Lawsuit: In Session mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 32

[Johnes]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL [FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF]

Noting the Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department in the ticket (P-005) with TheSnowGuardian said "that is something from the bot not dependent on us now we have a policy not to share those with anyone. if these have been violated you are welcome to leave a report and that will be taken seriously".

Your Honour, the Plaintiff motions that the Court compel the Co-Defendant to produce the following:

1. Any and all documents that are or were in effect, acting as policies, that may be guiding or binding regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP.
2. Disciplinary actions taken against Plura72 by the Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant, if any, after the controversial message which contained the Plaintiff's application. (See P-005, Dearev said "fowarded to EC" after TheSnowGuardian sent him a message link pointing towards said message link)

2.

Spoiler: Response

 

[Johnes]

INTERROGATORIES TO THE CO-DEFENDANT

@Johnes

1. Are the contents of applications publicly disclosed without consent of the concerned applicant even if the application was accepted?

1. The sdp dosent disclose anything, Plura was acting as a rouge agent.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour, with Discovery ending in almost 48 hours, the Plaintiff would like gently remind the Court of the Motion to Compel in #81 as Your Honour hasn't indicated any ruling.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL [FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF]

Noting the Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department in the ticket (P-005) with TheSnowGuardian said "that is something from the bot not dependent on us now we have a policy not to share those with anyone. if these have been violated you are welcome to leave a report and that will be taken seriously".

Your Honour, the Plaintiff motions that the Court compel the Co-Defendant to produce the following:

1. Any and all documents that are or were in effect, acting as policies, that may be guiding or binding regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP.
2. Disciplinary actions taken against Plura72 by the Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant, if any, after the controversial message which contained the Plaintiff's application. (See P-005, Dearev said "fowarded to EC" after TheSnowGuardian sent him a message link pointing towards said message link)

Granted, in part.

The Court will not compel the production of (2), as it is not clear to the Court why this is being probed directly and the motion doesn’t really explain why such evidence would be relevant to the case.

As to (1), this seems reasonably enough related. The Co-Defendant (cc: @Johnes) shall provide the Court a copy of all Defendant’s policies and procedures, whether advisory or compulsory in scope, of the SDP “regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP”. This shall be submitted within 48 hours of the time of this post, on pain of contempt.

 

[Johnes]

Granted, in part.

The Court will not compel the production of (2), as it is not clear to the Court why this is being probed directly and the motion doesn’t really explain why such evidence would be relevant to the case.

As to (1), this seems reasonably enough related. The Co-Defendant (cc: @Johnes) shall provide the Court a copy of all Defendant’s policies and procedures, whether advisory or compulsory in scope, of the SDP “regarding the process, disclosure, and/or storing of applications received by the SDP”. This shall be submitted within 48 hours of the time of this post, on pain of contempt.

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.

 

[Franciscus]

As discovery is now concluded, we move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (CC: @TheSnowGuardian ) shall have 72 hours to present their opening statement.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.

Objection

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

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

Spoiler: Screenshot extracted from P-005

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

 

[Johnes]

Objection

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

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

Spoiler: Screenshot extracted from P-005

View attachment 82402

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION

Your Honour,
opposing counsel is quick to jump to conclusions and even quicker with the objections.
I have stated in response to Plaintiff's Compel request:

1. Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications.

I have affirmed that Co-Defendant stores applications, and have therefore not perjured the Court or misled the Court, even if Plaintiff tries to paint as such.

Plaintiff in his Objection shows P-005, where Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department dearev shares the way Co-Defendant stores said applications.

Thefore, the Court should overrule this objection.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

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

Your Honour, this response is blatantly false and misleading.

The Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department, Dearev, without being prompted about it, willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications.

Spoiler: Screenshot extracted from P-005

View attachment 82402

When referred to the message of the Defendant, he then shared it to the Co-Defendant's Executive Committee. (See P-005)

The Executive Committee of the Co-Defendant decided to pause the Defendant's powers within itself after the start of this entire controversy, and willingly shared that in open court. What prompted such an action?

The Co-Defendant has indeed set an expectation from its members, has admitted to having that expectation, and then when asked about it, are suddenly showing an empty hand.

It is the Plaintiff's opinion that the Co-Defendant is willingly misleading this court.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION

Your Honour,
opposing counsel is quick to jump to conclusions and even quicker with the objections.
I have stated in response to Plaintiff's Compel request:

I have affirmed that Co-Defendant stores applications, and have therefore not perjured the Court or misled the Court, even if Plaintiff tries to paint as such.

Plaintiff in his Objection shows P-005, where Co-Defendant's Head of Legal Department dearev shares the way Co-Defendant stores said applications.

Thefore, the Court should overrule this objection.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — OBJECTION FOR PERJURY (Post No. 107).

Co-Defendant’s counsel, in response to interrogatory, stated “Client states that they have no such documents or policy. They do state that they store their applications” (Post No. 105). Plaintiff objected on grounds of perjury, stating that Plaintiff’s Evidence (Exhibit P-005) contains a message from Dearev, whom Plaintiff alleges “willingly shared that the Co-Defendant had a policy regarding the sharing of applications”.

Upon review of the evidence, Dearev indeed appears to have said “we have a policy not to share those with anyone”.

The District Court has recently examined what it has deemed the "prior public statements" of witnesses, that is, out-of-court statements made by some person who may testify in a case. The prohibition on hearsay may generally prohibit the use of statements by others outside of Court within a trial, but an exception exists when such statements are an admission against one's interest as a party (See: Objections Guide). When it comes to organizations that are parties to a case, the District Court found that "a court may equitably extend 'an admission by the opposing party' to those who have close ties to such a party (e.g. statements of employees of a business or a government department when that business or government department is a party to a suit)" (emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24, Post No. 65). The Federal Court has already fully adopted the DCR’s reasoning in that order as its own, but this was done in the context of the Order’s handling statements made by witnesses who are uninvolved third parties (see: ZxRiptide, Co-Plaintiff Pepecuu, and Co-Plaintiff Jakkuwu v. MasterCaelen and Co-Defendant MJL [2026] FCR 21, Post No. 103). We thus take time to explicitly note the Federal Court’s adoption of the logic in emmythegremlin standard more broadly, so as to also apply to third parties who are closely involved with a second party organization. And, in that light, the Court can consider the statement.

Having worked through the hearsay concern, we return to the perjury question more directly. The phrase "we have a policy of" may refer to a literal formal written document that prescribes exactly with whom the material may or may not be shared, but in colloquial English may also be used to refer to something that is a habit, shared understanding, or some other non-written guiding principle by which people or a person would try to abide. It’s also plainly possible that the Co-Defendant lied to your client and is telling the truth in response to an interrogatory. None of this would be perjury because there would not be a knowingly false statement in Court.

The Court just doesn’t have enough evidence in front of it to conclude, even on balance of probabilities, that that the statement in the screenshot was true and that (consequently) the statement in Court was false. Perhaps one may which to ask the witness more about this matter on the stand, but we can’t speculatively sustain an objection without establishing truth of the matter.

As such, overruled.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

As discovery is now concluded, we move to opening statements.

The Plaintiff (CC: @TheSnowGuardian ) shall have 72 hours to present their opening statement.

Your Honour, considering the Co-Defendant responded to the motion right before Discovery ended, and in light of the recent ruling on the Perjury objection, we request that Your Honour exercise Rule 1.2 and permit the Plaintiff to add MrCheesGuy to the witness list.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour, considering the Co-Defendant responded to the motion right before Discovery ended, and in light of the recent ruling on the Perjury objection, we request that Your Honour exercise Rule 1.2 and permit the Plaintiff to add MrCheesGuy to the witness list.

(1) Witnesses must be added before the close of discovery; and (2) I fail to see how MrCheesGuy is related to Dearev’s out-of-court statement that seems to have caused the recently ruled upon perjury objection.

The former is sufficient, in its own to reject the request. The reference to the recent objection doesn’t really help move the needle. Request denied.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves that the Judicial Officer handling this lawsuit, Judge Franciscus, recuse himself from this case.

Before this case can get butchered any further and render a fair trial impossible, for the following reasons, we ask you, Judge Franciscus, to recuse yourself:

Application of JSA​

The Judicial Standards Act mandates recusal of a Judicial Officer, according to Part III, Section 1(5)(b), when the JO "[breaches] judicial conduct standards".

Unfair Rulings​

The Judicial Code of Ethics requires that Judges be fair. (Section 3.1 of Judical Code of Ethics, "Judges shall ensure that every proceeding is fair, orderly, and transparent.")

1. At the beginning of this lawsuit, the Co-Defendant moved to dismiss this case. The Plaintiff objected to this motion as the Co-Defendant aimed to dismiss claims of relief against the Defendant and not themself, and ultimately praying to the Court that on this basis, i.e., the basis that the Claims against the Defendant were not enough to keep the Co-Defendant in the case, the Court remove the Co-Defendant from this case.

To further back this point, the Plaintiff will read out the headings of the said motion to dismiss:

i. "Overview of the Information Shared", and the Co-Defendant then said, "For the breach to take place, the Plaintiff must have acted knowing that the information would be confidential. An application for party membership isn't by itself considered confidential."
The Plaintiff never claimed that Co-Defendant breached confidentiality, so why was this in their Motion to Dismiss?

ii. "The information was shared in a public setting", "The Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant spread "private information" falls apart when we scrutinize the legal standard posed by the Privacy Act." again, the Plaintiff never claimed the Co-Defendant shared the information.

iii. Section I. B. of the Co-Defendant's motion to dismiss also said, "The sharing of ones username, their stance of the LGBTQ+ community and their agreement to share the Defendant's party charter does not by any reasonable assesment constitute private information and therefore sharing it would not constitute breach of privacy."
The Co-Defendant here mentioned "breach of privacy" explicitly, yet when reviewing the complaint, the "Breach of Privacy" claim was specifically made against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff was then obliged to respond to this wholly lacking Motion to Dismiss and then when I, Plaintiff's Counsel, did object to it, Judge Franciscus overruled the objection and just interchanged every mention of the Defendant in the Motion to Dismiss to Co-Defendant. Did that solve the severe legal issues of the motion? No. Was the Judge aware of it? Probably, yes.

How is it fair to the Plaintiff to respond to a Motion that, on its merits, should have instantaneously been denied?

2. However, Judge Franciscus, on his own accord, did deny a Motion to Compel, that too untimely, one might say, even when the Co-Defendant had ample time to object to it (and didn't). Infact, the Co-Defendant did voluntarily release these disciplinary actions in Court, before Judge Franciscus could even deny the specific part of the Motion to Compel.

The Plaintiff was not given any opportunity to explain relevance, even though it clearly sits on Judge Franciscus's docket. To further dive into the relevance of the matter, because the Court couldn't see its relevance, any disciplinary actions that must have arisen was because a rule or a policy of the Co-Defendant must have been broken. Yet, even though the Co-Defendant didn't object to it and the motion to compel those disciplinary actions weren't certainly unreasonable, Judge Franciscus indeed did deny this Motion to Compel.

3. The Plaintiff was never afforded any extra time to compensate for:
i. The Court's late ruling.
ii. The Co-Defendant's inability to produce those policies due to a claimed 'lack/non-existence of it'.

And then, when asked to add a witness to the list of witnesses due to this new findings of a non-existence of a policy when all actions of the Co-Defendant do imply such a policy does indeed exist, and asked to exercise Rule 1.2, Judge Franciscus denied it because "witnesses must be added before the close of discovery". I believe this statement to be an insult of my intelligence, as if Plaintiff's counsel didn't know witnesses were supposed to be added before the close of discovery, and I take offence to this aswell.

This ruling is not fair to the Plaintiff at all, even though the request was produced around 4 hours after the Court said discovery is closed, the Plaintiff cannot now examine if there was such a policy and if that policy was broken by the Defendant.

4. Summary,
Look at Point 1, a Motion to Dismiss on its merits and a plain read that should have been denied, got quite the lenghty response because the Court required it.

Now look at Point 2 and 3, relevance being the only matter of concern, without considering any prejudice that might have occured due to the Court's late ruling on the Motion to Compel, items moved by the Plaintiff being denied without even being objected to.

(Apart from the other severe legal errors in this case aswell, and the other delays caused by the Defences, one must ask, are these actions of the JO fair at all?)

For these reasons, I ask that Judge Franciscus, recuse himself from this lawsuit.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

The Plaintiff requests for a stay on proceedings until the Motion to Recuse is ruled on.