Lawsuit: In Session OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106

R

RiggoSoft

Citizen
Commerce Department
Oakridge Resident
Change Maker
RiggoSoft
RiggoSoft
Economist
Joined
Aug 21, 2025
Messages
171

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

OakRidge Community Bank
Plaintiff

V.

XinmjirGamingHQ
Defendant

Complaint

The defendant XinmjirGamingHQ entered a loan agreement willingly with the plaintiff OakRidge Community Bank and failed to pay the first owed monthly payment on the loan, breaching the contract and putting the loan in default.
Click to expand...

I. Parties
1) OakRidge Community Bank, Plaintiff
2) XinmjirGamingHQ, Defendant

II. Facts
All dates are to be formatted mm/dd/yyyy, and all times are in EST (Eastern Standard Time) and are in 12:00 format
1) On 11/3/2025 the defendant opened a banking and loan inquiry ticket in the OakRidge Community Bank discord server.
2) At 7:41PM 11/3/2025 the defendant messaged in the challenge inquiring about a $25,000-$40,000 loan to assist the defendant in purchasing a property.
3) The plaintiff responds on 11/5/2025 at 8:37 AM offering the defendant a maximum loan amount of $20,000.
4) The defendant agrees to a $20,000 loan provided to them by the plaintiff at 4:07PM.
5) The plaintiff begans drafting a loan agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff.
6) The plaintiff sends the sale agreement to the defendant at 6:20 PM on 11/5/2025. (Attached below)
7) The defendant signs the agreement at 6:38 PM on 11/5/2025.
8) The plaintiff delivers $20,000 to the defendant at 6:42 PM on 11/5/2025.
9) The plaintiff notifies that the defendant owes a $5,800 monthly payment for his first payment on the loan on 12/5/2025 at 12:55 PM
10) On 12/7/2025 the plaintiff sends a notice of deliquency to the defendant. (Attached below)
11) On 12/10/2025 the defendant fails to send the owed $5,800 to the plaintiff and effectively defaults on their loan.
12) On 12/10/2025 at 8:04PM the plaintiff informs the defendant that they are in default.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant has committed Breach of Contract under §7 of the Contracts Act, as they have failed to pay the required $5,800 owed for the first monthly payment of the loan.
2. The Defendant has failed to uphold the duty of good faith and fair dealing as the defendant willingly and intentionally entered a contract with the plaintiff they knew they could not repay and never intended to repay the owed amount to the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff had spent much time on the drafting and executing of their contract with the defendant and should be compensated fairly.
4. The plaintiff has been humiliated as one of their bonds they have offered that is backed by this loan has defaulted causing customers and future customers to have less faith in the stability of the bonds offered by the plaintiff.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $23,200 in Compensatory Damages awarded to the plaintiff, for the principal loan amount of $20,000 along with the $3,200 in accured interest on the loan.
2. $4,000 in Punitive Damages awarded to the plaintiff for the defendant willingly entered a contract they had no intention of paying back.
3. $4,000 in Compensatory Damages awarded to the plaintiff for their time and labor in drafting and executing their contract with the defendant.
4. $5,000 in Consequential Damages Damages awarded to the plaintiff for the reputation lost by the defendants actions and failure to pay back their loan.
5. $3,000 in Attorney Fees paid to RiggoSoft.

Evidence:
Attached, OCB-003 Loan
Attached , Oakridge Community Bank - closed-0016
Attached, Notice of Deliquency

Witnesses:
XinmjirGamingHQ

 

Attachments

Writ of Summons

@XinmjirGamingHQ, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106

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.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The plaintiff moves for this case to be put into summary judgement and in support thereof, respectfully alleges

1. The defendant has not been on the server since November 19th and has had less than 0s of in game time within the past 7 days. The defendant has also not been on the forums within that time and has not responded to any of the plaintiffs messages regarding the loan.

1765831038717.png

 
RiggoSoft said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The plaintiff moves for this case to be put into summary judgement and in support thereof, respectfully alleges

1. The defendant has not been on the server since November 19th and has had less than 0s of in game time within the past 7 days. The defendant has also not been on the forums within that time and has not responded to any of the plaintiffs messages regarding the loan.
View attachment 69285

Click to expand...
DENIED. This court will not be disallowing the defendant a chance at a fair trial, they shall have until the summons expires to show up and after that if they do not show up a public defender will be assigned. EVERYONE IS ALLOWED A CHANCE AT A FAIR TRIAL.
 
1766011332498.png

Plaintiff Witnesses:
Sir_Dogeington
 
dearev said:

Writ of Summons

@XinmjirGamingHQ, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106

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.

Click to expand...
Regarding default judement does that go to a public defender or is that as it said in the message will make a decision "based on the known facts of the case."
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The plaintiff moves for this case to be put into summary judgement and in support thereof, respectfully alleges

1. The defendant has failed to comply with a court summons that gives a gracious 72 hours for the defendant to respond and they have not.

 
RiggoSoft said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The plaintiff moves for this case to be put into summary judgement and in support thereof, respectfully alleges

1. The defendant has failed to comply with a court summons that gives a gracious 72 hours for the defendant to respond and they have not.

Click to expand...
Denied. A public defender will be assigned.
 
I am present as the assigned Public Defender.
 
dearev said:
Denied. A public defender will be assigned.
Click to expand...
Your honor as you said in your first message "Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case." and now you are changing your mind on this, the defendant has very clearly not appeared within 72 hours so the court must go into default judgement.
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

RiggoSoft said:
Your honor as you said in your first message "Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case." and now you are changing your mind on this, the defendant has very clearly not appeared within 72 hours so the court must go into default judgement.
Click to expand...
Your honour,
Plaintiff's counsel has now three times attempted to pierce my client's right to representation under §IV(32)9 of the Constitution.
My client is not subject to waive of representation under public defense, therefore the Plaintiff has no argument here.
I ask that opposing counsel be held in contempt for now three times attempting to violate my client's constitutionally guaranteed rights.

 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honour,
Plaintiff's counsel has now three times attempted to pierce my client's right to representation under §IV(32)9 of the Constitution.
My client is not subject to waive of representation under public defense, therefore the Plaintiff has no argument here.
I ask that opposing counsel be held in contempt for now three times attempting to violate my client's constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Click to expand...
I’m not violating anyone’s rights I am trying to clarify something the presiding judge said in his summons to the defendant and is now back tracking on it.
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

RiggoSoft said:
3. The plaintiff had spent much time on the drafting and executing of their contract with the defendant
Click to expand...
I am attaching two pieces of evidence from different AI detecting websites, both of which affirming that a majority of the contract submitted in P-01 was AI-generated. (62% and 77%).
If a contract was mostly written by AI, then at most, only a little effort and time was dedicated to it, not "much time on the drafting" as affirmed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the one that affirms having written the contract, so they knowingly gave a false statement.
PER-01.png
PER-02.png

 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

I am attaching two pieces of evidence from different AI detecting websites, both of which affirming that a majority of the contract submitted in P-01 was AI-generated. (62% and 77%).
If a contract was mostly written by AI, then at most, only a little effort and time was dedicated to it, not "much time on the drafting" as affirmed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the one that affirms having written the contract, so they knowingly gave a false statement.

View attachment 69783
View attachment 69784

Click to expand...
The defendant can show their revision history of the agreement that would show otherwise
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honour,
Plaintiff's counsel has now three times attempted to pierce my client's right to representation under §IV(32)9 of the Constitution.
My client is not subject to waive of representation under public defense, therefore the Plaintiff has no argument here.
I ask that opposing counsel be held in contempt for now three times attempting to violate my client's constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Click to expand...
Sustained. RiggoSoft is to be held in contempt of court and be charged with 5 penalty units and 5 minutes in jail.

The summons is a forums template. as seen multiple times, a PD is assigned to a case even when the summons says it will lead to a default judgement. This court previously said that if the defendant failed to show up, a PD would be assigned.

Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

I am attaching two pieces of evidence from different AI detecting websites, both of which affirming that a majority of the contract submitted in P-01 was AI-generated. (62% and 77%).
If a contract was mostly written by AI, then at most, only a little effort and time was dedicated to it, not "much time on the drafting" as affirmed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the one that affirms having written the contract, so they knowingly gave a false statement.

View attachment 69783
View attachment 69784

Click to expand...
Overruled. AI detectors can be unreliable, this court finds it inapropriate to sustain this objection for that fact.
 
dearev said:
Sustained. RiggoSoft is to be held in contempt of court and be charged with 5 penalty units and 5 minutes in jail.

The summons is a forums template. as seen multiple times, a PD is assigned to a case even when the summons says it will lead to a default judgement. This court previously said that if the defendant failed to show up, a PD would be assigned.


Overruled. AI detectors can be unreliable, this court finds it inapropriate to sustain this objection for that fact.
Click to expand...
So your word means nothing, a judge can say something and do another in a trial that’s what justice is. You said default judgement then refuse to give default judgement, if you meant a public defender would be assigned why don’t you say that first.
 
RiggoSoft said:
So your word means nothing, a judge can say something and do another in a trial that’s what justice is. You said default judgement then refuse to give default judgement, if you meant a public defender would be assigned why don’t you say that first.
Click to expand...
you are charged in contempt of court once again for speaking out of turn, the penalty shall be 8 penalty units and 10 minutes in jail. you are warned not to speak out of turn again
your statement has been struck from record.
 
dearev said:
you are charged in contempt of court once again for speaking out of turn, the penalty shall be 8 penalty units and 10 minutes in jail. you are warned not to speak out of turn again
your statement has been struck from record.
Click to expand...
What’s the basis of me interfering with justice or disobeying an order of the court for me to be issued my second contempt charge?
 
RiggoSoft said:
What’s the basis of me interfering with justice or disobeying an order of the court for me to be issued my second contempt charge?
Click to expand...
you have spoken out of turn. this is your last warning not to do so.
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

RiggoSoft said:
What’s the basis of me interfering with justice or disobeying an order of the court for me to be issued my second contempt charge?
Click to expand...
This attorney has already been given contempt twice, I ask he is charged with contempt again and/or served a conduct strike for not following court rules of procedure and disrupting proceedings repeatedly and with much warning.

 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

This attorney has already been given contempt twice, I ask he is charged with contempt again and/or served a conduct strike for not following court rules of procedure and disrupting proceedings repeatedly and with much warning.

Click to expand...
Sustained. RiggoSoft is given a conduct strike for their repeated interruptions to this court and their proceedings.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DCR 106 - CONDUCT STRIKE CLARIFICATION

Clarification:

The court has issued a conduct strike to barrister RiggoSoft, this court is making a clarification note on its intent following review and the discovery of a procedural error.

The court clarifies that it intended to charge RiggoSoft with a contempt of court charge alongside the conduct strike however, after further review it was discovered that it was not typed out in the conduct strike order.

Therefore, this court notes that the conduct strike was issued with a procedural defect and the court also notes that due to the procedural defect, the conduct strike has no legal effect.

Respectfully
Magistrate Dearev.

 
dearev said:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DCR 106 - CONDUCT STRIKE CLARIFICATION

Clarification:

The court has issued a conduct strike to barrister RiggoSoft, this court is making a clarification note on its intent following review and the discovery of a procedural error.

The court clarifies that it intended to charge RiggoSoft with a contempt of court charge alongside the conduct strike however, after further review it was discovered that it was not typed out in the conduct strike order.

Therefore, this court notes that the conduct strike was issued with a procedural defect and the court also notes that due to the procedural defect, the conduct strike has no legal effect.

Respectfully
Magistrate Dearev.

Click to expand...
So do I have any contempt of courts? And also my 1 conduct strike
 
RiggoSoft said:
So do I have any contempt of courts? And also my 1 conduct strike
Click to expand...
The contempt charges I and II are valid. however as stated above the conduct strike issued has no legal effect due to a procedural defect.
This court apologizes for any confusion.

For record-keeping purposes this court notes that the current stage of this case is that the assigned public defender to the defendant is to present their answer to complaint.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of Defendant pending resolution of this matter.

Defendant has failed to make any monthly interest payments on this loan and is now in default on this agreement. Given the substantial debt owed and the risk that Defendant will transfer, hide, or dissipate assets to render himself judgment-proof and deprive Plaintiff of recovery, Plaintiff requests that this Court immediately freeze all of Defendant's assets, including:

  1. Plot c572 and all other real estate plots owned by Defendant;
  2. All money held by Defendant, including in-game balance, business balances, bank account balances at any financial institution, National Exchange of Redmont (NER) balance, and any cash held anywhere in Redmont; and
  3. All items and blocks held in Defendant's inventory, EnderChest, supporter chests, and any containers owned by Defendant anywhere in Redmont.

 
RiggoSoft said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of Defendant pending resolution of this matter.

Defendant has failed to make any monthly interest payments on either loan and is now in default on both agreements. Given the substantial debt owed and the risk that Defendant will transfer, hide, or dissipate assets to render himself judgment-proof and deprive Plaintiff of recovery, Plaintiff requests that this Court immediately freeze all of Defendant's assets, including:

  1. Plot c572 and all other real estate plots owned by Defendant;
  2. All money held by Defendant, including in-game balance, business balances, bank account balances at any financial institution, National Exchange of Redmont (NER) balance, and any cash held anywhere in Redmont; and
  3. All items and blocks held in Defendant's inventory, EnderChest, supporter chests, and any containers owned by Defendant anywhere in Redmont.

Click to expand...
may I ammend this your honor
 
dearev said:
you may
Click to expand...
Thank you your honor it is ammended. With respect to you and the court I ask for a swift decision on this motion as the defendant is at risk of being evicted from c572
 
RiggoSoft said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of Defendant pending resolution of this matter.

Defendant has failed to make any monthly interest payments on this loan and is now in default on this agreement. Given the substantial debt owed and the risk that Defendant will transfer, hide, or dissipate assets to render himself judgment-proof and deprive Plaintiff of recovery, Plaintiff requests that this Court immediately freeze all of Defendant's assets, including:

  1. Plot c572 and all other real estate plots owned by Defendant;
  2. All money held by Defendant, including in-game balance, business balances, bank account balances at any financial institution, National Exchange of Redmont (NER) balance, and any cash held anywhere in Redmont; and
  3. All items and blocks held in Defendant's inventory, EnderChest, supporter chests, and any containers owned by Defendant anywhere in Redmont.

Click to expand...
Granted until defense issues a response or indicate their intent not to respond.
 
dearev said:
Granted until defense issues a response or indicate their intent not to respond.
Click to expand...
The Defense has no objection to the injunction insofar as my client does not come back to DC during the course of this case or wishes to use the funds.
 

Answer to Complaint


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


OakRidge Community Bank
Plaintiff

v.

XinmjirGamingHQ
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRMS that on 11/3/2025 the defendant opened a banking and loan inquiry ticket in the OakRidge Community Bank discord server.
2. AFFIRMS that at 7:41PM 11/3/2025 the defendant messaged in the challenge inquiring about a $25,000-$40,000 loan to assist the defendant in purchasing a property.
3. AFFIRMS that the plaintiff responds on 11/5/2025 at 8:37 AM offering the defendant a maximum loan amount of $20,000.
4. NEITHER DENIES NOR AFFIRMS that the defendant agrees to a $20,000 loan provided to them by the plaintiff at 4:07PM.
5. NEITHER DENIES NOR AFFIRMS that the plaintiff began drafting a loan agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff.
6. AFFIRMS that the plaintiff sends the sale agreement to the defendant at 6:20 PM on 11/5/2025. (Attached below)
7. AFFIRMS that the defendant signs the agreement at 6:38 PM on 11/5/2025.
8. AFFIRMS that the plaintiff delivers $20,000 to the defendant at 6:42 PM on 11/5/2025.
9. AFFIRMS that the plaintiff notifies that the defendant allegedly owes a $5,800 monthly payment for his first payment on the loan on 12/5/2025 at 12:55 PM
10. AFFIRMS that on 12/7/2025 the plaintiff sends a notice of deliquency to the defendant. (Attached below)
11. DENIES that on 12/10/2025 the defendant fails to send the owed $5,800 to the plaintiff and effectively defaults on their loan.
12. AFFIRMS that on 12/10/2025 at 8:04PM the plaintiff informs the defendant that they are allegedly in default.

II. DEFENCES
1. The contract's ambiguity, lack of specificity and outright contradiction in places makes it unenforceable under Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43 considering a breach of §4(2)(a) of the Act of Congress - Contracts Act, and a breach of §4(1)(a) of the Act of Congress - Credit Standards Act.


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 December 2025

 
Superwoops said:
The Defense has no objection to the injunction insofar as my client does not come back to DC during the course of this case or wishes to use the funds.
Click to expand...
In this case, the injuction is hereby Granted in full until the end of this case.


Discovery shall now begin lasting 5 days ending december 27th, 2025 @ 11:20am EST
 
Superwoops said:

Answer to Complaint


11. DENIES that on 12/10/2025 the defendant fails to send the owed $5,800 to the plaintiff and effectively defaults on their loan.

Click to expand...

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The defendant's counsel has willingly and intentionally lied about their clients actions as it can be seen in plaitniff's 1st exhibit. They also have lied about the effects of not their client not paying the owed amount due on the 5th.

1766423786676.png
1766423962205.png


 

Response


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The defendant failed to send any
funds, but the Defense’s argument is that the Plaintiff is not owed the funds as the aforementioned contract is invalid due to the reasons provided.
Opposing counsel may disagree, however it is a valid legal argument that will be explained thoroughly in opening and closing statements.

 
Your honor in compliance with the emergency injunction the plaintiff asks the court to inform the Department of Construction and Transportation that plot c572 is frozen, the reason the plaintiff asks is because the Department of Construction and Transportation are currently trying to auction this property Auction Required - c572 | Dec 21, 2025
 
The Defense would like to respectfully ask the Honorable Magistrate @dearev about the status of this case seeing as the time for Discovery has elapsed.
 
Superwoops said:
The Defense would like to respectfully ask the Honorable Magistrate @dearev about the status of this case seeing as the time for Discovery has elapsed.
Click to expand...
The court is going to be entering opening statements in about 24 hours, the court is currently catching up after Christmas break.
 
dearev said:
The court is going to be entering opening statements in about 24 hours, the court is currently catching up after Christmas break.
Click to expand...
Sorry your honor are opening statements now open?
 
RiggoSoft said:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The defendant's counsel has willingly and intentionally lied about their clients actions as it can be seen in plaitniff's 1st exhibit. They also have lied about the effects of not their client not paying the owed amount due on the 5th.

View attachment 70019
View attachment 70022


Click to expand...
Overruled.

RiggoSoft said:
Sorry your honor are opening statements now open?
Click to expand...
Plaintiff shall have 72 hours to present their opening statement.
 
The plaintiff would not like to conduct a in game trial.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The defendant has willfully and intentionally violated their loan agreement between themselves and the plaintiff in direct violation of §7 of the Contracts Act. The defendant failed to pay their first loan payment of $5,800 to the plaintiff by December 5th 2025, the plaintiff graciously gave the defendant until December 7th to send the owed payment and then sent a notice of delinquency giving the defendant an additional 72 hours to send the owed amount however the defendant had failed to fulfill their contractual obligations.

The defendant had failed to uphold the duty of good faith and fair dealing as they had never intended to repay the plaintiff at all for their loan they were provided. This is clear in the plaintiffs exhibits as the defendant had not acknowledges the plaintiff's notices for repayment or delinquency.

 
Thank you. Defendant shall have 72 hours to present theirs.
 

Opening Statement


Your honour,

The contract shown in P-01 is ambiguous, and as such unenforceable in this Court.
To begin, the contract stipulates that:

"[...] the borrowed amount will accrue 4% MPY on the initial principal amount of $20,000 [...]"

The Act of Congress - Credit Standards Act specifically states that "When extending credit to consumers, creditors must offer the key credit terms below with the listed details." It goes on to say, in that same section, the following:

"(a) Interest: The interest applied to the principal or outstanding balance. The following characteristics must be outlined:
- The nominal rate of interest per month as a percentage.
- The form of interest: simple or compound. If compound, the compounding period must be specified. Interest cannot be applied as a force.
- The variability of interest. If the rate is variable, the method & basis of rate change must be described."

Point 1 was done, stating 4%. Point 2 was not fulfilled, as it is unclear whether interest is simple or compound. While the monthly amount is stated later, the CSA specifically states this must be stated in the contract as to avoid any ambiguity and/or confusion. The term MPY is used, which is not a term used in credit lending. The most similar term is Yearly Percentage Yield (YPY), which is used to calculate return on compounding investments, not interest on loans. Therefore, this nonexistent term cannot be used to deduce whether interest is simple or compounding, as the loan agreement later goes on to say that a fixed $800 a month will be charged, suggesting simple interest, and conflicting with the compounding nature of YPY, the most similar term.

It is important to understand why the Credit Standards Act was written in the first place. One of the reasons for creating the CSA was because "Key credit terms such as interest are sometimes used vaguely or unconventionally by institutions in Redmont." The term MPY directly contravenes this principle and the overall spirit of the CSA and proves that ambiguous terms have been agreed upon.

Furthermore, the variability of interest is not stated. This is a required factor for the contract to not be ambiguous under the CSA. Therefore point 3 is also not fulfilled in a satisfactory manner.

Both of these make for a greatly ambiguous contract. According to Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43, "In the Foundation for Contract Law, an offer is an 'unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business.' However, since the terms set in this deal are ambiguous (...) the offer made was null in the first place." This affirms that P-01 is currently unenforceable due to the fact that it is void ab initio. No party is bound to the Contract shown by the Plaintiff. Since the contract is void, breach of contract cannot have happened.​


 
Superwoops said:

Opening Statement


Your honour,

The contract shown in P-01 is ambiguous, and as such unenforceable in this Court.
To begin, the contract stipulates that:

"[...] the borrowed amount will accrue 4% MPY on the initial principal amount of $20,000 [...]"

The Act of Congress - Credit Standards Act specifically states that "When extending credit to consumers, creditors must offer the key credit terms below with the listed details." It goes on to say, in that same section, the following:

"(a) Interest: The interest applied to the principal or outstanding balance. The following characteristics must be outlined:
- The nominal rate of interest per month as a percentage.
- The form of interest: simple or compound. If compound, the compounding period must be specified. Interest cannot be applied as a force.
- The variability of interest. If the rate is variable, the method & basis of rate change must be described."

Point 1 was done, stating 4%. Point 2 was not fulfilled, as it is unclear whether interest is simple or compound. While the monthly amount is stated later, the CSA specifically states this must be stated in the contract as to avoid any ambiguity and/or confusion. The term MPY is used, which is not a term used in credit lending. The most similar term is Yearly Percentage Yield (YPY), which is used to calculate return on compounding investments, not interest on loans. Therefore, this nonexistent term cannot be used to deduce whether interest is simple or compounding, as the loan agreement later goes on to say that a fixed $800 a month will be charged, suggesting simple interest, and conflicting with the compounding nature of YPY, the most similar term.

It is important to understand why the Credit Standards Act was written in the first place. One of the reasons for creating the CSA was because "Key credit terms such as interest are sometimes used vaguely or unconventionally by institutions in Redmont." The term MPY directly contravenes this principle and the overall spirit of the CSA and proves that ambiguous terms have been agreed upon.

Furthermore, the variability of interest is not stated. This is a required factor for the contract to not be ambiguous under the CSA. Therefore point 3 is also not fulfilled in a satisfactory manner.

Both of these make for a greatly ambiguous contract. According to Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43, "In the Foundation for Contract Law, an offer is an 'unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business.' However, since the terms set in this deal are ambiguous (...) the offer made was null in the first place." This affirms that P-01 is currently unenforceable due to the fact that it is void ab initio. No party is bound to the Contract shown by the Plaintiff. Since the contract is void, breach of contract cannot have happened.​


Click to expand...
Thank you. Summons for the witnesses will now be issued.
 

Writ of Summons

@XinmjirGamingHQ @Dogeington , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106 as witnesses

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.

 
dearev said:

Writ of Summons

@XinmjirGamingHQ @Dogeington , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106 as witnesses

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.

Click to expand...
Present your honor
 
Good day to all parties. Due to my recent appointment, I will be presiding over this case from now on.

Thank you to @Dogeington for confirming their presence as a witness, the Plaintiff (@RiggoSoft) may now question them. Questions should be asked in the next 24 hours, and witnesses should respond within 24 hours of questions being asked.
 
Pepecuu said:
Good day to all parties. Due to my recent appointment, I will be presiding over this case from now on.

Thank you to @Dogeington for confirming their presence as a witness, the Plaintiff (@RiggoSoft) may now question them. Questions should be asked in the next 24 hours, and witnesses should respond within 24 hours of questions being asked.
Click to expand...
Your honor I’m still waiting for another witness of mine to appear before the court
 
I see the time has passed now the plaintiff will present questions shortly.
 
Dogeington Questions

1. What is your relation to OakRidge Community Bank?
2. Do you hold any bonds offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
3. What bonds do you hold that are offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
4. How many bonds do you hold in OakRidge Community Bank?
5. What was the value of your bonds held in OakRidge Community Bank?
6. On 12/7/2025 as a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, was in delinquency?
7. On 12/10/2025 As a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, had defaulted on their loan?
8. What was your reaction to the news of the defendant's default on the bond?
9. Does this news make you skeptical to deposit money in OakRidge Community Bank?
10. Does this news make you skeptical to buy bonds offered by OakRidge Community Bank?
(Struck in accordance with #83)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RiggoSoft said:
Dogeinton Questions

1. What is your relation to OakRidge Community Bank?
2. Do you hold any bonds offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
3. What bonds do you hold that are offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
4. How many bonds do you hold in OakRidge Community Bank?
5. What was the value of your bonds held in OakRidge Community Bank?
6. On 12/7/2025 as a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, was in delinquency?
7. As a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, had defaulted on their loan?
8. What was your reaction to the news of the defendant's default on the bond?
9. Does this news make you skeptical to deposit money in OakRidge Community Bank?
10. Does this news make you skeptical to buy bonds offered by OakRidge Community Bank?
Click to expand...
@Dogeington (to ensure that they have seen the questions)
 
RiggoSoft said:
Dogeinton Questions

1. What is your relation to OakRidge Community Bank?
2. Do you hold any bonds offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
3. What bonds do you hold that are offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
4. How many bonds do you hold in OakRidge Community Bank?
5. What was the value of your bonds held in OakRidge Community Bank?
6. On 12/7/2025 as a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, was in delinquency?
7. As a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, had defaulted on their loan?
8. What was your reaction to the news of the defendant's default on the bond?
9. Does this news make you skeptical to deposit money in OakRidge Community Bank?
10. Does this news make you skeptical to buy bonds offered by OakRidge Community Bank?
Click to expand...
May I amend this your honor
 
RiggoSoft said:
Just add clarification to question 7
Click to expand...
As the witness has not replied to these questions (and the Defense has not raised any objections), I will be allowing it this time.

Please ensure to write questions in full before posting, to ensure the witness is able to answer truthfully and objectively, thank you.
 
Pepecuu said:
As the witness has not replied to these questions (and the Defense has not raised any objections), I will be allowing it this time.

Please ensure to write questions in full before posting, to ensure the witness is able to answer truthfully and objectively, thank you.
Click to expand...
Amended
 
RiggoSoft said:
Dogeinton Questions

1. What is your relation to OakRidge Community Bank?
2. Do you hold any bonds offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
3. What bonds do you hold that are offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
4. How many bonds do you hold in OakRidge Community Bank?
5. What was the value of your bonds held in OakRidge Community Bank?
6. On 12/7/2025 as a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, was in delinquency?
7. On 12/10/2025 As a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, had defaulted on their loan?
8. What was your reaction to the news of the defendant's default on the bond?
9. Does this news make you skeptical to deposit money in OakRidge Community Bank?
10. Does this news make you skeptical to buy bonds offered by OakRidge Community Bank?
Click to expand...
1. I am an investor and depositer with Oakridge Community Bank.
2. Yes.
3. I hold OCB-003 and OCB-004 bonds.
4. I hold 194 bonds with OCB.
5. The principle I invested is $19,400
6. Yes.
7. Yes.
8. I was very worried for the status of my bonds.
9. Yes.
10. Yes.
(Struck in accordance with #83)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow-up for Dogeington
1. How many OCB-003 bonds do you hold?
2. As a result of the defendants actions how do you think of bonds offered by Oakridge Community Bank?
3. As a result of the defendants actions as an investor do you think you will invest in any future bonds offered by Oakridge Community Bank?
4. As an investor have you lost confidence in the safety of bonds offered by Oakridge Community Bank?
(Struck in accordance with #84)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your honor additionally I move for the court to find the defendant XinmjirGamingHQ in contempt of court as he has failed to respond to the writ of summons which is a lawful order of the court requiring the requested person to appear before the court. This clearly constitutes a contempt of court charge and as so the plaintiff moves to find the defendant in contempt of court.
 
RiggoSoft said:
Follow-up for Dogeington
1. How many OCB-003 bonds do you hold?
2. As a result of the defendants actions how do you think of bonds offered by Oakridge Community Bank?
3. As a result of the defendants actions as an investor do you think you will invest in any future bonds offered by Oakridge Community Bank?
4. As an investor have you lost confidence in the safety of bonds offered by Oakridge Community Bank?
Click to expand...
@Dogeington

Just a reminder to the Plaintiff (@RiggoSoft) to ping the witness when they are required to respond to a question, thanks!
 
RiggoSoft said:
2. Do you hold any bonds offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
3. What bonds do you hold that are offered by the OakRidge Community Bank?
4. How many bonds do you hold in OakRidge Community Bank?
5. What was the value of your bonds held in OakRidge Community Bank?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honour,
These questions are not relevant to the issue at hand, which is to ascertain whether my client committed breach of contract or not. The contract or Discord conversation never mentioned there being a bond created, so it is unreasonable to suggest my client could have known of this. Whether the client holds bonds or not does not help us determine if my client breached the contract.

 
RiggoSoft said:
8. What was your reaction to the news of the defendant's default on the bond?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - LEADING

The question seems to imply that my client defaulted on a bond. The only thing in question is whether my client defaulted on a loan.

 
RiggoSoft said:
6. On 12/7/2025 as a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, was in delinquency?
7. On 12/10/2025 As a bondholder of OCB-003 did you receive a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond OCB-003 who is the defendant in this case, had defaulted on their loan?
8. What was your reaction to the news of the defendant's default on the bond?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, LEADING, COMPOUND

These questions assume that my client is the borrower behind bond OCB-003, which has not been proven by any evidence provided by the Plaintiff. The burden is on them to prove this, as my client was never notified that his loan would incur a bond creation on the Bank's side.

 
RiggoSoft said:
Your honor additionally I move for the court to find the defendant XinmjirGamingHQ in contempt of court as he has failed to respond to the writ of summons which is a lawful order of the court requiring the requested person to appear before the court. This clearly constitutes a contempt of court charge and as so the plaintiff moves to find the defendant in contempt of court.
Click to expand...
The Motion is hereby denied, as the Court finds that the previous Presiding Officer incorrectly summoned the witness (by not mentioning them in the Forums, see #49). As this was an error by a Presiding Officer and not by the Defendant, the Court cannot find them in Contempt.

Accordingly, @Xinmjir is hereby requested to present themselves in Court as a witness, within the next 48 hours. Refusal or absence to show up will result in Contempt of Court charges.
 
RiggoSoft said:
9. Does this news make you skeptical to deposit money in OakRidge Community Bank?
10. Does this news make you skeptical to buy bonds offered by OakRidge Community Bank?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION, RELEVANCE

The Defense objects to these questions on the grounds that they are asking the witness to speculate on whether they might deposit money or buy bonds in the future. Since the witness has not directly experienced or observed these actions (per Court Rules) these questions are not in order.

 
RiggoSoft said:
1. How many OCB-003 bonds do you hold?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Again, this does not pertain to this case. See #66.

 
RiggoSoft said:
2. As a result of the defendants actions how do you think of bonds offered by Oakridge Community Bank?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION, LEADING, AMBIGUOUS

This question is asking for the opinion of the witness (calls for a conclusion), it imposes a condition at the beginning of the question (leading) and "how do you think of bonds offered" is a very ambiguous question that can be answered in a number of ways.


 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION, LEADING, AMBIGUOUS

This question is asking for the opinion of the witness (calls for a conclusion), it imposes a condition at the beginning of the question (leading) and "how do you think of bonds offered" is a very ambiguous question that can be answered in a number of ways.


Click to expand...
@RiggoSoft (Once again, please ping the relevant people, ty :>)
 
RiggoSoft said:
3. As a result of the defendants actions as an investor do you think you will invest in any future bonds offered by Oakridge Community Bank?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your honour, this question is asking the witness to speculate ("do you think you will invest") as to future events which the witness has not directly observed.


RiggoSoft said:
4. As an investor have you lost confidence in the safety of bonds offered by Oakridge Community Bank?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION, RELEVANCE

This question is trying to get the opinion of the witness regarding the bank's bonds. Again, this is not only irrelevant (because the decision to release bonds was at the sole discretion of the bank) but also calling for a conclusion.



@RiggoSoft
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Your honour,
These questions are not relevant to the issue at hand, which is to ascertain whether my client committed breach of contract or not. The contract or Discord conversation never mentioned there being a bond created, so it is unreasonable to suggest my client could have known of this. Whether the client holds bonds or not does not help us determine if my client breached the contract.

Click to expand...
These questions are relevant to assess damages caused by you client and the humiliation he has caused for the plaintiff.
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, LEADING, COMPOUND

These questions assume that my client is the borrower behind bond OCB-003, which has not been proven by any evidence provided by the Plaintiff. The burden is on them to prove this, as my client was never notified that his loan would incur a bond creation on the Bank's side.

Click to expand...
The loan is titled OCB-003 and all bonds take the name of the liability behind it. Your client also does not need to know that your loan will be packaged as a bond as that is a matter for the bank to decide.
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - LEADING

The question seems to imply that my client defaulted on a bond. The only thing in question is whether my client defaulted on a loan.

Click to expand...
We are not leading, all bondholders were sent a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond was in default and asking what their response was.
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION, RELEVANCE

The Defense objects to these questions on the grounds that they are asking the witness to speculate on whether they might deposit money or buy bonds in the future. Since the witness has not directly experienced or observed these actions (per Court Rules) these questions are not in order.

Click to expand...
This isn't speculation this is asking their opinions? They are asking if they were skeptical due to the news to deposit money in the bank, the witness can attest to their own feelings.
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Again, this does not pertain to this case. See #66.

Click to expand...
This provides foundation as it tells the court and the defense who the witness is and what pertains to them.
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION, LEADING, AMBIGUOUS

This question is asking for the opinion of the witness (calls for a conclusion), it imposes a condition at the beginning of the question (leading) and "how do you think of bonds offered" is a very ambiguous question that can be answered in a number of ways.


Click to expand...
We ask for the witnesses feeling on investments offered by the bank we don't lead them into any answer and bonds offered is very clear as bonds offered by the bank
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - SPECULATION

Your honour, this question is asking the witness to speculate ("do you think you will invest") as to future events which the witness has not directly observed.



Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION, RELEVANCE

This question is trying to get the opinion of the witness regarding the bank's bonds. Again, this is not only irrelevant (because the decision to release bonds was at the sole discretion of the bank) but also calling for a conclusion.



@RiggoSoft
Click to expand...
No response to objection 1

Response to objection 2: The plaintiff is once again asking the witnesses feeling about the bonds, it is also relevant again to assess the damages and humiliation your client has caused to the plaintiff.
 
RiggoSoft said:
These questions are relevant to assess damages caused by you client and the humiliation he has caused for the plaintiff.
Click to expand...
Objection sustained. While the Plaintiff briefly mentions a "bond" within their claims during the initial case filing (§III, Clause 4), they are not supported by the original complaint and facts, which allege that the Defendant had breached Contract laws. With no further details by the Plaintiff, the Court finds little to no relevance in the set of questions posed to the Witness.
RiggoSoft said:
We are not leading, all bondholders were sent a notice that the borrower behind the liability represented in the bond was in default and asking what their response was.
Click to expand...
Objection sustained. Leading Questions "suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm" (Objections Guide). The Court concurs that the question guides the Witness to accept the unproven claim that the Defendant had defaulted on a bond, therefore suggesting a desired answer to argue their claim of Humiliation Damages.

RiggoSoft said:
The loan is titled OCB-003 and all bonds take the name of the liability behind it. Your client also does not need to know that your loan will be packaged as a bond as that is a matter for the bank to decide.
Click to expand...
Objection sustained. Up to this point, there have been no facts or evidence regarding the bond OCB-003, and given that burden of proof is on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's claim that the bond OCB-003 is securitized by the loan given out to the Defendant is merely an assumption.

Questions 6 - 8 assume the bond OCB-003 even exists, the above assumption that the bond was securitized by the Defendant's loan, and that the alleged default on the loan was communicated to bondholders. All of these have not been backed by any evidence provided by the Plaintiff, and are being pushed as fact to suggest a desired answer from the Witness.

Additionally, the Plaintiff assumes that "all bonds take the name of the liability behind it." This has not been proven via the presentation of relevant evidence, such as naming conventions before or during the time of the bond's enactment, and therefore cannot be considered as a fact.

RiggoSoft said:
This isn't speculation this is asking their opinions? They are asking if they were skeptical due to the news to deposit money in the bank, the witness can attest to their own feelings.
Click to expand...
Objection sustained. Questions 9 and 10 ask the Witness to predict their future behavior through hypothetical decisions, therefore causing the witness to offer an opinion unrelated to the facts provided.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Questions 2 - 5, 6 - 8, 9 - 10 (#54), and resulting answers by Witness Dogeington are hereby struck from the record.
 
RiggoSoft said:
This provides foundation as it tells the court and the defense who the witness is and what pertains to them.
Click to expand...
Objection sustained. Follow up question 1 does not provide any details about the Witness, except that they hold a certain number of OCB bonds, which is not relevant to the case due to the facts and complaint alleging a Breach of Contract in a loan taken by the Defendant, rather than a bond.

RiggoSoft said:
We ask for the witnesses feeling on investments offered by the bank we don't lead them into any answer and bonds offered is very clear as bonds offered by the bank
Click to expand...
Objection sustained. Follow up question 2 suggests that the Defendant definitively committed an action which has affected the witness, suggesting an answer to the Witness even though these effects are only claims by the Plaintiff.

RiggoSoft said:
No response to objection 1

Response to objection 2: The plaintiff is once again asking the witnesses feeling about the bonds, it is also relevant again to assess the damages and humiliation your client has caused to the plaintiff.
Click to expand...
Objection 1 sustained. Follow Up question 3 follows Questions 9 and 10 in making the Witness give an opinion on hypothetical future behaviors unrelated to the case.

Objection 2 sustained. Follow Up question 4 asks about the "safety of bonds", which is irrelevant to the dispute regarding the loan specifically given to the Defendant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Follow Up questions 1-4 (#62) are hereby struck from the record.
 
Seeing as the Plaintiff has no additional questions for the Witness, the Defendant now has 24 hours to pose questions to them if they wish to do so.
@RiggoSoft @Superwoops
 

Motion


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

The Defense feels as though all points in contention have been thoroughly addressed in opening statements, and no new evidence was introduced in Discovery.
Additionally, witness testimony was struck almost in its entirety. The answer that wasn't struck does not provide any benefit whatsoever to the Plaintiff's case.

@RiggoSoft

 
Pepecuu said:
The Motion is hereby denied, as the Court finds that the previous Presiding Officer incorrectly summoned the witness (by not mentioning them in the Forums, see #49). As this was an error by a Presiding Officer and not by the Defendant, the Court cannot find them in Contempt.

Accordingly, @Xinmjir is hereby requested to present themselves in Court as a witness, within the next 48 hours. Refusal or absence to show up will result in Contempt of Court charges.
Click to expand...
Seeing as @Xinmjir has not shown up in Court after the given timeframe, they shall hereby be held in Contempt of Court, with the punishment being levied at 10 penalty units and 10 minutes of imprisonment.
 
Superwoops said:
No questions from me, your honour
Click to expand...
Seeing as Witness Testimony and Cross Examination of Dogeington is now complete, and that the other named Witness (XinmijirGamingHQ) is unable to testify as they are not present, the Court now moves the trial into Closing Statements.


The Plaintiff's Counsel (@RiggoSoft) is hereby given 72 hours (12/1/26 @ 2pm EST) to submit their Closing Statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top