Lawsuit: Pending Maxib02 v. FTLCEO [2026] DCR 12

T

TheSnowGuardian

Citizen
TheSnowGuardian
TheSnowGuardian
Barrister
Joined
Jan 16, 2026
Messages
7

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.
FTLCEO
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 31st of October, 2025, an unregistered news organisation known as Palantir News published a document in the #finance-news channel of the National Exchange of Redmont Discord server. All allegations against me are either false, misleading, or never occurred. It came to my attention that a user known as FTLCEO owned this unregistered news organisation.
The allegations in the document, allegation #1 and allegation #2, are false (and incorrect). Even the author of this document said so themself. Allegation #3B is completely baseless; the fuel was handcrafted by me (Maxib02), and there is no proof that it was purchased at $10 or at all. Furthermore, all financial reports from then onwards accounted for fuel at 10$. Allegation #4 is completely legal; the DOC or DOJ hasn't brought any charges against me after their investigation. Allegation #5 is also baseless, and I question the author of the document on what basis this is illegal. The DOC or the DOJ hadn't brought any charges against me after the investigation. Allegation #7's heading is misleading and false. No such booking happened during the tenure of BrownBerry as CFO, and these orders were never acted on and were later disregarded, which is clear from our next financial reports.
The document is quite frankly misleading, premature, false, and defamatory. It has not only brought about the freezing of company shares during November to mid-December, but I have also lost all my enjoyment in Redmont. I can no longer advertise, conduct business, or be looked upon with respect. All the public has for me is contempt, and some have hatred. Palantir News published such nonsense without verifying the validity of the claims. I've also lost my political seat due to this document, and I would like to deter the unregistered news organisation and its owner from publishing such nonsense, misleading, and false statements again, so that no person has to go through what I had to deal with.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Maxib02 (Plaintiff, represented by TheSnowGuardian)
2. FTLCEO (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. FTLCEO is (or was at the time of the below-mentioned document being published) the owner of the news company Palantir News. (see P-001 and P-002)
2. FTLCEO acquired the company from Aesyr_(pre-deportation, pre 29 October 2025) (see P-001 and P-002 again)
3. Palantir News is an unregistered company. (see P-011)
3. A statement was posted in the #finance-news channel in the National Exchange of Redmont Discord (hereby known as NER) server on 31 October 2025 that contained a document. (see P-003)
4. The document contained allegations against Rhinestone Tweed Group (hereby known as RTG) that were made by BrownBerry (a former Board member who was CFO). (see P-004)
5. Allegations #1 and #2 of the document are false and incorrect. (The Economic Standards Act talks about Government Wages and Deported Player Assets. The Accounting Reform Act never amended the Economic Standards Act. (see P-005 and P-006)
6. The document never held Maxib02 responsible in the context of allegations #3A or #3C.
7. There was an investigation held by the Department of Commerce (hereby known as DOC) into RTG from October. (see P-006 again)
7A. The investigation concluded mid-December. Shares of RTG were unfrozen around mid-December. (see P-019)
8. No charges were brought against my client (Maxib02) or RTG.
9. Allegation #4 is completely legal; furthermore, the DOC or the Department of Justice (hereby known as the DOJ) hasn't brought up any charges. Furthermore, the author of the document also affirmed the board's vote that led to this alleged "illegal" act. (see P-018)
10. Allegation #5 is baseless; furthermore, the DOC or the DOJ hadn't brought up any charges against my client or RTG after investigation. Also, the author had previously commented that this was legal (see P-007), so the publication that such an act is illegal is completely false. (The author has not yet provided any legal citation as to why such an act is illegal.)
11. No charges were brought up regarding Allegation #6.
12. Allegation #3B is false and misleading. According to DUPE.pdf (see P-008), which was a part of the Initial Public Offering (hereby known as IPO) (see P-017), a total number of 900 units of fuel were sold at 39$ each. (see P-010)
However, there is no proof that the fuel was bought at 10$ prior to 20th October 2025, or was bought at all.
13. Fuel after the IPO was published was bought at 10$. (see P-009)
14. Allegation #7's heading is misleading and false. The booking never happened during the tenure of BrownBerry as a Chief Financial Officer, and RTG's next financial reports affirm that the orders were disregarded (see P-012)
15. Maxib02 (the Plaintiff) lost his political seat due to the allegations against RTG and him that were derived from this document. (see P-013)
16. Anthony_org (a person of importance who was a part of the political party the plaintiff was in) believed these allegations to be true. (see P-014)
17. Omegabiebel held RTG and my client in contempt, which was derived from this document on 5th January 2026. (see P-015 and P-016)
18. The Plaintiff is unable to prove (yet) that the author has given the Palantir News company the document and hence, recognizes that the author cannot be held liable (yet).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the No More Defamation Act, "Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander." and libel is defined as
"A method of defamation expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business, profession, or organization."
2. The plaintiff's reputation has been damaged, he has been exposed to public contempt AND ridicule, and has been injured in his profession and his business.
3. Furthermore, the plaintiff has been humiliated (by being disgraced), and will attest (only if needed) that he has not been able to enjoy his presence in Redmont like he used to before the publication of the document.
4. There has been an outrageous act of publishing libel.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 20,000$ in Punitive Damages to deter the unregistered news company and its owner from such acts again.
2. 25,000$ in Consequential Damages due to humiliation.
3. 15,000$ in Consequential Damages due to Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
5. 7,500$ in Nominal Damages if the court finds that Punitive Damages and Consequential Damages are not applicable.
6. All false, misleading, or incorrect statements are to be retracted.
7. An apology that is public (and is sent in the same channel the document was published in) is to be issued.
8. 19.8% of the total damages amount in Legal Fees.

V. EVIDENCE

1769436236174.png

View attachment 73337

1769436331205.png

See Attachment 'Allegations against RTG and Maxib02.pdf'

1769436907267.png

1769437096008.png

1769437434515.png

See Attachment labelled 'DUPE.pdf'

1769437933354.png

1769438128441.png

1769438253329.png

1769438657611.png

See attachments 'NOV - NOV INC STATEMENT.pdf', 'NOV-NOV BAL SHEET.pdf', 'RTG- OCT BAL SHEET.pdf', and 'RTG - OCT INC STATEMENT.PDF'

1769438759889.png

1769438831190.png

1769439098917.png

1769439113130.png

1769439223334.png

1769439448996.png

1769439555956.png

1769572544807.png

VI. WITNESS LIST

1. Secretary of the DOC: ElysiaCrynn
2. BrownBerry
3. Omegabiebel

By making this submission, I agree that 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 26th day of January 2026

1769439878640.png

 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

Motion


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

Your Honour,
I have just been informed that fact 7A is incorrect, we request that the court strike the current fact 7A, and the plaintiff would like to amend it to "7A. Shares of RTG were unfrozen around mid-December. (see P-019)", and we would also like to enter into evidence:

1769440786989.png

 
Last edited:

Writ of Summons

@12700k, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Maxib02 v. FTLCEO [2026] DCR 12

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.

 
Present
 
TheSnowGuardian said:

Motion


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

Your Honour,
I have just been informed that fact 7A is incorrect, we request that the court strike the current fact 7A, and the plaintiff would like to amend it to "7A. Shares of RTG were unfrozen around mid-December. (see P-019)", and we would also like to enter into evidence:

View attachment 73367

Click to expand...
Granted.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

FTLCEO
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. DENY. The Defendant was not the owner of the news company "Palantir News" at any time.
2. DENY. The Defendant never acquired "Palantir News" from Aesyr_ or anyone else. NOTING, "Palantir" was never a registered company in-game or with the DOC, but the Defendant did purchase the "IP" and rights to use the Palantir name.
3. AFFIRM
4. AFFIRM
5. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
6. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
7. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
7A. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
8. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
9. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
10. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
11. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
12. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
13. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
14. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
15. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
16. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
17. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
18. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY

II. DEFENCES​

1. FAILURE TO ESTABLISH DEFENDANT'S OWNERSHIP​

The Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Defendant had any operational control over, access to, or involvement with "Palantir News" as a publication.

The Plaintiff's case rests on a fundamental conflation of two separate entities. On 29 October 2025, the Defendant acknowledged owning business interests in "Palantir" (P-001). However, the Plaintiff has provided no evidence that this business interest included or encompassed "Palantir News."

The Defendant acquired certain IP rights and business interests related to the "Palantir" name from Aesyr_. These were legitimate business interests that could be registered with the DOC and operated as a formal company. This Defendant stated his intention to formally register Palantir as a corporation (D-002). The Plaintiff admits that "Palantir News" was unregistered (Fact 3). An unregistered news organisation cannot be transferred through any formal business acquisition because it has no legal existence. There are no company documents, no DOC filings, and no formal transfer mechanism for an unregistered entity.

News organisations operate through channels on Discord servers. To operate a news organisation, one must have ownership or access to the Discord server or channel where the news content is posted. The Defendant never received ownership of any Discord server from Aesyr_. The Defendant never had access to any "Palantir News" Discord channel. Without access to the infrastructure of "Palantir News," the Defendant could not have published, authorised, or controlled any content posted under that name.

2. LIABILITY REQUIRES PROOF OF OWNERSHIP​

Both parties affirm that Palantir News was an unregistered company (Fact 3). As remarked in the verdict of Commonwealth of Redmont v. AsexualDinosaur [2025] FCR 127:
Thus, the only concerning point of contention is the CW's attempt to conflate Anchor Watch as a solo-prop, where the Owner would be personally liable. As discussed in Privacy Matters Collective (Class Action Group Represented by Mezimori) v. Nexalin, [2025] FCR 36, an Owner of solo-prop business may be personally liable for the activities of the business. Further, as defined under the Legal Entity Act, a solo-prop may "engage in any lawful act or activity for which Corporations may be organized under the Laws of Redmont." Under this Court's interpretation of the CW's argument, since Anchor Watch and AsexualDinosaur are legally-speaking the same person, the actions of Anchor Watch are synonymous with the actions of AsexualDinosaur, thus the illegal act of the solo-prop is the illegal act of the natural person.
Click to expand...
This principle applies here. Where an unregistered entity operates as a sole proprietorship, the owner and the business are legally the same person, and the owner is personally liable for the business's actions. The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant personally liable for actions taken by "Palantir News." However, personal liability for an unregistered entity attaches only to the entity's actual owner. The Plaintiff cannot establish liability without first proving ownership.

The Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the Defendant actually owned or operated Palantir News. The Plaintiff's entire case rests on the assumption that because the Defendant had business interests in "Palantir," he must have owned "Palantir News." This assumption is insufficient.

In ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98, where ownership of a news organisation was in dispute, the Court granted a Motion to Compel to establish ownership. The Plaintiff in that case had to conduct proper discovery to prove who owned and operated the news organisation.

The Plaintiff here has skipped this essential step. Without proving that the Defendant is the owner of "Palantir News", the Plaintiff cannot establish that the Defendant is the proper party to this action. The actual owner of Palantir News, whoever that may be, is the party who would bear personal liability for its publications.

​

3. MULTIPLE PARTIES INVOLVED WITH "PALANTIR" ENTITIES​

Multiple individuals had involvement with various "Palantir" entities:

Anthony_org states in D-001: "I yoinked the name Palantir after Aesyr_ got banned, once Toadking bought the IP from 12700k (iirc) I handed over the DB for Palantir" and "Elysia can verify I made a DoC ticket for this."

This shows that there were multiple "Palantir" entities with different operators around this time, and no clear evidence establishes that the Defendant operated "Palantir News" specifically.

​

EVIDENCE​

1769639062736.png
1769639052132.png

​

WITNESSES​

1. ElysiaCrynn
2. Anthony_org
3. ToadKing
4. MgChamp

By making this submission, I agree that 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 29th day of January 2026.

1769644557189.png



Motion


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

The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue a warrant to Staff to produce Discord server ownership logs/records for any server or channel operated under the name "Palantir News" during October-November 2025.

In [2025] DCR 98, where ownership of a news organisation was disputed, the Court granted a motion to compel and ordered Staff to "produce any logs identifying the Owner, Operator and/or Author of the news organisation known as 'Anchor Watch'."

Similarly, in [2026] FCR 5, involving a news organisation, the presiding judge stated: "Any objection to the Court issuing a warrant to Staff to ascertain the current owner of the discord in question? I think this would be more definitive than asking this Court to guess."

This Court has the power to request such information from Staff to definitively establish ownership and operation of "Palantir News."



TheSnowGuardian said:
Spoiler: P-002 View attachment 73337
Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honour,

P-002 is inaccessible and cannot be viewed or verified by the Defendant. The Plaintiff cites P-002 in Facts 1 and 2 of their complaint. Without access to this evidence, the Defendant cannot properly respond to these allegations.

The Defendant requests that the Court either:

  1. Strike all references to P-002 from the Plaintiff's complaint, including Facts 1 and 2; or
  2. Compel the Plaintiff to provide P-002 in a proper, accessible format.

 
ToadKing said:

Objection


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

Your Honour,

P-002 is inaccessible and cannot be viewed or verified by the Defendant. The Plaintiff cites P-002 in Facts 1 and 2 of their complaint. Without access to this evidence, the Defendant cannot properly respond to these allegations.

The Defendant requests that the Court either:

  1. Strike all references to P-002 from the Plaintiff's complaint, including Facts 1 and 2; or
  2. Compel the Plaintiff to provide P-002 in a proper, accessible format.

Click to expand...

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honour, the Plaintiff has no objection in P-002 being striked.
 
ToadKing said:
[/answer]

Motion


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

The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue a warrant to Staff to produce Discord server ownership logs/records for any server or channel operated under the name "Palantir News" during October-November 2025.

In [2025] DCR 98, where ownership of a news organisation was disputed, the Court granted a motion to compel and ordered Staff to "produce any logs identifying the Owner, Operator and/or Author of the news organisation known as 'Anchor Watch'."

Similarly, in [2026] FCR 5, involving a news organisation, the presiding judge stated: "Any objection to the Court issuing a warrant to Staff to ascertain the current owner of the discord in question? I think this would be more definitive than asking this Court to guess."

This Court has the power to request such information from Staff to definitively establish ownership and operation of "Palantir News."

Click to expand...

Brief



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honour,
the Plaintiff has no objection to the corresponding motion.

 
Last edited:
ToadKing said:

Answer to Complaint


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

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

FTLCEO
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. DENY. The Defendant was not the owner of the news company "Palantir News" at any time.
2. DENY. The Defendant never acquired "Palantir News" from Aesyr_ or anyone else. NOTING, "Palantir" was never a registered company in-game or with the DOC, but the Defendant did purchase the "IP" and rights to use the Palantir name.
3. AFFIRM
4. AFFIRM
5. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
6. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
7. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
7A. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
8. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
9. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
10. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
11. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
12. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
13. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
14. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
15. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
16. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
17. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY
18. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY

II. DEFENCES​

1. FAILURE TO ESTABLISH DEFENDANT'S OWNERSHIP​

The Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Defendant had any operational control over, access to, or involvement with "Palantir News" as a publication.

The Plaintiff's case rests on a fundamental conflation of two separate entities. On 29 October 2025, the Defendant acknowledged owning business interests in "Palantir" (P-001). However, the Plaintiff has provided no evidence that this business interest included or encompassed "Palantir News."

The Defendant acquired certain IP rights and business interests related to the "Palantir" name from Aesyr_. These were legitimate business interests that could be registered with the DOC and operated as a formal company. This Defendant stated his intention to formally register Palantir as a corporation (D-002). The Plaintiff admits that "Palantir News" was unregistered (Fact 3). An unregistered news organisation cannot be transferred through any formal business acquisition because it has no legal existence. There are no company documents, no DOC filings, and no formal transfer mechanism for an unregistered entity.

News organisations operate through channels on Discord servers. To operate a news organisation, one must have ownership or access to the Discord server or channel where the news content is posted. The Defendant never received ownership of any Discord server from Aesyr_. The Defendant never had access to any "Palantir News" Discord channel. Without access to the infrastructure of "Palantir News," the Defendant could not have published, authorised, or controlled any content posted under that name.

2. LIABILITY REQUIRES PROOF OF OWNERSHIP​

Both parties affirm that Palantir News was an unregistered company (Fact 3). As remarked in the verdict of Commonwealth of Redmont v. AsexualDinosaur [2025] FCR 127:

This principle applies here. Where an unregistered entity operates as a sole proprietorship, the owner and the business are legally the same person, and the owner is personally liable for the business's actions. The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant personally liable for actions taken by "Palantir News." However, personal liability for an unregistered entity attaches only to the entity's actual owner. The Plaintiff cannot establish liability without first proving ownership.

The Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the Defendant actually owned or operated Palantir News. The Plaintiff's entire case rests on the assumption that because the Defendant had business interests in "Palantir," he must have owned "Palantir News." This assumption is insufficient.

In ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98, where ownership of a news organisation was in dispute, the Court granted a Motion to Compel to establish ownership. The Plaintiff in that case had to conduct proper discovery to prove who owned and operated the news organisation.

The Plaintiff here has skipped this essential step. Without proving that the Defendant is the owner of "Palantir News", the Plaintiff cannot establish that the Defendant is the proper party to this action. The actual owner of Palantir News, whoever that may be, is the party who would bear personal liability for its publications.

​

3. MULTIPLE PARTIES INVOLVED WITH "PALANTIR" ENTITIES​

Multiple individuals had involvement with various "Palantir" entities:

Anthony_org states in D-001: "I yoinked the name Palantir after Aesyr_ got banned, once Toadking bought the IP from 12700k (iirc) I handed over the DB for Palantir" and "Elysia can verify I made a DoC ticket for this."

This shows that there were multiple "Palantir" entities with different operators around this time, and no clear evidence establishes that the Defendant operated "Palantir News" specifically.

​

EVIDENCE​

View attachment 73561
View attachment 73560

​

WITNESSES​

1. ElysiaCrynn
2. Anthony_org
3. ToadKing
4. MgChamp

By making this submission, I agree that 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 29th day of January 2026.

View attachment 73578



Motion


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

The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court issue a warrant to Staff to produce Discord server ownership logs/records for any server or channel operated under the name "Palantir News" during October-November 2025.

In [2025] DCR 98, where ownership of a news organisation was disputed, the Court granted a motion to compel and ordered Staff to "produce any logs identifying the Owner, Operator and/or Author of the news organisation known as 'Anchor Watch'."

Similarly, in [2026] FCR 5, involving a news organisation, the presiding judge stated: "Any objection to the Court issuing a warrant to Staff to ascertain the current owner of the discord in question? I think this would be more definitive than asking this Court to guess."

This Court has the power to request such information from Staff to definitively establish ownership and operation of "Palantir News."




Objection


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

Your Honour,

P-002 is inaccessible and cannot be viewed or verified by the Defendant. The Plaintiff cites P-002 in Facts 1 and 2 of their complaint. Without access to this evidence, the Defendant cannot properly respond to these allegations.

The Defendant requests that the Court either:

  1. Strike all references to P-002 from the Plaintiff's complaint, including Facts 1 and 2; or
  2. Compel the Plaintiff to provide P-002 in a proper, accessible format.

Click to expand...

Motion to compel GRANTED plaintiff is ordered to produce the information requested within 72 hours.
objection SUSTAINED

Discovery shall now begin lasting 5 days from this message.
 
dearev said:
Motion to compel GRANTED plaintiff is ordered to produce the information requested within 72 hours.
objection SUSTAINED

Discovery shall now begin lasting 5 days from this message.
Click to expand...
Your Honour,

Respectfully, the intent of the Motion to Compel was for this Court to issue a warrant/order for Staff to produce these logs, consistent with the actions of Magistrate Vennefly in [2025] DCR 98, as well as the Honourable Judge Mug in [2026] FCR 5. The Defendant sees no conceivable way for the Plaintiff to possess, or be able to obtain, this information.
 
ToadKing said:
Your Honour,

Respectfully, the intent of the Motion to Compel was for this Court to issue a warrant/order for Staff to produce these logs, consistent with the actions of Magistrate Vennefly in [2025] DCR 98, as well as the Honourable Judge Mug in [2026] FCR 5. The Defendant sees no conceivable way for the Plaintiff to possess, or be able to obtain, this information.
Click to expand...
I belive there was a slight misunderstanding here and the court apologizes for that. please disregard the order given for the plaintiff to compel.

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The court requests that the staff team return to this court logs of ownership for "Palantir News" and the discord invite link for the server (if avaliable) so ownership can be determined.

SO ORDERED

1769725217816.png

 
Staff has returned the writ.

1769734284361.png
 
dearev said:
Motion to compel GRANTED plaintiff is ordered to produce the information requested within 72 hours.
objection SUSTAINED

Discovery shall now begin lasting 5 days from this message.
Click to expand...
Your Honour,

The Plaintiff requests a sidebar as we needs some clarity
 
ToadKing said:
Your Honour,

Defendant requests that this sidebar be created in a group DM on the forums.
Click to expand...
Granted. sidebar will be moved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top