Lawsuit: Adjourned Reveille Legion v. BabySoga [2025] DCR 52

Status
Not open for further replies.
Babysoga4real said:
Motion to reconsider in the DCR

Your Honor,

You ruled on his Objection within 5-6 hrs of it being published this has never been done with a non-absent Defendant therefore I wish that the Defence gets to respond before a Objection gets ruled upon.
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defendant has not followed the proper formating for this motion to reconsider.

Thus, the Plaintiff moves that this be struck from the record.



 
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you think BabySoga would ever do anything harmful?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what do you think they were?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you think there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties?

These are my first questions more will be submitted if allowed
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

If one of the questions may be struck we wish that the others be asked any way. And I have not failed to ask question.
 
dodrio3 said:
The Plaintiff request that we move to closing statement as the defence has failed to provide questions for the witnesses.
Click to expand...

Objection


OBJECTION---PERJURY

The Plaintiff is clearly not seeing that questions were asked though he has even objected to one question.

 
Babysoga4real said:

Objection


OBJECTION---PERJURY

The Plaintiff is clearly not seeing that questions were asked though he has even objected to one question.

Click to expand...

Response



The defence did fail to re ask the questions that were struck from the record.

 
dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defendant has not followed the proper formating for this motion to reconsider.

Thus, the Plaintiff moves that this be struck from the record.



Click to expand...
Sustained. The defendant may refile their motion if they so wish following proper formating.
 
dodrio3 said:
The Plaintiff request that we move to closing statement as the defence has failed to provide questions for the witnesses.
Click to expand...
Denied. I am giving the defendant 24 hours to rephrase their questions. If they fail to do so, we shall move on.

@lucaaaaMC Answer Question 2 in the next 24 hours or be found in Contempt of Court.
 
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not if this is the Case?
 
Could I please get clarification on question 3? I am unsure of what mistakes we are referring to.

Also, could it be confirmed that I will be answering question 1?

+Benedict
 
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not if this is the Case?
Click to expand...
Can you please rephrase question 1 and also provide an affirmation that I am meant to answer question 1
 
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not if this is the Case?
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS

It is hard to know what the Defence is asking the witness for in the questions. Even the witnesses do not know what they are asking.

Additionally, I ask that if this motion is granted, a timeframe be put in place to rephrase the questions so we do not waste any more time.

 
dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS

It is hard to know what the Defence is asking the witness for in the questions. Even the witnesses do not know what they are asking.

Additionally, I ask that if this motion is granted, a timeframe be put in place to rephrase the questions so we do not waste any more time.

Click to expand...
Sustained. Defendant will be given 24 hours and one final chance to rephrase the questions.
 
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose during the Football Event?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money you were aware of?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they during the Event?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose during the Football Event?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money you were aware of?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they during the Event?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not?
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Question One: The question asks the witness to provide an opinion on whether BabySoga acted “on purpose.” This calls for a conclusion as it seeks inference of intent rather than a factual testimony.

Question Two: The question asks whether there was a “mismanagements of money,” which is an evaluative and legal conclusion. It improperly calls on the witness to label conduct as mismanagement rather than state facts personally observed.

Question Three: The question asks whether there were “mistakes” made by the defendant. This term is vague and subjective, requiring the witness to draw a conclusion rather than testify to facts.

Question Four: The question asks the witness to judge whether there were “wrong decisions” concerning penalties, which is a conclusion. The witness is being asked to evaluate decisions rather than provide factual testimony of what they observed.

For these reasons, I request we move past witnesses to closing statements as the defence has again failed to rephrase their questions in a way that is allowed by the court.

 
dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Question One: The question asks the witness to provide an opinion on whether BabySoga acted “on purpose.” This calls for a conclusion as it seeks inference of intent rather than a factual testimony.

Question Two: The question asks whether there was a “mismanagements of money,” which is an evaluative and legal conclusion. It improperly calls on the witness to label conduct as mismanagement rather than state facts personally observed.

Question Three: The question asks whether there were “mistakes” made by the defendant. This term is vague and subjective, requiring the witness to draw a conclusion rather than testify to facts.

Question Four: The question asks the witness to judge whether there were “wrong decisions” concerning penalties, which is a conclusion. The witness is being asked to evaluate decisions rather than provide factual testimony of what they observed.

For these reasons, I request we move past witnesses to closing statements as the defence has again failed to rephrase their questions in a way that is allowed by the court.

Click to expand...
Your Honor

The Plaitiff is trying to dodge what he knows will break his Case. The doest want to hear the witnesses because it will break his Case. We wish that the witnesses be heared we see no problem with the questions.
 
Babysoga4real said:
Your Honor

The Plaitiff is trying to dodge what he knows will break his Case. The doest want to hear the witnesses because it will break his Case. We wish that the witnesses be heared we see no problem with the questions.
Click to expand...

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

As per court Rule 6.6 (Response Times). Any objection must be responded to within 24 hours of the defence having taken over 50 hours, more than 2x what is allowed under the court rules.

The Plaintiff request that the defendant's response be stricken from the record and the objection be ruled upon swiftly without the response being taken into consideration.

 
dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Question One: The question asks the witness to provide an opinion on whether BabySoga acted “on purpose.” This calls for a conclusion as it seeks inference of intent rather than a factual testimony.

Question Two: The question asks whether there was a “mismanagements of money,” which is an evaluative and legal conclusion. It improperly calls on the witness to label conduct as mismanagement rather than state facts personally observed.

Question Three: The question asks whether there were “mistakes” made by the defendant. This term is vague and subjective, requiring the witness to draw a conclusion rather than testify to facts.

Question Four: The question asks the witness to judge whether there were “wrong decisions” concerning penalties, which is a conclusion. The witness is being asked to evaluate decisions rather than provide factual testimony of what they observed.

For these reasons, I request we move past witnesses to closing statements as the defence has again failed to rephrase their questions in a way that is allowed by the court.

Click to expand...
Overruled on all counts save for Question 1, which will be struck.

dodrio3 said:

Objection



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

As per court Rule 6.6 (Response Times). Any objection must be responded to within 24 hours of the defence having taken over 50 hours, more than 2x what is allowed under the court rules.

The Plaintiff request that the defendant's response be stricken from the record and the objection be ruled upon swiftly without the response being taken into consideration.

Click to expand...
Overruled.

@lucaaaaMC , @Mask3D_WOLF and @RspDMcd are hereby ordered to answer questions 2, 3, and 4 in the next 24 hours.
 
Your honor I ask for a 24 hour extension
Babysoga4real said:
1. Witnesses do you know BabySoga did ever do anything harmful on purpose during the Football Event?
2. @lucaaaaMC as BabySogas Boss were there any mismanagements of money you were aware of?
3. @Mask3D_WOLF were there mistakes made by BabySoga, if any what were they during the Event?
4. @RspDMcd since you are believed to have sat above the Goal Posts do you say there were any wrong decisions concerning Penalties, is it true you wrote to BabySoga if it was a goal or not?
Click to expand...
No wrong decisions were taken concerning penalties. Yes I wrote to Babysoga if goal or no.
 
AmityBlamity said:
Granted, though I'm not sure why you're asking for one seeing as you replied to the question.
Click to expand...
whoops sorry dont need the extension :D I dont know why that was put there as well sorry for the confusion.
 
AmityBlamity said:
Overruled on all counts save for Question 1, which will be struck.


Overruled.

@lucaaaaMC , @Mask3D_WOLF and @RspDMcd are hereby ordered to answer questions 2, 3, and 4 in the next 24 hours.
Click to expand...

@lucaaaMC has failed to answer the question In the timeframe.

I request they they be given one last chance to answer before we move on so as to not waist this courts time.
 
dodrio3 said:
@lucaaaMC has failed to answer the question In the timeframe.

I request they they be given one last chance to answer before we move on so as to not waist this courts time.
Click to expand...
@lucaaaaMC is hereby found in contempt of court. I will be giving them a final 24 hours to answer the question.
 
Good morning all,

Vendeka Inc. will now be representing the Plaintiff for this case.

Screenshot 2025-09-29 114845.png
 
1. @RspDMcd - The defendant has affirmed that "if the ball was caught by the leash before entering the net, it would not count as a goal." Can you confirm whether this was the rule you were operating under when advising the defendant of the penalties?

2. @Mask3D_WOLF - As league commissioner at the time of the event, would you agree that all event officials have a fundamental duty to apply the rules that they themselves have established in a fair and consistent manner?

3. @Mask3D_WOLF - You have testified that the Defendant "should have communicated with the players better." If an event official states a clear rule, and then makes a final ruling that directly contradicts that same rule, would that be an example of poor communication and management that you're referring to?

4. @lucaaaaMC - I would like to ask again whether, as the Defendant's direct superior in the DPA at the time, were you aware of any financial mismanagement by the Defendant?

5. @lucaaaaMC - As a manager in the DPA, what were you professional expectations for those working under you, like the Defendant, when it came to establishing and fairly enforcing the rules of a public competition?

6. @lucaaaaMC - Based on the DPA's internal review of the event on the 21st of June, did the Defendant meet those expectations?


I would also like to ask if i may draw the witnesses' attention to P-004, your honour.
 
EmmDubz said:
2. @Mask3D_WOLF - As league commissioner at the time of the event, would you agree that all event officials have a fundamental duty to apply the rules that they themselves have established in a fair and consistent manner?
Click to expand...

Objection


OBJECTION
LEADING QUESTION

Question includes information that questioner seeks to confirm and in a way that suggests a positive response (“Would you agree that…”).

This is a textbook leading question, and therefore should be struck before witness answers any questions.

 
EmmDubz said:
1. @RspDMcd - The defendant has affirmed that "if the ball was caught by the leash before entering the net, it would not count as a goal." Can you confirm whether this was the rule you were operating under when advising the defendant of the penalties?
Click to expand...

Objection


OBJECTION
LEADING QUESTION

Questioner questions witness with information they seek to confirm.

 
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Objection


OBJECTION
LEADING QUESTION

Question includes information that questioner seeks to confirm and in a way that suggests a positive response (“Would you agree that…”).

This is a textbook leading question, and therefore should be struck before witness answers any questions.

Click to expand...

Sustained. @EmmDubz Rephrase the question.
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Objection


OBJECTION
LEADING QUESTION

Questioner questions witness with information they seek to confirm.

Click to expand...
Sustained. @EmmDubz rephrase the question.
 
Rephrased question for @RspDMcd:

1. Please state what your understanding was of the rule regarding a penalty shot that is caught by a leash before it has fully crossed the goal line.


Furthermore, given that the witness @Mask3D_WOLF has now assumed the role of co-counsel for the defense, the Plaintiff hereby formally withdraws all previously submitted questions directed towards them.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Your Honor, I have resigned as co-counsel as of today. Plaintiff, feel free to ask me questions.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Here are the revised questions for @Mask3D_WOLF .

1. Based on your experience as League Commissioner during the event, what are the fundamental, basic duties of an event official with respect to the rules they establish for a competition?

2. You've previously testified that the Defendant "should have communicated with the players better." What specific actions, or inactions, did you observer that has led you to that conclusion?
 
1. Event Coordinators should apply rules practically and with common sense.
2. I observed the presence of complaints of not revealing rules and later enforcing them, along with hostile communications.
 
1. Please state what your understanding was of the rule regarding a penalty shot that is caught by a leash before it has fully crossed the goal line.


If the ball is caught by the leash before it goes in it does not count as a goal.
 
EmmDubz said:
Thank you both for your responses.

Your honour, we would like to request an indefinite pause to the trial as the Defendant has approached us to settle.
Click to expand...

Received, the case is tolled for 7 days. A status report is due on 10/26/2025.
 
Your honour, to conclude the cross-examination we'd like to draw the attention of @RspDMcd to the video P-004.

Having reviewed the video in P-004, and recalling your testimony that a goal does not count if caught by the leash before it goes in, please could you state whether the defendant's final rulings on the penalty kicks shown in the video were consistent with the rule that they established.
 
@RspDMcd You have a question pending:

"Having reviewed the video in P-004, and recalling your testimony that a goal does not count if caught by the leash before it goes in, please could you state whether the defendant's final rulings on the penalty kicks shown in the video were consistent with the rule that they established."
 
Apologies for the delay on the response.

Yes the decisions from the referee was still consistent with the rules established from when it happened in real time during the event.
 
EmmDubz said:

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT

WIP Please Ignore.

Click to expand...

Motion

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

The Plaintiff would like to have this removed from the record, as it was originally posted by mistake during formatting. It should be noted that it has been edited, however all that has been removed was a header "Summary of Key Facts" and a following sentence of no substantial weight.

 
EmmDubz said:

Motion

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

The Plaintiff would like to have this removed from the record, as it was originally posted by mistake during formatting. It should be noted that it has been edited, however all that has been removed was a header "Summary of Key Facts" and a following sentence of no substantial weight.

Click to expand...

Granted. Filing was clearly an error.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Summary of Key Facts:

1. On the 21st of June 2025 the Defendant, during a football game they were hosting on behalf of the Department of Public Affairs (DPA), established a rule stating "if the ball was caught by the leash before entering the net, it would not count as a goal." This has been affirmed by both the Defendant and the witness RspDMcd.
2. The video P-004 provides a visual record of three penalty kicks levied against Reveille Legion's goalkeeper being caught by the leash before crossing the goal line.
3. Contrary to the aforementioned rule, the Defendant ruled that these three penalty kicks had resulted in goals, causing Reveille Legion to lose the match that they otherwise would've won if these penalty kicks had not been awarded as goals.
4. The DPA has since publicly apologised for the event, labelling it as "mismanaged."

In Support of the Claims for Relief:
1. $25,000 in Punitive Damages. The Defendant's actions were not one of a simple mistake made in good-faith. A conscious decision to ignore a self-stated rule despite clear evidence to the contrary falls outside the bounds of simple negligence. As testified by the former league commissioner, it was a failure of a "fundamental duty." Such disregard for fairness in a public event, particularly with a documented history of misconduct produced during discovery, must be punished to deter future officials from similar negligence.
2. $15,000 for Humiliation Damages. The Reveille Legion suffered a loss in reputation following their defeat at this game, though not due to a lack of skill, but instead because of the official's failure to fairly apply the rules during the match.
3. $24,500 total for Emotional Damages. The individual players who together form Reveille Legion suffered real emotional harm following the injustice of having their hard-earned victory arbitrarily taken away.

Response to Key Defences:

The Defence argued that the Defendant is shielded from liability as they were acting as a government employee, however, as the court has already considered, immunity is a protection for good-faith governance, not a license for negligence.

The defence's primary factual rebuttal came from witness RspDMcd, who made the claim that the Defendant's ruling to award the penalty kicks to Reveille Legion's opposition during the match were "consistent with the rules." This testimony is in conflict however with the visual record in P-004. Accompanied with the established rule "if the ball was caught by the leash before entering the net, it would not count as a goal.", this testimony is demostrably false.

Lastly, during their testimony, the Defendant attempted to shift responsibility to another for the ruling on the penalty kicks by stating that they relied on the judgement of another DPA employee sitting above the net. However, as host of the event, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the rules were applied correctly lies solely with the Defendant. The Defendant's failure to verify the calls made, especially when contradicting the rules they themselves had established, remain their failure alone.

To Conclude:

This case revolves around the principle of accountability, and the breach in the trust that has been placed into the Defendant based on their role within the match. The players of Reveille Legion entered a competition in good-faith, with the expectations that the rules would be applied fairly. This trust was violated.

The Defendant's actions caused real, demonstrable harm, not just to the final score, but extending to the reputation and morale of its players. Dismissing these non-economic harms would be equivalent to stating that fairness, integrity, and the emotional investment of the tournament's competitors have no value.

The Defendant's mismagement was evident enough for their own deparment to apologise. The evidence is undeniable. We respectfully ask the court to find that the Defendant's conduct was unacceptable, the harm it caused real, and to hold them personally accountable by awarding damages.

 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict - Reveille Legion v. BabySoga [2025] DCR 52

I. Summary of Controversy

Plaintiff approaches the Court alleging malfeasance on the part of Defendant in the management and completion of a DPA football event. Since Defendant failed to properly account for the score, Plaintiff failed to win an important match. Plaintiff used evidence from #government-announcements, witnesses within DPA and at-large to bolster their claims for relief.
In opposition, Defendant effectively uses sovereign immunity. Viewing Defendant’s argument in the best light, Defendant is not liable for any actions undertaken in the interest of the Commonwealth, even if partially executed in a private capacity.


II. OPINION OF THE COURT

In its analysis, the Court will discuss the following points.


  1. EMOTIONAL DAMAGES CLAIMS ARE BARRED FOR COMPETITORS

    Under Ogabogaman1 v. Epicroplay123 [2024] DCR 28, the District Court found that proving humiliation under law requires a demonstrable showing above mere assertions. Furthermore, in Bardiya_King v. Reveille FC [2024] FCR 82, the Federal Court found emotional harms may arise out of controversies arising out of contract law (In that case, the Federal Court awarded Plaintiff for intellectual property infringement and emotional harm arising in-part from a verbal contract). Thus, contracts can absolutely be the basis for a claim of malfeasance arising from a DPA-event; In this case, the contract is implicitly borne out of the rules and the competitor’s adherence to such.
    However, the Court must be mindful of the risks that players agree to when participating within a DPA event, in this case a competitive football match; Humiliation under Redmont law cannot simply be inferred from the mere fact that one has lost a game or competition. The emotional response of “humiliation received by Reveille Legion” after losing is therefore not a legally cognizable harm, as it is both expected and insufficiently particularized; Essentially, the inherent possibility of losing in any competitive environment precludes the Court from attributing the outcome to any particular allegedly wrongful act without further demonstrable evidence. The mere fact of defeat does not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the loss was caused by the complained-of conduct rather than the ordinary risks, variances, or strategic outcomes of the competition itself. Consequently, the existence of a loss cannot, in and of itself, serve as proof of humiliation or wrongful causation under law.
  2. LIMITATIONS OF COMMONWEALTH IMMUNITY ON PRIVATE ACTORS

    The Commonwealth enjoys certain immunities when performing duties pertaining to the involvement of lawful powers. Although not proffered to this Court, the Court will generally accept that the DPA has the lawful authority to not only run a football match, but to delegate the administration of it to an employee. Under such delegation, the employee generally enjoys immunity.
    That being said, the Court finds that immunity is not an all-encompassing shield for every action taken under the banner of the DPA, it applies specifically to acts carried out in the course of legitimate official duties and such acts cannot be transformed into personal tort liability merely due to the Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with their consequences. Immunity exists precisely so that officials can exercise discretion, even where the effect is grave, without fear of retaliatory lawsuits designed to chill governance. Where an employee’s conduct is so far removed from the “ordinary course” of their delegated duties, Commonwealth immunity no longer applies. The standard, therefore, is one of functional nexus: the conduct must bear a direct and legitimate connection to the employee’s official role. If the act is personal or executed outside the scope of any lawful authority granted by the Department, it ceases to be an act of the Commonwealth and becomes the act of the individual. In such circumstances, liability attaches to the actor, not the Commonwealth.
    To quote the Supreme Court, “Agency action, absent a statute from Congress creating a framework for judicial review, may only be overturned if that agency acted outside of its granted powers, or if a constitutional or statutory right or interest was improperly abridged.” ([2025] FCR 78 - Appeal) Here, unlike in Re: Appeal GER 78, the Defendants were not exercising a delegated governmental function within the bounds of policy or law. Their conduct was personal, discretionary and untethered to any departmental mandate. Under GER 78, such actions fall outside the protected sphere of administrative immunity. A conscious decision to ignore a self-stated rule despite clear evidence to the contrary falls outside the bounds of simple negligence. As testified by the former league commissioner, it was a failure of a “fundamental duty.” This was not mere carelessness, it was a willful departure, an intentional disregard for the obligations inherent in their role.


III. ORDER OF THE COURT

The Court awards as follows:
  1. Prayer for $15,000 in Humiliation Damages are denied.
  2. Prayer for $24,500 for Emotional Damages are denied.
  3. Prayer for $25,000 for Punitive Damages from Outrageous Conduct of Defendant’s Actions is granted. This sum shall be shared amongst all Reveille Legion Players.
  4. Legal Fees, in the amount of $7,500, are awarded to EmmDubz.

So ordered,
Magistrate Mug

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top