Lawsuit: In Session PlayerData vs NorthernCrypiot [2026] FCR 69

[Geomanandme]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


PlayerData
Plaintiff

v.

NorthernCrypiot, aka Earthquake (Geogeek)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Earthquake in the petition about the bank tax started accusing Poy Bank of committing fraud and scamming. He stated I banned him from my bank because he wouldn’t buy my property which is a blatant lie. He then went and posted in the advertising channel stating that Poy bank are fraudulent and joined the bank discord stating the same thing. Concerning depositors and causing a potential lost loan deal.

I. PARTIES
1. PlayerData
2. NorthernCrypiot

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant repeatedly defamed the Plantiff in public discord servers, making false claims about the Plantiffs business practices. [Exhibits P-001, P-006]
2. While the plantiff admits to denying the defendant of a loan, this is not illegal and is not grounds for the defamation commited.
3. The repeated statements by the defendant have caused a loss of buisness and potential profits for the plantiff. [Exhibit P-005]


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Redmont Civil Code includes definitions of Defamation, Libel, and Slander. The defendant violated all three of these as shown in the evidence attached below.
2.. The plantiff seeks a minimum in $200,000 across all three categories in exchange for the amount of buisness lost because of the defendants harmful and false comments.
3. The plantiff seeks coverage of the attorney fee of 25,000.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Punitive Damages under all three charges of Defamation, Libel, and Slander.

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 3rd day of August, 2026
Witness List:
.Mailiwoail
SUPREME SA
Hoogvlieger007
Domss_
Hat Man
rae rawr
SplashyAlpaca77

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@NorthernCypriot is hereby commanded to draw hither to the Federal Court for the case PlayerDate v. NorthrnCypriot [2026] FCR 69

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.

 

[Geomanandme]

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED INTO AN INQUEST

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds into an inquest (according to Rule 3.6.1) for the following reason:
1. Where a Defendant in a civil matter fails to file a reply or does not file a responsive pleading, the action shall proceed to an inquest (Rule 3.6.2) either on motion or sua sponte by the Court.

 

[ko531]

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED INTO AN INQUEST

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds into an inquest (according to Rule 3.6.1) for the following reason:
1. Where a Defendant in a civil matter fails to file a reply or does not file a responsive pleading, the action shall proceed to an inquest (Rule 3.6.2) either on motion or sua sponte by the Court.

Motion to Proceed into an Inquest denied.

A Public defender will be appointed for the defendant. The case is in recess until this time.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Your Honour,

I respectfully apologize to the Court on behalf of my client. The Defendant was under the impression that this matter had been dismissed and therefore did not arrange legal representation.

To my knowledge, the Public Defenders Office is currently understaffed, and no Public Defender has been assigned to this case as of now. I have obtained authorization from Defendant NortherCrypiot in this matter and respectfully request that the Court permit me to appear as counsel on the Defendant’s behalf.

Allowing me to represent the Defendant would avoid placing additional pressure on the Public Defence Office and would save the Commonwealth the cost of assigning a Public Defender where private counsel is already willing and able to undertake the representation.

Should the Court permit my appearance, I would further request a brief extension of 24 hours to familiarize myself with this case before filing the Answer to the Complaint.

I thank the Court for its consideration.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Geomanandme]

Your Honour,

The Plantiff pleads the court to deny the request for an additional 24 hour extention. 8 days have now passed since the defandant was summoned, 5 over the legal limit. Therefore, the plantiff believes that this extention is uncalled for and undeserved.

The plantiff has suffered enough harm as is, and the unessesary prolongment of the case by the defense is adding emotional strain to my client, and furthering their buisnesses losses because of the fact that these false acts of defamation are still circulating. A 24 hour extention is uncalled for, and undeserved and the Plantiff pleads the court to deny.

I thank the court for its time and consideration.

 

[ko531]

Your Honour,

I respectfully apologize to the Court on behalf of my client. The Defendant was under the impression that this matter had been dismissed and therefore did not arrange legal representation.

To my knowledge, the Public Defenders Office is currently understaffed, and no Public Defender has been assigned to this case as of now. I have obtained authorization from Defendant NortherCrypiot in this matter and respectfully request that the Court permit me to appear as counsel on the Defendant’s behalf.

Allowing me to represent the Defendant would avoid placing additional pressure on the Public Defence Office and would save the Commonwealth the cost of assigning a Public Defender where private counsel is already willing and able to undertake the representation.

Should the Court permit my appearance, I would further request a brief extension of 24 hours to familiarize myself with this case before filing the Answer to the Complaint.

I thank the Court for its consideration.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 95580

24 Hour extension is granted. You have 24 hours from my message to provide an answer to the complaint. Otherwise, this case will go to default judgment.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Answer to Complaint

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

PlayerData
Plaintiff

v.

NorthernCrypiot
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant DENIES the Defendant defamed the Plaintiff and made false claims about their business practices, NOTING that the Plaintiff has not proven any elements of defamation nor falsity of any alleged statements.
2. The Defendant DENIES that denial of a loan is not grounds for the defamation “committed”, NOTING that the Plaintiff has not proven any elements of defamation.
3. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES the Defendant’s alleged statements resulted in loss of business and potential profits for the Plaintiff, NOTING that the Plaintiff has not proven that the alleged statements resulted in loss of business and potential profits and that the Plaintiff carries the burden of proof.

II. DEFENCES
1. In the first claim made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant committed Defamation. However, the Plaintiff has not established any elements of Defamation as defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. In the first claim made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant committed Slander. However, the Plaintiff has not established any elements of Slander as defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act.
3. In the first claim made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant committed Libel. However, the Plaintiff has not established any elements of Libel as defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act.
4. In the second claim made by the Plaintiff, it is alleged the Defendant made “harmful and false” comments. However, the Plaintiff has not proven any statements to be harmful nor false and if so, to what extent.
5. In the second claim made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff requests compensation for the “amount of business lost”, which implies the Plaintiff wants compensatory damages. The Redmont Civil Code Act requires evidence of pecuniary losses to grant compensatory damages. The Plaintiff has not proven any pecuniary loss arising from the alleged statements.
6. All evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are Discord messages. According to the Redmont Civil Code Act, Libel is committed if a person:
a. commits Defamation; and
b. the defamatory statement is expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication method embodied in physical form; and
c. the statement is injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in their business, profession or organisation.
All evidence submitted by the Plaintiff consists of Discord messages. The Redmont Civil Code Act expressly identifies defamatory Discord messages as an example of Slander. Therefore, even if the alleged statements are found to be defamatory, the applicable classification is Slander, not Libel. Libel is not applicable to the alleged statements and the Plaintiff has not demonstrated why it would be.
7. The Defendant, without admitting to any wrongdoing or liability, is of the opinion that the only relevant messages that are alleged to be defamatory (P-001 and P-006) are, if classified as defamation, more likely to be interpreted as defamatory towards “Poy Bank” instead of the Plaintiff. Part I §2(3) of the Legal Entity Act states “Legal entities shall be a legal person with separate rights and liabilities, strictly distinct from their shareholders, members, and agents.” The Plaintiff seems to primarily request compensation based on the message “lol ig if poy bank is a scammer then i wont be applying for a loan” [sic] sent by SplashyAlpaca77 in what appears to be the Poy Bank Discord server (P-003). As such, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated why they, as a natural person, have suffered damages, even if the alleged statements are found to be defamatory. Poy Bank's alleged business losses are not automatically PlayerData's losses. D-001 and D-002 establish that Poy Enterprises (the entity that Poy Bank was incorporated under) is, and has been on and before the date this case was filed, a registered Corporation with the Department of Commerce.
8. The Plaintiff requests Punitive Damages for the alleged Defamation, Libel, and Slander. However, Part III §3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act states that Punitive Damages require conduct that is sufficiently outrageous to warrant such an award. The Plaintiff has not alleged or demonstrated that the Defendant's conduct meets this standard, nor has the Plaintiff provided evidence establishing conduct sufficiently outrageous to justify Punitive Damages. Accordingly, even if the Court were to find the Defendant liable for any of the alleged offenses, Punitive Damages are not warranted based on the allegations and evidence submitted.
9. Finally, the sum of $200,000.00 requested by the Plaintiff is unsupported by the evidence submitted. The Plaintiff has provided no calculation, documentation or any other evidence establishing how the alleged damages amount to $200,000.00. The Plaintiff has therefore failed to substantiate the amount of damages requested.

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

Witnesses:
None.

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 18th day of August 2026.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Objection

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

Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states: “Per filing, any cited sources (including statutes, lawsuits, the Constitution, executive orders, etc.) must be hyperlinked to the correct forum post the first time they are mentioned.” The Case Filing does not contain hyperlinks to the statutes mentioned.

The Defendant asks that the Court require the Plaintiff to amend their Case Filing so that it is compliant with the Court Rules and Procedures.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Motion

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

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

Part I §2(3) of the Legal Entity Act states: “Legal entities shall be a legal person with separate rights and liabilities, strictly distinct from their shareholders, members, and agents.”

The Plaintiff’s claims appear to rely substantially upon alleged harm to “Poy Bank” and its business. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff does not establish that the alleged statements were directed toward the Plaintiff personally, nor does it establish that any alleged losses suffered by Poy Bank constitute losses suffered by the Plaintiff.

D-001 establishes that Poy Bank operated under the registration of Poy Enterprises and D-002 establishes that Poy Enterprises was a registered Corporation with the Department of Commerce on and before the date this case was filed by the Plaintiff. Poy Enterprises therefore constitutes a separate legal entity from its shareholders, members, and agents under the Legal Entity Act.

Accordingly, any alleged harm suffered by Poy Bank or Poy Enterprises cannot automatically be attributed to the Plaintiff as a natural person. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated a personal injury sufficient to establish standing to seek damages for alleged losses belonging to a separate legal entity.

As such, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s case for lack of standing.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

 

[Geomanandme]

Objection

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

Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states: “Per filing, any cited sources (including statutes, lawsuits, the Constitution, executive orders, etc.) must be hyperlinked to the correct forum post the first time they are mentioned.” The Case Filing does not contain hyperlinks to the statutes mentioned.

The Defendant asks that the Court require the Plaintiff to amend their Case Filing so that it is compliant with the Court Rules and Procedures.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

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


The Plaintiff does not oppose the Objection and will submit an amended Case Filing with the required hyperlinks to cited statutes in compliance with Rule 1.10 within 48 hours.


The Plaintiff thanks the Court for its consideration.

 

[Geomanandme]

MOTION TO AMEND CASE FILING


The Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for leave to amend the Case Filing in this matter, and in support thereof states as follows:


I. GROUNDS FOR AMENDMENT

1. Procedural compliance. Following the Defendant's Objection dated the 18th of August, 2026 , the Plaintiff acknowledges that the original Case Filing did not include hyperlinks to cited statutes as required by Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures. The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the filing to hyperlink all cited sources to their correct forum posts.
2. Clarification of damages. The Plaintiff further seeks leave to amend Section III.2 of the Case Filing to align the damages requested with the evidence submitted, rather than the originally stated minimum of $200,000. Exhibit P-005 documents a specific, quantifiable loss of a 45,000-currency loan that a third party declined to pursue as a direct result of the Defendant's statements. The Plaintiff amends the damages request accordingly to avoid any suggestion that the requested sum is unsupported by the record, consistent with the Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendant's Answer.

II. NO PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT

1. The proposed amendments are limited to (a) formatting compliance and (b) narrowing, rather than expanding, the relief sought. Neither amendment introduces new claims, new parties, or new theories of liability, and neither will require the Defendant to prepare a materially different defense than the one already filed in the Answer.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Grant leave to amend the Case Filing as described above; and
2. Permit the Plaintiff 48 hours to submit the amended filing.

The Plaintiff thanks the Court for its consideration.


DATED: This 18th day of August, 2026.

 

[ko531]

Objection

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

Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states: “Per filing, any cited sources (including statutes, lawsuits, the Constitution, executive orders, etc.) must be hyperlinked to the correct forum post the first time they are mentioned.” The Case Filing does not contain hyperlinks to the statutes mentioned.

The Defendant asks that the Court require the Plaintiff to amend their Case Filing so that it is compliant with the Court Rules and Procedures.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

Objection Sustained

MOTION TO AMEND CASE FILING


The Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for leave to amend the Case Filing in this matter, and in support thereof states as follows:


I. GROUNDS FOR AMENDMENT

1. Procedural compliance. Following the Defendant's Objection dated the 18th of August, 2026 , the Plaintiff acknowledges that the original Case Filing did not include hyperlinks to cited statutes as required by Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures. The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the filing to hyperlink all cited sources to their correct forum posts.
2. Clarification of damages. The Plaintiff further seeks leave to amend Section III.2 of the Case Filing to align the damages requested with the evidence submitted, rather than the originally stated minimum of $200,000. Exhibit P-005 documents a specific, quantifiable loss of a 45,000-currency loan that a third party declined to pursue as a direct result of the Defendant's statements. The Plaintiff amends the damages request accordingly to avoid any suggestion that the requested sum is unsupported by the record, consistent with the Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendant's Answer.

II. NO PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT

1. The proposed amendments are limited to (a) formatting compliance and (b) narrowing, rather than expanding, the relief sought. Neither amendment introduces new claims, new parties, or new theories of liability, and neither will require the Defendant to prepare a materially different defense than the one already filed in the Answer.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Grant leave to amend the Case Filing as described above; and
2. Permit the Plaintiff 48 hours to submit the amended filing.

The Plaintiff thanks the Court for its consideration.


DATED: This 18th day of August, 2026.

Motion to Amend Complaint Granted

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Objection to Witnesses

Your Honour,

In Ameslap v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 126, the Court excluded witnesses on the basis of their lack of relevance to the case. The Honourable Justice Muggy21 stated the following: “the Court has a constitutional duty to exercise judicial power prudently, and not needlessly involve the citizenry to its qualms” [sic].

The Defendant objects to the witnesses below on the basis that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that these witnesses possess relevant personal knowledge concerning the allegations or damages at issue. The statements below demonstrate the limited or nonexistent relevance the witnesses have to this case.

1. .Mailiwoail (The only statements made by this witness can be found in P-002, P-004, P-008, P-009. The statements are: “Do we know if they broke laws?” [sic], “I doubt that they would apologize, especially since it can be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Plus, we still have seen no proof” [sic], “That just sounds like you always get in trouble” [sic], “Ppl are saying they broke a bunch of laws or smth” [sic] and “Although they don’t have proof as far as I can tell” [sic])
2. SUPREME SA (The only statements made by this witness can be found in P-007. The statements are: “Bruh” [sic], “I think you may need a lawyer” [sic] and “Good for you DDDD” [sic])
3. Hoogvlieger007 (The only statement made by this witness can be found in P-007. The statement is: “dw, i’m sure he will sue you already” [sic])
4. Domss_ (This witness does not appear to have made any statements in the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.)
5. HatManMC also known as Hat Man (P-001 only identifies this individual by username. No substantive statement from this witness is visible in the submitted evidence.)
6. rae rawr (The only statement made by this witness can be found in P-001 “. The statements are: “sort of already does” [sic] and “im pretty sure that the government taxes profits made from loans” [sic]. These statements were made as part of a separate conversation that happened to take place in the same channel at the same time as the alleged conduct at issue.)

As such, the Defence requests the Plaintiff to remove these witnesses from their witness list.

The Defence thanks the Court for their consideration.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Your Honour,

Please disregard the smiley rendered in the quotation in paragraph 2. The original statement contained a text-based smiley face with a colon followed by a closing parentheses, which the forum website automatically converted into an emoji.

The quotation is otherwise unchanged.

The Defence thanks the Court for its understanding.

 

[Geomanandme]

Motion

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

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

Part I §2(3) of the Legal Entity Act states: “Legal entities shall be a legal person with separate rights and liabilities, strictly distinct from their shareholders, members, and agents.”

The Plaintiff’s claims appear to rely substantially upon alleged harm to “Poy Bank” and its business. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff does not establish that the alleged statements were directed toward the Plaintiff personally, nor does it establish that any alleged losses suffered by Poy Bank constitute losses suffered by the Plaintiff.

D-001 establishes that Poy Bank operated under the registration of Poy Enterprises and D-002 establishes that Poy Enterprises was a registered Corporation with the Department of Commerce on and before the date this case was filed by the Plaintiff. Poy Enterprises therefore constitutes a separate legal entity from its shareholders, members, and agents under the Legal Entity Act.

Accordingly, any alleged harm suffered by Poy Bank or Poy Enterprises cannot automatically be attributed to the Plaintiff as a natural person. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated a personal injury sufficient to establish standing to seek damages for alleged losses belonging to a separate legal entity.

As such, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s case for lack of standing.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

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

The Plaintiff respectfully submits an opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The statements were addressed personally to the plaintiff.

The Defendant's Motion is entirely based on the assumption that the alleged statements were intended for "Poy Bank" as a company, rather than for the Plaintiff as an individual. However, this assumption is factually wrong and goes against the evidence given by the Plaintiff.

The statement in Exhibit P-001 is one made by the Defendant and addresses the Plaintiff directly by username, stating that "@Player Data hes corrupt and kicks people out of the bank for not buying his properties." The statement does not mention Poy Bank or Poy Enterprises as organisations; rather, it accuses the Plaintiff personally of corrupt behaviour and of misusing his position. This therefore constitutes a direct personal attack on the Plaintiff's character and integrity, not a comment on the business practices of a corporation.

In support of its motion, the Defendant merely refers to the message from SplashyAlpaca77 in Exhibit P-003 ("if poy bank is a scammer...") in order to claim that the case is all about corporate harm; it completely omits Exhibit P-001, which is the statement that directly names and accuses the Plaintiff.Since one of the defamatory statements in question refers to the Plaintiff personally and charges him individually with corrupt conduct, he has the right to bring this claim as a natural person, without needing any separate legal standing that Poy Enterprises might have as a corporate body. The Legal Entity Act does not protect an individual from personal liability or deprive that individual of standing merely because he also runs a registered business—nor does it mean that every defamatory statement made by a defendant must be regarded as being aimed solely at the corporation when a business is mentioned in the same conversation.

The fact that the Plaintiff's Complaint and Reply is based not only on damage to Poy Bank's business reputation but also on the Defendant's frequent public allegations that the Plaintiff is "corrupt", a "scammer", and dishonest, which have been made in various Discord channels (Exhibits P-001, P-003, and P-006), shows that this is so.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Dismiss presented by the Defendant is a misrepresentation of the record; it is clear from Exhibit P-001 alone that the Plaintiff, as an individual, was specifically named and accused, thus refuting the standing objection advanced. The Plaintiff therefore respectfully asks that the Court reject the Motion to Dismiss and permit the case to go forward to trial.

The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court's consideration.

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

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

Part I §2(3) of the Legal Entity Act states: “Legal entities shall be a legal person with separate rights and liabilities, strictly distinct from their shareholders, members, and agents.”

The Plaintiff’s claims appear to rely substantially upon alleged harm to “Poy Bank” and its business. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff does not establish that the alleged statements were directed toward the Plaintiff personally, nor does it establish that any alleged losses suffered by Poy Bank constitute losses suffered by the Plaintiff.

D-001 establishes that Poy Bank operated under the registration of Poy Enterprises and D-002 establishes that Poy Enterprises was a registered Corporation with the Department of Commerce on and before the date this case was filed by the Plaintiff. Poy Enterprises therefore constitutes a separate legal entity from its shareholders, members, and agents under the Legal Entity Act.

Accordingly, any alleged harm suffered by Poy Bank or Poy Enterprises cannot automatically be attributed to the Plaintiff as a natural person. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated a personal injury sufficient to establish standing to seek damages for alleged losses belonging to a separate legal entity.

As such, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s case for lack of standing.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

Motion to dismiss denied for failure to specify a discovery rule in line with Court Rule 5.1

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Objection to Witnesses

Your Honour,

In Ameslap v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 126, the Court excluded witnesses on the basis of their lack of relevance to the case. The Honourable Justice Muggy21 stated the following: “the Court has a constitutional duty to exercise judicial power prudently, and not needlessly involve the citizenry to its qualms” [sic].

The Defendant objects to the witnesses below on the basis that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that these witnesses possess relevant personal knowledge concerning the allegations or damages at issue. The statements below demonstrate the limited or nonexistent relevance the witnesses have to this case.

1. .Mailiwoail (The only statements made by this witness can be found in P-002, P-004, P-008, P-009. The statements are: “Do we know if they broke laws?” [sic], “I doubt that they would apologize, especially since it can be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Plus, we still have seen no proof” [sic], “That just sounds like you always get in trouble” [sic], “Ppl are saying they broke a bunch of laws or smth” [sic] and “Although they don’t have proof as far as I can tell” [sic])
2. SUPREME SA (The only statements made by this witness can be found in P-007. The statements are: “Bruh” [sic], “I think you may need a lawyer” [sic] and “Good for you DDDD” [sic])
3. Hoogvlieger007 (The only statement made by this witness can be found in P-007. The statement is: “dw, i’m sure he will sue you already” [sic])
4. Domss_ (This witness does not appear to have made any statements in the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.)
5. HatManMC also known as Hat Man (P-001 only identifies this individual by username. No substantive statement from this witness is visible in the submitted evidence.)
6. rae rawr (The only statement made by this witness can be found in P-001 “. The statements are: “sort of already does” [sic] and “im pretty sure that the government taxes profits made from loans” [sic]. These statements were made as part of a separate conversation that happened to take place in the same channel at the same time as the alleged conduct at issue.)

As such, the Defence requests the Plaintiff to remove these witnesses from their witness list.

The Defence thanks the Court for their consideration.

Objection Sustained.

The Plaintiff is required to provide a shorter witness list with a description as to the relevance of each witness. Please do so in the next 24 hours.