Lawsuit: In Session Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96

[ToadKing]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Muggy21 (represented by ToadKing)
Plaintiff

v.

Riverardd (aka @Mrriverardd)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

The Defendant breached a Non-Disclosure Agreement by publicly disclosing the Plaintiff's confidential review role and falsely representing that the Plaintiff provided legal validation of the Defendant's work, constituting Breach of Contract and Defamation.

I. PARTIES​

1. Muggy21
2. Riverardd (aka @Mrriverardd)

​

II. FACTS​

1. On or around 3 October 2025, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff to review a document titled "Constitutional Vulnerability Assessment" analysing structural issues in the Commonwealth of Redmont's Constitution (the "Analysis").
2. On or around 3 October 2025, the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (the "NDA"). (P-001)
3. The NDA included "Appendix A" providing four signatory participation options for the Plaintiff to select. (P-002)
4. Under the NDA Section 2, "Confidential Information" is explicitly defined to include (P-003):

• The Constitutional Vulnerability Assessment document (full and brief versions)
• All supporting materials, appendices, and proposed amendments
• Discussions, feedback, or correspondence regarding the Analysis
• The fact that the Receiving Party has been approached to review the Analysis
• Any notes, summaries, or derivative works prepared by the Receiving Party containing or reflecting the Analysis

5. Under the NDA Section 3, the Receiving Party (Plaintiff) agreed to :

• Maintain confidentiality of all Confidential Information using reasonable care
• Use Confidential Information solely for the Purpose stated in Section 1
• Not disclose any Confidential Information to third parties without prior written consent

6. On or around 3 October 2025, the Plaintiff explicitly informed the Defendant: "So my legal opinion is 'law,' I can't offer that. If you want someone to help you by proofreading and offering suggestions, sure." (P-005)
7. On or around 3 October 2025, the Defendant acknowledged and accepted this limited scope, stating: "That makes perfect sense, I don't want to put you in the position of issuing 'law.' What I really had in mind was exactly what you mentioned: proofreading, structure, whether the arguments come across clearly, etc.. If you're open to that kind of feedback, it would mean a lot." (P-005)
8. On or around 4 October 2025, the Plaintiff accepted the NDA and explicitly selected "3. Confidential Reviewer" under Appendix A, stating: "I, Muggy21, agree to enter into and be bound by the terms of the Non-Disclosure Agreement and Appendix A attached to this message between Riverardd and myself. This message serves as my acceptance of that contract. I select '3. Confidential Reviewer' under Appendix A." (P-006)
9. Appendix A, Option 3 "Confidential Reviewer" provides (P-007):

• Provides feedback with no public attribution
• Feedback incorporated at the Disclosing Party’s discretion
• Confidentiality maintained per NDA terms

10. The Plaintiff explicitly stated in his acceptance: "I can't do 1 or 2 without knowing anything bout it," indicating he could not serve as a Lead or Endorsing Signatory. (P-006)
11. On or around 6 November 2025, an article titled "These 21 Constitutional Flaws Could Collapse Redmont" was published by TheBlockTimes, authored by CastoloGR. (P-008)
12. The article contained an interview section titled "Questions" with the Defendant. (P-008)
13. In the published interview, the Defendant made the following false statements:
a. Question: "How can I be sure this analysis is valid?"
Defendant's Response:

Fair question. The analysis has been reviewed and validated by Mug, who has legal background both irl and ingame as a supreme court magistrate.

b. Question: "Did you acquire help by anyone during this analysis, or was it independent effort?"
Defendant's Response:

The analysis itself was independent work. After completing it, I had Mug review and validate it, he has legal background both in real life and in-game as a supreme court magistrate. His validation confirmed the findings were sound.

14. These statements by the Defendant violated multiple provisions of the NDA:

• Disclosed "the fact that the Receiving Party has been approached to review the Analysis" in violation of NDA Section 2
• Provided public attribution to the Plaintiff in violation of Appendix A, Option 3
• Failed to maintain "confidentiality per NDA terms" in violation of Appendix A, Option 3
• Violated the Plaintiff's explicit selection of "Confidential Reviewer" status with "no public attribution"

15. The Defendant's statements falsely represented that the Plaintiff:

• "Reviewed and validated" the Analysis, when the Plaintiff only agreed to provide proofreading and suggestions
• Provided legal validation, when the Plaintiff explicitly stated "my legal opinion is 'law,' I can't offer that"
• Used his position as a judicial officer to endorse the work when the Plaintiff declined to do so

16. These false statements were made knowingly, as the Defendant was directly informed by the Plaintiff on or around 3 October 2025, that the Plaintiff could not and would not provide legal opinions or validation.
17. On or around 6 November 2025, approximately 2.5 hours after the article was published, TheBlockTimes issued a correction stating: "Turns out, Mug did NOT in fact validate the contents of the shared document, which means that Riverardd lied on broad daylight about a thing this simple. Additionally, based on the replies under the above article, it seems that the contents of the document are almost certainly, 100% inaccurate. You can go ahead and dismiss the contents of the above article." (P-009)
18. Despite the correction, the original article with the false statements remains published and accessible to the public.
19. The article generated 177 messages in response on the DemocracyCraft Discord server. (P-010)
20. The Plaintiff was mentioned 15 times in discussions related to the article.
21. As a direct result of the Defendant's false statements, members of the community publicly made the following statements about the Plaintiff:

• Robidemon2 stated: "wow @Mug I can't believe you offered your legal opinion and validated this article" (P-011)
• Imza stated: "@Mug I'm so disappointed." (P-012)
• juniperfig stated: "mug bribed smallfries to resign and also gave his legal opinion on a very wrong document about the constitution so we have to kill and impeach him i think" (P-013)

22. When the Plaintiff objected to the false statements, CastoloGR (the article author) responded with a meme stating "cry about it BITCH" and added "im joking for the record, idc if i get sued im barely playing on DC anymore." (P-014)
23. Under NDA Section 7 "Remedies," the agreement provides (P-015):

The Receiving Party acknowledges that unauthorized disclosure or misuse of Confidential Information may cause irreparable harm. The Disclosing Party is entitled to seek injunctive relief, specific performance, and any other legal or equitable remedies in addition to monetary damages.

24. Under NDA Section 10 "Good Faith," the agreement provides (P-016):

Both parties agree to act honestly, fairly, and in good faith with respect to all matters under this Agreement.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT​

Section 7 of the Contracts Act provides:

7 - Breach of Contract
(1) A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfil its contractual obligations.
(a) Remedies for breach may include damages, specific performance, or other equitable relief.

The Defendant breached the NDA in multiple respects.

The Defendant violated NDA Section 2 regarding "Confidential Information" by disclosing "the fact that the Receiving Party has been approached to review the Analysis" and making public statements revealing the Plaintiff's involvement. The Defendant violated Appendix A, Option 3 regarding "Confidential Reviewer" Terms by providing public attribution when "no public attribution" was guaranteed and by failing to maintain "confidentiality per NDA terms." The Defendant violated NDA Section 10 regarding Good Faith by failing to "act honestly, fairly, and in good faith," misrepresenting the Plaintiff's role and scope of work, and falsely claiming the Plaintiff provided "validation" when he only agreed to proofreading.

The Defendant's breaches were knowing and intentional, as evidenced by several facts. The Defendant signed the NDA and was bound by its terms. The Defendant was explicitly informed of the Plaintiff's limited role, specifically that he would only provide proofreading. The Defendant acknowledged this limitation in writing. Despite this knowledge and acknowledgement, the Defendant nevertheless publicly claimed the Plaintiff "reviewed and validated" the work.

Under NDA Section 7 "Remedies", while this section is written from the Disclosing Party's perspective, good faith duties should apply to both parties, so Plaintiff is entitled to the same "injunctive relief, specific performance, and any other legal or equitable remedies in addition to monetary damages" because the unauthorised disclosure has caused "irreparable harm."

​

2. DEFAMATION (LIBEL)​

Section 4(2) of the No More Defamation Act defines libel as:

(a) 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.

The Defendant made false statements of fact that were published in a public media outlet (TheBlockTimes), and were "embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation" under the No More Defamation Act - specifically:

1. "The analysis has been reviewed and validated by Mug"
2. "After completing it, I had Mug review and validate it"
3. "His validation confirmed the findings were sound"

These statements were demonstrably false for several reasons. The Plaintiff explicitly stated he could not provide legal opinions, telling the Defendant "my legal opinion is 'law,' I can't offer that." The Plaintiff only agreed to "proofreading and offering suggestions." The Defendant acknowledged this limited scope in writing. The Plaintiff selected "Confidential Reviewer" status, not a validating role.

The statements were injurious to the Plaintiff's reputation as a sitting Magistrate because they falsely suggested he provided legal validation of controversial analysis, misused his judicial credentials to lend credibility to work he did not endorse, exposed him to public criticism for allegedly giving improper legal opinions, and associated him with analysis described by TheBlockTimes as "100% inaccurate."

The statements exposed the Plaintiff to public contempt or ridicule, as evidenced by community members publicly stating he gave "legal opinion on a very wrong document," should be "killed and impeached,". Multiple members also expressed dissatisfaction and disappointment with the Plaintiffs' supposed involvement with the article.

The Defendant's statements were made with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth because the Defendant knew the statements were false, the Plaintiff explicitly told him what he could and could not do, the Defendant acknowledged this limitation in writing, and the Defendant nevertheless made the false claims publicly.

As a direct and proximate result of the defamatory statements, the Plaintiff suffered multiple forms of harm. He suffered injury to his professional reputation as a Magistrate, particularly regarding his ability to maintain the impartiality required under Section 12 of the Judicial Standards Act. He suffered public humiliation and ridicule, as evidenced by the 177 public messages responding to the article and the 15 instances where he was mentioned in related discussions. He was falsely associated with an analysis he did not validate. As a result, he suffered a loss of credibility in his judicial role, creating potential grounds for future recusal motions in lawsuits, under Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act, based on an appearance of bias stemming from these false public statements.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

1. $25,000 in Consequential Damages for Humiliation pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 7(1)(I).

2. $75,000 in Punitive Damages pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 5, as the Defendant's conduct was outrageous.

3. A Court Order requiring the Defendant to retract all statements claiming the Plaintiff "reviewed and validated" his work and issue a public apology for breaching the NDA and making false statements.

4. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to Legal Damages Act Section 9(2)(c)

​

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: P-001

See NDA.pdf

Spoiler: P-002

See APPENDIX A.pdf

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

These 21 Constitutional Flaws Could Collapse Redmont - TheBlockTimes

Redmont’s Constitution is intended to be the foundation of DC’s political system. Instead, a recent in-depth analysis by a community member sugge...

theblocktimes.demcraft.site

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

Spoiler: P-013

Spoiler: P-014

Spoiler: P-015

Spoiler: P-016

WITNESSES​

1. Muggy21
2. Riverardd

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 22nd day of November 2025

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Riverardd, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96

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.

 

[ToadKing]

Writ of Summons

@Riverardd, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96

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.

Your Honour,

As the Defendant lacks Discord, I have taken it upon myself to uncover the Defendant's forum account.
To ensure they are properly notified, and to ensure the case filing is accurately reflected, I request leave of this court to update the case filing to include the Defendant's forum account - @Mrriverardd

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

As the Defendant lacks Discord, I have taken it upon myself to uncover the Defendant's forum account.
To ensure they are properly notified, and to ensure the case filing is accurately reflected, I request leave of this court to update the case filing to include the Defendant's forum account - @Mrriverardd

Granted. You may update your filing.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour, the Defendant has not appeared.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour, the Defendant has not appeared.

PD is to be shortly assigned.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to enter default judgment against the Defendant.

This case was filed on 22 November 2025, and this court stated on 27 November 2025 that a Public Defender would be "shortly assigned." It is now 02 December 2025, ten days since filing and five days since the Court indicated representation would be provided - and the Defendant has failed to appear, failed to submit an answer to the complaint, and has made no effort to make themselves known to this Court or to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant's complete failure to respond or participate in these proceedings for over a week constitutes a failure to submit any defence whatsoever.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has a constitutional right under Section 32(9) of the Constitution to "a speedy and fair trial," and this case has been dragging with no significant progress due to the Defendant's absence and failure to engage with the judicial process. The Defendant has been properly served through the filing of this complaint, has had ample notice of these proceedings, and has been afforded more than sufficient time to retain counsel or be assigned a Public Defender.

The continued delay caused by the Defendant's failure to appear violates the Plaintiff's right to speedy resolution of this matter. It prejudices the Plaintiff's ability to obtain timely relief for the harms he has suffered. Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter default judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and award all relief requested in the Prayer for Relief.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff respectfully moves for the recusal of the presiding Magistrate and requests that this matter be reassigned to an available judicial officer who can promptly adjudicate this case.

The presiding Magistrate is on leave of absence until 09 December 2025. While the Plaintiff acknowledges and respects the Magistrate's full entitlement to take leave, the continued delay resulting from judicial unavailability constitutes a violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional right under Section 32(9) to "a speedy and fair trial." This case was filed on 22 November 2025, and by 09 December 2025 - when the Magistrate returns - it will have been 17 days since filing with no substantive progress. The Defendant has failed to appear or file any answer, and the matter is ready for default judgment, yet the Plaintiff's rights are being infringed upon by the lack of available court staff to resolve this straightforward matter.

Under Section 21(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is responsible for appointing Magistrates to serve on the District Court, yet they have seen fit to leave the District Court so sparse that it cannot adequately cover cases when magistrates exercise their right to take leave.

This systemic failure to maintain sufficient judicial capacity should not result in the deprivation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Pursuant to Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act regarding recusal, and in light of the presiding Magistrate's unavailability preventing timely adjudication of this matter, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court recuse the presiding Magistrate and reassign this case to any available judicial officer who can promptly rule on the pending Motion for Default Judgment.

 

[Superwoops]

I am present as the assigned Public Defender.
I had previously notified the court the soonest I would be able to take this case was today.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to enter default judgment against the Defendant.

This case was filed on 22 November 2025, and this court stated on 27 November 2025 that a Public Defender would be "shortly assigned." It is now 02 December 2025, ten days since filing and five days since the Court indicated representation would be provided - and the Defendant has failed to appear, failed to submit an answer to the complaint, and has made no effort to make themselves known to this Court or to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant's complete failure to respond or participate in these proceedings for over a week constitutes a failure to submit any defence whatsoever.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has a constitutional right under Section 32(9) of the Constitution to "a speedy and fair trial," and this case has been dragging with no significant progress due to the Defendant's absence and failure to engage with the judicial process. The Defendant has been properly served through the filing of this complaint, has had ample notice of these proceedings, and has been afforded more than sufficient time to retain counsel or be assigned a Public Defender.

The continued delay caused by the Defendant's failure to appear violates the Plaintiff's right to speedy resolution of this matter. It prejudices the Plaintiff's ability to obtain timely relief for the harms he has suffered. Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter default judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and award all relief requested in the Prayer for Relief.

Your honour, may I respond?

 

[dearev]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff respectfully moves for the recusal of the presiding Magistrate and requests that this matter be reassigned to an available judicial officer who can promptly adjudicate this case.

The presiding Magistrate is on leave of absence until 09 December 2025. While the Plaintiff acknowledges and respects the Magistrate's full entitlement to take leave, the continued delay resulting from judicial unavailability constitutes a violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional right under Section 32(9) to "a speedy and fair trial." This case was filed on 22 November 2025, and by 09 December 2025 - when the Magistrate returns - it will have been 17 days since filing with no substantive progress. The Defendant has failed to appear or file any answer, and the matter is ready for default judgment, yet the Plaintiff's rights are being infringed upon by the lack of available court staff to resolve this straightforward matter.

Under Section 21(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is responsible for appointing Magistrates to serve on the District Court, yet they have seen fit to leave the District Court so sparse that it cannot adequately cover cases when magistrates exercise their right to take leave.

This systemic failure to maintain sufficient judicial capacity should not result in the deprivation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Pursuant to Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act regarding recusal, and in light of the presiding Magistrate's unavailability preventing timely adjudication of this matter, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court recuse the presiding Magistrate and reassign this case to any available judicial officer who can promptly rule on the pending Motion for Default Judgment.

Granted.

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to enter default judgment against the Defendant.

This case was filed on 22 November 2025, and this court stated on 27 November 2025 that a Public Defender would be "shortly assigned." It is now 02 December 2025, ten days since filing and five days since the Court indicated representation would be provided - and the Defendant has failed to appear, failed to submit an answer to the complaint, and has made no effort to make themselves known to this Court or to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant's complete failure to respond or participate in these proceedings for over a week constitutes a failure to submit any defence whatsoever.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has a constitutional right under Section 32(9) of the Constitution to "a speedy and fair trial," and this case has been dragging with no significant progress due to the Defendant's absence and failure to engage with the judicial process. The Defendant has been properly served through the filing of this complaint, has had ample notice of these proceedings, and has been afforded more than sufficient time to retain counsel or be assigned a Public Defender.

The continued delay caused by the Defendant's failure to appear violates the Plaintiff's right to speedy resolution of this matter. It prejudices the Plaintiff's ability to obtain timely relief for the harms he has suffered. Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter default judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and award all relief requested in the Prayer for Relief.

DENIED. The Public Defender appeared later than usual due to a lack of availability of Public Defenders. The Public Defender is now present and ready to defend Defendant. Plaintiff is not meaningfully harmed by a delay of a few days caused by the later appearance of the Public Defender.

 

[Vennefly]

Your honour, may I respond?

DENIED as moot.

 

[Vennefly]

@Superwoops please present an Answer to Complaint within 48 hours.

 

[Vennefly]

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for such responses shall be 48 hours after the motion was filed.

@Superwoops @ToadKing

 

[ToadKing]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff and Defence have reached a settlement resolving all claims in this matter. The parties request that the Court enforce the following agreed-upon terms, to the best of the Defendant's ability.
The Defendant shall pay:

1. $25,000 in Consequential Damages
2. $75,000 in Punitive Damages
3. 30% Legal Fees

The Plaintiff will not pursue the previously requested Court Order requiring the Defendant to retract all statements and issue a public apology.

 

[Vennefly]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff and Defence have reached a settlement resolving all claims in this matter. The parties request that the Court enforce the following agreed-upon terms, to the best of the Defendant's ability.
The Defendant shall pay:

1. $25,000 in Consequential Damages
2. $75,000 in Punitive Damages
3. 30% Legal Fees

The Plaintiff will not pursue the previously requested Court Order requiring the Defendant to retract all statements and issue a public apology.

@Superwoops please confirm if this is correct. With this, also please inform the Court whether or not your Client has personally approved this settlement.

 

[Superwoops]

I can confirm this is the agreement we reached.
I have not been able to contact my client, as they have left the Discord server (deleted their account, apparently)
Furthermore please note that my client only has a little over $800 in his balance.

 

[Vennefly]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER DECLINING RECOGNITION OF SETTLEMENT, DISMISSAL OF PUBLIC DEFENDER

This matter comes before the Court on the parties' request that the Court recognise and enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the Plaintiff and the Public Defender for the Defendant.

Under the Public Defender Program, when a summoned player fails to appear, a Public Defender may be appointed. They are granted limited power of attorney to act on behalf of an inactive or unreachable Defendant. This authority exists to protect the Defendant's interests and to allow the case to proceed in a fair and orderly manner.

The Court has reviewed the proposed settlement. The agreement grants the Plaintiff essentially all requested relief, with the sole exception of a public retraction and apology, which cannot be performed by an inactive Defendant. The settlement would result in the immediate and total bankruptcy of the Defendant.

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is grossly one-sided and incompatible with the duty of counsel to protect the Defendant's interests. No reasonable attorney, acting in good faith and in the best interests of their client, would agree to such terms. The Public Defender's authority in this matter arises solely from necessity and exists to preserve the Defendant's rights in their absence. That limited power of attorney does not extend to consenting to an agreement that so clearly and disproportionately prejudices the Defendant. Particularly where the Defendant has not provided consent and cannot meaningfully ratify the agreement.

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to recognise or enforce the proposed settlement.

Furthermore, the Court finds that the Public Defender has failed to adequately protect the Defendant's interests. The Public Defender is therefore DISMISSED from this matter, effective immediately.

The Court will appoint a new Public Defender to represent the Defendant. Proceedings in this case are stayed until the new Public Defender enters an appearance in this Court.

SO ORDERED,
Magistrate Venne.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its Order Declining Recognition of Settlement.

The Court dismissed the Public Defender on the grounds that "no reasonable attorney, acting in good faith and in the best interests of their client, would agree to such terms," finding that the Public Defender "failed to adequately protect the Defendant's interests." However, this standard is legally incorrect under the Court's own rules. Court Rule 6.5 explicitly establishes that:

A public defender is not required to listen to the demands of a player whom is utilizing the public defender, nor is the public defender necessarily required to argue their client’s innocence.

Rule 6.5 requires only that a Public Defender:

1. Timely respond to cases on their behalf
2. Protect the player’s constitutional rights
3. Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client’s situation, even settling if needed.

The Public Defender satisfied all three requirements by negotiating a settlement that avoided default judgment, eliminated the court-ordered retraction and apology, and resolved the case without prolonged litigation.

The Court applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring the Public Defender to act in the Defendant's "best interests" when Rule 6.5 imposes no such duty. The settlement complied with all applicable rules and should be enforced as agreed by the parties.

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its Order Declining Recognition of Settlement.

The Court dismissed the Public Defender on the grounds that "no reasonable attorney, acting in good faith and in the best interests of their client, would agree to such terms," finding that the Public Defender "failed to adequately protect the Defendant's interests." However, this standard is legally incorrect under the Court's own rules. Court Rule 6.5 explicitly establishes that:

Rule 6.5 requires only that a Public Defender:

1. Timely respond to cases on their behalf
2. Protect the player’s constitutional rights
3. Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client’s situation, even settling if needed.

The Public Defender satisfied all three requirements by negotiating a settlement that avoided default judgment, eliminated the court-ordered retraction and apology, and resolved the case without prolonged litigation.

The Court applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring the Public Defender to act in the Defendant's "best interests" when Rule 6.5 imposes no such duty. The settlement complied with all applicable rules and should be enforced as agreed by the parties.

These proceedings are stayed pending appointment of a new Public Defender. The Public Defender may respond to this motion within 48 hours of appearing, and the Court will subsequently rule on it.

 

[Superwoops]

I am present as the reassigned Public Defender.

 

[Vennefly]

I am present as the reassigned Public Defender.

This Court has dismissed you from this case as a Public Defender. You are hereby DISMISSED from this case again. You are not to appear on behalf of the Defendant again. Doing so will result in being held in Contempt of Court.

@Vernicia is hereby assigned as Public Defender in this case. Please appear within 72 hours. After appearing, you will have 48 hours to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

This Court has dismissed you from this case as a Public Defender. You are hereby DISMISSED from this case again. You are not to appear on behalf of the Defendant again. Doing so will result in being held in Contempt of Court.

@Vernicia is hereby assigned as Public Defender in this case. Please appear within 72 hours. After appearing, you will have 48 hours to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider.

The public defender director has assigned @Superwoops to this case, not Vernicia.

Please do not hold my Defender in contempt for operating under my authority, and do not assume my authority.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its Order Declining Recognition of Settlement.

The Court dismissed the Public Defender on the grounds that "no reasonable attorney, acting in good faith and in the best interests of their client, would agree to such terms," finding that the Public Defender "failed to adequately protect the Defendant's interests." However, this standard is legally incorrect under the Court's own rules. Court Rule 6.5 explicitly establishes that:

Rule 6.5 requires only that a Public Defender:

1. Timely respond to cases on their behalf
2. Protect the player’s constitutional rights
3. Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client’s situation, even settling if needed.

The Public Defender satisfied all three requirements by negotiating a settlement that avoided default judgment, eliminated the court-ordered retraction and apology, and resolved the case without prolonged litigation.

The Court applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring the Public Defender to act in the Defendant's "best interests" when Rule 6.5 imposes no such duty. The settlement complied with all applicable rules and should be enforced as agreed by the parties.

Response

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Defendant's counsel agrees to the motion to reconsider on the condition that only his in-game balance be used for transferring funds if a verdict enforcing said agreement is reached.
However, if this response means that the Presiding Officer will once again dismiss the Public Defender or charge me with contempt, let it be known that I disagree with the above motion.
Let it be fully known that this feels like a skewed case, where the Presiding Officer is not acting in an unbiased manner, trying to dictate the terms of an agreement that in my professional legal opinion, does benefit my client.

 

[Vennefly]

The public defender director has assigned @Superwoops to this case, not Vernicia.

Please do not hold my Defender in contempt for operating under my authority, and do not assume my authority.

These comments are STRUCK. You are hereby held in Contempt of Court. You shall be fined R$1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

 

[Vennefly]

Response

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Defendant's counsel agrees to the motion to reconsider on the condition that only his in-game balance be used for transferring funds if a verdict enforcing said agreement is reached.
However, if this response means that the Presiding Officer will once again dismiss the Public Defender or charge me with contempt, let it be known that I disagree with the above motion.
Let it be fully known that this feels like a skewed case, where the Presiding Officer is not acting in an unbiased manner, trying to dictate the terms of an agreement that in my professional legal opinion, does benefit my client.

This filing is STRUCK. You are hereby held in Contempt of Court. You shall be fined R$1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

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

This Presiding Officer has shown me, and the PD office as a whole, nothing but disrespect. They have cited non-existent rules for the dismissal of a PD. Now that all their attempts toward my dismissal have failed, they keep attempting to dismiss me for no apparent reason. I move for the PO to be recused for the reason of bias and prejudice regarding me, and consequently, the Defense.
By stating that, by appearing as required by my employer, the Public Defender Director, "will result in being held in Contempt of Court" feels like a personal vendetta for no apparent reason against me.
Not only is this gross judicial overreach, this is also judicial misconduct which will be referred to members of Congress.

 

[Superwoops]

These comments are STRUCK. You are hereby held in Contempt of Court. You shall be fined R$1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

Motion

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

Your honour,
The PD Director was only trying to clarify his authority and decision to appoint me as PD to the court.
I humbly ask for you to reconsider the Contempt charge.

 

[ToadKing]

For the love of all things that are holy.

Motion

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

Pursuant to Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act and the Motions Guide, the Plaintiff move for the recusal of the presiding judicial officer.

Section 16(1) of the Judicial Standards Act, defines recusal as "the act of abstaining from participation in a case due to a conflict of interest," and Section 16(4)(a) identifies "Bias/appearance of bias" as grounds for disqualification. The Motions Guide further specifies that recusal is appropriate where "the judge has made previous rulings or comments suggesting they have pre-judged the case."

The Court's Order Declining Recognition of Settlement contains sweeping factual and legal determinations that can only properly be made after a full trial on the merits. Before any Answer has been filed, before Discovery has occurred, and before any evidence has been presented, Magistrate Venne has declared that the settlement is "grossly one-sided," would result in "immediate and total bankruptcy of the Defendant," is "incompatible with the duty of counsel to protect the Defendant's interests," and that "no reasonable attorney, acting in good faith and in the best interests of their client, would agree to such terms." These statements constitute findings on the ultimate merits of the case - specifically, that the damages sought by the Plaintiff are excessive, unreasonable, and unjustified - before the normal judicial process has even begun. The Plaintiff cannot receive a fair trial before a judicial officer who has already determined, on the pleadings alone, that the requested damages are so excessive that agreeing to them would constitute legal malpractice. This demonstrates an appearance of bias requiring recusal under Section 16(4)(a) of the Judicial Standards Act.

Furthermore, the Court has fundamentally exceeded its authority by rejecting a settlement agreement negotiated in good faith between the parties. The Public Defender, acting within their authority under the Constitution, Section 14 "The Judicial arm of Government shall also establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel." and Court Rule 6.5, negotiated a settlement that avoided default judgment and provided tangible benefit to the Defendant by eliminating the court-ordered retraction and apology that "cannot be performed by an inactive Defendant," as the Court itself acknowledged.

The Court has no authority to reject a settlement simply because it believes the terms are unfavourable - the role of the Court is to enforce agreements that parties reach in good faith, not to protect parties from settlements they voluntarily agree to through counsel.

By rejecting the settlement and dismissing the Public Defender for agreeing to the exact terms requested in the Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief, Magistrate Venne has effectively ruled that the Plaintiff's claims are unmeritorious before hearing any evidence, demonstrating pre-judgment requiring immediate recusal.

The Plaintiff requests that this Court grant this Motion, remove Magistrate Venne from this matter and reassign the case to an impartial judicial officer.

 

[Superwoops]

For the love of all things that are holy.

Motion

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

Pursuant to Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act and the Motions Guide, the Plaintiff move for the recusal of the presiding judicial officer.

Section 16(1) of the Judicial Standards Act, defines recusal as "the act of abstaining from participation in a case due to a conflict of interest," and Section 16(4)(a) identifies "Bias/appearance of bias" as grounds for disqualification. The Motions Guide further specifies that recusal is appropriate where "the judge has made previous rulings or comments suggesting they have pre-judged the case."

The Court's Order Declining Recognition of Settlement contains sweeping factual and legal determinations that can only properly be made after a full trial on the merits. Before any Answer has been filed, before Discovery has occurred, and before any evidence has been presented, Magistrate Venne has declared that the settlement is "grossly one-sided," would result in "immediate and total bankruptcy of the Defendant," is "incompatible with the duty of counsel to protect the Defendant's interests," and that "no reasonable attorney, acting in good faith and in the best interests of their client, would agree to such terms." These statements constitute findings on the ultimate merits of the case - specifically, that the damages sought by the Plaintiff are excessive, unreasonable, and unjustified - before the normal judicial process has even begun. The Plaintiff cannot receive a fair trial before a judicial officer who has already determined, on the pleadings alone, that the requested damages are so excessive that agreeing to them would constitute legal malpractice. This demonstrates an appearance of bias requiring recusal under Section 16(4)(a) of the Judicial Standards Act.

Furthermore, the Court has fundamentally exceeded its authority by rejecting a settlement agreement negotiated in good faith between the parties. The Public Defender, acting within their authority under the Constitution, Section 14 "The Judicial arm of Government shall also establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel." and Court Rule 6.5, negotiated a settlement that avoided default judgment and provided tangible benefit to the Defendant by eliminating the court-ordered retraction and apology that "cannot be performed by an inactive Defendant," as the Court itself acknowledged.

The Court has no authority to reject a settlement simply because it believes the terms are unfavourable - the role of the Court is to enforce agreements that parties reach in good faith, not to protect parties from settlements they voluntarily agree to through counsel.

By rejecting the settlement and dismissing the Public Defender for agreeing to the exact terms requested in the Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief, Magistrate Venne has effectively ruled that the Plaintiff's claims are unmeritorious before hearing any evidence, demonstrating pre-judgment requiring immediate recusal.

The Plaintiff requests that this Court grant this Motion, remove Magistrate Venne from this matter and reassign the case to an impartial judicial officer.

Your honour, may the Defense respond?

 

[Superwoops]

This filing is STRUCK. You are hereby held in Contempt of Court. You shall be fined R$1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

Motion

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

Your honour, acting in my capacity as Defendant's counsel as appointed by the PDD, I ask that the Court reconsider this charge.
Disobeying a lawful order of the court and engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice are not terms that at all apply to my conduct in this case.
The court gave no actionable, lawful order to me prior to this contempt charge. This court ordered the PDD to assign a new PD. The PDD assigned me. I responded. I received no order prior to this charge after my reappointment.
As to obstruction of justice, in reality, this is the opposite. I am simply trying to further the enactment of justice in this case by representing the Defendant.

For these reasons, I humbly ask the court to reconsider.

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

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

This Presiding Officer has shown me, and the PD office as a whole, nothing but disrespect. They have cited non-existent rules for the dismissal of a PD. Now that all their attempts toward my dismissal have failed, they keep attempting to dismiss me for no apparent reason. I move for the PO to be recused for the reason of bias and prejudice regarding me, and consequently, the Defense.
By stating that, by appearing as required by my employer, the Public Defender Director, "will result in being held in Contempt of Court" feels like a personal vendetta for no apparent reason against me.
Not only is this gross judicial overreach, this is also judicial misconduct which will be referred to members of Congress.

This filing is STRUCK. You are not a Party to this case and therefore not entitled to file motions. This Court has instructed you to stop filing in this case.

To clarify: as determined in Section 14 of the Constitution "The Judicial arm of Government shall also establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel". The Public Defender program falls under the prerogative of the Court and the Court is therefore absolutely empowered to appoint or dismiss Public Defenders as it sees fit.

You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for disobeying a lawful order of this Court. You shall be fined R$2,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

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

Your honour,
The PD Director was only trying to clarify his authority and decision to appoint me as PD to the court.
I humbly ask for you to reconsider the Contempt charge.

This filing is STRUCK. You are not a Party to this case and therefore not entitled to file motions. This Court has instructed you to stop filing in this case.

You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for disobeying a lawful order of this Court. You shall be fined R$4,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes. Furthermore, you will be issued one Conduct Strike pursuant to Section 3 of the Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act for continuing to disobey a lawful Court Order and for causing a severe disturbance of the Court's proceedings.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Hello, in my authority as the Public Defender Director, I have assigned this case to @asexualdinosaur

 

[ToadKing]

These comments are STRUCK. You are hereby held in Contempt of Court. You shall be fined R$1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

This filing is STRUCK. You are hereby held in Contempt of Court. You shall be fined R$1,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

This filing is STRUCK. You are not a Party to this case and therefore not entitled to file motions. This Court has instructed you to stop filing in this case.

To clarify: as determined in Section 14 of the Constitution "The Judicial arm of Government shall also establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel". The Public Defender program falls under the prerogative of the Court and the Court is therefore absolutely empowered to appoint or dismiss Public Defenders as it sees fit.

You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for disobeying a lawful order of this Court. You shall be fined R$2,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes.

This filing is STRUCK. You are not a Party to this case and therefore not entitled to file motions. This Court has instructed you to stop filing in this case.

You are hereby held in Contempt of Court for disobeying a lawful order of this Court. You shall be fined R$4,000 and imprisoned for 10 minutes. Furthermore, you will be issued one Conduct Strike pursuant to Section 3 of the Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act for continuing to disobey a lawful Court Order and for causing a severe disturbance of the Court's proceedings.

Quickest way to blow a relatively simple case out of the water, and 101 other ways mini-tyrants can ruin your morning, when you should be in bed.

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider and vacate the Contempt of Court charges, and conduct strike imposed against the Public Defender Director and Public Defender. These charges are legally unfounded and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional separation of powers within the Judicial branch.

Your Honour is correct, Section 14 of the Constitution mandates that "The Judicial arm of Government shall also establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel." The Judicial arm has fulfilled this constitutional mandate by establishing the office of Public Defender Director with specific duties defined by judicial policy.

These duties expressly include: "Manage and supervise attorneys, staff, and support personnel within the Public Defender's office." The authority to assign Public Defenders to cases falls squarely within the scope of "manage and supervise attorneys" and is vested in the Public Defender Director, not in individual presiding magistrates.

The Court has stated that "the Public Defender program falls under the prerogative of the Court and the Court is therefore absolutely empowered to appoint or dismiss Public Defenders as it sees fit." This interpretation conflates two distinct concepts. The constitutional directive to "establish and maintain" the program has been fulfilled by the Judicial arm, creating the Public Defender Director position with defined supervisory authority. Individual magistrates presiding over cases do not possess the authority to override the operational management decisions of the Public Defender Director. The Constitution vests the power to establish and maintain the program in "the Judicial arm of Government" - the institutional judiciary - not in individual magistrates presiding over individual cases.

The Public Defender Director is charged by judicial policy with "Manage and supervise attorneys, staff, and support personnel within the Public Defender's office" and to "Provide leadership and direction for the Public Defender's office." When the Public Defender Director assigned a specific attorney to this case, that assignment was made pursuant to their constitutionally-derived authority to manage the program. The presiding magistrate does not have the authority to countermand that assignment by personally selecting a different Public Defender. The magistrate's role is to ensure the Defendant receives competent representation as defined by Court Rule 6.5. The magistrate's role does not extend to micromanaging which specific attorney the Public Defender Director assigns to fulfil that representation.

 

[ToadKing]

Quickest way to blow a relatively simple case out of the water, and 101 other ways mini-tyrants can ruin your morning, when you should be in bed.

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider and vacate the Contempt of Court charges, and conduct strike imposed against the Public Defender Director and Public Defender. These charges are legally unfounded and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional separation of powers within the Judicial branch.

Your Honour is correct, Section 14 of the Constitution mandates that "The Judicial arm of Government shall also establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel." The Judicial arm has fulfilled this constitutional mandate by establishing the office of Public Defender Director with specific duties defined by judicial policy.

These duties expressly include: "Manage and supervise attorneys, staff, and support personnel within the Public Defender's office." The authority to assign Public Defenders to cases falls squarely within the scope of "manage and supervise attorneys" and is vested in the Public Defender Director, not in individual presiding magistrates.

The Court has stated that "the Public Defender program falls under the prerogative of the Court and the Court is therefore absolutely empowered to appoint or dismiss Public Defenders as it sees fit." This interpretation conflates two distinct concepts. The constitutional directive to "establish and maintain" the program has been fulfilled by the Judicial arm, creating the Public Defender Director position with defined supervisory authority. Individual magistrates presiding over cases do not possess the authority to override the operational management decisions of the Public Defender Director. The Constitution vests the power to establish and maintain the program in "the Judicial arm of Government" - the institutional judiciary - not in individual magistrates presiding over individual cases.

The Public Defender Director is charged by judicial policy with "Manage and supervise attorneys, staff, and support personnel within the Public Defender's office" and to "Provide leadership and direction for the Public Defender's office." When the Public Defender Director assigned a specific attorney to this case, that assignment was made pursuant to their constitutionally-derived authority to manage the program. The presiding magistrate does not have the authority to countermand that assignment by personally selecting a different Public Defender. The magistrate's role is to ensure the Defendant receives competent representation as defined by Court Rule 6.5. The magistrate's role does not extend to micromanaging which specific attorney the Public Defender Director assigns to fulfil that representation.

Plaintiff requests that this motion ONLY be ruled after Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse is ruled upon to the maximum extent possible.

 

[Vennefly]

For the love of all things that are holy.

Motion

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

Pursuant to Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act and the Motions Guide, the Plaintiff move for the recusal of the presiding judicial officer.

Section 16(1) of the Judicial Standards Act, defines recusal as "the act of abstaining from participation in a case due to a conflict of interest," and Section 16(4)(a) identifies "Bias/appearance of bias" as grounds for disqualification. The Motions Guide further specifies that recusal is appropriate where "the judge has made previous rulings or comments suggesting they have pre-judged the case."

The Court's Order Declining Recognition of Settlement contains sweeping factual and legal determinations that can only properly be made after a full trial on the merits. Before any Answer has been filed, before Discovery has occurred, and before any evidence has been presented, Magistrate Venne has declared that the settlement is "grossly one-sided," would result in "immediate and total bankruptcy of the Defendant," is "incompatible with the duty of counsel to protect the Defendant's interests," and that "no reasonable attorney, acting in good faith and in the best interests of their client, would agree to such terms." These statements constitute findings on the ultimate merits of the case - specifically, that the damages sought by the Plaintiff are excessive, unreasonable, and unjustified - before the normal judicial process has even begun. The Plaintiff cannot receive a fair trial before a judicial officer who has already determined, on the pleadings alone, that the requested damages are so excessive that agreeing to them would constitute legal malpractice. This demonstrates an appearance of bias requiring recusal under Section 16(4)(a) of the Judicial Standards Act.

Furthermore, the Court has fundamentally exceeded its authority by rejecting a settlement agreement negotiated in good faith between the parties. The Public Defender, acting within their authority under the Constitution, Section 14 "The Judicial arm of Government shall also establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel." and Court Rule 6.5, negotiated a settlement that avoided default judgment and provided tangible benefit to the Defendant by eliminating the court-ordered retraction and apology that "cannot be performed by an inactive Defendant," as the Court itself acknowledged.

The Court has no authority to reject a settlement simply because it believes the terms are unfavourable - the role of the Court is to enforce agreements that parties reach in good faith, not to protect parties from settlements they voluntarily agree to through counsel.

By rejecting the settlement and dismissing the Public Defender for agreeing to the exact terms requested in the Plaintiff's Prayer for Relief, Magistrate Venne has effectively ruled that the Plaintiff's claims are unmeritorious before hearing any evidence, demonstrating pre-judgment requiring immediate recusal.

The Plaintiff requests that this Court grant this Motion, remove Magistrate Venne from this matter and reassign the case to an impartial judicial officer.

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECUSE

The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse pursuant to Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act. For the reasons stated below, I DECLINE to voluntarily recuse. A second Judicial Officer will review this motion and will make a ruling on it.

I. Applicable standard
Recusal is an extraordinary remedy. Section 16 of the Judicial Standards Act requires disqualification only where a judicial officer has a conflict of interest, which includes when a bias or the appearance of bias has been shown. Adverse rulings, enforcement of court authority, or statements made in the course of resolving procedural matters do not, on their own, constitute bias or pre-judgment.

A judge is not required to recuse simply because a party disagrees with prior rulings or because the Court has made findings necessary to resolve motions properly before it.

II. The Court has not pre-judged the merits
The Plaintiff's Motion repeatedly characterises the Court's prior Orders as determinations on the ultimate merits of the Plaintiff's claims. This characterisation is incorrect.

The Court has made no findings as to liability, the truth of the Plaintiff's allegations, the proper measure of damages or the Plaintiff's entitlement to relief after trial.

The Court's prior rulings addressed only whether a court-appointed Public Defender, acting without client consent and under their limited power of attorney, possessed authority to bind an absent Defendant to a settlement under the specific terms presented. That necessarily required the Court to assess the structure and effect of the settlement, not the merits of the underlying claims.

Determining that a proposed settlement is unreasonable or beyond the authority of a Public Defender is not a finding that the Plaintiff's claims are excessive, unjustified, or without merit. It is a finding that the settlement cannot be approved at this stage and under these circumstances.

III. Review of settlements is within the Court's authority
The Plaintiff's assertion that the Court lacks authority to reject a settlement agreement is incorrect. The Court's role is not limited to mechanical enforcement of any agreement presented to it. Where a settlement is entered into by a Public Defender acting for an inactive party, the Court has an affirmative duty to ensure that such authority is not used to effect a complete forfeiture of the absent party's rights.

The Court's finding that the settlement would result in immediate bankruptcy was not a determination on the merits. It was an assessment of the practical effect of the settlement. The Court was required to consider this in determining the enforceability of the settlement.

IV. No bias or appearance of bias exists
The Plaintiff points to strong language in the Court's prior Orders. The Court remarks that clear findings made by the Court by ruling on motions do not necessarily create bias.

Enforcing Court Orders, for example by dismissing a Public Defender who re-appeared despite the Court's instructions not to, or by imposing contempt sanctions, just reflects the exercise of the Court's authority. It does not reflect any bias towards a party

V. Conclusion
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any conflict of interest. The Court has not pre-judged the merits of the case, and remains fully capable of presiding impartially over this case.

Accordingly, I DECLINE to voluntarily recuse myself from this case. A second Judicial Officer will review this Motion and will make a ruling on it, pursuant to Section 16(3) of the Judicial Standards Act.

Magistrate Venne.

 

[Vennefly]

This case is STAYED pending a Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse by a second Judicial Officer. No filings will be permitted in the interim.