Lawsuit: Dismissed Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11

Status
Not open for further replies.

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse

DENIED.

Plaintiff moves for the recusal of this Court's presiding officer on allegations of impartiality, animosity, and conduct unbecoming.

The Court will address each point in Plaintiff's motion.

1) Improper Statements

The Court made no such statement nor implied anything regarding Plaintiff's mental state. The Plaintiff's characterization of the sidebar exchange is inaccurate and the Court rejects it entirely. The Court simply attempted to survey the Plaintiff regarding his conduct within the case.

2) Disregarding Motions

The Court has never stated that it refuses to hear motions. What the Court has stated, with good reason, is that it will not entertain the same motion filed multiple times after it has already been ruled upon and will not hear motions that are not entertainable. Further, not every point raised by a party demands the Court's attention. There is a fundamental difference between a judge declining to re-litigate a settled ruling and a judge refusing to hear counsel. The Plaintiff's repeated re-filing of identical motions is not the exercise of a right. It is an abuse of process, and the Court is well within its authority to say so.

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that there was a breach of procedure. This occurred when NovaKerbal said this in Post #68: "If we consult the outlined trial timeline, which should be common knowledge to all lawyers, we can see that witness questioning occurs AFTER the defendants opening statement has been produced." The Court, in response, admonished Novakerbal by stating "#68 @Novakerbal Please don't tell opposing party how to lawyer on my docket, thanks." Plaintiff's wish for this be resolved with a striking of that statement, although possible, does not create a requirement on this Court to follow his lead.


3) The Presiding Officer's Conduct

The Court withdrew the second contempt charge upon further review. That is the system working as intended. The phrase the Plaintiff takes issue with was a direct and plainly worded warning that continued disregard for court procedure would carry consequences. Judges issue warnings. That is part of the role. The Plaintiff's displeasure with the tone of a warning does not constitute bias. The fact that Plaintiff thinks "dig your grave counselor" is cruel and unbecoming speaks VOLUMES to his conduct. The Plaintiff has, on the record, called a witness a "miscreant" (#93), referred to Anthony_Org as a "vile player," a "liar of the highest order," and a "sultan of falsification" (#87), accused opposing counsel of "perjury" in nearly every filing, described the Defendant's legal strategy as "shameless," "cowardly," "despicable," and "disgraceful," declared that this Court has been "defaced" on multiple occasions (#31, #39), and denounced rulings as "unconscionable" and a "sham" (#16). The Plaintiff has done all of this while representing himself as a licensed Barrister of this Commonwealth. If a colourful judicial warning constitutes cruelty in the Plaintiff's estimation, the Court is genuinely curious what the Plaintiff would call his own language.

For all the above reasons, the Court denies the motion.

Now, since the Plaintiff has raised concerns about this Court's competence, the Court feels it is only fair to review the Plaintiff's own track record in these proceedings. The Court presents the following for the record:

1. The Plaintiff filed an objection with no recognized objection type (#10), the Court rightfully struck it.
2. The Plaintiff filed an objection citing "Evidence is proper/relevant" as an objection type (#5). That is not a recognized objection. It was overruled.
3. The Plaintiff attempted to compel witness testimony before opening statements had even been filed. Not once. Not twice. Four, on four separate occasions (#19, #24, #37, #38, #61). Each time, the Court patiently explained that witnesses are called during witness testimony. Each time, the Plaintiff filed the motion again.
4. The Plaintiff filed the same Motion to Strike (#25, #32) and the same Motion to Reconsider (#33, #40) after each had already been ruled upon.
5. The Plaintiff wrote messages in full caps demanding to know how they could prove their case (#31, #39), which were struck for not constituting valid motions or objections.
6. The Plaintiff objected to an Amicus Curiae brief on grounds of Speculation, Narrative, Inflammatory, and Relevance (#18). The Defendant correctly noted that none of these objection types apply to an amicus brief, as it is not witness testimony and contains no questions. This was sustained.
7. The Plaintiff called a witness a "miscreant" on the record (#93) and had to be warned by the Court.
8. The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Recuse in the District Court using the header "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT" (#62). The Plaintiff also titled a Motion to Strike as being filed in the Federal Court (#62, #87). The Plaintiff does not appear to know which court they are in.
9. The Plaintiff responded to a Motion to Dismiss by filing an "Objection" citing "Calls for a conclusion" and "Inflammatory" (#63), neither of which is an appropriate response to a dispositive motion.
10. The Plaintiff labeled the Defendant's evidence as "Perjury, Hearsay, Immaterial" without citing a single legal standard or rule supporting any of those characterizations (#62, #87).

The Plaintiff's motions and filings have repeatedly failed to comply with the Court Rules. The Plaintiff's inability to comprehend them is not this Court's problem.

The Plaintiff has filed approximately 50 posts across these proceedings. A significant portion of them have been struck, denied, overruled, or disregarded for procedural deficiency. The Court respectfully suggests that the Plaintiff focus less on questioning the competence of the bench and more on reading the Court Rules and Procedures, which has been publicly available since before this case was filed.

Counsel would be well served to direct their energy toward the pending proceedings rather than toward attempts to remove the judge presiding over them.

Gladly signed,
Judge Mug

 
Novakerbal said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure, Badgering

Your Honor,

This case has already passed discovery, therefore the Plaintiff is incapable of adding more witnesses to be summoned.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has clearly mocked, belittled, and insulted several witnesses in this case, amounting to badgering, we request the Honorable Judge take action to protect the witnesses from verbal abuse.

Click to expand...

Sustained in part, the Witnesses can't be added after Discovery. The Court takes note of the rest of Plaintiff's motion and reserves judgment for the time being.
 
Muggy21 said:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse

DENIED.

Plaintiff moves for the recusal of this Court's presiding officer on allegations of impartiality, animosity, and conduct unbecoming.

The Court will address each point in Plaintiff's motion.

1) Improper Statements

The Court made no such statement nor implied anything regarding Plaintiff's mental state. The Plaintiff's characterization of the sidebar exchange is inaccurate and the Court rejects it entirely. The Court simply attempted to survey the Plaintiff regarding his conduct within the case.

2) Disregarding Motions

The Court has never stated that it refuses to hear motions. What the Court has stated, with good reason, is that it will not entertain the same motion filed multiple times after it has already been ruled upon and will not hear motions that are not entertainable. Further, not every point raised by a party demands the Court's attention. There is a fundamental difference between a judge declining to re-litigate a settled ruling and a judge refusing to hear counsel. The Plaintiff's repeated re-filing of identical motions is not the exercise of a right. It is an abuse of process, and the Court is well within its authority to say so.

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that there was a breach of procedure. This occurred when NovaKerbal said this in Post #68: "If we consult the outlined trial timeline, which should be common knowledge to all lawyers, we can see that witness questioning occurs AFTER the defendants opening statement has been produced." The Court, in response, admonished Novakerbal by stating "#68 @Novakerbal Please don't tell opposing party how to lawyer on my docket, thanks." Plaintiff's wish for this be resolved with a striking of that statement, although possible, does not create a requirement on this Court to follow his lead.


3) The Presiding Officer's Conduct

The Court withdrew the second contempt charge upon further review. That is the system working as intended. The phrase the Plaintiff takes issue with was a direct and plainly worded warning that continued disregard for court procedure would carry consequences. Judges issue warnings. That is part of the role. The Plaintiff's displeasure with the tone of a warning does not constitute bias. The fact that Plaintiff thinks "dig your grave counselor" is cruel and unbecoming speaks VOLUMES to his conduct. The Plaintiff has, on the record, called a witness a "miscreant" (#93), referred to Anthony_Org as a "vile player," a "liar of the highest order," and a "sultan of falsification" (#87), accused opposing counsel of "perjury" in nearly every filing, described the Defendant's legal strategy as "shameless," "cowardly," "despicable," and "disgraceful," declared that this Court has been "defaced" on multiple occasions (#31, #39), and denounced rulings as "unconscionable" and a "sham" (#16). The Plaintiff has done all of this while representing himself as a licensed Barrister of this Commonwealth. If a colourful judicial warning constitutes cruelty in the Plaintiff's estimation, the Court is genuinely curious what the Plaintiff would call his own language.

For all the above reasons, the Court denies the motion.

Now, since the Plaintiff has raised concerns about this Court's competence, the Court feels it is only fair to review the Plaintiff's own track record in these proceedings. The Court presents the following for the record:

1. The Plaintiff filed an objection with no recognized objection type (#10), the Court rightfully struck it.
2. The Plaintiff filed an objection citing "Evidence is proper/relevant" as an objection type (#5). That is not a recognized objection. It was overruled.
3. The Plaintiff attempted to compel witness testimony before opening statements had even been filed. Not once. Not twice. Four, on four separate occasions (#19, #24, #37, #38, #61). Each time, the Court patiently explained that witnesses are called during witness testimony. Each time, the Plaintiff filed the motion again.
4. The Plaintiff filed the same Motion to Strike (#25, #32) and the same Motion to Reconsider (#33, #40) after each had already been ruled upon.
5. The Plaintiff wrote messages in full caps demanding to know how they could prove their case (#31, #39), which were struck for not constituting valid motions or objections.
6. The Plaintiff objected to an Amicus Curiae brief on grounds of Speculation, Narrative, Inflammatory, and Relevance (#18). The Defendant correctly noted that none of these objection types apply to an amicus brief, as it is not witness testimony and contains no questions. This was sustained.
7. The Plaintiff called a witness a "miscreant" on the record (#93) and had to be warned by the Court.
8. The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Recuse in the District Court using the header "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT" (#62). The Plaintiff also titled a Motion to Strike as being filed in the Federal Court (#62, #87). The Plaintiff does not appear to know which court they are in.
9. The Plaintiff responded to a Motion to Dismiss by filing an "Objection" citing "Calls for a conclusion" and "Inflammatory" (#63), neither of which is an appropriate response to a dispositive motion.
10. The Plaintiff labeled the Defendant's evidence as "Perjury, Hearsay, Immaterial" without citing a single legal standard or rule supporting any of those characterizations (#62, #87).

The Plaintiff's motions and filings have repeatedly failed to comply with the Court Rules. The Plaintiff's inability to comprehend them is not this Court's problem.

The Plaintiff has filed approximately 50 posts across these proceedings. A significant portion of them have been struck, denied, overruled, or disregarded for procedural deficiency. The Court respectfully suggests that the Plaintiff focus less on questioning the competence of the bench and more on reading the Court Rules and Procedures, which has been publicly available since before this case was filed.

Counsel would be well served to direct their energy toward the pending proceedings rather than toward attempts to remove the judge presiding over them.

Gladly signed,
Judge Mug

Click to expand...

Case Filing



MOTION

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


Your honour,

i request an independent party, qualified or with the appropriate rank to pass judgement, it is concerning how the judge Muggy appears to be the one ruling on whether the conduct of judge Muggy is innaprorpiate. It strikes me as a serious conflict of interest to allow judge Muggy to interpret and pass judgement, as such disregarding my motion. Some kind of seperation of powers would be appropriate no. It is incredibly interesting and unique situation, atleast from my perspective, asking someone to objectively judge their own alledged misbehaviour.

The judge did state that it may not hear motions, see evidence provided previously.

There may be 'a fundamental difference between a judge declining to re-litigate a settled ruling and a judge refusing to hear counsel', but that was at no point clarified by the judge, whom merely stated that they did not have to "listen to your motions for every little thing".

I am beyond stunned that the court has been able to make such a statement. The judge didnt clarify and provide the explanation that has been provided above, that was produced after the fact, does nothing to assist with my concerns.

Under no circumstances did anything regarding the 'Court has stated, with good reason, is that it will not entertain the same motion filed multiple times after it has already been ruled upon and will not hear motions that are not entertainable' come. None or little of this information was involved in any conversations the judge had with the plaintiff, and it is strange to claim otherwise. I invite evidence that proves otherwise to be provided.

Such as statement is untrue, and borderline perjury.

'The Plaintiff's repeated re-filing of identical motions is not the exercise of a right. It is an abuse of process, and the Court is well within its authority to say so' - i do not believe i have filed an motion that has been "identical" to a motion previous filed within this case.

Futhermore, I see no value on how the honourable judge's comments on the conduct of the plaintiff would possibly have any affect on a ruling regarding the conduct of Judge Muggy. It strikes me as being deployed as shield, unfairly shielding the judge from any criticism. The judge is obviously expected to conduct themselves to the highest and most appropriate, and impartial standards.

"dig your grave counselor" is cruel, no amount of deflection will change that, it is a horrible implication, as it suggests the plaintiffs impeding death. At no point has anything i stated, came remotely close to that level of nastiness, and i find the deflections of the judge to be ad hominem. An anecdotal defence that avoids having to engage or sidesteps criticism, by attacking the plaintiff.

The Court may not have made any "such statement nor implied anything regarding Plaintiff's mental state", but the judge did. The Plaintiff's characterization of the sidebar exchange is not inaccurate and should be reconsidered. "The Court simply attempted to survey the Plaintiff regarding his conduct within the case", is an entirely subjective jugement that i fundamentally disagree with.

I may regret some of the minor structural and strategic misteps that i may have made, as a relatively new lawyer or barrister, I also had some initial teething problems with formatting posts which I regret. I do not recall how posts #31 and #39 occured, but may regret the usage of caps as it detracts from my argument.
If the court, or the judge is so concerned with the conduct of the plaintiff, perhaps a motion to recuse the plaintiff would be appropriate.

I call for an independent and otherwise not engaged member of the judiciary to provide the ruling. I believe the ruling passed my the honourable Judge Muggy is inherently flawed, not impartial, and incorrect.




Futhermore i call for a full, impartial, indepepdent and clear investigation into the rejection of my motion to recuse.

 
Last edited:
Maxib02 said:

Case Filing



MOTION

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


Your honour,

i request an independent party, qualified or with the appropriate rank to pass judgement, it is concerning how the judge Muggy appears to be the one ruling on whether the conduct of judge Muggy is innaprorpiate. It strikes me as a serious conflict of interest to allow judge Muggy to interpret and pass judgement, as such disregarding my motion. Some kind of seperation of powers would be appropriate no. It is incredibly interesting and unique situation, atleast from my perspective, asking someone to objectively judge their own alledged misbehaviour.

The judge did state that it may not hear motions, see evidence provided previously.

There may be 'a fundamental difference between a judge declining to re-litigate a settled ruling and a judge refusing to hear counsel', but that was at no point clarified by the judge, whom merely stated that they did not have to "listen to your motions for every little thing".

I am beyond stunned that the court has been able to make such a statement. The judge didnt clarify and provide the explanation that has been provided above, that was produced after the fact, does nothing to assist with my concerns.

Under no circumstances did anything regarding the 'Court has stated, with good reason, is that it will not entertain the same motion filed multiple times after it has already been ruled upon and will not hear motions that are not entertainable' come. None or little of this information was involved in any conversations the judge had with the plaintiff, and it is strange to claim otherwise. I invite evidence that proves otherwise to be provided.

Such as statement is untrue, and borderline perjury.

'The Plaintiff's repeated re-filing of identical motions is not the exercise of a right. It is an abuse of process, and the Court is well within its authority to say so' - i do not believe i have filed an motion that has been "identical" to a motion previous filed within this case.

Futhermore, I see no value on how the honourable judge's comments on the conduct of the plaintiff would possibly have any affect on a ruling regarding the conduct of Judge Muggy. It strikes me as being deployed as shield, unfairly shielding the judge from any criticism. The judge is obviously expected to conduct themselves to the highest and most appropriate, and impartial standards.

"dig your grave counselor" is cruel, no amount of deflection will change that, it is a horrible implication, as it suggests the plaintiffs impeding death. At no point has anything i stated, came remotely close to that level of nastiness, and i find the deflections of the judge to be ad hominem. An anecdotal defence that avoids having to engage or sidesteps criticism, by attacking the plaintiff.

The Court may not have made any "such statement nor implied anything regarding Plaintiff's mental state", but the judge did. The Plaintiff's characterization of the sidebar exchange is not inaccurate and should be reconsidered. "The Court simply attempted to survey the Plaintiff regarding his conduct within the case", is an entirely subjective jugement that i fundamentally disagree with.

If the court, or the judge is so concerned with the conduct of the plaintiff, perhaps a motion to recuse the plaintiff would be appropriate.

I call for an independent and otherwise not engaged member of the judiciary to provide the ruling. I believe the ruling passed my the honourable Judge Muggy is inherently flawed, not impartial, and incorrect.




Futhermore i call for a full, impartial, indepepdent and clear investigation into the rejection of my motion to recuse.

Click to expand...

This appears to be a request to review my recusal. I'll notify the Magistrates and Chief Justice to review my findings in due time. All deadlines remain paused.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMON
Review of Denial of Recusal by Hon. Judge Muggy21
After careful review of the reason given by the hon. Judge Muggy21 for denying the recusal, The motion to reconsider made by the Plaintiff and the record as a whole and the sidebar; The District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont MAINTAINS THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE HON. JUDGE MUGGY21. The Court sees that the reasoning given for denial to recuse was sufficient to warrant refusal to recuse. The Hon. Muggy21 shall proceed with this case.

SO ORDERED,

1773268765471.png

 
Novakerbal said:

Motion



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - Rule 5.5 | Lack of Claim

Your Honor,

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

As of the closing of discovery, P-002 and P-003 have been struck, and the honorable Dearev has indicated that "the court cannot determine wether the damage to perception was caused by directly asking them or by the statement itself". Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any additional evidence that supports the claim that Maxib suffered quantifiable reputation harm due to the original statements made by the defendant. As this incident and case occurred prior to the passage of the RCCA, it still exists under the framework of the No More Defamation Act. Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 establishes the precedent to prove defamation as requiring the Plaintiff to provide “sufficient evidence to show that reputational harm occurred”. Indeed, as further examined in xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1 Plaintiffs “need to provide evidence that at least some damages occurred”. As the Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence during discovery to allege that actual, tangible reputational harm occurred, it has become abundantly clear that they lack the standing to pursue this defamation case. x

The Plaintiff asks for damages while no injury or damages have been shown to have occurred as a result of the defendants statements. This case should be dismissed with Prejudice as the plaintiff's approach has bordered on frivolity, and having been filed twice, as no evidence has been presented to the court to prove any amount of reputational harm done by the original statement, the court should not allow the Plaintiff to resubmit the same claim a third time and waste the time of the Judiciary and the defendant with more frivolous claims of imaginary damages.

Click to expand...

The Court is going to handle this Motion first, then proceed. @Novakerbal I'm going to hold your Opening Statement for now pending the motion.
 
I respectfully request to file an amicus brief regarding the provisions under the Modern Judical Standards Act, Part III, Section 4. This is necessary so that this court is aware of the proper procedure regarding recusals and the subsequent review by an alternative Judicial Officer.
 
ToadKing said:
I respectfully request to file an amicus brief regarding the provisions under the Modern Judical Standards Act, Part III, Section 4. This is necessary so that this court is aware of the proper procedure regarding recusals and the subsequent review by an alternative Judicial Officer.
Click to expand...


@ko531 Can you review my recusal motion, I misread the MJSA in my request for review.

(I believed since I was presiding in the DCR, that I'm effectively acting as a Magistrate; The law is based on rank, not Court).

@ToadKing Denied, insofar as I'm just gonna have Ko review.
 
I withdraw my request.
1000011776.png

thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

Oh you denied it, I didn't see that...
1000011777.png
 
Muggy21 said:
@ko531 Can you review my recusal motion, I misread the MJSA in my request for review.

(I believed since I was presiding in the DCR, that I'm effectively acting as a Magistrate; The law is based on rank, not Court).

@ToadKing Denied, insofar as I'm just gonna have Ko review.
Click to expand...

Your honor, we withdraw the motion which requests your recusal if it remains pending. I'd like to personally apologize on my own behalf for any delay this has caused the case. It was intended for the motion to have been withdrawn sooner.
 
edwindfitsgerald said:
I'm not a lawyer, but defamation requires that the person defaming the other person must know that the statement was untrue (whether they were right or wrong)
Click to expand...

Your opinion wasn't requested. Please don't speak on random court cases without a purpose.
 
MJL said:
Your honor, we withdraw the motion which requests your recusal if it remains pending. I'd like to personally apologize on my own behalf for any delay this has caused the case. It was intended for the motion to have been withdrawn sooner.
Click to expand...

@ko531 Plaintiff takes it back, he doesn't want you anymore.


Motion withdrawn. I'll go back to reviewing the motion to dismiss from earlier.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11


GRANTED with prejudice

A Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.5 is designed for complaints that either fail to articulate a valid claim, fail to articulate a reasoning without evidence, or in such circumstances that relief may not be realistically possible. Under the present circumstances, the Court sees no option but to dismiss the action permanently.

Plaintiff approached the Court seeking relief from alleged defamatory remark(s) made by Defendant regarding an election. In attempting to prove this harm, Plaintiff asked witnesses to remark on this alleged harm. As the Honourable Magistrate Dearev found, making such a public question is an unreliable way to ascertain an existence of a harm; The question itself is leading, thus requiring the witness to consider the underlying notion (that Plaintiff was defamed) to be true in order to give his or her opinion on the matter. If the harm existed naturally, one may argue, Plaintiff need not seek specific potentially biased witnesses. Even if the Court overlooked this fact, calling these witnesses and permitting their testimonies would be equally troubling; Attempting to reintroduce the same compromised evidence through written testimony, instead of the screenshots, is tantamount to permitting the same bias Plaintiff had perpetrated. This is strikingly clear when Plaintiff stated how "the claims by the defendant negatively impacted their perception of the plaintiff - backup (my emphasis) for if my now struck evidence got thrown out." Furthermore, mere change in perception is still not a harm; This Court deals with actionable harms borne of a legal fault, not a change in social standing devoid of a valid nexus. Essentially, the mere fact that someone thinks less of you is not, in of itself, a valid argument when attempting to prove defamation.


Considering this is the second action under the same general theory of harm, the Court sees it fit to halt future attempts. Permitting a third filing on the same claim would impose an unjustifiable burden on Defendant, this Court, and for the system at large. Plaintiff's inability to produce on-point argument or untainted evidence would cause this Court to reasonably conclude that no prosecutable claim exists. Thus, the action is dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiff is barred from filing an action on the same matter.

So ordered,
Judge Mug



 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top