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

[TheSnowGuardian]

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.

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

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: [S]P-002[/S]

View attachment 73337

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

See Attachment 'Allegations against RTG and Maxib02.pdf'

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

See Attachment labelled 'DUPE.pdf'

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

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

Spoiler: P-013

Spoiler: P-014

Spoiler: P-015

Spoiler: P-016

Spoiler: P-017

Spoiler: P-018

Spoiler: P-019

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

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

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:

Spoiler: P-019

 

[dearev]

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.

 

[12700k]

Present

 

[dearev]

Present

please present an answer within 48 hours.

 

[dearev]

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:

Spoiler: P-019

View attachment 73367

Granted.

 

[ToadKing]

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.

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​

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

​

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.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

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."

Spoiler: P-002 View attachment 73337

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.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

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.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honour, the Plaintiff has no objection in P-002 being striked.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

[/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."

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

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

 

[dearev]

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​

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 73561

Spoiler: D-002

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.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

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.

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.

 

[ToadKing]

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.

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.

 

[dearev]

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.

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

 

[dearev]

Staff has returned the writ.

Spoiler: Staff-01

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

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.

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff requests a sidebar as we needs some clarity

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff requests a sidebar as we needs some clarity

Granted.

 

[ToadKing]

Granted.

Your Honour,

Defendant requests that this sidebar be created in a group DM on the forums.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

Defendant requests that this sidebar be created in a group DM on the forums.

Granted. sidebar will be moved.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.14 (Factual Error).

I. RULE 5.5 - FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM​

Rule 5.5 permits:

A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.

This Court has struck Facts 1 and 2 from the Plaintiff's Complaint. These were the only factual allegations connecting the Defendant to "Palantir News" With these facts struck, the Plaintiff's complaint contains no allegation that the Defendant owned, operated, or had any involvement with Palantir News. The Plaintiff cannot establish standing under Rule 2.1, which requires showing "injury caused by a clear second party."

The Plaintiff alleges injury from a document published by Palantir News. However, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Defendant is the "clear second party" who caused that injury. Without any factual allegation connecting the Defendant to Palantir News, the Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief.

The remaining facts in the Plaintiff's complaint, which the Defendant does not contest, detail:

1. That a document was published by Palantir News (Fact 3)
2. The contents of that document (Facts 5-14)
3. The alleged effects on the Plaintiff (Facts 15-17)
4. That the Plaintiff cannot prove who gave the document to Palantir News (Fact 18)

None of these establishes any connection between the Defendant and the alleged harm. The Plaintiff's entire theory of liability was premised on Facts 1 and 2, which have been struck.

​

II. RULE 5.14 - FACTUAL ERROR​

Rule 5.14 permits:

A defendant may submit a motion to dismiss in instances where it is clear through the course of discovery that the plaintiff made a factual error in their complaint or amended complaint.

The Staff Team, pursuant to the Court's Writ of Mandamus, investigated the ownership of "Palantir News" and reported: "the creator of 'Palantir News' is Aesyr_." Staff also reported that "the registered Discord invite is no longer active."

The Plaintiff alleged in Fact 2 that "FTLCEO acquired the company from Aesyr_." The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any such acquisition or transfer. The Staff investigation confirms that Aesyr_ created the "Palantir News" Discord server, but has produced no evidence of any subsequent transfer to the Defendant.

With the Discord invite link expired, no further discovery can establish whether the Defendant ever had ownership or access to the server. The burden of proof rests with the Plaintiff to establish the Defendant's ownership. The Defendant cannot prove a negative - he cannot produce evidence of something he never possessed or controlled.

The Plaintiff made a fundamental factual error by filing suit against the Defendant based on the assumption that ownership of "Palantir" business interests meant ownership of "Palantir News." Discovery has failed to produce any evidence supporting this assumption. The subsequent Staff investigation has produced no evidence to substantiate these allegations. The factual error is clear: the Plaintiff sued the wrong party without evidence connecting the Defendant to Palantir News.


The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. DISMISS this case with prejudice under Rule 5.5 and Rule 5.14;
2. GRANT the full relief requested in the Defendant's counterclaim filed concurrently with this motion.

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

12700k
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Maxib02
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

COMPLAINT
The CPlaintiff complains against the CDefendant as follows:

The CPlaintiff is countersuing due to the frivolous nature of this case. The CDefendant filed a defamation lawsuit seeking $60,000 in damages against the CPlaintiff based on a publication by "Palantir News" - an entity the CPlaintiff neither owned nor operated. The CDefendant's entire case rested on two facts linking the CPlaintiff to Palantir News, both of which have been struck by this Court. The CDefendant filed this lawsuit with insufficient evidence to establish the CPlaintiff as the proper defendant. A Staff investigation has since confirmed that Aesyr_, not the CPlaintiff, was the creator/owner of Palantir News. No additional evidence can be obtained to refute this point. Therefore, this lawsuit had no serious purpose or value and was filed in clear violation of basic standing requirements.

I. PARTIES​

1. 12700k
2. Maxib02

II. FACTS​

1. The CDefendant sued the CPlaintiff, seeking $20,000 in punitive damages, $40,000 in consequential damages, and legal fees.
2. The CDefendant's lawsuit was premised on Facts 1 and 2 of the original complaint, which alleged that the CPlaintiff owned and operated "Palantir News."
3. This Court has struck Facts 1 and 2 from the CDefendant's complaint.
4. The only evidence the CDefendant provided to support Facts 1 and 2 was P-001 and P-002.
5. P-002 was a broken link that led to an error page. The CDefendant filed suit relying on inaccessible evidence.
6. P-001 was a Discord screenshot showing the CPlaintiff stating he owned "Palantir" business interests. This did not establish ownership of "Palantir News" as an unregistered news publication.
7. Pursuant to this Court's Writ of Mandamus, the Staff Team investigated the ownership of "Palantir News" and reported: "the creator of 'Palantir News' is Aesyr_."
8. The CDefendant sued the wrong party. The CPlaintiff never owned, operated, or had any involvement with Palantir News.
9. In Fact 18 of the original complaint, the CDefendant admitted: "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)."
10. The CDefendant filed this lawsuit without establishing the chain of causation between any alleged action by the CPlaintiff and the alleged harm.
11. Under Rule 2.1 (Standing), a plaintiff must show they "suffered some injury caused by a clear second party." The CDefendant failed to establish the CPlaintiff was that "clear second party."
12. Frivolous Court Case is defined as "lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value" (Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 4).
13. According to the Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a), Punitive damages can be awarded "as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous."
14. The CPlaintiff has been forced to defend against baseless allegations through multiple filings and participating in unnecessary discovery proceedings.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. FILING WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PROPER DEFENDANT​

The CDefendant filed a lawsuit alleging that the CPlaintiff was liable for publications by "Palantir News" without credible evidence of ownership. The CDefendant's evidence consisted of P-002 (a broken link) and P-001, a Discord message showing the CPlaintiff owned "Palantir" business interests, which did not prove ownership of the unregistered "Palantir News" publication. Filing a lawsuit based on a broken link and speculation, without conducting basic due diligence to verify the defendant is the proper party, constitutes a frivolous court case.

The CDefendant had a clear legal pathway available but ignored it. In ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98, the plaintiff sued the news organisation "Anchor Watch" as the defendant, then filed a Motion to Compel requesting that the Court order Staff to disclose ownership records. Only after the Court identified the actual owner did the plaintiff proceed against that individual in a separate case. The CDefendant should have sued "Palantir News" first and requested a Motion to Compel for ownership records.

Instead, the CDefendant bypassed this process and sued the CPlaintiff directly based on assumption. The Staff investigation has now proven the CDefendant sued the wrong party - the creator of "Palantir News" was Aesyr_, not the CPlaintiff, and no records or evidence have been provided to refute ownership. This lawsuit had no evidentiary foundation from the outset.

2. ADMISSION OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE​

The CDefendant admitted in Fact 18 that they could not prove the document was given to Palantir News. The CDefendant filed a lawsuit alleging harm caused by a publication, but was unable to establish the basic facts of how the publication occurred or who was responsible.

The CDefendant acknowledged they lacked evidence but proceeded to file suit anyway, hoping to develop evidence "(yet)" through discovery. This is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit - filing without a reasonable basis and hoping to justify it later.

3. FAILURE TO MEET BASIC STANDING REQUIREMENTS​

Under Rule 2.1, the CDefendant was required to show standing before filing this lawsuit. Standing requires showing "injury caused by a clear second party." The CDefendant could not accurately identify the "clear second party" but filed suit anyway against the CPlaintiff based on insufficient evidence.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The CPlaintiff seeks the following from the CDefendant:

1. $100,000 in Punitive Damages for filing a lawsuit without credible evidence identifying the proper defendant, in violation of Rule 2.1 standing requirements and constituting a frivolous court case.

2. Alternatively, $7,500 in Nominal Damages if the Court finds punitive damages are not warranted, pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 6.

3. 30% legal fees pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 9.


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 31st day of January, 2026.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.14 (Factual Error).

I. RULE 5.5 - FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM​

Rule 5.5 permits:


This Court has struck Facts 1 and 2 from the Plaintiff's Complaint. These were the only factual allegations connecting the Defendant to "Palantir News" With these facts struck, the Plaintiff's complaint contains no allegation that the Defendant owned, operated, or had any involvement with Palantir News. The Plaintiff cannot establish standing under Rule 2.1, which requires showing "injury caused by a clear second party."

The Plaintiff alleges injury from a document published by Palantir News. However, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Defendant is the "clear second party" who caused that injury. Without any factual allegation connecting the Defendant to Palantir News, the Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief.

The remaining facts in the Plaintiff's complaint, which the Defendant does not contest, detail:

1. That a document was published by Palantir News (Fact 3)
2. The contents of that document (Facts 5-14)
3. The alleged effects on the Plaintiff (Facts 15-17)
4. That the Plaintiff cannot prove who gave the document to Palantir News (Fact 18)

None of these establishes any connection between the Defendant and the alleged harm. The Plaintiff's entire theory of liability was premised on Facts 1 and 2, which have been struck.

​

II. RULE 5.14 - FACTUAL ERROR​

Rule 5.14 permits:

The Staff Team, pursuant to the Court's Writ of Mandamus, investigated the ownership of "Palantir News" and reported: "the creator of 'Palantir News' is Aesyr_." Staff also reported that "the registered Discord invite is no longer active."

The Plaintiff alleged in Fact 2 that "FTLCEO acquired the company from Aesyr_." The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any such acquisition or transfer. The Staff investigation confirms that Aesyr_ created the "Palantir News" Discord server, but has produced no evidence of any subsequent transfer to the Defendant.

With the Discord invite link expired, no further discovery can establish whether the Defendant ever had ownership or access to the server. The burden of proof rests with the Plaintiff to establish the Defendant's ownership. The Defendant cannot prove a negative - he cannot produce evidence of something he never possessed or controlled.

The Plaintiff made a fundamental factual error by filing suit against the Defendant based on the assumption that ownership of "Palantir" business interests meant ownership of "Palantir News." Discovery has failed to produce any evidence supporting this assumption. The subsequent Staff investigation has produced no evidence to substantiate these allegations. The factual error is clear: the Plaintiff sued the wrong party without evidence connecting the Defendant to Palantir News.


The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. DISMISS this case with prejudice under Rule 5.5 and Rule 5.14;
2. GRANT the full relief requested in the Defendant's counterclaim filed concurrently with this motion.

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

12700k
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Maxib02
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

COMPLAINT
The CPlaintiff complains against the CDefendant as follows:

I. PARTIES​

1. 12700k
2. Maxib02

II. FACTS​

1. The CDefendant sued the CPlaintiff, seeking $20,000 in punitive damages, $40,000 in consequential damages, and legal fees.
2. The CDefendant's lawsuit was premised on Facts 1 and 2 of the original complaint, which alleged that the CPlaintiff owned and operated "Palantir News."
3. This Court has struck Facts 1 and 2 from the CDefendant's complaint.
4. The only evidence the CDefendant provided to support Facts 1 and 2 was P-001 and P-002.
5. P-002 was a broken link that led to an error page. The CDefendant filed suit relying on inaccessible evidence.
6. P-001 was a Discord screenshot showing the CPlaintiff stating he owned "Palantir" business interests. This did not establish ownership of "Palantir News" as an unregistered news publication.
7. Pursuant to this Court's Writ of Mandamus, the Staff Team investigated the ownership of "Palantir News" and reported: "the creator of 'Palantir News' is Aesyr_."
8. The CDefendant sued the wrong party. The CPlaintiff never owned, operated, or had any involvement with Palantir News.
9. In Fact 18 of the original complaint, the CDefendant admitted: "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)."
10. The CDefendant filed this lawsuit without establishing the chain of causation between any alleged action by the CPlaintiff and the alleged harm.
11. Under Rule 2.1 (Standing), a plaintiff must show they "suffered some injury caused by a clear second party." The CDefendant failed to establish the CPlaintiff was that "clear second party."
12. Frivolous Court Case is defined as "lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value" (Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 4).
13. According to the Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a), Punitive damages can be awarded "as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous."
14. The CPlaintiff has been forced to defend against baseless allegations through multiple filings and participating in unnecessary discovery proceedings.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. FILING WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PROPER DEFENDANT​

The CDefendant filed a lawsuit alleging that the CPlaintiff was liable for publications by "Palantir News" without credible evidence of ownership. The CDefendant's evidence consisted of P-002 (a broken link) and P-001, a Discord message showing the CPlaintiff owned "Palantir" business interests, which did not prove ownership of the unregistered "Palantir News" publication. Filing a lawsuit based on a broken link and speculation, without conducting basic due diligence to verify the defendant is the proper party, constitutes a frivolous court case.

The CDefendant had a clear legal pathway available but ignored it. In ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98, the plaintiff sued the news organisation "Anchor Watch" as the defendant, then filed a Motion to Compel requesting that the Court order Staff to disclose ownership records. Only after the Court identified the actual owner did the plaintiff proceed against that individual in a separate case. The CDefendant should have sued "Palantir News" first and requested a Motion to Compel for ownership records.

Instead, the CDefendant bypassed this process and sued the CPlaintiff directly based on assumption. The Staff investigation has now proven the CDefendant sued the wrong party - the creator of "Palantir News" was Aesyr_, not the CPlaintiff, and no records or evidence have been provided to refute ownership. This lawsuit had no evidentiary foundation from the outset.

2. ADMISSION OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE​

The CDefendant admitted in Fact 18 that they could not prove the document was given to Palantir News. The CDefendant filed a lawsuit alleging harm caused by a publication, but was unable to establish the basic facts of how the publication occurred or who was responsible.

The CDefendant acknowledged they lacked evidence but proceeded to file suit anyway, hoping to develop evidence "(yet)" through discovery. This is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit - filing without a reasonable basis and hoping to justify it later.

3. FAILURE TO MEET BASIC STANDING REQUIREMENTS​

Under Rule 2.1, the CDefendant was required to show standing before filing this lawsuit. Standing requires showing "injury caused by a clear second party." The CDefendant could not accurately identify the "clear second party" but filed suit anyway against the CPlaintiff based on insufficient evidence.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The CPlaintiff seeks the following from the CDefendant:

1. $100,000 in Punitive Damages for filing a lawsuit without credible evidence identifying the proper defendant, in violation of Rule 2.1 standing requirements and constituting a frivolous court case.

2. Alternatively, $7,500 in Nominal Damages if the Court finds punitive damages are not warranted, pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 6.

3. 30% legal fees pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 9.


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 31st day of January, 2026.

Your Honour, may we respond to the motion and the counter claim?

 

[dearev]

Your Honour, may we respond to the motion and the counter claim?

you may

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honour,
The plaintiff would like to amend the initial suit to include new pieces of evidence.

Spoiler: P-020

Spoiler: P-021

Spoiler: P-022

Spoiler: P-023

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL (1)
Your Honour,
To determine the date and time of Aesyr_'s deportation, the plaintiff requests that the court compel the staff team to produce such information.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL (2)

Your Honour,
It is unclear when the sale of the 'Palantir' name occurred and what this sale entailed.
In light of the evidence submitted in the above 'Motion to Compel', it is clear that the Palantir account in the NER server also had access to and controlled aspects of Palantir News.

Hence, the plaintiff motions that the court order all Discord text messages and Minecraft chat logs between the defendant and Aesyr_, whose topics were about the sale of the name 'Palantir'.

Should the court deny/overrule the motion to amend, this motion will be moot and can be disregarded.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour, the plaintiff requests an extension of the deadline for the response to the motion to dismiss and counterclaim to 48 hours, as Plaintiff's counsel (me) has an exam tomorrow.

 

[ToadKing]

Your Honour,
To determine the date and time of Aesyr_'s deportation, the plaintiff requests that the court compel the staff team to produce such information.

Response

The Defence can provide such information, courtesy of Palantir. One doesn't need to bother the Staff team all the time.

Spoiler: D-003

28 October 2025, at 10:52PM UTC

 

[ToadKing]

Hence, the plaintiff motions that the court order all Discord text messages and Minecraft chat logs between the defendant and Aesyr_, whose topics were about the sale of the name 'Palantir'.

Response

The Plaintiff's request for "all Discord text messages and Minecraft chat logs between the defendant and Aesyr_" is excessively broad and impermissible, notably the request for Minecraft chat logs spanning back nearly 4 months.

In ToadKing v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 82, the Court established strict limitations on requests for private communications. Staff made clear: "no direct messages facilitated through discord between private individuals may be requested for any reason; The courts do not have jurisdiction over DM's." Furthermore, the Staff Warrant Policy states that requests must be "specific and narrowly tailored" and that "broad or general requests will be denied." A blanket request for "all" messages between two individuals fails this standard.

The Plaintiff's fishing expedition into private conversations between the Defendant and a deported player is not a proper use of the Court's power. The Defendant notes that the Plaintiff has not filed any meaningful response to the Motion to Dismiss, which remains pending before this Court.

The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant the Motion to Dismiss and deny the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as excessively broad, impermissible under staff policy, and contrary to established precedent.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour,
I would like to gently remind the court that we had requested an extension for the response to motion to dismiss, and we ask the court rule on it after such a response is given.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honour,
The plaintiff would like to amend the initial suit to include new pieces of evidence.

Spoiler: P-020

View attachment 73727

Spoiler: P-021

View attachment 73728

Spoiler: P-022

View attachment 73729

Spoiler: P-023

View attachment 73733

Response

Your Honour,

The Defence would like to note the Plaintiff's attempt to retroactively add new evidence to the initial complaint, does not cure the fundamental deficiencies alleged in the Counterclaim. Whether the Plaintiff now produces additional evidence is irrelevant to whether the lawsuit was frivolous when filed.

The Defendant does not object to the Motion to Amend, as the new evidence does not materially affect the pending Motion to Dismiss or the Counterclaim.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour, the plaintiff requests an extension of the deadline for the response to the motion to dismiss and counterclaim to 48 hours, as Plaintiff's counsel (me) has an exam tomorrow.

granted.
rulings on the remaining pendencies will soon follow.

 

[ToadKing]

Evidence

Pursuant to Rule 4.6 (Submission of Discovery, Voluntarily), the Defendant submits the following into evidence:

Spoiler: D-003

See TCAM + Palantir Acquisition Agreement.pdf

Spoiler: D-004

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL (1)
Your Honour,
To determine the date and time of Aesyr_'s deportation, the plaintiff requests that the court compel the staff team to produce such information.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL (2)

Your Honour,
It is unclear when the sale of the 'Palantir' name occurred and what this sale entailed.
In light of the evidence submitted in the above 'Motion to Compel', it is clear that the Palantir account in the NER server also had access to and controlled aspects of Palantir News.

Hence, the plaintiff motions that the court order all Discord text messages and Minecraft chat logs between the defendant and Aesyr_, whose topics were about the sale of the name 'Palantir'.

Should the court deny/overrule the motion to amend, this motion will be moot and can be disregarded.

Motion to Compel (1) and (2) can be disregarded.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

12700k
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Maxib02
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

COMPLAINT
The CPlaintiff complains against the CDefendant as follows:

I. PARTIES​

1. 12700k
2. Maxib02

II. FACTS​

1. The CDefendant sued the CPlaintiff, seeking $20,000 in punitive damages, $40,000 in consequential damages, and legal fees.
2. The CDefendant's lawsuit was premised on Facts 1 and 2 of the original complaint, which alleged that the CPlaintiff owned and operated "Palantir News."
3. This Court has struck Facts 1 and 2 from the CDefendant's complaint.
4. The only evidence the CDefendant provided to support Facts 1 and 2 was P-001 and P-002.
5. P-002 was a broken link that led to an error page. The CDefendant filed suit relying on inaccessible evidence.
6. P-001 was a Discord screenshot showing the CPlaintiff stating he owned "Palantir" business interests. This did not establish ownership of "Palantir News" as an unregistered news publication.
7. Pursuant to this Court's Writ of Mandamus, the Staff Team investigated the ownership of "Palantir News" and reported: "the creator of 'Palantir News' is Aesyr_."
8. The CDefendant sued the wrong party. The CPlaintiff never owned, operated, or had any involvement with Palantir News.
9. In Fact 18 of the original complaint, the CDefendant admitted: "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)."
10. The CDefendant filed this lawsuit without establishing the chain of causation between any alleged action by the CPlaintiff and the alleged harm.
11. Under Rule 2.1 (Standing), a plaintiff must show they "suffered some injury caused by a clear second party." The CDefendant failed to establish the CPlaintiff was that "clear second party."
12. Frivolous Court Case is defined as "lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value" (Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 4).
13. According to the Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a), Punitive damages can be awarded "as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous."
14. The CPlaintiff has been forced to defend against baseless allegations through multiple filings and participating in unnecessary discovery proceedings.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. FILING WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PROPER DEFENDANT​

The CDefendant filed a lawsuit alleging that the CPlaintiff was liable for publications by "Palantir News" without credible evidence of ownership. The CDefendant's evidence consisted of P-002 (a broken link) and P-001, a Discord message showing the CPlaintiff owned "Palantir" business interests, which did not prove ownership of the unregistered "Palantir News" publication. Filing a lawsuit based on a broken link and speculation, without conducting basic due diligence to verify the defendant is the proper party, constitutes a frivolous court case.

The CDefendant had a clear legal pathway available but ignored it. In ToadKing v. Anchor Watch [2025] DCR 98, the plaintiff sued the news organisation "Anchor Watch" as the defendant, then filed a Motion to Compel requesting that the Court order Staff to disclose ownership records. Only after the Court identified the actual owner did the plaintiff proceed against that individual in a separate case. The CDefendant should have sued "Palantir News" first and requested a Motion to Compel for ownership records.

Instead, the CDefendant bypassed this process and sued the CPlaintiff directly based on assumption. The Staff investigation has now proven the CDefendant sued the wrong party - the creator of "Palantir News" was Aesyr_, not the CPlaintiff, and no records or evidence have been provided to refute ownership. This lawsuit had no evidentiary foundation from the outset.

2. ADMISSION OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE​

The CDefendant admitted in Fact 18 that they could not prove the document was given to Palantir News. The CDefendant filed a lawsuit alleging harm caused by a publication, but was unable to establish the basic facts of how the publication occurred or who was responsible.

The CDefendant acknowledged they lacked evidence but proceeded to file suit anyway, hoping to develop evidence "(yet)" through discovery. This is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit - filing without a reasonable basis and hoping to justify it later.

3. FAILURE TO MEET BASIC STANDING REQUIREMENTS​

Under Rule 2.1, the CDefendant was required to show standing before filing this lawsuit. Standing requires showing "injury caused by a clear second party." The CDefendant could not accurately identify the "clear second party" but filed suit anyway against the CPlaintiff based on insufficient evidence.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The CPlaintiff seeks the following from the CDefendant:

1. $100,000 in Punitive Damages for filing a lawsuit without credible evidence identifying the proper defendant, in violation of Rule 2.1 standing requirements and constituting a frivolous court case.

2. Alternatively, $7,500 in Nominal Damages if the Court finds punitive damages are not warranted, pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 6.

3. 30% legal fees pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 9.


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 31st day of January, 2026.

Answer to Complaint

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

12700k
Counterplaintiff (Cplauntiff)
v.
Maxib02
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFFIRM.
2. AFFIRM.
3. AFFIRM.
4. AFFIRM.
5. AFFIRM that P-002 was an inaccessible link. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that the plaintiff filed the suit on inaccessible evidence.
6. AFFIRM.
7. AFFIRM.
8. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY.
9. AFFIRM.
10. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY.
11. AFFIRM the quote of Standing. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that the CDefendant hasn't established that CPlaintiff was the 'clear second party'.
12. AFFIRM.
13. AFFIRM.
14. DENY. This is a subjective opinion and not an objective fact. The CPlaintiff hasn't shown how discovery proceedings were unnecessary. CDefendant was led to believe Palantir News was also owned by CPlaintiff by CPlaintiff's own words.

II. DEFENCES

1. CDEFENDANT WAS LED TO BELIEVE CPLAINTIFF OWNED PALANTIR NEWS.

It was well known that Aesyr_ (or Lux) sold 'Palantir' to FTLCEO pre October 29th. Aesyr_ (or the CPlaintiff) had made no effort to differentiate Palantir and Palantir News. Both organisations are not recognized by the DoC, and both were owned by Aesyr_. Aesyr_'s deportation occurred on the 28th of October 2025, while the document was published on the 31st of October 2025, the CDefendant had no one to point to except the CPlaintiff, because of their own words. (see P-001)

Furthermore, the Palantir Discord account in the NER server established that it did have control over Palantir News (see CD-001), and according to D-003, the document states that

Seller hereby sells, assigns, and transfers to Buyer all of Seller’s right, title, and interest in and to all tangible and intangible assets of the Company, including, without limitation: ● TCAM related IP, Palantir related IP, TCAM company account, Palantir company account,

Therefore, we establish under the CPlaintiff's own defense to the initial complaint that they did own an account (on paper) that had control of Palantir News.

(The account is now also named 'Palantir (12700k)' see CD-001)

2. FAILURE TO MEET STANDARDS OF A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT.

Both the CPlaintiff and the CDefendant agree (Fact 12 of Counterclaim) that a frivolous lawsuit is filed when a party "lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value".
The initial complaint did meet a serious purpose or value:

The complaint's purpose was to file a defamation suit against the CPlaintiff, who claimed to be the owner of Palantir (and, as noted previously, the previous owner and the CPlaintiff made no effort to differentiate between Palantir and Palantir News). Furthermore, it was intended to disprove the allegations made in the document and to deter the organisation's owner from posting baseless, false, and reputation-harming documents again.

The court should also consider the precedent it would be setting if it found the claim of 'Frivolous Lawsuit' to be true. Any legal case that allegedly lacked standing (or was factually inaccurate) would be open to a frivolous lawsuit.
While that may sound good to the ear, the court should consider that every case that could be dismissed would also open grounds to frivolous lawsuits.
It is the CDefendant's opinion that judgments for frivolous lawsuits should be reserved only for cases that waste the Court's time, are unserious, or whose value is sub-par standards.

3. LACK OF STANDING
Under Rule 2.1, the CPlaintiff has failed to demonstrate the injury they have faced.

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.

Spoiler: CD-001

DATED: This 2nd day of February 2026

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour, the Plaintiff requests a sidebar for procedural questions (we can continue in the previous one I believe)

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) and Rule 5.14 (Factual Error).

I. RULE 5.5 - FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM​

Rule 5.5 permits:


This Court has struck Facts 1 and 2 from the Plaintiff's Complaint. These were the only factual allegations connecting the Defendant to "Palantir News" With these facts struck, the Plaintiff's complaint contains no allegation that the Defendant owned, operated, or had any involvement with Palantir News. The Plaintiff cannot establish standing under Rule 2.1, which requires showing "injury caused by a clear second party."

The Plaintiff alleges injury from a document published by Palantir News. However, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Defendant is the "clear second party" who caused that injury. Without any factual allegation connecting the Defendant to Palantir News, the Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief.

The remaining facts in the Plaintiff's complaint, which the Defendant does not contest, detail:

1. That a document was published by Palantir News (Fact 3)
2. The contents of that document (Facts 5-14)
3. The alleged effects on the Plaintiff (Facts 15-17)
4. That the Plaintiff cannot prove who gave the document to Palantir News (Fact 18)

None of these establishes any connection between the Defendant and the alleged harm. The Plaintiff's entire theory of liability was premised on Facts 1 and 2, which have been struck.

​

II. RULE 5.14 - FACTUAL ERROR​

Rule 5.14 permits:

The Staff Team, pursuant to the Court's Writ of Mandamus, investigated the ownership of "Palantir News" and reported: "the creator of 'Palantir News' is Aesyr_." Staff also reported that "the registered Discord invite is no longer active."

The Plaintiff alleged in Fact 2 that "FTLCEO acquired the company from Aesyr_." The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any such acquisition or transfer. The Staff investigation confirms that Aesyr_ created the "Palantir News" Discord server, but has produced no evidence of any subsequent transfer to the Defendant.

With the Discord invite link expired, no further discovery can establish whether the Defendant ever had ownership or access to the server. The burden of proof rests with the Plaintiff to establish the Defendant's ownership. The Defendant cannot prove a negative - he cannot produce evidence of something he never possessed or controlled.

The Plaintiff made a fundamental factual error by filing suit against the Defendant based on the assumption that ownership of "Palantir" business interests meant ownership of "Palantir News." Discovery has failed to produce any evidence supporting this assumption. The subsequent Staff investigation has produced no evidence to substantiate these allegations. The factual error is clear: the Plaintiff sued the wrong party without evidence connecting the Defendant to Palantir News.


The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. DISMISS this case with prejudice under Rule 5.5 and Rule 5.14;
2. GRANT the full relief requested in the Defendant's counterclaim filed concurrently with this motion.

Your Honour, we do have a response ready for this Motion to Dismiss, provided your Honour grants our Motion to Amend.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honour,
The plaintiff would like to amend the initial suit to include new pieces of evidence.

Spoiler: P-020

View attachment 73727

Spoiler: P-021

View attachment 73728

Spoiler: P-022

View attachment 73729

Spoiler: P-023

View attachment 73733

Apologies for the delay, the above is Granted.

Your Honour, we do have a response ready for this Motion to Dismiss, provided your Honour grants our Motion to Amend.

please provide a response within 48 hours

The Court once again apologizes for the delay as irl life has become quite busy.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff respectfully requests reconsideration of the Court’s decision striking Facts 1 and 2.

P-020 and P-022 establish that the Palantir company account maintained control over the Palantir News server.

Spoiler: Quoted Text from D-003

D-003 and D-004, along with the above quoted material (derived from D-003), show that Aesyr_ (also known as Lux) owned the Palantir company account and subsequently transferred ownership of that account to the Defendant.

The Defendant states that they did not actually receive or exercise operational control of the Palantir account. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court disregard this distinction, as the issue before the Court is ownership of the account that held control, not whether the Defendant personally exercised that control afterward. Ownership of the controlling account is sufficient to establish responsibility, even if day-to-day control was not exercised by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff does not rely solely on Aesyr_’s status as creator of Palantir News. Instead, P-020 demonstrates that the Palantir company account itself maintained control of the Palantir News server, with Aesyr_ and the company account sharing control. Once ownership of that controlling account passed to the Defendant, ownership of control followed.

In civil proceedings, matters are determined on the balance of probabilities. On that standard, the evidence supports that the Defendant owned the account that had control over Palantir News. Facts 1 and 2, therefore, remain properly supported and should be reinstated.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its ruling and reinstate Facts 1 and 2.

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

I. RULE 5.5 — A CLAIM FOR RELIEF REMAINS PROPERLY PLED​

The Defendant argues dismissal is required because Facts 1 and 2 were struck, allegedly leaving no connection between the Defendant and Palantir News. This is incorrect for two reasons.

First, the Plaintiff has already moved the Court to reconsider the striking of Facts 1 and 2, demonstrating through P-020, P-022, D-003, and D-004 that the Palantir company account controlled the Palantir News server and that ownership of that account was transferred to the Defendant.

Second, the Defendant’s argument improperly focuses on whether the Defendant exercised operational control. The issue is ownership of the account that held control. Once ownership of the controlling account passed to the Defendant, ownership of control followed, regardless of whether the Defendant personally exercised it afterward.

Civil liability is determined on the balance of probabilities. The evidence shows that the Defendant obtained ownership of the account that controlled Palantir News. That ownership establishes a sufficient connection to survive dismissal.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim remains viable, and dismissal under Rule 5.5 is improper.

II. RULE 5.14 — NO FACTUAL ERROR HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED​

Rule 5.14 allows dismissal only where discovery clearly demonstrates that the complaint rests on factual error. That standard has not been met.

Staff confirmed that Aesyr_ created Palantir News. However, this does not contradict the Plaintiff’s position that ownership of the controlling company account was later transferred to the Defendant. Creation and later ownership are distinct issues.

The Defendant relies on the absence of additional discovery caused by the inactive Discord invite. However, the inability to obtain further evidence does not convert the Plaintiff’s claim into a factual error. Instead, the existing documentary record already shows shared control between Aesyr_ and the Palantir company account, and transfer of that account’s ownership to the Defendant.

Moreover, the Defendant’s position effectively asks the Court to treat the absence of additional evidence as proof that the transfer never occurred. That is not the legal standard. The Plaintiff has produced evidence sufficient to establish ownership of control on the balance of probabilities.

Thus, no clear factual error exists, and Rule 5.14 dismissal is unwarranted.

III. DISMISSAL WOULD BE PREMATURE​

At a minimum, the ownership and control issues remain disputed factual matters. Such disputes are not properly resolved through a motion to dismiss, particularly where reconsideration of key factual findings remains pending before the Court.

Dismissal at this stage would improperly terminate proceedings before factual questions are fully resolved.

IV. CONCLUSION​

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. DENY the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rules 5.5 and 5.14; and
2. Permit the matter to proceed on its merits.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Apologies for the delay, the above is Granted.


please provide a response within 48 hours

The Court once again apologizes for the delay as irl life has become quite busy.

Your Honour, the Plaintiff requests an extension of discovery by 96 hours.

This means we would be starting trial on Monday.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour, the Plaintiff requests an extension of discovery by 96 hours.

This means we would be starting trial on Monday.

granted

 

[Pepecuu]

Good day, I have been assigned to preside over this case from now on.

Please allow me some time to familiarise myself with the case's details :>
@TheSnowGuardian @ToadKing

 

[ToadKing]

Good day, I have been assigned to preside over this case from now on.

Please allow me some time to familiarise myself with the case's details :>
@TheSnowGuardian @ToadKing

Motion

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

Defendant moves you to recuse yourself from this matter due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

Defendant’s legal counsel and his company are currently suing you for allegations of financial misconduct, including the wrongful taking of approximately $1.1 million in corporate funds. This dispute creates a situation in which your impartiality can reasonably be doubted, compromising the Defendant's rights under the Constitution, Section 32(9): "the right to a [...] fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer."

This appearance of potential bias cannot be remedied, and consistent with the presiding officer’s actions in ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 57, recusal is warranted.

 

[Pepecuu]

Motion

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

Defendant moves you to recuse yourself from this matter due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

Defendant’s legal counsel and his company are currently suing you for allegations of financial misconduct, including the wrongful taking of approximately $1.1 million in corporate funds. This dispute creates a situation in which your impartiality can reasonably be doubted, compromising the Defendant's rights under the Constitution, Section 32(9): "the right to a [...] fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer."

This appearance of potential bias cannot be remedied, and consistent with the presiding officer’s actions in ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 57, recusal is warranted.

Fair enough, I recuse. The trial shall wait until another suitable Magistrate can be assigned to the case.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

In the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont

To whichever honourable magistrate it may concern,

Your Honour(s),
It is impossible to continue with the remaining period of discovery without a presiding officer present. Any proceedings of discovery would go against the spirit of court rules and procedures.

Therefore, the Plaintiff submits a request before the Court for any further presiding officer to consider. The request is as follows:
(1) To assume the previous extension of discovery granted by His Honourable Magistrate Dearev paused due to the lack of a presiding officer.
(2) To resume discovery proceedings and duration of discovery after a Magistrate or a Judicial Presiding Officer has been assigned to this case.