Lawsuit: Adjourned MysticPhunky V. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 26

[Savannah]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


MysticPhunky (represented by Justice Compass Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Naezaratheus
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

MysticPhunky was doing construction on his property when Naezaratheus brutally murdered MysticPhunky after being invited to see the property. The crime scene produced by Naezaratheus delayed the construction MysticPhunky was doing – one of the primary ways the Plaintiff enjoys his time in Redmont. This not only made it impossible for MysticPhunky to enjoy activities the way he once did, but it delayed the amount of time before he could release the apartments in the building for rent, thus causing compensatory damages as well.





I. PARTIES
1. MysticPhunky (plaintiff)
2. Naezaratheus (defendant)



II. FACTS
1. MysticPhunky was doing construction on their property.
2. Naezaratheus then killed MysticPhunky while MysticPhunky was doing construction.
3. The crime scene produced delayed MysticPhunky’s construction which delayed/lost MysticPhunky income.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Defendant Naezaratheus committed murder under the Violent Offenses Act, which led to a crime scene on MysticPhunky’s property, delaying construction.
2. This disruption not only deprived MysticPhunky of the enjoyment from his work but also caused significant project delays.
3. As a result, MysticPhunky suffered financial losses due to the postponed construction and delayed rental income.

The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages for these losses, consequential damages for the loss of enjoyment, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and prevent future behavior, and legal fees to cover the costs of the lawsuit.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $30,000 in Compensatory Damages- delayed construction- delayed money-
2. $10,000 in Legal Fees- to cover all legal costs associated with this incident and lawsuit
3. $20,000 in Consequential Damages- loss of enjoyment-
4. $5,000 in Punitive Damages- to deter this behavior in the future

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

(Exhibit P-001)

(Exhibit P-002)

(Exhibit P-003)

Proof of representation:

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 10th day of March 2025

 

[ColonelKai]

Summons have been issued in discord and in-game as I could not find the forums account of the defendant.

 

[Twilight2660]

Summons have been issued in discord and in-game as I could not find the forums account of the defendant.

mz is representing the client your honor, we are present

 

[ColonelKai]

You have 72 hours to submit a response to complaint.

 

[Twilight2660]

Answer to Complaint

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

mysticphunky
Plaintiff

v.

naezaratheus
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. we dispute the complaint by the mysticphunky

II. DEFENCES
1. there is no proof naezaratheus murdered mysticphunky
2. being murdered is not that disruptive and you can come back and build quickly which is not a good amount of lost time and the prayer for thousands of dollars for one murder is unjust
3. the court rules say you cant sue for a murder you have to go to the dhs

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 (17th) day of (March) (2025)

 

[Savannah]

Spoiler: Statement Struck by Court

Answer to Complaint

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

mysticphunky
Plaintiff

v.

naezaratheus
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. we dispute the complaint by the mysticphunky

II. DEFENCES
1. there is no proof naezaratheus murdered mysticphunky
2. being murdered is not that disruptive and you can come back and build quickly which is not a good amount of lost time and the prayer for thousands of dollars for one murder is unjust
3. the court rules say you cant sue for a murder you have to go to the dhs

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 (17th) day of (March) (2025)

Objection​

Your honour, my mistake. Please take a look at the post below

 

[Savannah]

Answer to Complaint

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

mysticphunky
Plaintiff

v.

naezaratheus
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. we dispute the complaint by the mysticphunky

II. DEFENCES
1. there is no proof naezaratheus murdered mysticphunky
2. being murdered is not that disruptive and you can come back and build quickly which is not a good amount of lost time and the prayer for thousands of dollars for one murder is unjust
3. the court rules say you cant sue for a murder you have to go to the dhs

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 (17th) day of (March) (2025)

Objection​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY
The defences statement “there is no proof of the murder” is subject to perjury as I have submitted viable proof of the murder under evidence exhibit P-002

 

[Savannah]

sorry, I accidentally posted the first objection thing before I was ready to. Please take a look at the objection which states perjury.

 

[ColonelKai]

sorry, I accidentally posted the first objection thing before I was ready to. Please take a look at the objection which states perjury.

The previous objection will be struck. For future reference, please try to minimise messages. You may include the reference to the mistake in your corrected objection, for example.

Objection​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY
The defences statement “there is no proof of the murder” is subject to perjury as I have submitted viable proof of the murder under evidence exhibit P-002

As to the severity of the objection, the court will allow the defence to provide an answer before it makes a ruling. Other matters on this court are hereby halted until this issue is resolved.

 

[ColonelKai]

I just violated what I preached in my previous post by forgetting to set a deadline. Do as I say, not as I do.

The defence has 48 hours to answer the objection.

 

[Twilight2660]

The previous objection will be struck. For future reference, please try to minimise messages. You may include the reference to the mistake in your corrected objection, for example.



As to the severity of the objection, the court will allow the defence to provide an answer before it makes a ruling. Other matters on this court are hereby halted until this issue is resolved.

there is proof of a murder but not of the murder in the case. we dont know who naezaratheus killed.

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY
The defences statement “there is no proof of the murder” is subject to perjury as I have submitted viable proof of the murder under evidence exhibit P-002

The court believes that the movant of the objection has failed to demonstrate the key elements of perjury to the court, and therefore this objection is overruled.

We hereby enter the discovery period to last no more than 72 hours except in case of an extension.

 

[Savannah]

Spoiler: Struck Statement

Evidence for discovery

 

[Twilight2660]

Evidence for discovery

Objection

this evidence is not labelled

 

[Savannah]

my apologies your honour, please allow me to label it correctly, like here Lawsuit: Dismissed - UnityMaster v. xEndeavour [2025] FCR 16

 

[Twilight2660]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

naezaratheus
Counterplaintiff

v.

mysticphunky
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

MysticPhunky has filed a case against the defense which is frivolous in nature. he had to hire us to represent him and the legal damages act says he can get money for that to not have to pay as much law fees out of pocket.

I. PARTIES
1. naezaratheus(Counterplaintiff)
2. MysticPhunky(Counterdefendant)

II. FACTS
1. MysticPhunky's lawyers has filed a bad case.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act entitles the prevailing party to a minimum of $6,000 or 30% in legal fees. "In civil cases, the value of a case shall be assessed as... the award requested by the plaintiff if the defendant prevails" which is $65,000

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 30% of $65,000 is $19,500, so the counterplaintiff seeks $19,500 in legal fees

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 19th day of March 2025

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection

this evidence is not labelled

Sustained.

my apologies your honour, please allow me to label it correctly, like here Lawsuit: Dismissed - UnityMaster v. xEndeavour [2025] FCR 16

You are allowed to re-file properly.

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

naezaratheus
Counterplaintiff

v.

mysticphunky
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


I. PARTIES
1. naezaratheus(Counterplaintiff)
2. MysticPhunky(Counterdefendant)

II. FACTS
1. MysticPhunky's lawyers has filed a bad case.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act entitles the prevailing party to a minimum of $6,000 or 30% in legal fees. "In civil cases, the value of a case shall be assessed as... the award requested by the plaintiff if the defendant prevails" which is $65,000

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 30% of $65,000 is $19,500, so the counterplaintiff seeks $19,500 in legal fees

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 19th day of March 2025

The court acknowledges this countersuit and will rule on it with the verdict.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good morning, your honor. Savannah is the primary counsel for this case, however I am supervising and assisting. I will be submitting several pieces of evidence for Discovery, including the improperly-labeled screenshot, which I am the source of.

Here is the additional evidence being submitted for Discovery:

Exhibit P-004:

Spoiler: [S

"MysticPhunky Approaches Justice Compass Law Firm With Evidence at 11:44 PM"[/S]]

Exhibit P-005:

Spoiler: [S

"DHS Logs Show The Crime Scene Was Not Cleared for At Least 8 Hours & Naezaratheus is the Killer"[/S]]

 

[Dartanboy]

The Plaintiff also wishes to call upon the following witnesses:
1. Staff Team

 

[Twilight2660]

Good morning, your honor. Savannah is the primary counsel for this case, however I am supervising and assisting. I will be submitting several pieces of evidence for Discovery, including the improperly-labeled screenshot, which I am the source of.

Here is the additional evidence being submitted for Discovery:

Exhibit P-004:

Spoiler: MysticPhunky Approaches Justice Compass Law Firm With Evidence at 11:44 PM

View attachment 53225

Exhibit P-005:

Spoiler: DHS Logs Show The Crime Scene Was Not Cleared for At Least 8 Hours & Naezaratheus is the Killer

View attachment 53224

Objection

relevance i dont see how p-004 is relevant as it is just the plaintiff saying what he wants which is in the case filing anyways. how does it prove anything new? also calling the staff team has no relevance and its cheating.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

relevance i dont see how p-004 is relevant as it is just the plaintiff saying what he wants which is in the case filing anyways. how does it prove anything new? also calling the staff team has no relevance and its cheating.

P-004 is relevant as it establishes a timeline of events and shows a minimum amount of time for how long it took for the crime scene to be resolved.

Staff Team is necessary to confirm plugin functionality before the court.

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection

relevance i dont see how p-004 is relevant as it is just the plaintiff saying what he wants which is in the case filing anyways. how does it prove anything new? also calling the staff team has no relevance and its cheating.

Objection overruled.

 

[ColonelKai]

Discovery has hereby ended. The plaintiff has 72 hours for an opening statement.

 

[Savannah]

Opening Statement



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


May it please the court, Your Honor, opposing counsel, citizens of Redmont,


We are here today to make sure the defendant is held liable for all damages they have caused — compensatory damages (loss and delay of money, extreme construction delays), consequential damages (loss of enjoyment), legal fees (to cover all costs associated with this lawsuit), and punitive damages (to prevent this behavior in the future).


The facts are clear: MysticPhunky was in the middle of doing construction on his property — something he enjoys spending his time doing in Redmont. But this wasn’t just a little hobby — this was supposed to support him financially through renting out apartments and more. While MysticPhunky was doing this, Naezaratheus violently murdered him. Because of that murder, a crime scene was opened. That crime scene delayed the construction, which caused MysticPhunky to lose time and money, leaving him with no income during that period.


Now that we have covered the loss and delay of funds, as well as the extreme construction delays, let's talk more about the impact that the defendant caused MysticPhunky on a more personal level. MysticPhunky enjoys being able to participate in the core mechanic of this world: building an environment only as limited as your imagination. He takes great pride and finds himself constantly doing what he can to improve his skills, his own property, and even more importantly, the aesthetic of Redmont. Naezaratheus’ outrageous action caused MysticPhunky to lose something more than money and time: enjoyment in the small things. Enjoyment in being able to put in an honest day's work to better your surroundings. Enjoyment of being able to go about your business without the fear that someone will come along and deprive you of your basic happiness. It cannot be understated that MysticPhunky has not only been financially deprived, but also deprived of what he enjoys doing.


Given all the evidence and information provided, and the lack of evidence submitted by the defense showing the contrary, the defendant should be held responsible not just for the murder, but for the losses that came from it. To address statements the defense made earlier, these delays were not small or insignificant. As shown in the evidence provided by Dartanboy, there is proof that Naezaratheus murdered MysticPhunky, and the case wasn’t cleared for at least eight hours. That eight-hour period could have been used for major progress. Instead, it caused a chain reaction of delays, lost work time, lost income, a bigger setback for the entire project — something that already takes a lot of time to complete, and loss of enjoyment, as MysticPhunky was unable to enjoy his construction activities in Redmont for at least eight hours.


We respectfully urge the court to deliver a verdict that not only fairly covers the losses MysticPhunky suffered, but also shows that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and won’t be tolerated in the future

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 72 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[Twilight2660]

Here's a revised opening statement that follows the format from the templates page you attached and cleans up your writing:

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

May it please the court,

Your Honor, opposing counsel, citizens of Redmont, this is a textbook demonstration of a lack of evidence. The entire case rests on circumstantial claims. The plaintiff claims three things that all lack evidence:

1. My client killed the plaintiff on the plaintiff's property.
2. That the alleged killing obstructed the plaintiff's ability to complete construction.
3. That the alleged obstruction actually materially damaged the plaintiff.

Let us examine each claim individually.

The Murder
The plaintiff has submitted evidence showing Naezaratheus killing MysticPhunky. This was a crime that was already handled by the Department of Homeland Security, and not at issue here. The important issue to this case is where the murder took place. The plaintiff unfortunately failed to submit any evidence that the murder was committed on his property. The plaintiff failed to use discovery to appropriately obtain logs and other data pointing the murder to be on the plaintiff's property. All the plaintiff attaches are images of random buttons and redstone wires. These could have been placed by the plaintiff to frame my client. Furthermore, there is only one murder in question here, yet several redstone wires and buttons are shown in the basement of the plaintiff's property. If these buttons and redstone wires are actually crime scene evidence pieces, why is my client being singled out? The exhibits suggest one of two outcomes:

• The plaintiff placed the buttons and redstone wires to frame my client for this case, or
• Several murders took place on the property leaving several crime scenes, and the plaintiff is choosing to assign 100% of the blame to my client despite one or more other parties being involved.

Without proof of which murderer is responsible for each alleged crime scene, we cannot know which, if any, were actually the fault of my client. Were they placed as an elaborate effort to frame an innocent man? Was there another serial killer, or an assortment of killers, that are actually at fault instead? Who knows. The burden of proof in this case is on the plaintiff. We do not want to set the precedent that placing a few buttons and attaching a murder log automatically entitles a murder victim to claim thousands of dollars in damages.

Construction Obstruction
Even if the plaintiff was able to prove that my client killed the plaintiff on his own property, leaving behind one of the redstone wires / buttons shown in the evidence above, there is still no proof this actually obstructed construction. Not only are there the other crime scene pieces that would also share blame if this were an obstruction, but the plaintiff has failed to show how the murder actually impeded construction. Was the plaintiff able to work on other areas of the property while the murder investigation was underway? Was the plaintiff able to work around the crime scene evidence pieces and simply fix up a few blocks when the crime scenes were cleared? A reasonable person would answer yes to all of these questions.

In any case, the obstruction is alleged to only be eight hours according to the note Dartanman left in the evidence attachment. This is not a lot of time, and certainly not enough time to warrant any significant disruption to a construction project. The plaintiff has not shown their construction plans, so we don't even know that construction was occurring except according to their word, which is not admissible since the plaintiff will not be testifying in this case. Without knowing what construction was occurring, it is impossible for the court to assume there was a disruption. Even if a spot was impacted, surely other aspects of the project could have been getting worked on. It is a ubiquitous principle in common law that if someone helps create their own damages, the defense is not liable. In this case, the plaintiff perhaps chose to give up on work altogether for the night rather than working around the alleged crime scenes. The plaintiff created his own delay.

Material Damages
The plaintiff is demanding a staggering $65,000 in damages, which includes compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, in addition to legal fees. This amount is grossly disproportionate to any alleged harm suffered. Even if an incident did occur between my client and the plaintiff, the financial consequences claimed by MysticPhunky are unsupported by concrete evidence. Speculative future losses or theoretical missed rental income do not meet the legal standard for consequential damages. As pointed out before, the presence of other alleged crime scenes (assuming they weren't placed there by the plaintiff to frame my client) would also spread any damages out to the other murder. Without knowing the full picture, the Court cannot accurately assign a proportion of the blame to my client. Even if my client was at fault, there is no situation where an eight hour delay causes a loss of over $60,000.

Most rentable spaces go for under $1,000 a month. The space featured in the screenshot is small, which means it would not go for much on the market. Assuming it could fetch good coin, there is no proof of a buyer/tenant lined up that would have secured it in that eight hour timespan. There is no proof the plaintiff would have even finished the construction if the alleged murder did not happen. Both the claims and the damages themselves rest on speculation, not evidence. The reasonable person test would certainly not permit $20,000 in loss of enjoyment damages for being unable to mine and replace one crime scene impacted block, in any event. The punitive portion of murder is already factored into the criminal element of the crime, and surely the Court does not want to open the door to every murder victim in existence filing a case for additional punitive damages. Therefore, all requested damages rest on either speculation or a disregard for logic and reason.


The facts are clear. The plaintiff brought a case lacking evidence in three essential areas: the cause of action, the manner of the tort, and the damages of the alleged tort itself. With all three critical pillars of the plaintiff's case crumpled, the Court has no choice but to find my client not liable of these accusations and to award my client with the requested legal fees. Thank you.

 

[Twilight2660]

Here's a revised opening statement that follows the format from the templates page you attached and cleans up your writing:

im sorry your honor this was a typo, you can strike that piece

 

[juniperfig]

Greetings. I will be taking over as presiding officer for this case.
Thank you both for your opening statements. Witness summons are to follow.

im sorry your honor this was a typo, you can strike that piece

You may submit a motion to strike with your reasoning if you wish for the statement to be struck.

 

[juniperfig]

Writ of Summons

@Staff Team is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of MysticPhunky v. Naezaratheus.

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.

 

[Staff Team]

Your Honor,

We are present...

 

[juniperfig]

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to present questions to the witness. The witnesses have a further 48 hours to answer, after which any follow-up questions may be asked within a further 48 hours, and so on.

 

[Dartanboy]

. If these buttons and redstone wires are actually crime scene evidence pieces, why is my client being singled out? The exhibits suggest one of two outcomes:

• The plaintiff placed the buttons and redstone wires to frame my client for this case, or
• Several murders took place on the property leaving several crime scenes, and the plaintiff is choosing to assign 100% of the blame to my client despite one or more other parties being involved

Objection

Perjury

A single murder produces several clues. The Defense appears to be intentionally misleading the court.

 

[Twilight2660]

Objection

Perjury

A single murder produces several clues. The Defense appears to be intentionally misleading the court.

it does not produce that many clues... also perjury has to be intentional. there is no proof of intent

 

[juniperfig]

Objection

Perjury

A single murder produces several clues. The Defense appears to be intentionally misleading the court.

This objection has been overruled. There is no definitive proof of how many clues a murder produces, and the Plaintiff has not shown proof of intent to mislead.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Exhibit P-004:

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The plaintiff has improperly affixed comments in the P-004 submission. I move to strike.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection overruled.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor,

The exhibit P-004 is not relevant. Showing when someone goes and complains to their lawyer about an alleged act proves nothing in this case. All we can conclude from this evidence is when Mystic decided to open a ticket with Dartanman's firm. We have no actual evidence showing when the alleged events took place or when they got resolved by the DHS (that is P-005)

 

[Alexander P. Love]

(Exhibit P-003)

Objection

Hearsay

The exhibit above shows an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. JediAJMan is not here to testify to his remarks and they cannot be cross-examined, therefore this violates my client's Constitutional right to confront the evidence against him (right 9, a commonly held common law interpretation of this right, for the record). The Commonwealth has upheld this interpretation of hearsay before (see UnseatedDuke1 v. The Radish), and so this evidence must be struck.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

"

"

Objection

Improper Evidence

It appears this picture was never labelled, and is therefore inadmissible (see Pepecuu v. MrEntomology).

 

[Savannah]

"View attachment 53385"

Objection

Improper Evidence

It appears this picture was never labelled, and is therefore inadmissible (see Pepecuu v. MrEntomology).

your honor, this evidence was apart of Exhibit P-001

 

[Savannah]

Your honor may I have permission to respond to the motion?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

your honor, this evidence was apart of Exhibit P-001

Defense requests a response, your honor, if the Court is inclined to overrule.

 

[Technofied]

Your Honour, may it pleasure the court that member of the Defense AlexanderLove has been banned.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Hearsay

The exhibit above shows an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. JediAJMan is not here to testify to his remarks and they cannot be cross-examined, therefore this violates my client's Constitutional right to confront the evidence against him (right 9, a commonly held common law interpretation of this right, for the record). The Commonwealth has upheld this interpretation of hearsay before (see UnseatedDuke1 v. The Radish), and so this evidence must be struck.

Staff team was summoned. He was acting as Staff not as a player. The witness will be asked to confirm the statements.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The plaintiff has improperly affixed comments in the P-004 submission. I move to strike.

This is not true?

Even if it is, the comments would be struck, not the evidence.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

BREACH OF PROCEDURE

AlexanderLove never showed proof of consent to represent the Defendant. He randomly appeared after twilight was banned and began representing the Defendant.

We request all of his posts be stricken and ignored.

 

[naez]

Alexander is part of MZ legal team and i consented to representation by him

 

[juniperfig]

Alexander is part of MZ legal team and i consented to representation by him

The court hereby warns you for speaking out of turn. Any further unprompted comments will result in a contempt of court charge.

The Defence must provide evidence that AlexanderLove was legally qualified to practice in the FCR and was employed by MZ at the time of his postings. The Defence has 24 hours to submit this evidence.

 

[Vernicia]

Your honor i present you that AlexanderLove was qualified at the time of posting and that he was part of the legal team at the time of posting.

 

[juniperfig]

Objection

BREACH OF PROCEDURE

AlexanderLove never showed proof of consent to represent the Defendant. He randomly appeared after twilight was banned and began representing the Defendant.

We request all of his posts be stricken and ignored.

This objection has been sustained.

The evidence submitted by the Defence does not show that AlexanderLove was legally qualified to practice in the FCR or hired by MZ at the time of his postings. The screenshots submitted by the Defence are timestamped March 24 at 11:14pm. This is, in every possible timezone, after the posts AlexanderLove made in this case.

All of his posts are hereby struck from the record.

 

[Vernicia]

Good morning, your honor. Savannah is the primary counsel for this case, however I am supervising and assisting. I will be submitting several pieces of evidence for Discovery, including the improperly-labeled screenshot, which I am the source of.

Here is the additional evidence being submitted for Discovery:

Exhibit P-004:

Spoiler: MysticPhunky Approaches Justice Compass Law Firm With Evidence at 11:44 PM

View attachment 53225

Exhibit P-005:

Spoiler: DHS Logs Show The Crime Scene Was Not Cleared for At Least 8 Hours & Naezaratheus is the Killer

View attachment 53224

Objection​

Breach of procedure

The plaintiff has improperly affixed comments in the P-004 submission. I move to strike.

 

[Vernicia]

your honor, this evidence was apart of Exhibit P-001

your honor defense requests a response if the Court is inclined to overrule.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection​

Improper Evidence

It appears this picture was never labelled, and is therefore inadmissible

 

[Vernicia]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


MysticPhunky (represented by Justice Compass Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Naezaratheus
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

MysticPhunky was doing construction on his property when Naezaratheus brutally murdered MysticPhunky after being invited to see the property. The crime scene produced by Naezaratheus delayed the construction MysticPhunky was doing – one of the primary ways the Plaintiff enjoys his time in Redmont. This not only made it impossible for MysticPhunky to enjoy activities the way he once did, but it delayed the amount of time before he could release the apartments in the building for rent, thus causing compensatory damages as well.





I. PARTIES
1. MysticPhunky (plaintiff)
2. Naezaratheus (defendant)



II. FACTS
1. MysticPhunky was doing construction on their property.
2. Naezaratheus then killed MysticPhunky while MysticPhunky was doing construction.
3. The crime scene produced delayed MysticPhunky’s construction which delayed/lost MysticPhunky income.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Defendant Naezaratheus committed murder under the Violent Offenses Act, which led to a crime scene on MysticPhunky’s property, delaying construction.
2. This disruption not only deprived MysticPhunky of the enjoyment from his work but also caused significant project delays.
3. As a result, MysticPhunky suffered financial losses due to the postponed construction and delayed rental income.

The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages for these losses, consequential damages for the loss of enjoyment, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and prevent future behavior, and legal fees to cover the costs of the lawsuit.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $30,000 in Compensatory Damages- delayed construction- delayed money-
2. $10,000 in Legal Fees- to cover all legal costs associated with this incident and lawsuit
3. $20,000 in Consequential Damages- loss of enjoyment-
4. $5,000 in Punitive Damages- to deter this behavior in the future

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

(Exhibit P-001)

(Exhibit P-002)

(Exhibit P-003)

Proof of representation:

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 10th day of March 2025

Objection​

Hearsay

The exhibit Exhibit P-003 shows an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. JediAJMan is not here to testify to his remarks and they cannot be cross-examined, therefore this violates my client's Constitutional right to confront the evidence against him (right 9, a commonly held common law interpretation of this right, for the record). The Commonwealth has upheld this interpretation of hearsay before (UnseatedDuke1 v. The Radish), and so this evidence must be struck.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection overruled.

Motion​

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor,

The exhibit P-004 is not relevant. Showing when someone goes and complains to their lawyer about an alleged act proves nothing in this case. All we can conclude from this evidence is when Mystic decided to open a ticket with Dartanman's firm. We have no actual evidence showing when the alleged events took place or when they got resolved by the DHS (that is P-005)

 

[Savannah]

Witness Questions

1. Do multiple clues appear in close proximity to each other when a murder produces a crime scene?
2. When a murder produces a crime scene, is it possible to place blocks where the clues appear?
3. In Exhibit P-003, JediAJMan (a.k.a. Homelander) is seen talking about the murder scene. Was this conversation on-ticket in a staff capacity?

 

[juniperfig]

Objection​

Breach of procedure

The plaintiff has improperly affixed comments in the P-004 submission. I move to strike.

Sustained. The comments in the evidence submissions will be struck.

your honor defense requests a response if the Court is inclined to overrule.

You may respond.

Objection​

Hearsay

The exhibit Exhibit P-003 shows an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. JediAJMan is not here to testify to his remarks and they cannot be cross-examined, therefore this violates my client's Constitutional right to confront the evidence against him (right 9, a commonly held common law interpretation of this right, for the record). The Commonwealth has upheld this interpretation of hearsay before (UnseatedDuke1 v. The Radish), and so this evidence must be struck.

Overruled. Staff has been called as a witness. They can be cross-examined.

Motion​

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor,

The exhibit P-004 is not relevant. Showing when someone goes and complains to their lawyer about an alleged act proves nothing in this case. All we can conclude from this evidence is when Mystic decided to open a ticket with Dartanman's firm. We have no actual evidence showing when the alleged events took place or when they got resolved by the DHS (that is P-005)

Denied. The court is satisfied with the Plaintiff's explanation of P-004's relevance.

 

[Vernicia]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


MysticPhunky (represented by Justice Compass Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Naezaratheus
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

MysticPhunky was doing construction on his property when Naezaratheus brutally murdered MysticPhunky after being invited to see the property. The crime scene produced by Naezaratheus delayed the construction MysticPhunky was doing – one of the primary ways the Plaintiff enjoys his time in Redmont. This not only made it impossible for MysticPhunky to enjoy activities the way he once did, but it delayed the amount of time before he could release the apartments in the building for rent, thus causing compensatory damages as well.





I. PARTIES
1. MysticPhunky (plaintiff)
2. Naezaratheus (defendant)



II. FACTS
1. MysticPhunky was doing construction on their property.
2. Naezaratheus then killed MysticPhunky while MysticPhunky was doing construction.
3. The crime scene produced delayed MysticPhunky’s construction which delayed/lost MysticPhunky income.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Defendant Naezaratheus committed murder under the Violent Offenses Act, which led to a crime scene on MysticPhunky’s property, delaying construction.
2. This disruption not only deprived MysticPhunky of the enjoyment from his work but also caused significant project delays.
3. As a result, MysticPhunky suffered financial losses due to the postponed construction and delayed rental income.

The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages for these losses, consequential damages for the loss of enjoyment, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and prevent future behavior, and legal fees to cover the costs of the lawsuit.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $30,000 in Compensatory Damages- delayed construction- delayed money-
2. $10,000 in Legal Fees- to cover all legal costs associated with this incident and lawsuit
3. $20,000 in Consequential Damages- loss of enjoyment-
4. $5,000 in Punitive Damages- to deter this behavior in the future

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

(Exhibit P-001)

(Exhibit P-002)

(Exhibit P-003)

Proof of representation:

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 10th day of March 2025

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Lawsuit: In Session - Vernicia v.Tonga1 [2025] FCR 24). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

 

[Vernicia]

Good morning, your honor. Savannah is the primary counsel for this case, however I am supervising and assisting. I will be submitting several pieces of evidence for Discovery, including the improperly-labeled screenshot, which I am the source of.

Here is the additional evidence being submitted for Discovery:

Exhibit P-004:

Spoiler: [S

"MysticPhunky Approaches Justice Compass Law Firm With Evidence at 11:44 PM"[/S]]
View attachment 53225

Exhibit P-005:

Spoiler: [S

"DHS Logs Show The Crime Scene Was Not Cleared for At Least 8 Hours & Naezaratheus is the Killer"[/S]]
View attachment 53224

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Vernicia v. Tonga1). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

 

[Vernicia]

Opening Statement



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


May it please the court, Your Honor, opposing counsel, citizens of Redmont,


We are here today to make sure the defendant is held liable for all damages they have caused — compensatory damages (loss and delay of money, extreme construction delays), consequential damages (loss of enjoyment), legal fees (to cover all costs associated with this lawsuit), and punitive damages (to prevent this behavior in the future).


The facts are clear: MysticPhunky was in the middle of doing construction on his property — something he enjoys spending his time doing in Redmont. But this wasn’t just a little hobby — this was supposed to support him financially through renting out apartments and more. While MysticPhunky was doing this, Naezaratheus violently murdered him. Because of that murder, a crime scene was opened. That crime scene delayed the construction, which caused MysticPhunky to lose time and money, leaving him with no income during that period.


Now that we have covered the loss and delay of funds, as well as the extreme construction delays, let's talk more about the impact that the defendant caused MysticPhunky on a more personal level. MysticPhunky enjoys being able to participate in the core mechanic of this world: building an environment only as limited as your imagination. He takes great pride and finds himself constantly doing what he can to improve his skills, his own property, and even more importantly, the aesthetic of Redmont. Naezaratheus’ outrageous action caused MysticPhunky to lose something more than money and time: enjoyment in the small things. Enjoyment in being able to put in an honest day's work to better your surroundings. Enjoyment of being able to go about your business without the fear that someone will come along and deprive you of your basic happiness. It cannot be understated that MysticPhunky has not only been financially deprived, but also deprived of what he enjoys doing.


Given all the evidence and information provided, and the lack of evidence submitted by the defense showing the contrary, the defendant should be held responsible not just for the murder, but for the losses that came from it. To address statements the defense made earlier, these delays were not small or insignificant. As shown in the evidence provided by Dartanboy, there is proof that Naezaratheus murdered MysticPhunky, and the case wasn’t cleared for at least eight hours. That eight-hour period could have been used for major progress. Instead, it caused a chain reaction of delays, lost work time, lost income, a bigger setback for the entire project — something that already takes a lot of time to complete, and loss of enjoyment, as MysticPhunky was unable to enjoy his construction activities in Redmont for at least eight hours.


We respectfully urge the court to deliver a verdict that not only fairly covers the losses MysticPhunky suffered, but also shows that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and won’t be tolerated in the future

Motion

Motion to Strike
Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Vernicia v. Tonga1). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

 

[Vernicia]

Motion

Motion to Dismiss

Anticipating the fact that neither Dartanman nor Savannah will be able to prove with certainty they were barristers when they posted the complaint or any of the following necessary elements of the case, and that those would therefore be struck, the plaintiff is left without a proper case. Under rule 5.5, the defense can request dismissal when the plaintiff lacks a claim, and so the Court has no choice under the procedures but to dismiss this case. Thank you your honor <3.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, I'm able to prove I've been an Attorney since March 5, if you'll permit me to show it.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your Honor, I'd like to file an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Department of Education as the current Secretary of Education as it relates to the Qualifications of Legal exams as slated our responsibility in Modern Legal Reform Act Section 5.2(d) 'The Department of Education must: -- Maintain records of all qualified legal practitioners', simply to clear matters up on who was qualified and when.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor, I'd like to file an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Department of Education as the current Secretary of Education as it relates to the Qualifications of Legal exams as slated our responsibility in Modern Legal Reform Act Section 5.2(d) 'The Department of Education must: -- Maintain records of all qualified legal practitioners', simply to clear matters up on who was qualified and when.

You may.

Your honor, I'm able to prove I've been an Attorney since March 5, if you'll permit me to show it.

You may.

 

[Dartanboy]

You may.

I trust the Department of Education will handle this appropriately.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

The records we have for the following counsel are:

Vernicia - Attorney - 3/24/2025 4:11:45 WET
.SavannahPrice21 - Solicitor by legal rank squash
Dartanboy - (first) Attorney - 3/5/2025 7:15:01 WET

I would also note for the record; because it relates to the question at hand, that upon the passage of the Modern Legal Reform Act, there were transitional provisions around this topic -- 'during the grace period, anyone possessing a legal license can file cases in any court without reprimand, penalty, or exclusion.'
3/3/2025 was the passage of this Act, and two weeks thereafter would be 3/17/2025

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

Motion to Dismiss

Anticipating the fact that neither Dartanman nor Savannah will be able to prove with certainty they were barristers when they posted the complaint or any of the following necessary elements of the case, and that those would therefore be struck, the plaintiff is left without a proper case. Under rule 5.5, the defense can request dismissal when the plaintiff lacks a claim, and so the Court has no choice under the procedures but to dismiss this case. Thank you your honor <3.

Motion

Motion to Strike
Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Vernicia v. Tonga1). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Vernicia v. Tonga1). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Lawsuit: In Session - Vernicia v.Tonga1 [2025] FCR 24). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

In consideration of the Amicus Brief, each motion is denied.

Additionally, I warn the Plaintiff to be wary of Contempt of Court. Spamming motions to each posting is entirely unnecessary and disrupts the proceedings of the court. This is your official warning. Any future stunts will have you held in contempt.

With that settled, the Plaintiff has just under 9 hours to present their questions to the witness.

 

[Dartanboy]

Questions for Staff Team:

1. Do multiple clues appear in close proximity to each other when a murder produces a crime scene?

2. When a murder produces a crime scene, is it possible to place blocks where the clues appear?

3. In Exhibit P-003, JediAJMan (a.k.a. Homelander) is seen talking with MysticPhunky. Was this conversation on-ticket in a staff capacity?

4. Was the conversation in P-003 about the crime scene that is mentioned throughout this lawsuit?

 

[Vernicia]

You may.

You may.

Each piece of evidence must be labeled per the court rules. Two pieces of evidence were provided under one label. Two pieces of evidence constitutes two labels. Otherwise, what stops someone from submitting their entire evidence portfolio as P-001 ? The point is so that we can easily refer to each picture and distinction is a necessary element for that to happen.

 

[Savannah]

Each piece of evidence must be labeled per the court rules. Two pieces of evidence were provided under one label. Two pieces of evidence constitutes two labels. Otherwise, what stops someone from submitting their entire evidence portfolio as P-001 ? The point is so that we can easily refer to each picture and distinction is a necessary element for that to happen.

Your honour, the evidence is labeled the same because they are evidence for the same fact

 

[Dartanboy]

Each piece of evidence must be labeled per the court rules. Two pieces of evidence were provided under one label. Two pieces of evidence constitutes two labels. Otherwise, what stops someone from submitting their entire evidence portfolio as P-001 ? The point is so that we can easily refer to each picture and distinction is a necessary element for that to happen.

Motion

MOTION TO STRIKE

This is neither an Objection nor Motion.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

I provided a response under permission of the Court, and the plaintiff is not entitled to give further response without permission. I therefore move to strike.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

I provided a response under permission of the Court, and the plaintiff is not entitled to give further response without permission. I therefore move to strike.

I could be missing it, because the Defense's lawyer and their now-banned cronies have flooded the lawsuit with useless objections.

But, I don't see such a permission.

And filing a Motion is certainly not a Breach of Procedure. I suggest that Vernicia read up on the Court Rules and Procedures.

 

[juniperfig]

Questions for Staff Team:

1. Do multiple clues appear in close proximity to each other when a murder produces a crime scene?

2. When a murder produces a crime scene, is it possible to place blocks where the clues appear?

3. In Exhibit P-003, JediAJMan (a.k.a. Homelander) is seen talking with MysticPhunky. Was this conversation on-ticket in a staff capacity?

4. Was the conversation in P-003 about the crime scene that is mentioned throughout this lawsuit?

@Staff Team has 48 hours to answer these questions.

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

MOTION TO STRIKE

This is neither an Objection nor Motion.

This motion is denied. The Defence was granted permission to reply, but simply quoted the wrong permission.

Your honour, the evidence is labeled the same because they are evidence for the same fact

Do not speak out of turn. This is your warning. Any further unprompted comments will have you held in contempt of court.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

I provided a response under permission of the Court, and the plaintiff is not entitled to give further response without permission. I therefore move to strike.

Sustained. The Defence did receive permission to respond. Savannah's response will be struck.

Objection​

Improper Evidence

It appears this picture was never labelled, and is therefore inadmissible

Overruled. Improper evidence is defined as "evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately (e.g., new evidence introduced during closing statements)". The second image in P-001 is none of the above.

The court rules and procedures do not explicitly state that each image must be submitted under a new exhibit, no matter how useful it would be.

The purpose of Discovery "is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness". To be used in legal arguments, material must have been included "within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission". The second image in P-001 was included within the complaint and was labelled according to the appropriate naming convention.

The intent of the Plaintiff to include the second image under P-001 is clear to any reasonable person perusing the complaint. The court is satisfied that all parties should have been aware of this evidence and its intent to be used in legal arguments for the entirety of the proceedings.

However, this ruling should not be interpreted as blanket permission for unclear or ambiguous evidence submission in the future. While the court finds the Plaintiff's intent sufficiently evident in this case, it emphasizes that parties bear the responsibility of ensuring their exhibits are clearly structured and labeled to prevent confusion. Failure to do so in the future may result in evidence being excluded on procedural grounds.

The courts strongly recommend that parties place material within spoiler tags and label each image separately in the future to avoid confusion and to ensure smooth proceedings.

 

[Staff Team]

Questions for Staff Team:

1. Do multiple clues appear in close proximity to each other when a murder produces a crime scene?

2. When a murder produces a crime scene, is it possible to place blocks where the clues appear?

3. In Exhibit P-003, JediAJMan (a.k.a. Homelander) is seen talking with MysticPhunky. Was this conversation on-ticket in a staff capacity?

4. Was the conversation in P-003 about the crime scene that is mentioned throughout this lawsuit?

1. Yes
2. Not in its standard form. However, we are aware that, on occasion, glitches allow for block placement where clues appear.
3. If a staff member is on a ticket during a discussion, they are acting in their official capacity as a staff member.
4. Not sure, we don’t have a reference or scope of when the discussion was had.

 

[Dartanboy]

1. Yes
2. Not in its standard form. However, we are aware that, on occasion, glitches allow for block placement where clues appear.
3. If a staff member is on a ticket during a discussion, they are acting in their official capacity as a staff member.
4. Not sure, we don’t have a reference or scope of when the discussion was had.

To follow up to Q4, since this was in a staff capacity, we are not able to summon JediAJMan/Homelander as a witness, rather we summoned the Staff Team.

Can the staff team please provide Staff Member Homelander's testimony for the original Q4?

 

[Vernicia]

To follow up to Q4, since this was in a staff capacity, we are not able to summon JediAJMan/Homelander as a witness, rather we summoned the Staff Team.

Can the staff team please provide Staff Member Homelander's testimony for the original Q4?

Objection

Hearsay

Your honor, the request calls for hearsay. Regardless of whether or not the witness made the statements, the statements are still out of court and are not admissible. The staff team can answer questions about content in court, but they can't answer questions about conversations that occurred outside of court. This is the definition of hearsay.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Hearsay

Your honor, the request calls for hearsay. Regardless of whether or not the witness made the statements, the statements are still out of court and are not admissible. The staff team can answer questions about content in court, but they can't answer questions about conversations that occurred outside of court. This is the definition of hearsay.

Hearsay is when you talk about what someone else said, not when you talk about what you said yourself.

 

[juniperfig]

Objection

Hearsay

Your honor, the request calls for hearsay. Regardless of whether or not the witness made the statements, the statements are still out of court and are not admissible. The staff team can answer questions about content in court, but they can't answer questions about conversations that occurred outside of court. This is the definition of hearsay.

Overruled. The witness may answer the question.

 

[Staff Team]

To follow up to Q4, since this was in a staff capacity, we are not able to summon JediAJMan/Homelander as a witness, rather we summoned the Staff Team.

Can the staff team please provide Staff Member Homelander's testimony for the original Q4?

" It appears so, yes."

 

[Dartanboy]

No more questions, your honor.

 

[juniperfig]

The defendant may now cross-examine the witness. 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.

 

[Vernicia]

" It appears so, yes."

Objection

Speculation

The witness answered with “it appears so” which has an element of uncertainty associated with it. The answer is speculative and must be struck.

 

[Vernicia]

Overruled. The witness may answer the question.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

It is disappointing that the Court did not provide its reasoning for overruling the hearsay objection, but nonetheless I will assume it is due to the plaintiff counsel’s response. Unfortunately, an out of court statement is an out of court statement no matter who said it. This is hearsay. Let us examine the legal theory around why hearsay actually exists in legal systems across the globe:

1) Out of court statements are not under oath. A statement that goes to prove the truth of the matter asserted said in court is evidence as the statement is sworn to be truthful. No such protections exist for out of court statements.
2) Out of court statements cannot be directly cross examined. If the declarant were able to testify, then this concern would be alleviated.
3) This will set a dangerous precedent for future cases.

In any case, the evidence at hand really shows nothing to the Court. It is not under oath, the declarant is not present to testify. The statements are hearsay and to overrule this motion would be going against the very fabric of widely accepted legal customs, customs that are accepted in the Commonwealth already.

 

[Vernicia]

The defendant may now cross-examine the witness. 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.

1) How many pieces of evidence does each murder leave behind ?

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Speculation

The witness answered with “it appears so” which has an element of uncertainty associated with it. The answer is speculative and must be struck.

Speculation is when someone "testifies about something they have not directly observed" (see Objections Guide).

Homelander/the staff team was certainly there.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

It is disappointing that the Court did not provide its reasoning for overruling the hearsay objection, but nonetheless I will assume it is due to the plaintiff counsel’s response. Unfortunately, an out of court statement is an out of court statement no matter who said it. This is hearsay. Let us examine the legal theory around why hearsay actually exists in legal systems across the globe:

1) Out of court statements are not under oath. A statement that goes to prove the truth of the matter asserted said in court is evidence as the statement is sworn to be truthful. No such protections exist for out of court statements.
2) Out of court statements cannot be directly cross examined. If the declarant were able to testify, then this concern would be alleviated.
3) This will set a dangerous precedent for future cases.

In any case, the evidence at hand really shows nothing to the Court. It is not under oath, the declarant is not present to testify. The statements are hearsay and to overrule this motion would be going against the very fabric of widely accepted legal customs, customs that are accepted in the Commonwealth already.

May we respond?

 

[juniperfig]

May we respond?

You may.

 

[juniperfig]

Apologies, a response is no longer necessary.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

It is disappointing that the Court did not provide its reasoning for overruling the hearsay objection, but nonetheless I will assume it is due to the plaintiff counsel’s response. Unfortunately, an out of court statement is an out of court statement no matter who said it. This is hearsay. Let us examine the legal theory around why hearsay actually exists in legal systems across the globe:

1) Out of court statements are not under oath. A statement that goes to prove the truth of the matter asserted said in court is evidence as the statement is sworn to be truthful. No such protections exist for out of court statements.
2) Out of court statements cannot be directly cross examined. If the declarant were able to testify, then this concern would be alleviated.
3) This will set a dangerous precedent for future cases.

In any case, the evidence at hand really shows nothing to the Court. It is not under oath, the declarant is not present to testify. The statements are hearsay and to overrule this motion would be going against the very fabric of widely accepted legal customs, customs that are accepted in the Commonwealth already.

Denied. The Staff Team is testifying. Homelander is a part of the Staff Team. You can cross-examine them.

Objection

Speculation

The witness answered with “it appears so” which has an element of uncertainty associated with it. The answer is speculative and must be struck.

Overruled. Uncertainty is not speculation.

 

[Staff Team]

1) How many pieces of evidence does each murder leave behind ?

A minimum of 1 (one) clue and a maximum of 3 (three) clues.

 

[juniperfig]

As 48 hours has passed with no follow-up questions for the witness, we will move on.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.

 

[Savannah]

Hello your honour, may i please get an extension, ive been swamped with school

 

[juniperfig]

Hello your honour, may i please get an extension, ive been swamped with school

You may have a 24 hour extension. Inform me if you need more time.

 

[Savannah]

Hello your honour, I am so sorry to ask again, it’s just I have a lot of major school assignments, would it be possible to get another extension?

 

[juniperfig]

Hello your honour, I am so sorry to ask again, it’s just I have a lot of major school assignments, would it be possible to get another extension?

Please specify how much time you are requesting.

 

[Savannah]

Please specify how much time you are requesting.

I am asking 2-4 hours please your honour

 

[Savannah]

My apologies your honour, one of my co workers had said the due date was one day closer than it is, the 2-4 hours extension is no longer necessary, my humble apologies

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honour, I wish to file an Amicus Brief regarding the defendant's lack of rights to representation.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honour, I wish to file an Amicus Brief regarding the defendant's lack of rights to representation.

Closing statements are not an appropriate time for an amicus brief. This request is denied.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The Defendant has been deported and per server rules, is not afforded any rights, even the right to appear in court.

As such, the Plaintiff requests Default Judgement.