Lawsuit: Dismissed RobotAlan v. Icarus Waxon [2026] DCR 76

[lnvlsbie]

CASE FILING
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


RobotAlan (Represented in this Action by lnvlsbie).
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. RobotAlan, a doctor who works for the DOH.
2. Plaintiff is represented in this action by lnvlsbie.
3. Icarus Waxon is a journalist who works for Wax Wings News.
4. Defendant is represented in this action by xXTheoryXx.


II. FACTS
1. On June 8,2026, at approximately 17:54 GMT+1, Defendant Icarus Waxon released a newspaper article for Wax Wings News criticizing Plaintiff RobotAlan for allegedly charging patients for medical treatment.
2. On June 8, 2026, at approximately 19:00 GMT+1, the Secretary of the DOH, “Gwiis” quoted,”The department wishes to clarify that doctors applying these charges are in accordance with DOH Medicare Policy.”
3. The Medicare Policy states that charging $15 for Insulin is within internal rights.
On 9 June 2026 at approximately 18:46 GMT+1, Dogen851, acting as supervisor of the Plaintiff's representative "lnvlsbie," issued a Cease & Desist letter to the Defendant in relation to the Plaintiff's claim asking them to remove the article.
5. On 10 June 2026, at approximately 23:36, Defendant’s Representative xXTheoryXx sent a formal legal response, stating they were unable to comply with the Cease & Desist.
6. As a direct result of the article, Plaintiff has been the subject of direct verbal abuse.
7. Plaintiff has suffered financial loss.
8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s article has been the instigator of this.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has slandered him.
2. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has caused them emotional distress.
3. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has defamed them.
4. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has caused them loss of profits from medical commissions.
5. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has caused them loss of future profits from medical commissions.
6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s statements have caused irreparable damage to their professional reputation.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Defendant pays a sum of $10,000 to the Plaintiff for slander.
2. Defendant pays a sum of $15,000 to the Plaintiff for emotional distress.
3. Defendant pays a sum of $15,000 to the Plaintiff for defamation.
4. Defendant pays a sum of $15,000 to the Plaintiff for lost profits.
5. Defendant pays a sum of $25,000 to the Plaintiff for irreparable damages to the Plaintiff’s personal reputation.
6. Court costs, filing fees and any other expenses incurred in bringing this action.
7. Any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

WITNESSES

1. RobotAlan (RobotAlan)
2. Grey (_GreyMC)
3. Ally (ElegantAlly)

EVIDENCE

1. Multiple statements from certified DOH workers stating that charging for co-payment is within internal policy.
P-001

P-002

P-003

2. Screenshots showing the Co-Payment policy, article published by Defendant and the response issued by Gwiis (DOH Secretary).

P-004

3. Evidence of the Cease & Desist issued by the SHA+A & Associates legal team.
P-005

4. The formal legal response that was sent by xXTheoryXx, on behalf of the Defendant stating that they are unable to comply with the Cease & Desist.
P-006

DAMAGES SOUGHT

$80,000, plus interest and costs.

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 13th day of June 2026.

 

[Dogeington]

Writ of Summons

@Icarus is required to appear before the District Court in the case of RobotAlan v. Icarus Waxon [2026] DCR 76.

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.

 

[Dogeington]

CASE FILING
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


RobotAlan (Represented in this Action by lnvlsbie).
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. RobotAlan, a doctor who works for the DOH.
2. Plaintiff is represented in this action by lnvlsbie.
3. Icarus Waxon is a journalist who works for Wax Wings News.
4. Defendant is represented in this action by xXTheoryXx.


II. FACTS
1. On June 8,2026, at approximately 17:54 GMT+1, Defendant Icarus Waxon released a newspaper article for Wax Wings News criticizing Plaintiff RobotAlan for allegedly charging patients for medical treatment.
2. On June 8, 2026, at approximately 19:00 GMT+1, the Secretary of the DOH, “Gwiis” quoted,”The department wishes to clarify that doctors applying these charges are in accordance with DOH Medicare Policy.”
3. The Medicare Policy states that charging $15 for Insulin is within internal rights.
On 9 June 2026 at approximately 18:46 GMT+1, Dogen851, acting as supervisor of the Plaintiff's representative "lnvlsbie," issued a Cease & Desist letter to the Defendant in relation to the Plaintiff's claim asking them to remove the article.
5. On 10 June 2026, at approximately 23:36, Defendant’s Representative xXTheoryXx sent a formal legal response, stating they were unable to comply with the Cease & Desist.
6. As a direct result of the article, Plaintiff has been the subject of direct verbal abuse.
7. Plaintiff has suffered financial loss.
8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s article has been the instigator of this.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has slandered him.
2. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has caused them emotional distress.
3. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has defamed them.
4. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has caused them loss of profits from medical commissions.
5. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has caused them loss of future profits from medical commissions.
6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s statements have caused irreparable damage to their professional reputation.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Defendant pays a sum of $10,000 to the Plaintiff for slander.
2. Defendant pays a sum of $15,000 to the Plaintiff for emotional distress.
3. Defendant pays a sum of $15,000 to the Plaintiff for defamation.
4. Defendant pays a sum of $15,000 to the Plaintiff for lost profits.
5. Defendant pays a sum of $25,000 to the Plaintiff for irreparable damages to the Plaintiff’s personal reputation.
6. Court costs, filing fees and any other expenses incurred in bringing this action.
7. Any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

WITNESSES

1. RobotAlan (RobotAlan)
2. Grey (_GreyMC)
3. Ally (ElegantAlly)

EVIDENCE

1. Multiple statements from certified DOH workers stating that charging for co-payment is within internal policy.
2. Screenshots showing the Co-Payment policy, article published by Defendant and the response issued by Gwiis (DOH Secretary).
3. Evidence of the Cease & Desist issued by the SHA+A & Associates legal team.
4. The formal legal response that was sent by xXTheoryXx, on behalf of the Defendant stating that they are unable to comply with the Cease & Desist.

DAMAGES SOUGHT

$80,000, plus interest and costs.

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 13th day of June 2026.

Please also cite your evidence in line with Court Rule 4.6.

 

[nullapoene]

Writ of Summons

@Icarus is required to appear before the District Court in the case of RobotAlan v. Icarus Waxon [2026] DCR 76.

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.

Icarus Waxon's legal counsel is present your honor, answer to complaint will be filed shortly. Attached you will find proof of legal representation.

NullaPoene,
Attorney at TT&P.

Proof of Representation:

 

[Icarus]

Present, your honor.

 

[Dogeington]

@nullapoene you have 48 Hours to present an Answer.

 

[nullapoene]

@nullapoene you have 48 Hours to present an Answer.

I humbly request for the honorable court to grant a 48 hour extension to the deadline for the Answer. It is required due to IRL circumstances.

I apologize for the inconvenience to all affected parties.

 

[Dogeington]

I humbly request for the honorable court to grant a 48 hour extension to the deadline for the Answer. It is required due to IRL circumstances.

I apologize for the inconvenience to all affected parties.

Granted.

 

[lnvlsbie]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND EVIDENCE CAPTION — P-001, through P-017

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff moves to amend the caption of P-001, through P-004 to accurately reflect its contents.

Current evidence:
"1. Multiple statements from certified DOH workers stating that charging for co-payment is within internal policy.
2. Screenshots showing the Co-Payment policy, article published by Defendant and the response issued by Gwiis (DOH Secretary).
3. Evidence of the Cease & Desist issued by the SHA+A & Associates legal team.
4. The formal legal response that was sent by xXTheoryXx, on behalf of the Defendant stating that they are unable to comply with the Cease & Desist."


Amended evidence:
"1. Multiple statements from certified DOH workers stating that charging for co-payment is within internal policy.

2. Screenshots showing the Co-Payment policy, article published by Defendant and the response issued by Gwiis (DOH Secretary).

3. Evidence of the Cease & Desist issued by the SHA+A & Associates legal team.


4. The formal legal response that was sent by xXTheoryXx, on behalf of the Defendant stating that they are unable to comply with the Cease & Desist."


The Plaintiff apologizes for the caption error and requests that the Court accept this amendment for accuracy.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[Dogeington]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND EVIDENCE CAPTION — P-001, through P-017

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff moves to amend the caption of P-001, through P-004 to accurately reflect its contents.

Current evidence:
"1. Multiple statements from certified DOH workers stating that charging for co-payment is within internal policy.
2. Screenshots showing the Co-Payment policy, article published by Defendant and the response issued by Gwiis (DOH Secretary).
3. Evidence of the Cease & Desist issued by the SHA+A & Associates legal team.
4. The formal legal response that was sent by xXTheoryXx, on behalf of the Defendant stating that they are unable to comply with the Cease & Desist."


Amended evidence:
"1. Multiple statements from certified DOH workers stating that charging for co-payment is within internal policy.
View attachment 86459View attachment 86462View attachment 86457
2. Screenshots showing the Co-Payment policy, article published by Defendant and the response issued by Gwiis (DOH Secretary).
View attachment 86458
3. Evidence of the Cease & Desist issued by the SHA+A & Associates legal team.

View attachment 86463View attachment 86467
4. The formal legal response that was sent by xXTheoryXx, on behalf of the Defendant stating that they are unable to comply with the Cease & Desist."
View attachment 86464

The Plaintiff apologizes for the caption error and requests that the Court accept this amendment for accuracy.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

Please wait to do this amendment until the start of discovery. But yes, acknowledged

 

[nullapoene]

Answer to Complaint

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

RobotAlan (Represented in this Action by lnvlsbie).
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon, represented by Theory, Talion & Partners.
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendant's response to the facts claimed is as follows:
1. Affirm. On June 8,2026, at approximately 17:54 GMT+1, Defendant Icarus Waxon released a newspaper article for Wax Wings News criticizing Plaintiff RobotAlan for allegedly charging patients for medical treatment.
2. Affirm. On June 8, 2026, at approximately 19:00 GMT+1, the Secretary of the DOH, “Gwiis” quoted,”The department wishes to clarify that doctors applying these charges are in accordance with DOH Medicare Policy.”.
3. Affirm. The Medicare Policy states that charging $15 for Insulin is within internal rights. [/color], ASSUMING the plaintiff is claiming that Insulin is in the CP1 copay bracket.
(3.5?.) Affirm. On 9 June 2026 at approximately 18:46 GMT+1, Dogen851, acting as supervisor of the Plaintiff's representative "lnvlsbie," issued a Cease & Desist letter to the Defendant in relation to the Plaintiff's .claim asking them to remove the article.
4. Affirm. On 10 June 2026, at approximately 23:36, Defendant’s Representative xXTheoryXx sent a formal legal response, stating they were unable to comply with the Cease & Desist.
5. Deny. As a direct result of the article, Plaintiff has been the subject of direct verbal abuse.
6. Deny. Plaintiff has suffered financial loss.
7. Affirm Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s article has been the instigator of this. NOTE: We only affirm that the Plaintiff does indeed allege as such.

II. DEFENCES
1. Defenses in Law:
1.1. With regard to Defamation:
All reputation-based torts in the Redmont Civil Code Act require Defamation, see RCCA Part V. The test for Defamation, as defined in the the RCCA and previous court rulings (RCCA Part V § 1, Boykisse v. Musclebound [2026] DCR 19, affirmed on appeal by the Federal Court in [2026] FCR 11) is:
1. The statement has to be published (communicated to at least one other person other than the plaintiff).
2. The statement has to be false.
3. The statement has to cause reputational harm.
4. The statement has to be presented as fact (not opinion or as a joke).
5. The defendant has to have acted intentionally (with purpose to cause harm or substantial certainty harm would result).
6. The statement does not fall under the exceptions made by the RCCA.

For a statement to be defamatory, it must meet all the criteria listed above.

According to the Plaintiff (Fact 1), the Defendant criticized the Plaintiff's behaviour. Criticism, as in expressing a negative opinion about someone or their behaviour, clearly fails part 4 of the test, therefore the alleged conduct is not defamatory. No other assertions were made about the content of the news items posted by the Defendant.

This directly invalidates Claims 1 and 3. This results in Claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 being irrelevant due to lack of standing.

1.2. With regard to Slander:
The Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendant slandered them, however they have only alleged existence of a news article, however RCCA Part V § 3 explicitly defines Slander as a special case of Defamation. For the Civil Offense of Slander to be fulfilled, there needs to be a verbal statement; this is directly contrasted with Libel under RCCA Part V § 2, which pertains to Defamation in public media. Therefore, Slander has failed to be proven. Again invalidating Claim 1.

1.3. With regard to emotional distress:
The RCCA does not recognize emotional distress as a reason to award damages; Consequential Damages as defined in RCCA Part III § 5 have specific tests for when their application is permitted; these tests are neither fulfilled nor has the the Plaintiff given any argument whatsoever for why they should be fulfilled; therefore invalidating Claim 2.

1.4. With regard to damages to personal reputation:
The RCCA does not recognize "damage to personal reputation" as a reason to award damages; Consequential Damages as defined in RCCA Part III § 5 have specific tests for when their application is permitted; these tests are neither fulfilled nor has the the Plaintiff given any argument whatsoever for why they should be fulfilled; therefore invalidating Prayer 5.

2. Defenses in Fact
2.1. With regard to loss of profits:
The Plaintiff has claimed that the Defendants behaviour has resulted in losses of $15,000. This is absurd.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's conduct began on 8 June, 2026. The lawsuit was filed on 13 June, 2026. This means there are a maximum of 5 days of profits to have been lost. D-001 shows the DOH Doctors of the Month for April; the most productive doctor in the entire DOH attended 305 patients in one month. Knowing April has 30 days leads us to a count of 10 attends per day. D-002 shows the Medicare policy, specifying compensation per treatment. Assuming that each patient receives two treatments (knowing only a small minority require multiple) and that each patient gets treated with IV Fluids (one of the most lucrative treatments, according to the Medicare Policy), we get a maximum upper bound for daily profit of $1,200. From the 8th to the 13th that results in a maximum profit of $6,000. This is an extremely generous upper bound on the maximum amount of profit that the Plaintiff could have possibly lost out on, it is far below the $15,000 claimed by the Plaintiff. The Prayer therefore rests on obviously false information.

The Defendant would like to make clear that this is simply a theoretical example, showing how such losses are extraordinarily unlikely to the point of being impossible; this is under no circumstances to be understood as a statement affirming any actual losses.

Therefore, also taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff has provided no evidence for these losses, Prayer 4 is obviously false and absurd.

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 June 2026

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM


Inarus Waxon, represented by TT&P
Counter-Plaintiff

v.

RobotAlan
Counter-Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 13 June, 2026 Counter-Defendant RobotAlan filed suit against Counter-Plaintiff Inarus Waxon for "criticizing" them, requesting an award of $80,000 against Inarus Waxon. This is an obviously frivolous and bad faith lawsuit which seeks to suppress the Counter-Plaintiffs right to free expression guaranteed under the Redmont Constitution in Part V § 35 (6 & 10).

I. PARTIES
1. Inarus Waxon
2. RobotAlan

II. FACTS
1. On 13 June, 2026 Counter-Defendant filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. The Complaint specified the offending behaviour as: "Defendant Icarus Waxon released a newspaper article for Wax Wings News criticizing Plaintiff RobotAlan for allegedly charging patients for medical treatment."
3. The Complaint alleges Slander and Defamation.
4. The Complaint demands $15,000 in Compensatory Damages for 5 days of lost profits.
5. The Complaint demands $15,000 for "emotional distress."
6. The Complaint demands $25,000 for "irreparable damages to the Plaintiff’s personal reputation."
7. The Counter-Plaintiff has been unable to continue their reporting concerning the Department of Health due to this litigation.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Abuse of Legal Process:
The Redmont Civil Code Act Part XII § 2 defines abuse of legal process as cases where a person initiates a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or with reasonable basis and therefore causes harm to the defendant.
The complaint lacks both reasonable basis and exists for improper purposes. It lacks reasonable basis because criticism of a government process cannot reasonably be understood to be the basis of a civil claim; the right to free political communication is enshrined in § 35 (6) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont; the Redmont Civil Code Act Part V § 1 clearly and explicitly permits both opinion and legitimate political communication as exceptions from Defamation, the case is therefore baseless at its face. Therefore it clearly exists solely to prevent the Counter-Plaintiff from reporting their opinion and the opinion of the citizenry on the activities of the Counter-Defendant and by extension the Department of Health.

In addition it invents new forms damages, not recognized by the Redmont Civil Code Act, such as "emotional distress," and "irreparable damages to the Plaintiff's personal reputation." It also invents a ridiculous profit loss of $15,000, something which the Counter-Plaintiff has shown to be impossible in 2.1 of their Answer to Complaint. Such frivolous Prayers only serve the purpose of increasing the case value and intimidating the Counter-Plaintiff with a large lawsuit.

It has indeed prevented the Counter-Plaintiff from performing their job and exercising their constitutional rights, by virtue of the ongoing litigation, thereby causing them harm.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $8,000 in civil remedy in accordance with RCCA Part XII § 2
2. Any other relief the court finds just and proper

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 June 2026

 

[nullapoene]

Objection

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

The Plaintiff claimed in Fact 7 that they suffered financial loss and explicitly specified the amount in Prayer 4 as $15,000. The Defendant has shown such losses to be impossible in § 2.1 of their Answer. This statement is therefore false and the Defendant moves for it to be stricken from the record.

 

[nullapoene]

Objection

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

The Plaintiff has amended their complaint without giving any notice to the presiding judge, and therefore the Defendant, as required by Rule 3.3. Specifically the Complaint used to read:
"
RobotAlan (Represented in this Action by lnvlsbie).
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon, represented by xXTheoryXx
Defendant
"
and was subsequently changed to
"
RobotAlan (Represented in this Action by lnvlsbie).
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon
Defendant
" (removing the represented by on Defendant Icarus Waxon)

These were the only changes Defense Counsel recalls and, as we don't have access to the history, we are not able to verify the existence or non-existence of any other unauthorized amendments and request that the Court independently examines the Complaint for any other unauthorized amendments.

We request that the Court strikes these unauthorized changes from the record and instructs the Plaintiff to cease and desist from such behaviour.

 

[nullapoene]

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:

1. Reason 1 - Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim
The Defendant has shown, that assuming all alleged facts to be true, the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence supporting either Claim 1 or Claim 3. The only conduct the Defendant has been accused of is "criticism," something for which there is a clear and explicit exception in RCCA Part V § 1 (e); the Defendant therefore moves for both Claims 1 and 3 to be dismissed for lack of evidence. It should be noted that Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures makes clear that Claims may be dismissed for lack of evidence under any circumstances.

2. Reason 2 - Rule 5.12 Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Should Claims 1 and 3 be dismissed, there is no longer any claim alleging breach of law. Rule 2.1 states the Standing requires an injury which is against the law. Given the fact that no such injury has been proven, the Defendant moves for all other Claims to be dismissed as well.

3. Reason 3 - Rule 5.14 Factual Error
The Plaintiff claimed in their Complaint that they suffered $15,000 in losses in profit. The Defendant has shown shown in § 2.1 of their Answer that such losses are not just false but practically impossible. Therefore the Plaintiff has made a significant material factual error in their Complaint; the Defendant therefore moves for a dismissal of the case pursuant to Rule 5.14.

 

[Dogeington]

@lnvlsbie
You have 48 hours to respond to these objections and motions

 

[lnvlsbie]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO DISMISS

RobotAlan,
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon,
Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully responds to Defendant's Objections and Motion to Dismiss as follows.

I. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – PERJURY

The Defendant alleges that Plaintiff committed perjury by claiming financial loss.

This objection should be denied.

Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff knowingly made a false statement. Instead, Defendant merely disputes the amount of damages alleged and presents an alternative estimate based on assumptions regarding patient volume, treatment frequency, and revenue.

The Plaintiff's claim is that the publication caused loss of commissions and economic harm. The precise amount of damages remains a factual matter to be established through evidence and testimony.

A dispute regarding damages is not evidence of perjury. Defendant has presented no evidence that Plaintiff knowingly submitted false information to the Court.

Accordingly, the objection should be denied.

II. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff improperly amended the Complaint.

The alleged modification identified by Defendant was a clerical correction relating to representation information and did not alter any factual allegation, legal claim, prayer for relief, or substantive portion of the Complaint.

Defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the correction.

Furthermore, Plaintiff subsequently notified the Court regarding amendments relating to evidence captions, and the Court acknowledged the matter.

Accordingly, the objection should be denied.

III. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim because the publication constituted mere criticism or opinion.

Plaintiff disagrees.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant published statements concerning Plaintiff's conduct as a Department of Health physician and that those statements caused reputational and economic harm.

Defendant characterizes the publication as criticism. However, whether the publication constituted protected opinion, a factual assertion, or a defamatory implication is a question that cannot be resolved solely through Defendant's characterization of the article.

The article itself, the context in which it was published, the reaction of readers, and the surrounding evidence must be examined before such a determination can be made.

Plaintiff's position is that the publication conveyed the false impression that Plaintiff engaged in improper conduct by charging patients despite such conduct being expressly permitted under Department of Health policy.

The Department of Health publicly clarified that the charges referenced in the article were permitted under Department policy.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to support a claim that Defendant published false or misleading factual implications regarding Plaintiff's professional conduct.

At this stage, the Court must accept Plaintiff's allegations as true and permit factual development of the record.

Dismissal prior to discovery would therefore be premature.

IV. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S DAMAGES ARGUMENT

Defendant repeatedly argues that Plaintiff's claimed damages are impossible.

This argument improperly asks the Court to weigh evidence and resolve factual disputes before discovery.

Plaintiff intends to present evidence regarding the impact of the publication on Plaintiff's reputation, professional standing, and commissions.

Whether the damages sought are ultimately recoverable is a question for later proceedings and does not justify dismissal of the action.

V. RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant alleges abuse of legal process.

The Counterclaim fails because Plaintiff possessed a reasonable basis for filing suit.

Plaintiff believed that Defendant's publication falsely portrayed Plaintiff's conduct as improper and caused reputational harm.

Filing a lawsuit to seek judicial resolution of a genuine legal dispute does not constitute abuse of process.

The existence of legal defenses does not transform a lawsuit into bad-faith litigation.

Defendant has therefore failed to establish that Plaintiff initiated this action without a reasonable basis or for an improper purpose.

VI. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

1. The Objection alleging Perjury be DENIED;
2. The Objection alleging Breach of Procedure be DENIED;
3. The Motion to Dismiss be DENIED;
4. Defendant's Counterclaim be DISMISSED; and
5. The matter proceed to discovery.

Respectfully submitted,

lnvlsbie
Representative for Plaintiff

DATED: This 19th day of June, 2026.

 

[Dogeington]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO DISMISS

RobotAlan,
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon,
Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully responds to Defendant's Objections and Motion to Dismiss as follows.

I. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – PERJURY

The Defendant alleges that Plaintiff committed perjury by claiming financial loss.

This objection should be denied.

Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff knowingly made a false statement. Instead, Defendant merely disputes the amount of damages alleged and presents an alternative estimate based on assumptions regarding patient volume, treatment frequency, and revenue.

The Plaintiff's claim is that the publication caused loss of commissions and economic harm. The precise amount of damages remains a factual matter to be established through evidence and testimony.

A dispute regarding damages is not evidence of perjury. Defendant has presented no evidence that Plaintiff knowingly submitted false information to the Court.

Accordingly, the objection should be denied.

II. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff improperly amended the Complaint.

The alleged modification identified by Defendant was a clerical correction relating to representation information and did not alter any factual allegation, legal claim, prayer for relief, or substantive portion of the Complaint.

Defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the correction.

Furthermore, Plaintiff subsequently notified the Court regarding amendments relating to evidence captions, and the Court acknowledged the matter.

Accordingly, the objection should be denied.

III. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim because the publication constituted mere criticism or opinion.

Plaintiff disagrees.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant published statements concerning Plaintiff's conduct as a Department of Health physician and that those statements caused reputational and economic harm.

Defendant characterizes the publication as criticism. However, whether the publication constituted protected opinion, a factual assertion, or a defamatory implication is a question that cannot be resolved solely through Defendant's characterization of the article.

The article itself, the context in which it was published, the reaction of readers, and the surrounding evidence must be examined before such a determination can be made.

Plaintiff's position is that the publication conveyed the false impression that Plaintiff engaged in improper conduct by charging patients despite such conduct being expressly permitted under Department of Health policy.

The Department of Health publicly clarified that the charges referenced in the article were permitted under Department policy.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to support a claim that Defendant published false or misleading factual implications regarding Plaintiff's professional conduct.

At this stage, the Court must accept Plaintiff's allegations as true and permit factual development of the record.

Dismissal prior to discovery would therefore be premature.

IV. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S DAMAGES ARGUMENT

Defendant repeatedly argues that Plaintiff's claimed damages are impossible.

This argument improperly asks the Court to weigh evidence and resolve factual disputes before discovery.

Plaintiff intends to present evidence regarding the impact of the publication on Plaintiff's reputation, professional standing, and commissions.

Whether the damages sought are ultimately recoverable is a question for later proceedings and does not justify dismissal of the action.

V. RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant alleges abuse of legal process.

The Counterclaim fails because Plaintiff possessed a reasonable basis for filing suit.

Plaintiff believed that Defendant's publication falsely portrayed Plaintiff's conduct as improper and caused reputational harm.

Filing a lawsuit to seek judicial resolution of a genuine legal dispute does not constitute abuse of process.

The existence of legal defenses does not transform a lawsuit into bad-faith litigation.

Defendant has therefore failed to establish that Plaintiff initiated this action without a reasonable basis or for an improper purpose.

VI. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

1. The Objection alleging Perjury be DENIED;
2. The Objection alleging Breach of Procedure be DENIED;
3. The Motion to Dismiss be DENIED;
4. Defendant's Counterclaim be DISMISSED; and
5. The matter proceed to discovery.

Respectfully submitted,

lnvlsbie
Representative for Plaintiff

DATED: This 19th day of June, 2026.

Please note that naming the parties and dating only needs to be done on an initial complaint or answer, not every filing

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

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

The Plaintiff claimed in Fact 7 that they suffered financial loss and explicitly specified the amount in Prayer 4 as $15,000. The Defendant has shown such losses to be impossible in § 2.1 of their Answer. This statement is therefore false and the Defendant moves for it to be stricken from the record.

This objection is denied. The losses suffered by the plantiff is a question of fact, to be proven in the course of argumentation and discovery. This court will not prematurely dismiss such a prayer, let alone charge the Plaintiff with perjury, for alleging that level of damages.

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

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

The Plaintiff has amended their complaint without giving any notice to the presiding judge, and therefore the Defendant, as required by Rule 3.3. Specifically the Complaint used to read:
"
RobotAlan (Represented in this Action by lnvlsbie).
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon, represented by xXTheoryXx
Defendant
"
and was subsequently changed to
"
RobotAlan (Represented in this Action by lnvlsbie).
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon
Defendant
" (removing the represented by on Defendant Icarus Waxon)

These were the only changes Defense Counsel recalls and, as we don't have access to the history, we are not able to verify the existence or non-existence of any other unauthorized amendments and request that the Court independently examines the Complaint for any other unauthorized amendments.

We request that the Court strikes these unauthorized changes from the record and instructs the Plaintiff to cease and desist from such behaviour.

This objection is denied. Rule 3.3 specifically is in reference to a change in the following,

1. Parties
2. Facts
3. Claims for Relief
4. Prayer for Relief

Clerical errors relating to representation, notably separate from parties, need not be announced to the court, especially considering that a change in representation did not occur.

The court further recommends that the defense more thoroughly follow Rule 1.10 in their filings.

 

[Dogeington]

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:

1. Reason 1 - Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim
The Defendant has shown, that assuming all alleged facts to be true, the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence supporting either Claim 1 or Claim 3. The only conduct the Defendant has been accused of is "criticism," something for which there is a clear and explicit exception in RCCA Part V § 1 (e); the Defendant therefore moves for both Claims 1 and 3 to be dismissed for lack of evidence. It should be noted that Rule 5.5 of the Court Rules and Procedures makes clear that Claims may be dismissed for lack of evidence under any circumstances.

2. Reason 2 - Rule 5.12 Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Should Claims 1 and 3 be dismissed, there is no longer any claim alleging breach of law. Rule 2.1 states the Standing requires an injury which is against the law. Given the fact that no such injury has been proven, the Defendant moves for all other Claims to be dismissed as well.

3. Reason 3 - Rule 5.14 Factual Error
The Plaintiff claimed in their Complaint that they suffered $15,000 in losses in profit. The Defendant has shown shown in § 2.1 of their Answer that such losses are not just false but practically impossible. Therefore the Plaintiff has made a significant material factual error in their Complaint; the Defendant therefore moves for a dismissal of the case pursuant to Rule 5.14.

The Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.5 is denied.
Although the defence cites Rule 5.5 in their motion to dismiss, they seeminlgy missed the section wherin it states that:

A Motion to Dismiss (under Rule 5.5) may be filed after the end of discovery (emphasis added)

The Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.12 is denied. Rule 5.12 requires lack of standing. The argument made by the deffence hinges entirly on their earlier MTD being accepted, and as it has not, now falls flat.

The Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.14 is denied. 5.14 Dismissals, when they relate to a case in its entirety, are often the result of cases that hinge on fact sets that are entirely misguided, wherein through the argumentation and discovery of a case, it is found that their allegations are wholly insufficient or unrelated to the case being pursued, usually falling under other rule violations as well. One prayer for relief allegedly being bloated is not nearly enough for the dismissal of the entire case.

 

[Dogeington]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO DISMISS

RobotAlan,
Plaintiff

v.

Icarus Waxon,
Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully responds to Defendant's Objections and Motion to Dismiss as follows.

I. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – PERJURY

The Defendant alleges that Plaintiff committed perjury by claiming financial loss.

This objection should be denied.

Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff knowingly made a false statement. Instead, Defendant merely disputes the amount of damages alleged and presents an alternative estimate based on assumptions regarding patient volume, treatment frequency, and revenue.

The Plaintiff's claim is that the publication caused loss of commissions and economic harm. The precise amount of damages remains a factual matter to be established through evidence and testimony.

A dispute regarding damages is not evidence of perjury. Defendant has presented no evidence that Plaintiff knowingly submitted false information to the Court.

Accordingly, the objection should be denied.

II. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff improperly amended the Complaint.

The alleged modification identified by Defendant was a clerical correction relating to representation information and did not alter any factual allegation, legal claim, prayer for relief, or substantive portion of the Complaint.

Defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the correction.

Furthermore, Plaintiff subsequently notified the Court regarding amendments relating to evidence captions, and the Court acknowledged the matter.

Accordingly, the objection should be denied.

III. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim because the publication constituted mere criticism or opinion.

Plaintiff disagrees.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant published statements concerning Plaintiff's conduct as a Department of Health physician and that those statements caused reputational and economic harm.

Defendant characterizes the publication as criticism. However, whether the publication constituted protected opinion, a factual assertion, or a defamatory implication is a question that cannot be resolved solely through Defendant's characterization of the article.

The article itself, the context in which it was published, the reaction of readers, and the surrounding evidence must be examined before such a determination can be made.

Plaintiff's position is that the publication conveyed the false impression that Plaintiff engaged in improper conduct by charging patients despite such conduct being expressly permitted under Department of Health policy.

The Department of Health publicly clarified that the charges referenced in the article were permitted under Department policy.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to support a claim that Defendant published false or misleading factual implications regarding Plaintiff's professional conduct.

At this stage, the Court must accept Plaintiff's allegations as true and permit factual development of the record.

Dismissal prior to discovery would therefore be premature.

IV. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S DAMAGES ARGUMENT

Defendant repeatedly argues that Plaintiff's claimed damages are impossible.

This argument improperly asks the Court to weigh evidence and resolve factual disputes before discovery.

Plaintiff intends to present evidence regarding the impact of the publication on Plaintiff's reputation, professional standing, and commissions.

Whether the damages sought are ultimately recoverable is a question for later proceedings and does not justify dismissal of the action.

V. RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant alleges abuse of legal process.

The Counterclaim fails because Plaintiff possessed a reasonable basis for filing suit.

Plaintiff believed that Defendant's publication falsely portrayed Plaintiff's conduct as improper and caused reputational harm.

Filing a lawsuit to seek judicial resolution of a genuine legal dispute does not constitute abuse of process.

The existence of legal defenses does not transform a lawsuit into bad-faith litigation.

Defendant has therefore failed to establish that Plaintiff initiated this action without a reasonable basis or for an improper purpose.

VI. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

1. The Objection alleging Perjury be DENIED;
2. The Objection alleging Breach of Procedure be DENIED;
3. The Motion to Dismiss be DENIED;
4. Defendant's Counterclaim be DISMISSED; and
5. The matter proceed to discovery.

Respectfully submitted,

lnvlsbie
Representative for Plaintiff

DATED: This 19th day of June, 2026.

The court will not rule on any dismissal outside of an officially filed Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Dogeington]

Discovery is now open and will proceed for five days following this post.

 

[lnvlsbie]

Discovery is now open and will proceed for five days following this po

Discovery is now open and will proceed for five days following this post.

Discovery is now open and will proceed for five days following this post.

You'r honor may I proceed amending the evidence as per requested on 16th of june,2026?

 

[Dogeington]

You'r honor may I proceed amending the evidence as per requested on 16th of june,2026?

yes you may

 

[lnvlsbie]

yes you may

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND EVIDENCE ADDING P-005, NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff moves to amend the caption of P-001, through P-004 to accurately reflect its contents.

Current evidence:
"1. Multiple statements from certified DOH workers stating that charging for co-payment is within internal policy.

2. Screenshots showing the Co-Payment policy, article published by Defendant and the response issued by Gwiis (DOH Secretary).

3. Evidence of the Cease & Desist issued by the SHA+A & Associates legal team.

4. The formal legal response that was sent by xXTheoryXx, on behalf of the Defendant stating that they are unable to comply with the Cease & Desist."

Amended evidence:
1. Multiple statements from certified DOH workers stating that charging for co-payment is within internal policy.

2. Screenshots showing the Co-Payment policy, article published by Defendant and the response issued by Gwiis (DOH Secretary).

3. Evidence of the Cease & Desist issued by the SHA+A & Associates legal team.

4. The formal legal response that was sent by xXTheoryXx, on behalf of the Defendant stating that they are unable to comply with the Cease & Desist."

5. The article slandering and defaming plaintiff with false accusations and how it financially impacted plaintiff.

DATED: This 16th day of June, 2026

 

[nullapoene]

Objection

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

Image two of P-001; images one and two of P-002; images two, three and four of P-005 all show unsworn, out-of-court statements used as evidence of the stated facts. This is clearly hearsay, since none of these people are under oath and the defense has no way to cross-examine their statements. The courts have previously ruled in [2025] FCR 127, [2026] DCR 9, and [2025] DCR 6 that evidence depicting out-of-court statements which is used as evidence of the stated facts constitutes hearsay and is therefore inadmissible. Should the plaintiff seek to use witnesses, they should actually call them as witnesses so they can be put under oath and cross-examined.

The defense therefore motions for this evidence to be stricken from the record.

Objection

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

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure rule evidence must be properly labeled as P-XXX or D-XXX, the Plaintiff has elected to mark multiple pieces of evidence using a single number, thus violating the formatting requirements and making it impossible to refer to the evidence individually; the rules of procedure specify: "Evidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting."

We therefore motion for P-001, P-002, and P-005 to be stricken from the record for improper formatting.

 

[nullapoene]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the Defense requests that the Plaintiff produce the following documents:
All Discord Messages sent by RobotAlan in the Department of Health Discord between 2026-06-08 00:00:00 UTC and 2026-06-13 24:00:00 UTC (end of day) discussing:
(1) this lawsuit; or
(2) the effects of this lawsuit on their work; or
(3) the effects of the news article on their work; or
(4) the Defendant, Icarus Waxon.

 

[lnvlsbie]

MOTION TO CALL WITNESSES / REQUEST WITNESS STATEMENTS


Your Honor,


The Plaintiff respectfully requests permission to call the following witnesses or submit sworn statements:

• gwiis, the director of the DoH
• ElegantAlly

These witnesses are relevant to establishing the official Department of Health policy regarding co-payment charges and whether such charges are permitted under internal regulations.


Their testimony is necessary to clarify whether the Defendant’s article accurately represented Department of Health policy or created a false implication of wrongdoing.


The Plaintiff requests that the Court allow:

• written sworn statements (affidavits).

This evidence directly relates to the truth or falsity of the statements forming the basis of the defamation claim.


Respectfully submitted,
lnvlsbie.

 

[lnvlsbie]

Objection

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

Image two of P-001; images one and two of P-002; images two, three and four of P-005 all show unsworn, out-of-court statements used as evidence of the stated facts. This is clearly hearsay, since none of these people are under oath and the defense has no way to cross-examine their statements. The courts have previously ruled in [2025] FCR 127, [2026] DCR 9, and [2025] DCR 6 that evidence depicting out-of-court statements which is used as evidence of the stated facts constitute hearsay and is therefore inadmissible. Should the plaintiff seek to use witnesses, they should actually call them as witnesses so they can be put under oath and cross-examined.

The defense therefore motions for this evidence to be stricken from the record.

Objection

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

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure rule evidence must be properly labeled as P-XXX or D-XXX, the Plaintiff has elected to mark multiple pieces of evidence using a single number, thus violating the formatting requirements and making it impossible to refer to the evidence individually; the rules of procedure specify: "Evidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting."

We therefore motion for P-001, P-002, and P-005 to be stricken from the record for improper formatting.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION – BREACH OF PROCEDURE


Your Honor,


The Plaintiff respectfully responds to the Defendant’s objection as follows:


The evidence submissions were intended to be logically grouped for clarity, not to obscure identification or prevent reference. Each item within the grouped exhibits is clearly identifiable and has been referenced in accompanying captions.


No prejudice has been caused to the Defendant, and the substance of the evidence remains fully accessible and subject to cross-examination.


However, in the interest of procedural clarity and compliance with Court formatting rules, the Plaintiff is willing to renumber and separate the evidence into individually labeled exhibits if the Court so directs.


Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the objection be denied or, in the alternative, that leave be granted to amend evidence formatting without striking the exhibits.


Respectfully submitted,
lnvlsbie.

 

[nullapoene]

Motion

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the Defense requests that the Plaintiff produce the following documents:
All Discord Messages sent by RobotAlan in the Department of Health Discord between 2026-06-08 00:00:00 UTC and 2026-06-13 24:00:00 UTC (end of day) discussing:
(1) this lawsuit; or
(2) the effects of this lawsuit on their work; or
(3) the effects of the news article on their work; or
(4) the Defendant, Icarus Waxon.

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

The Defense moves for the Court to compel the Plaintiff to produce the described documents. It has been over 28 hours since our request and there has been no response.

In addition we request to extend discovery by 72 hours pursuant to Rule 4.4. We request this for multiple reasons. Firstly, there are still multiple objections to be ruled on and Defense counsel's timezone would make it difficult to respond should any filings or rulings should they happen just before the end of discovery. Secondly, we would require time to both process the discovery response and to submit appropriate evidence.

Respectfully submitted,
NullaPoene.

 

[lnvlsbie]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the Defense requests that the Plaintiff produce the following documents:
All Discord Messages sent by RobotAlan in the Department of Health Discord between 2026-06-08 00:00:00 UTC and 2026-06-13 24:00:00 UTC (end of day) discussing:
(1) this lawsuit; or
(2) the effects of this lawsuit on their work; or
(3) the effects of the news article on their work; or
(4) the Defendant, Icarus Waxon.

COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defendant's Motion to Compel.

First, the Motion is premature. The Defendant served the discovery request and filed the present Motion approximately 28 hours later. The Plaintiff had not refused to comply, nor had the Plaintiff indicated an intention to withhold responsive documents. The filing of a Motion to Compel before the Plaintiff has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to review, collect, and respond to the request is improper.

Second, the discovery request is overbroad. The Defendant seeks all Discord messages sent by RobotAlan within a six-day period concerning multiple broad subjects, including this lawsuit, the effects of the lawsuit, the effects of the article, and the Defendant. Such a request is not narrowly tailored and encompasses a potentially substantial volume of communications, many of which may have little or no relevance to the issues before the Court.

Third, compliance with the request as written would impose a significant burden. The requested communications are not maintained in a readily producible format and would require substantial time to identify, review, organize, and prepare for submission. The burden imposed is disproportionate to the likely evidentiary value of many of the communications sought.

The Plaintiff remains willing to meet reasonable discovery obligations and, if directed by the Court, is prepared to confer regarding a narrower request specifically limited to communications directly relating to the allegedly defamatory publication and the damages claimed in this action.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion to Compel be denied, or alternatively that the Court narrow the scope of the request to relevant and proportional communications.

Respectfully submitted,

lnvlsbie
Counsel for Plaintiff

 

[lnvlsbie]

Motion

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

The Defense moves for the Court to compel the Plaintiff to produce the described documents. It has been over 28 hours since our request and there has been no response.

In addition we request to extend discovery by 72 hours pursuant to Rule 4.4. We request this for multiple reasons. Firstly, there are still multiple objections to be ruled on and Defense counsel's timezone would make it difficult to respond should any filings or rulings should they happen just before the end of discovery. Secondly, we would require time to both process the discovery response and to submit appropriate evidence.

Respectfully submitted,
NullaPoene.

The Plaintiff does not oppose the Defendant's request to extend discovery by 72 hours.

The Plaintiff recognizes that discovery disputes and pending motions remain unresolved and does not object to a brief extension to ensure both parties have a fair opportunity to address such matters. As it allows both parties to prepare evidence and amend the following while also letting both sides call in possible witnesses or file such relevant evidence.

However, the Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant's Motion to Compel is premature and should be denied for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's response.

 

[nullapoene]

Motion

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

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 the Defense moves for the Court to compel Plaintiff to produce the following documents:
- All Messages in the DOH discord pertaining to the Plaintiff's training as a doctor.

This information is relevant to the case, since the Plaintiff has quarrel with the Defendants criticism of their conduct as a Doctor in the DOH. Training records are relevant, since they show how the Plaintiff was taught to act when conducting business for the DOH.

We would like to mention that the Motion Guide explicitly states that a Motion to Compel may either request documents or request sanctions for not responding to a Request for Documents pursuant to Rule 4.7. Additionally the District Court has, in other cases, sustained Motions to Compel ([2026] DCR 29 post #64) which directly request documents, without a previous Request for Documents.

 

[lnvlsbie]

Motion

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

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 the Defense moves for the Court to compel Plaintiff to produce the following documents:
- All Messages in the DOH discord pertaining to the Plaintiff's training as a doctor.

This information is relevant to the case, since the Plaintiff has quarrel with the Defendants criticism of their conduct as a Doctor in the DOH. Training records are relevant, since they show how the Plaintiff was taught to act when conducting business for the DOH.

We would like to mention that the Motion Guide explicitly states that a Motion to Compel may either request documents or request sanctions for not responding to a Request for Documents pursuant to Rule 4.7. Additionally the District Court has, in other cases, sustained Motions to Compel ([2026] DCR 29 post #64) which directly request documents, without a previous Request for Documents.

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL (TRAINING RECORDS)​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Your Honor,


The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defendant’s Motion to Compel production of “all messages in the DOH Discord pertaining to the Plaintiff’s training as a doctor.”

I. The Request Is Overbroad and Not Proportional​

The Defendant’s request is not limited by timeframe, subject matter, or specific incident. It seeks all communications relating to training, regardless of relevance to the issues in this case.


Such a request is overly broad and disproportionate to the needs of this action and would require the Plaintiff to collect and review a large volume of unrelated internal communications.

II. The Requested Materials Are Not Relevant to the Claims or Defenses​

This case concerns alleged defamation arising from a published news article and whether that publication contained false or misleading factual implications.


The Plaintiff’s medical training records do not determine:

• whether the Defendant published statements implying wrongdoing,
• whether those statements were false or misleading, or
• whether reputational or economic harm occurred.

Accordingly, the requested materials are not directly relevant to any claim or defense currently before the Court.

III. The Request Constitutes a Fishing Expedition​

The Motion seeks broad access to internal communications unrelated to the specific publication at issue. This appears aimed at discovering collateral or unrelated material rather than evidence directly tied to the alleged defamation.


Discovery should not be used for general exploratory access to unrelated internal records.

IV. Plaintiff Remains Willing to Comply with Narrow and Relevant Discovery​

The Plaintiff remains willing to produce or address narrowly tailored discovery requests that relate directly to:

• Department of Health co-payment policy,
• communications directly referencing the Defendant’s publication, or
• communications directly relevant to the alleged defamatory statements.

V. Conclusion​

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion to Compel be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court substantially narrow the scope of the request to materials directly relevant to the issues in this case.


Respectfully submitted,
lnvlsbie.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

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

The Defense moves for the Court to compel the Plaintiff to produce the described documents. It has been over 28 hours since our request and there has been no response.

In addition we request to extend discovery by 72 hours pursuant to Rule 4.4. We request this for multiple reasons. Firstly, there are still multiple objections to be ruled on and Defense counsel's timezone would make it difficult to respond should any filings or rulings should they happen just before the end of discovery. Secondly, we would require time to both process the discovery response and to submit appropriate evidence.

Respectfully submitted,
NullaPoene.

Granted. both the motion to compel and the extension of discovery

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

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

Image two of P-001; images one and two of P-002; images two, three and four of P-005 all show unsworn, out-of-court statements used as evidence of the stated facts. This is clearly hearsay, since none of these people are under oath and the defense has no way to cross-examine their statements. The courts have previously ruled in [2025] FCR 127, [2026] DCR 9, and [2025] DCR 6 that evidence depicting out-of-court statements which is used as evidence of the stated facts constitutes hearsay and is therefore inadmissible. Should the plaintiff seek to use witnesses, they should actually call them as witnesses so they can be put under oath and cross-examined.

The defense therefore motions for this evidence to be stricken from the record.

Objection

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

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure rule evidence must be properly labeled as P-XXX or D-XXX, the Plaintiff has elected to mark multiple pieces of evidence using a single number, thus violating the formatting requirements and making it impossible to refer to the evidence individually; the rules of procedure specify: "Evidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting."

We therefore motion for P-001, P-002, and P-005 to be stricken from the record for improper formatting.

Both objections are granted. P-001 and P-002 shall be struck from the record.

@Inv1ctus you have 24 hours to amend your evidence to use the proper court mandated structure, or else risk the evidence being struck and reciving a contempt of court charge.

 

[Dogeington]

Motion

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

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 the Defense moves for the Court to compel Plaintiff to produce the following documents:
- All Messages in the DOH discord pertaining to the Plaintiff's training as a doctor.

This information is relevant to the case, since the Plaintiff has quarrel with the Defendants criticism of their conduct as a Doctor in the DOH. Training records are relevant, since they show how the Plaintiff was taught to act when conducting business for the DOH.

We would like to mention that the Motion Guide explicitly states that a Motion to Compel may either request documents or request sanctions for not responding to a Request for Documents pursuant to Rule 4.7. Additionally the District Court has, in other cases, sustained Motions to Compel ([2026] DCR 29 post #64) which directly request documents, without a previous Request for Documents.

This is not a lawsuit against the commonwealth, I see no reason to involve DOH training records in a civil manner not related to training. Denied

 

[lnvlsbie]

Both objections are granted. P-001 and P-002 shall be struck from the record.

@Inv1ctus you have 24 hours to amend your evidence to use the proper court mandated structure, or else risk the evidence being struck and reciving a contempt of court charge.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

REQUEST FOR SUMMONING WITNESSES​

I request to summon witnesses since P-001 and P-002 being stricken removes the core evidence for some charges and to compensate and further reinforce our claims we'd like to summon the following witnesses:

• gwiis
• ElegantAlly
• _GreyMC

These witnesses possess firsthand knowledge relevant to the issues before the Court, including but not limited to:

• The Department of Health's co-payment policy.
• Whether the Plaintiff's conduct complied with Department policy.
• The publication and its effect on the Plaintiff's professional reputation and work.
• Other factual matters relevant to the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendant's defenses.

Their testimony is material to the determination of the facts in dispute and will assist the Court in reaching a just resolution of this matter.

 

[nullapoene]

Both objections are granted. P-001 and P-002 shall be struck from the record.

@Inv1ctus you have 24 hours to amend your evidence to use the proper court mandated structure, or else risk the evidence being struck and reciving a contempt of court charge.

Objection

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

Since the Plaintiff has had to rename their evidence, there is some confusion on the Defendant's side as to what exactly was struck. We therefore would like to make clear that our objection was to what is now marked as P-001, P-003, and P-004. What is now referred to as P-002 was not intended to be objected to.

We therefore move for the court to explicitly strike the aforementioned pieces of evidence on the grounds described in our previous objection.

The Defense would also like to note that even though Plaintiff has clearly taken notice of the courts ruling and renamed their evidence, they have failed to remove the struck pieces of evidence from their complaint.

 

[nullapoene]

Granted. both the motion to compel and the extension of discovery

Objection

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

The Court compelled Plaintiff to produce the documents described in our request more than 24 hours ago. Since the Plaintiff has posted in this thread (see post 38), it should be clear that they have, in fact, seen the Court's ruling. They have, however, not produced any documents, nor have they given any explanation or timeline as to when the requested documents would be produced. They have therefore violated a direct order of the Court. Defendant therefore requests for the Court to hold the Plaintiff in contempt.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Defendant moves for the Court to extend discovery by another 48 hours. By the Defendant's count, discovery would end at 2026-06-28T07:15Z (5 days from the post starting discovery + 72 hours, Rule 4.4 specifies that extensions are by default granted relative to the beginning of discovery.), which is in approximately 9 hours.

More time is needed both for the Plaintiff to produce the documents and, more importantly, for the Defendant to both analyze the returned documents and submit relevant evidence to the court. Not extending discovery would be highly prejudicial to the Defendant, since this delay was caused by Plaintiff ignoring a direct order from the Court to produce documents.

 

[nullapoene]

ADDED IN POST: Motion was withdrawn by this filing

Motion

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

The Defendant moves for the Court to dismiss the case due to failure on behalf of Plaintiff to comply with discovery requests.

1. Rule 5.13 - Failure to provide discovery:
Rule 5.13 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if a request made within the Discovery Rules (Rule 4 and all subsections) was not complied with." A discovery request was made at 2026-06-23T12:00Z, over 5 days ago; the motion to compel was granted at 2026-06-26T20:12Z, over 48 hours ago. Plaintiff has, in fact, posted in the thread since then. Therefore, it should be obvious that they must have seen the motion to compel. They have, however, made no efforts to comply with the motion; they have neither provided documents nor have they given a timeline for when documents will be produced. Discovery (excluding any ex-post facto extensions) ended at 2026-06-28T07:15Z, approximately 15 hours ago. Plaintiff made no attempt to request extra time to comply with the motion to compel, therefore making it clear that they won't comply with the order of the Court in time for the end of discovery.

Therefore, Plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with both our discovery request and, more importantly, a direct order of the Court to produce documents. Due to this failure to comply with discovery, we request the case be dismissed.

 

[nullapoene]

ADDED IN POST: Motion was withdrawn by this filing

Pursuant to the Motions Guide we request to withdraw the previous Motion to Dismiss in order to amend it and resubmit it as the following:

Motion

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

The Defendant moves for the Court to dismiss the case due to failure on behalf of Plaintiff to comply with discovery requests.

1. Rule 5.13 - Failure to provide discovery:
Rule 5.13 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if a request made within the Discovery Rules (Rule 4 and all subsections) was not complied with." A discovery request was made at 2026-06-23T12:00Z, over 5 days ago; the motion to compel was granted at 2026-06-26T20:12Z, over 48 hours ago. Plaintiff has, in fact, posted in the thread since then. Therefore, it should be obvious that they must have seen the motion to compel. They have, however, made no efforts to comply with the motion; they have neither provided documents nor have they given a timeline for when documents will be produced. Discovery (excluding any ex-post facto extensions) ended at 2026-06-28T07:15Z, approximately 15 hours ago. Plaintiff made no attempt to request extra time to comply with the motion to compel, therefore making it clear that they won't comply with the order of the Court in time for the end of discovery.

Therefore, Plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with both our discovery request and, more importantly, a direct order of the Court to produce documents. Due to this failure to comply with discovery, we request the case be dismissed with prejudice and that the Court grants legal fees of $24,000 (30% of $80,000) to the Defendant, as previously ruled in [2025] DCR 105.

 

[lnvlsbie]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

RESPONSE

The Plaintiff respectfully responds to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

I. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant argues that this matter should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 5.13 for failure to comply with discovery.

Plaintiff disagrees.

While Plaintiff acknowledges that the requested discovery has not yet been produced, the delay was not a willful refusal to comply with the Court's Order nor an attempt to obstruct these proceedings. Plaintiff has acted in good faith throughout this litigation and does not seek to prejudice the Defendant.

Rule 5.13 permits a Motion to Dismiss where discovery requests are not complied with, however dismissal is a discretionary remedy and should be reserved for circumstances where lesser remedies are insufficient.

The Defendant has already been granted an extension of discovery. Any prejudice resulting from the delay can therefore be cured through immediate production of the requested documents or by granting Plaintiff a brief additional period to comply with the Court's Order.

The Defendant further requests dismissal with prejudice and an award of $24,000 in legal fees.

Such relief is unwarranted.

No finding has been made that Plaintiff acted in bad faith, initiated frivolous litigation, or intentionally disobeyed the Court. Accordingly, there exists no basis for imposing the severe sanction requested by the Defendant.

II. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be DENIED;

The Defendant's request for legal fees be DENIED;

Plaintiff be permitted to immediately comply with the outstanding discovery request, or alternatively be granted a short extension for production; and

The matter proceed to the next stage of litigation.

Respectfully submitted,

lnvlsbie

Representative for Plaintiff

 

[lnvlsbie]

Granted. both the motion to compel and the extension of discovery

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

DISCOVERY RESPONSE

Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Plaintiff responds as follows:

After a reasonable and diligent search, Plaintiff is unable to produce the requested documents.

The documents requested (DOH Discord messages pertaining to Plaintiff’s training as a doctor) are not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, and Plaintiff does not have access to them.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is unable to comply with the production request.

Respectfully submitted,

lnvlsbie
Representative for Plaintiff

 

[lnvlsbie]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

NOTICE OF CORRECT PARTY NAME

The Plaintiff respectfully notifies the Court that the correct spelling of Plaintiff’s representative name is “lnvlsbie”.

Any prior references in filings, motions, or correspondence that contain alternative spellings refer to the same individual and should be treated as clerical errors only.

Plaintiff requests that the record reflect the correct spelling going forward to avoid confusion in future proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

lnvlsbie
Representative for Plaintiff

 

[nullapoene]

Objection

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

The Request for Discovery, for which the Motion to Compel was granted, was as follows:

All Discord Messages sent by RobotAlan in the Department of Health Discord between 2026-06-08 00:00:00 UTC and 2026-06-13 24:00:00 UTC (end of day) discussing:
(1) this lawsuit; or
(2) the effects of this lawsuit on their work; or
(3) the effects of the news article on their work; or
(4) the Defendant, Icarus Waxon.

The Discord client offers search functionality which allows both searching for author and date. D-003 shows a set of search filters which would be sufficient to find messages in a Discord server which were sent by discord user nulla_poene during the time-frame described by the request.

This shows that performing such a search is trivial and would obviously be contained in the process of a "reasonable and diligent search."

The Defense has obtained documents independently which would clearly and obviously fulfill the criteria of the Request for Discovery and to which the Plaintiff has access to. Due to there being issues of classification, we request a closed-court session to present them to the court.

Failing to complete these basic steps and therefore violating the Court's order constitutes Breach of Procedure, for which we request sanctions, including holding Plaintiff in contempt.

In addition, by stating that they have fulfilled a "reasonable and diligent search," even though they clearly haven't, Plaintiff has clearly lied to the Court, for which we request additional sanctions, including charging Plaintiff with Perjury.

 

[nullapoene]

ADDED IN POST: Motion was withdrawn by this filing

Pursuant to the Motions Guide we request to withdraw the previous Motion to Dismiss in order to amend it and resubmit it. This is necessary due to new conduct by the Plaintiff justifying amendment.

Motion

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

The Defendant moves for the Court to dismiss the case due to failure on behalf of Plaintiff to comply with discovery requests.

1. Rule 5.13 - Failure to provide discovery:
Rule 5.13 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if a request made within the Discovery Rules (Rule 4 and all subsections) was not complied with." A discovery request was made at 2026-06-23T12:00Z, over 5 days ago; the motion to compel was granted at 2026-06-26T20:12Z. The Plaintiff responded at 2026-06-29T16:24Z, over 24 hours after the end of discovery. This response to discovery was woefully insufficient to the point that it is clear that Plaintiff does not intend to cooperate with the Discovery process.

For further reasoning as to why it's clear that Plaintiff hasn't complied with Discovery, see our objection:

Objection

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

The Request for Discovery, for which the Motion to Compel was granted, was as follows:

All Discord Messages sent by RobotAlan in the Department of Health Discord between 2026-06-08 00:00:00 UTC and 2026-06-13 24:00:00 UTC (end of day) discussing:
(1) this lawsuit; or
(2) the effects of this lawsuit on their work; or
(3) the effects of the news article on their work; or
(4) the Defendant, Icarus Waxon.

The Discord client offers search functionality which allows both searching for author and date. D-003 shows a set of search filters which would be sufficient to find messages in a Discord server which were sent by discord user nulla_poene during the time-frame described by the request.

This shows that performing such a search is trivial and would obviously be contained in the process of a "reasonable and diligent search."

The Defense has obtained documents independently which would clearly and obviously fulfill the criteria of the Request for Discovery and to which the Plaintiff has access to. Due to there being issues of classification, we request a closed-court session to present them to the court.

Failing to complete these basic steps and therefore violating the Court's order constitutes Breach of Procedure, for which we request sanctions, including holding Plaintiff in contempt.

In addition by stating that they have fulfilled a "reasonable and diligent search," even though they clearly haven't, Plaintiff has clearly lied to the Court, for which we request additional sanctions, including charging Plaintiff with Perjury.

Therefore, Plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with both our discovery request and, more importantly, a direct order of the Court to produce documents. Due to this failure to comply with discovery, we request the case be dismissed with prejudice and that the Court grants legal fees of $24,000 (30% of $80,000) to the Defendant, as previously ruled in [2025] DCR 105.

 

[nullapoene]

Pursuant to the Motions Guide we request to withdraw the previous Motion to Dismiss in order to amend it and resubmit it as follows:

Motion

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

The Defendant moves for the Court to dismiss the case due to failure on behalf of Plaintiff to comply with discovery requests.

1. Rule 5.13 - Failure to provide discovery:
Rule 5.13 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if a request made within the Discovery Rules (Rule 4 and all subsections) was not complied with." A discovery request was made at 2026-06-23T12:00Z, over 5 days ago; the motion to compel was granted at 2026-06-26T20:12Z. The Plaintiff responded at 2026-06-29T16:24Z, over 24 hours after the end of discovery. This response to discovery was woefully insufficient to the point that Plaintiff has perjured themselves before the Court and has made it clear that they do not intend to cooperate with the Discovery process.

For further reasoning as to why it's clear that Plaintiff hasn't complied with Discovery, see our objection:

Objection

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

The Request for Discovery, for which the Motion to Compel was granted, was as follows:

All Discord Messages sent by RobotAlan in the Department of Health Discord between 2026-06-08 00:00:00 UTC and 2026-06-13 24:00:00 UTC (end of day) discussing:
(1) this lawsuit; or
(2) the effects of this lawsuit on their work; or
(3) the effects of the news article on their work; or
(4) the Defendant, Icarus Waxon.

The Discord client offers search functionality which allows both searching for author and date. D-003 shows a set of search filters which would be sufficient to find messages in a Discord server which were sent by discord user nulla_poene during the time-frame described by the request.

This shows that performing such a search is trivial and would obviously be contained in the process of a "reasonable and diligent search."

The Defense has obtained documents independently which would clearly and obviously fulfill the criteria of the Request for Discovery and to which the Plaintiff has access to. Due to there being issues of classification, we request a closed-court session to present them to the court.

Failing to complete these basic steps and therefore violating the Court's order constitutes Breach of Procedure, for which we request sanctions, including holding Plaintiff in contempt.

In addition, by stating that they have fulfilled a "reasonable and diligent search," even though they clearly haven't, Plaintiff has clearly lied to the Court, for which we request additional sanctions, including charging Plaintiff with Perjury.

Therefore, Plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with both our discovery request and, more importantly, a direct order of the Court to produce documents and has lied to the Court about doing so. Due to this failure to comply with discovery, we request the case be dismissed with prejudice and that the Court grants legal fees of $24,000 (30% of $80,000) to the Defendant, as previously ruled in [2025] DCR 105.

 

[lnvlsbie]

Objection

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

The Request for Discovery, for which the Motion to Compel was granted, was as follows:


The Discord client offers search functionality which allows both searching for author and date. D-003 shows a set of search filters which would be sufficient to find messages in a Discord server which were sent by discord user nulla_poene during the time-frame described by the request.

This shows that performing such a search is trivial and would obviously be contained in the process of a "reasonable and diligent search."

The Defense has obtained documents independently which would clearly and obviously fulfill the criteria of the Request for Discovery and to which the Plaintiff has access to. Due to there being issues of classification, we request a closed-court session to present them to the court.

Failing to complete these basic steps and therefore violating the Court's order constitutes Breach of Procedure, for which we request sanctions, including holding Plaintiff in contempt.

In addition, by stating that they have fulfilled a "reasonable and diligent search," even though they clearly haven't, Plaintiff has clearly lied to the Court, for which we request additional sanctions, including charging Plaintiff with Perjury.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION

The Plaintiff respectfully responds to Defendant's Objection as follows.

Plaintiff denies any intentional breach of procedure or perjury.

Plaintiff did not knowingly make any false statement to the Court. Following Defendant's Motion to Compel, Plaintiff conducted a search for responsive documents. No text messages relating to Plaintiff's doctor training were located because Plaintiff's training was conducted through voice communications rather than written Discord messages.

The following image attached shows proof of plaintiffs statement.

To the extent Plaintiff's prior filing was unclear regarding the basis for non-production, Plaintiff respectfully clarifies the record and submits this response in good faith.

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that Defendant's requests for sanctions, contempt, and perjury be denied.

 

[lnvlsbie]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be denied.

The Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to comply with discovery and therefore dismissal is warranted under Rule 5.13. This is incorrect.

Plaintiff did not refuse to comply with discovery or ignore the Court's Order. Plaintiff responded to Defendant's Motion to Compel in good faith based upon the information available at the time. Any deficiency in that response was not intentional and does not demonstrate a refusal to participate in discovery.

Defendant further alleges that Plaintiff committed perjury. This allegation is entirely unsupported. Perjury requires a knowingly false statement. Defendant has provided no evidence that Plaintiff intentionally misled the Court, only disagreement with Plaintiff's discovery response. Such disagreement is insufficient to establish perjury.

Dismissal with prejudice is an extraordinary remedy reserved for serious and deliberate violations. Plaintiff has actively participated throughout these proceedings by filing the Complaint, responding to motions, complying with Court directives, and continuing to prosecute this action. If the Court determines additional clarification or supplementation of discovery is necessary, that issue may be resolved through lesser remedies without dismissing the entire action.

Defendant's request for $24,000 in legal fees is likewise unsupported. A dispute concerning discovery does not establish that Plaintiff initiated this action in bad faith or otherwise entitle Defendant to the requested relief.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;
2. Deny Defendant's request for legal fees; and
3. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

[lnvlsbie]

Notice

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

REQUEST FOR STATUS OF PENDING MOTION

Plaintiff respectfully notes that Plaintiff's Request to Summon Witnesses remains pending before the Court.

As the resolution of this matter may affect the presentation of evidence and testimony, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court rule on the pending request at its earliest convenience.

 

[nullapoene]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION

The Plaintiff respectfully responds to Defendant's Objection as follows.

Plaintiff denies any intentional breach of procedure or perjury.

Plaintiff did not knowingly make any false statement to the Court. Following Defendant's Motion to Compel, Plaintiff conducted a search for responsive documents. No text messages relating to Plaintiff's doctor training were located because Plaintiff's training was conducted through voice communications rather than written Discord messages.

The following image attached shows proof of plaintiffs statement.
View attachment 88353
To the extent Plaintiff's prior filing was unclear regarding the basis for non-production, Plaintiff respectfully clarifies the record and submits this response in good faith.

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that Defendant's requests for sanctions, contempt, and perjury be denied.

Objection

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

An out-of-court statement from the Plaintiff that is not an admissible piece of evidence. See our previous objection for further reasoning.

We request that this image / evidence is struck from the court record.

 

[lnvlsbie]

Objection

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

An out-of-court statement from the Plaintiff that is not an admissible piece of evidence. See our previous objection for further reasoning.

We request that this image / evidence is struck from the court record.

MOTION TO CALL WITNESSES / REQUEST WITNESS STATEMENTS


Your Honor,


The Plaintiff respectfully requests permission to call the following witnesses or submit sworn statements:

• gwiis, the director of the DoH
• ElegantAlly
• RobotAlan

These witnesses are relevant to establishing the official Department of Health policy regarding co-payment charges and whether such charges are permitted under internal regulations.


Their testimony is necessary to clarify whether the Defendant’s article accurately represented Department of Health policy or created a false implication of wrongdoing.


The Plaintiff requests that the Court allow:

• written sworn statements (affidavits).

This evidence directly relates to the truth or falsity of the statements forming the basis of the defamation and countering the hearsay claim.

 

[Dogeington]

@lnvlsbie @nullapoene
Court is in recess for 24 hours while the court rules on all active motions

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

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

Since the Plaintiff has had to rename their evidence, there is some confusion on the Defendant's side as to what exactly was struck. We therefore would like to make clear that our objection was to what is now marked as P-001, P-003, and P-004. What is now referred to as P-002 was not intended to be objected to.

We therefore move for the court to explicitly strike the aforementioned pieces of evidence on the grounds described in our previous objection.

The Defense would also like to note that even though Plaintiff has clearly taken notice of the courts ruling and renamed their evidence, they have failed to remove the struck pieces of evidence from their complaint.

Granted. P-001 and P-003 shall be struck from the record. P-004 is the DOH press release, and I see no need to strike it as hearsay.

 

[Dogeington]

Objection

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

The Court compelled Plaintiff to produce the documents described in our request more than 24 hours ago. Since the Plaintiff has posted in this thread (see post 38), it should be clear that they have, in fact, seen the Court's ruling. They have, however, not produced any documents, nor have they given any explanation or timeline as to when the requested documents would be produced. They have therefore violated a direct order of the Court. Defendant therefore requests for the Court to hold the Plaintiff in contempt.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

Defendant moves for the Court to extend discovery by another 48 hours. By the Defendant's count, discovery would end at 2026-06-28T07:15Z (5 days from the post starting discovery + 72 hours, Rule 4.4 specifies that extensions are by default granted relative to the beginning of discovery.), which is in approximately 9 hours.

More time is needed both for the Plaintiff to produce the documents and, more importantly, for the Defendant to both analyze the returned documents and submit relevant evidence to the court. Not extending discovery would be highly prejudicial to the Defendant, since this delay was caused by Plaintiff ignoring a direct order from the Court to produce documents.

The breach of procedure objection is denied. I gave no timeline for the motion to compel. This message shall serve as the plantiff's first and only warning.

 

[Dogeington]

Pursuant to the Motions Guide we request to withdraw the previous Motion to Dismiss in order to amend it and resubmit it as follows:

Motion

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

The Defendant moves for the Court to dismiss the case due to failure on behalf of Plaintiff to comply with discovery requests.

1. Rule 5.13 - Failure to provide discovery:
Rule 5.13 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if a request made within the Discovery Rules (Rule 4 and all subsections) was not complied with." A discovery request was made at 2026-06-23T12:00Z, over 5 days ago; the motion to compel was granted at 2026-06-26T20:12Z. The Plaintiff responded at 2026-06-29T16:24Z, over 24 hours after the end of discovery. This response to discovery was woefully insufficient to the point that Plaintiff has perjured themselves before the Court and has made it clear that they do not intend to cooperate with the Discovery process.

For further reasoning as to why it's clear that Plaintiff hasn't complied with Discovery, see our objection:


Therefore, Plaintiff has clearly failed to comply with both our discovery request and, more importantly, a direct order of the Court to produce documents and has lied to the Court about doing so. Due to this failure to comply with discovery, we request the case be dismissed with prejudice and that the Court grants legal fees of $24,000 (30% of $80,000) to the Defendant, as previously ruled in [2025] DCR 105.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

This, I believe, is the most recent motion to dismiss.

The Court sincerely appologizes to all involved for the huge delays in rulings on this trial. This is not representative of all District court cases.

This Motion to Dismiss is Granted.

Discovery, even in the best case scenario, ended on 6/28/2026. This court had granted a motion to compel:

All Discord Messages sent by RobotAlan in the Department of Health Discord between 2026-06-08 00:00:00 UTC and 2026-06-13 24:00:00 UTC (end of day) discussing:
(1) this lawsuit; or
(2) the effects of this lawsuit on their work; or
(3) the effects of the news article on their work; or
(4) the Defendant, Icarus Waxon.

The Plaintiff, on 6/29/2026, responded that none of these documents existed, however this was in reference to a seemingly different discovery request, one that had been already denied.

The Plaintiff wholly failed to comply with this discovery request. This is an excellent example of Rule 5.13, the discovery request was fully ignored and even when it was attempted to be fuillfilled (after discovery had elapsed) it was still not fulfilled.

This case is dismissed with prejudice.
$8,000 in legal fees shall be awarded to the Defendant.
@lnvlsbie shall be charged with one (1) count of contempt of court or failure to provide discovery, resulting in a fine of $5,000 and no jail time.