Affirm that the content of the messages does discuss 'secret roles' being given admin access.
2. Affirm that on the 27th of June 2025, lucaaasserole gave himself the 'Bots' role. Neither affirm nor deny his intent in doing so. Deny that it was required to 'check if it had administrator permissions'. Neither affirm nor deny the plaintiffs forgetfulness. Affirm that he would not notice due to already having administrator permissions.
3. Affirm that on the 10th of July 2025, lucaaasserole was fired, noting that he was fired primarily for giving administrator permissions to himself. Affirm that appeals were not being accepted.

II. DEFENCES
1. lucaaasserole’s termination was not motivated by union membership. The vast majority of evidence of alleged anti-union sentiment is regarding xDarkkex; however, xDarkkex was not involved in the decision to terminate lucaaasserole. The firing decision was made exclusively by Juniperfig, Kaiserin_, and Gribble19 (D-001, D-002). The only evidence of alleged anti-union sentiment from juniperfig (EXHIBIT J) is a statement taken out of context discussing permissions abuse from union members, not the union itself.

2. The Plaintiff claims they were assigning the role to themselves to "check if it had administrator permissions", but this action was entirely unnecessary. Role permissions can be examined without assigning them (D-003). lucaaasserole is aware of this fact, as he requested juniperfig provide "screenshots showing the bot role has administrator perms" (D-004), rather than suggesting she give the role to herself to check. Additionally, as the Plaintiff already had administrator permissions as an Event Manager, this action would not have given the Plaintiff any additional information regarding the role’s permissions–his access to the server would not have changed. Therefore, the action provided no additional insight or legitimate purpose.

3. lucaaasserole did not communicate the “test” to the Secretary or anyone in the DPA Discord prior to or after it taking place (D-005, D-006, D-007), failed to remove the administrator role, and engaged in this conduct while actively on strike (D-008, EXHIBIT E). On the same day, he explicitly stated he would not “continue doing stuff for the DPA” (D-009). These facts cast serious doubt on the Plaintiff’s claimed good intentions. He acted in secret, ignored basic accountability, and took actions unrelated to his duties while explicitly refusing to work for the DPA. Assigning himself admin access without oversight while on strike shows reckless disregard for departmental trust, making it reasonable to question whether his stated purpose (“testing permissions”) was genuine.

4. lucaaasserole’s continued employment posed a risk to the workflow of the DPA. The non-syncing “Bots” role could have gone unnoticed, allowing unauthorized admin access even after termination. Failing to communicate or remove the role demonstrates poor judgment and a breach of trust, both of which threaten the workflow of the DPA.

5. Termination of a unionized employee for legitimate causes does not constitute union busting. The idea that firing any union member consists of union busting is absurd and a massive exaggeration of the rights granted to unions–this legal interpretation, if upheld, would mean any unionized employee could never be fired, no matter how valid the cause.

6. There are varying levels of permissions abuse, and secretly assigning oneself a non-syncing role with administrator permissions is quite severe, creating substantial operational and security risks. This is not equivalent to abusing in-game permissions to teleport people around.
The dpa-teleport commands are logged in a channel for plain viewing by the Cabinet. While the assignment of a role in discord is logged, those logs expire after a period of time, and can easily go unnoticed. Teleport commands are a short-term abuse problem that can be prevented by warning or firing the employee, while a bad-actor with hidden administrative permissions could cause massive damage, as well as provide them with potentially classified information they would not ordinarily be privy to.

7. Terminating an employee for permissions abuse is reasonable and justified. The Plaintiff’s characterization of this action as “outrageous” is unsupported by fact or law.

8. The Plaintiff is a part of the DPA union (EXHIBIT E), which notably was striking against the DPA during the entire summer and continues to be on strike to this day. Even if still employed, the Plaintiff would not have been hosting events during the strike. Claims for consequential damages related to missed events are speculative and unfounded.

III. EVIDENCE
Employee names have been redacted from D-001 and D-002 to protect their privacy.

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

Spoiler: D-005

Spoiler: D-006

Spoiler: D-007

Spoiler: D-008

Spoiler: D-009

IV. WITNESSES
1. Kaiserin_
2. Gribble19

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

DATED: This 18th day of August 2025.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION

The Commonwealth requests a closed court session to address this portion of the Plaintiff's claim:

Besides this, a DPA employee was seen maliciously abusing their perms in the DPA discord, which xDarkkex shrugged off since "they were about to quit" (Exhibit K). This DPA employee later decided to not quit, and neither xDarkkex nor juniperfig did anything about this perms abuse.

Section 9 of the Privacy Act prohibits the Commonwealth from releasing information regarding employees that if released, would be adverse to the individual. The Plaintiff and many other DPA employees, including the entirety of the union, are already aware of the identity of the employee mentioned in this claim, as these permission abuses were discussed in the DPA union chat.

Spoiler: PROOF

Identity redacted for privacy.

Addressing this claim would violate the employee's rights, even if anonymized. While Section 9(c) does state that disclosure is permitted as a part of Court proceedings, this individual is not material to the dispute at hand, and releasing such information publicly would constitute an unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Objection

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

An anonymous witness reported that xDarkkex, current DPA secretary, was attempting to get rid of union members if they contacted anyone from the event, or if they "disrupted" the event (Exhibit F). Representative Moyfr commented in a public channel, "Like when we were in vc the other day bro was talking about how all the union people are I love DemocracyCraft!ed because he is gathering evidence to find reasons to fire and have them all banned" ("bro" here refers to xDarkkex)(Exhibit G). xDarkkex has also given multiple negative comments about the union (Exhibit H). xDarkkex has also justified baseless claims without evidence to interrogate and threaten union members (Exhibit I). Juniperfig, who was acting in xDarkkex's stead when firing luca, has shown disdain for the union (Exhibit J).

Besides this, a DPA employee was seen maliciously abusing their perms in the DPA discord, which xDarkkex shrugged off since "they were about to quit" (Exhibit K).

xDarkkex was not involved in the decision to fire lucaaasserole (D-001, D-002). His alleged anti-union sentiment and actions as Secretary are not relevant to the facts of this case.

This portion of Claim 1 and all supporting evidence (Exhibits F, G, H, I, K) should be struck.

Objection

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

EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT H and EXHIBIT I all contain multiple images, and should be split into individual entries for ease of reference, following precedent set in Vanguard Co. V. Commonwealth of Redmont 2025 [FCR 49]

Additionally, none of the Plaintiff's evidence is properly named (P-###) [Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 4.6]. We request it be renamed and updated in the filing so that it may follow regular court procedure.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor, I ask you how it's fair for someone who has dedicated hundreds of hours into the Department of Public Affairs to be fired with zero warning for an action with good intentions, and to be essentially ignored by the Department of Public Affairs when they try to justify themselves and argue against this firing.

• Plaintiff’s employment history has not been entered into evidence
• Plaintiff’s punishment history has not been entered into evidence
• Plaintiff ‘justifying’ or ‘arguing’ against the firing was not entered into evidence

The defense asks that this portion be struck from the filing.

Motion

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

• Exhibit F
• A blurb within Claims for Relief #1
  

  “An anonymous witness reported that xDarkkex, current DPA secretary, was attempting to get rid of union members if they contacted anyone from the event, or if they "disrupted" the event”

Exhibit F is an unsourced message, there’s no proof this message wasn’t sourced from the plaintiff themselves, a paid ‘witness’, or just a discord bot. A forwarded message can be created from anywhere, and this is not sufficient evidence of any action - It cannot be verified and should not be considered.

 

[zLost]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION

The Plaintiff wishes for a closed court to disclose the identity of the anonymous witness, solving the problems of the Defendant in the motion to strike.

 

[zLost]

​

Objection

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

EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT H and EXHIBIT I all contain multiple images, and should be split into individual entries for ease of reference, following precedent set in Vanguard Co. V. Commonwealth of Redmont 2025 [FCR 49]

Additionally, none of the Plaintiff's evidence is properly named (P-###) [Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 4.6]. We request it be renamed and updated in the filing so that it may follow regular court procedure.

The Plaintiff argues that Court Rule 4.6 only applies to evidence submitted in discovery, not to evidence submitted in opening statements.

Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)

The Plaintiff believes that keeping those images in one entry would prevent bloating of evidence as they all tackle the same conversation or subject, however if the presiding officer believes otherwise, the Plaintiff requests permission from the presiding officer to amend the case filing in order to split all images into their own individual entries.

Edit:
presiding officer to amend the opening statement case filing in order to split all images into their own individual entries.

 

[zLost]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

• Plaintiff’s employment history has not been entered into evidence
• Plaintiff’s punishment history has not been entered into evidence
• Plaintiff ‘justifying’ or ‘arguing’ against the firing was not entered into evidence

The defense asks that this portion be struck from the filing.

Objection

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

xDarkkex was not involved in the decision to fire lucaaasserole (D-001, D-002). His alleged anti-union sentiment and actions as Secretary are not relevant to the facts of this case.
This portion of Claim 1 and all supporting evidence (Exhibits F, G, H, I, K) should be struck.

Discovery has not started nor ended yet. The Plaintiff has evidence they wish to submit and/or compel during discovery which would support our claim.

 

[ko531]

Answer to Complaint

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

lucaaasserole
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Neither affirm nor deny the source of these messages. Affirm that the content of the messages does discuss 'secret roles' being given admin access.
2. Affirm that on the 27th of June 2025, lucaaasserole gave himself the 'Bots' role. Neither affirm nor deny his intent in doing so. Deny that it was required to 'check if it had administrator permissions'. Neither affirm nor deny the plaintiffs forgetfulness. Affirm that he would not notice due to already having administrator permissions.
3. Affirm that on the 10th of July 2025, lucaaasserole was fired, noting that he was fired primarily for giving administrator permissions to himself. Affirm that appeals were not being accepted.

II. DEFENCES
1. lucaaasserole’s termination was not motivated by union membership. The vast majority of evidence of alleged anti-union sentiment is regarding xDarkkex; however, xDarkkex was not involved in the decision to terminate lucaaasserole. The firing decision was made exclusively by Juniperfig, Kaiserin_, and Gribble19 (D-001, D-002). The only evidence of alleged anti-union sentiment from juniperfig (EXHIBIT J) is a statement taken out of context discussing permissions abuse from union members, not the union itself.

2. The Plaintiff claims they were assigning the role to themselves to "check if it had administrator permissions", but this action was entirely unnecessary. Role permissions can be examined without assigning them (D-003). lucaaasserole is aware of this fact, as he requested juniperfig provide "screenshots showing the bot role has administrator perms" (D-004), rather than suggesting she give the role to herself to check. Additionally, as the Plaintiff already had administrator permissions as an Event Manager, this action would not have given the Plaintiff any additional information regarding the role’s permissions–his access to the server would not have changed. Therefore, the action provided no additional insight or legitimate purpose.

3. lucaaasserole did not communicate the “test” to the Secretary or anyone in the DPA Discord prior to or after it taking place (D-005, D-006, D-007), failed to remove the administrator role, and engaged in this conduct while actively on strike (D-008, EXHIBIT E). On the same day, he explicitly stated he would not “continue doing stuff for the DPA” (D-009). These facts cast serious doubt on the Plaintiff’s claimed good intentions. He acted in secret, ignored basic accountability, and took actions unrelated to his duties while explicitly refusing to work for the DPA. Assigning himself admin access without oversight while on strike shows reckless disregard for departmental trust, making it reasonable to question whether his stated purpose (“testing permissions”) was genuine.

4. lucaaasserole’s continued employment posed a risk to the workflow of the DPA. The non-syncing “Bots” role could have gone unnoticed, allowing unauthorized admin access even after termination. Failing to communicate or remove the role demonstrates poor judgment and a breach of trust, both of which threaten the workflow of the DPA.

5. Termination of a unionized employee for legitimate causes does not constitute union busting. The idea that firing any union member consists of union busting is absurd and a massive exaggeration of the rights granted to unions–this legal interpretation, if upheld, would mean any unionized employee could never be fired, no matter how valid the cause.

6. There are varying levels of permissions abuse, and secretly assigning oneself a non-syncing role with administrator permissions is quite severe, creating substantial operational and security risks. This is not equivalent to abusing in-game permissions to teleport people around.
The dpa-teleport commands are logged in a channel for plain viewing by the Cabinet. While the assignment of a role in discord is logged, those logs expire after a period of time, and can easily go unnoticed. Teleport commands are a short-term abuse problem that can be prevented by warning or firing the employee, while a bad-actor with hidden administrative permissions could cause massive damage, as well as provide them with potentially classified information they would not ordinarily be privy to.

7. Terminating an employee for permissions abuse is reasonable and justified. The Plaintiff’s characterization of this action as “outrageous” is unsupported by fact or law.

8. The Plaintiff is a part of the DPA union (EXHIBIT E), which notably was striking against the DPA during the entire summer and continues to be on strike to this day. Even if still employed, the Plaintiff would not have been hosting events during the strike. Claims for consequential damages related to missed events are speculative and unfounded.

III. EVIDENCE
Employee names have been redacted from D-001 and D-002 to protect their privacy.

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 60741

Spoiler: D-002

View attachment 60742

Spoiler: D-003

View attachment 60743

Spoiler: D-004

View attachment 60751

Spoiler: D-005

View attachment 60744

Spoiler: D-006

View attachment 60745

Spoiler: D-007

View attachment 60746

Spoiler: D-008

View attachment 60747

Spoiler: D-009

View attachment 60748

IV. WITNESSES
1. Kaiserin_
2. Gribble19

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

DATED: This 18th day of August 2025.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION

The Commonwealth requests a closed court session to address this portion of the Plaintiff's claim:

Section 9 of the Privacy Act prohibits the Commonwealth from releasing information regarding employees that if released, would be adverse to the individual. The Plaintiff and many other DPA employees, including the entirety of the union, are already aware of the identity of the employee mentioned in this claim, as these permission abuses were discussed in the DPA union chat.

Spoiler: PROOF

Identity redacted for privacy.View attachment 60752

Addressing this claim would violate the employee's rights, even if anonymized. While Section 9(c) does state that disclosure is permitted as a part of Court proceedings, this individual is not material to the dispute at hand, and releasing such information publicly would constitute an unnecessary invasion of their right to privacy.

Motion for closed court session is granted.

Objection

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


xDarkkex was not involved in the decision to fire lucaaasserole (D-001, D-002). His alleged anti-union sentiment and actions as Secretary are not relevant to the facts of this case.

This portion of Claim 1 and all supporting evidence (Exhibits F, G, H, I, K) should be struck.

Objection

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

EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT H and EXHIBIT I all contain multiple images, and should be split into individual entries for ease of reference, following precedent set in Vanguard Co. V. Commonwealth of Redmont 2025 [FCR 49]

Additionally, none of the Plaintiff's evidence is properly named (P-###) [Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 4.6]. We request it be renamed and updated in the filing so that it may follow regular court procedure.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

• Plaintiff’s employment history has not been entered into evidence
• Plaintiff’s punishment history has not been entered into evidence
• Plaintiff ‘justifying’ or ‘arguing’ against the firing was not entered into evidence

The defense asks that this portion be struck from the filing.

Motion

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

• Exhibit F
• A blurb within Claims for Relief #1

Exhibit F is an unsourced message, there’s no proof this message wasn’t sourced from the plaintiff themselves, a paid ‘witness’, or just a discord bot. A forwarded message can be created from anywhere, and this is not sufficient evidence of any action - It cannot be verified and should not be considered.

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE
Overruled for the time being. Feel free to refile after discovery if the objection still stands.

OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE
Sustained. Plaintiff must split these exhibits so each image can be address individually.

OBJECTION - COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING & ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
Overruled for the time being. Feel free to refile after discovery if the objection still stands.

MOTION TO STRIKE
Denied.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLOSED COURT SESSION

The Plaintiff wishes for a closed court to disclose the identity of the anonymous witness, solving the problems of the Defendant in the motion to strike.

Granted.

 

[ko531]

We will now be entering discovery. Discovery will last 5 days starting now. This goes to both open and closed court evidence submissions.