Lawsuit: In Session Singeheart, Addams and Associates V hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, HL-Bank [2026] DCR 68

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Case Filing

CASE FILING
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

Singeheart, Addams and Associates
Plaintiff

v.

Wallavan Donovan and hadethegod
Defendants

AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Singeheart, Addams and Associates is a law firm operating within the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. Plaintiff is represented in this action by Aelia Singeheart.
3. Defendant Wallavan Donovan is an individual who had access to company funds belonging to the Plaintiff.
4. Defendant hadethegod is an individual associated with HL-Bank, the business which received the funds removed from Plaintiff.

II. FACTS

1. On June 1, 2026, at approximately 4:25 AM EST, Defendant Wallavan Donovan transferred approximately $55,000 belonging to Singeheart, Addams and Associates without authorization.
2. The funds were transferred directly to HL-Bank, a business associated with Defendant hadethegod.
3. Plaintiff did not authorize Wallavan Donovan to transfer these funds to hadethegod, HL-Bank, or any other third party.
4. Prior to the transfer, Wallavan Donovan had expressed dissatisfaction regarding not receiving equity or ownership within Plaintiff's firm.
5. Plaintiff alleges that Wallavan intentionally transferred the funds in retaliation for the firm's refusal to provide him with equity, thereby depriving Plaintiff of possession and control of its property.
6. Following the transfer, the funds were not returned to Plaintiff.
7. Following the transaction, Defendant hadethegod stated that "one of our clients stole 50k from a lawfirm the other day," as demonstrated in Discovery post
8. Plaintiff alleges that this statement demonstrates hadethegod possessed knowledge that funds received by HL-Bank originated from money stolen from a law firm.
9. Despite this knowledge, neither hadethegod nor HL-Bank returned the disputed funds to Plaintiff.
10. As a direct result of the unauthorized transfer and continued retention of Plaintiff's funds, Plaintiff suffered an actual financial loss of approximately $55,000.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I — CONVERSION
Against Defendant Wallavan Donovan

1. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations.
2. Pursuant to Part VII, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, Conversion occurs where a person wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from its owner with the intent to deprive the owner of that property or appropriate it to themselves or a third party through one of the means specified by the Act, including stealing or embezzlement.
3. The approximately $55,000 transferred by Wallavan Donovan was property belonging to Plaintiff.
4. Wallavan had access to Plaintiff's funds but lacked authorization to transfer them away from Plaintiff.
5. Wallavan intentionally transferred those funds to HL-Bank, thereby depriving Plaintiff of possession and control of its property and appropriating that property to a third party.
6. Plaintiff therefore alleges that Wallavan Donovan committed Conversion pursuant to Part VII, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.


COUNT II — KNOWING RECEIPT
Against Defendant hadethegod

1. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations.
2. Pursuant to Part X, Section 4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, Knowing Receipt occurs where a person receives assets disposed of by another in breach of trust or fiduciary duty and knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the assets were received in breach of that duty.
3. Wallavan Donovan possessed access to Plaintiff's company funds and transferred approximately $55,000 of those funds to HL-Bank without Plaintiff's authorization.
4. HL-Bank, associated with hadethegod, received the funds as a result of Wallavan's unauthorized transfer.
5. Following the transaction, hadethegod stated that "one of our clients stole 50k from a lawfirm the other day."
6. Plaintiff alleges that this statement demonstrates hadethegod knew, or at minimum ought reasonably to have known, that the funds received through Wallavan originated from an unauthorized taking of funds belonging to a law firm.
7. Despite that knowledge, the disputed funds were not returned to Plaintiff.
8. Plaintiff therefore alleges that hadethegod committed Knowing Receipt pursuant to Part X, Section 4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.


COUNT III — UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Against Defendant hadethegod

1. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations.
2. Pursuant to Part X, Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, Unjust Enrichment occurs where a person obtains and retains a benefit at another's expense without legal justification for retaining that benefit.
3. hadethegod, through HL-Bank, obtained the benefit of funds originating from Plaintiff.
4. Those funds were transferred without Plaintiff's authorization and at Plaintiff's expense.
5. Plaintiff had no contractual, legal, or other obligation requiring it to provide approximately $55,000 to hadethegod or HL-Bank.
6. The funds were not subsequently returned to Plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff therefore alleges that hadethegod obtained and retained a benefit at Plaintiff's expense without legal justification.
8. Plaintiff pleads Unjust Enrichment as an alternative basis for restitution and does not seek duplicative recovery.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:

1. Restitution of the approximately $55,000 wrongfully transferred from Plaintiff;
2. Treble damages against Wallavan Donovan as authorized for Conversion under Part VII, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act;
3. Restitution against hadethegod as authorized for Knowing Receipt and/or Unjust Enrichment;
4. No duplicative recovery for the same underlying loss;
5. Court costs and any other recoverable expenses permitted by law; and
6. Any further relief the Court deems just and proper.


WITNESSES

1. Aelia Singeheart (Aelia_SingeH3art)
2. Morticia Addams (morticiaaa)
3. unalign (unalign)


EVIDENCE

1. Transaction logs demonstrating the unauthorized transfer of Plaintiff's funds.
2. Screenshots and records demonstrating receipt of the funds by HL-Bank/hadethegod.
3. Statements and communications concerning Wallavan Donovan's actions and hadethegod's knowledge of the disputed transfer.


DAMAGES SOUGHT

Plaintiff seeks restitution of approximately $55,000 and treble damages where authorized for Conversion, together with recoverable costs and any other relief permitted by law, without duplicative recovery.


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 20th day of September, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Motion

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

The plaintiff requests that all of Hadethegod, HL-Bank and Wallavan Donovan’s assets be frozen for the remainder of this case and that the Department of commerce does not liquidate them for the remainder of this case, doing so could harm the Plaintiffs reputation and can be used for continued Harassment.

 

[Matthew100x]

Writ of Summons

@hadethegod & @Wallavan Donovan is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Singeheart, Addams and Associates V hadethegod et. al., [2026] DCR 68.

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.

 

[3mkTalal]

Your Honor, I will be representing hadethegod and Wallavan.

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you for informing me. Please post an answer in the next 72 hours.

 

[3mkTalal]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Singeheart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, HL-Bank [2026] DCR 68

MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor,

Defendants hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank, by counsel, move under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), and pursuant to Rule 5.3 as to defective claims for relief, to dismiss the Complaint in whole or in part.

The Defence also requests that the deadline to file an Answer be tolled pending resolution of this Motion, or, in the alternative, that the Court confirm whether an Answer remains due while this Motion is pending. If the Motion is denied in whole or in part, the Defence requests 48 hours from the Court’s ruling to file an Answer and any counterclaims permitted under Rule 3.9.

I. STANDARD

Rule 5.5 permits dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief, or where a claim has insufficient support for the charge asserted. Rule 5.1 requires this Motion to apply the rule using law, case facts, evidence, or prior decisions.

Where Plaintiff seeks civil damages arising from alleged criminal conduct, the pleaded facts must support the criminal conduct alleged. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 1 applies its damages rules to claims for civil damages arising from criminal conduct. The listed offences are governed by the Criminal Code Act.

Civil damages arising from criminal conduct are not criminal sanctions. Plaintiff may not use this civil action to seek criminal punishment, fines, penalties, incarceration, or prosecution. Plaintiff may seek civil relief only if the Complaint pleads facts supporting a legally cognisable claim against each specific Defendant.

This Motion challenges facial pleading defects, not disputed facts. The defects below appear on the face of the Complaint and may be decided without weighing evidence. To the extent the Court considers any Rule 5.5 issue better reserved until the close of discovery, the Defence asks that the Court decide the purely facial defects now and reserve only issues that require discovery.

II. THE COMPLAINT IMPROPERLY GROUPS ALL DEFENDANTS TOGETHER

The operative claim alleges, in a single sentence, that “the actions of the Defendants constitute Fraud, Embezzlement, Aggravated Theft, Conspiracy to Commit a Crime, Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, Accomplice Liability, Market Manipulation, and False Credentials.”

That is an undifferentiated list of offence names, not a properly pleaded claim. The Complaint does not plead the elements of any of the eight offences, does not identify which Defendant committed which offence, and does not separate Wallavan Donovan’s alleged transfer from hadethegod’s alleged receipt or HL-Bank’s alleged role as the business to which funds were sent.

A pleading that groups three Defendants together despite different alleged roles does not state each offence against each Defendant.

III. HL-BANK SHOULD BE DISMISSED

HL-Bank appears in the case title and in the Plaintiff’s emergency motion to freeze assets, but the Complaint pleads no act by HL-Bank itself.

It does not allege that HL-Bank made a misrepresentation, took property, held entrusted assets, concealed proceeds, manipulated a market, claimed a false credential, conspired, or assisted a crime. At most, the Complaint describes HL-Bank as the business to which funds were sent.

A business is not liable merely because funds moved through it. The Complaint pleads no facts showing HL-Bank itself knew the funds were criminal proceeds or took any separate act to conceal, disguise, or convert them. Even assuming HL-Bank is properly named as a Defendant, the Complaint pleads no injury-causing conduct by it. HL-Bank should therefore be dismissed.

IV. hadethegod SHOULD BE DISMISSED

The Complaint’s own facts cast hadethegod only as the alleged recipient. It alleges that Wallavan Donovan transferred the funds and that hadethegod received and retained them. On those facts, no offence is properly pleaded against hadethegod.

Theft and Aggravated Theft require that the accused take property belonging to another without consent. hadethegod is alleged to have received funds, not taken them. With no taking pleaded against him, neither offence attaches.

Embezzlement requires misappropriation of assets entrusted to the accused or coming into their possession by virtue of office, employment, or position of trust. The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff entrusted anything to hadethegod or that he held any office, employment, or position of trust with Plaintiff.

Concealment of Criminal Proceeds requires concealing, disguising, or converting funds known to be derived from criminal activity. The Complaint’s statement that hadethegod “knowingly received” funds is a conclusion, not a pleaded fact. It pleads no facts showing that hadethegod knew the funds were derived from criminal activity, and no act of concealment, disguise, or conversion separate from mere receipt or retention.

Conspiracy to Commit a Crime and Accomplice to a Crime are not pleaded with facts. The assertion that the Defendants “acted together” pleads no facts showing hadethegod intended to commit any object offence. Receiving funds after a transfer is not assistance in committing the transfer. No offence named “Accomplice Liability” exists in the Criminal Code Act. If Plaintiff intended to plead Accessory to a Crime, it was required to say so and plead facts supporting that offence.

Fraud fails because the Complaint pleads no misrepresentation, omission, reliance, or harm caused by reliance against hadethegod. Market Manipulation and False Credentials fail because the Complaint alleges no public company or public asset value manipulation, no security price or trading-volume conduct, and no credential-based representation.

Because no offence is properly pleaded against hadethegod, all claims against him should be dismissed.

V. THE CLAIMS AGAINST WALLAVAN DONOVAN SHOULD BE NARROWED

For purposes of this Motion only, the Defence acknowledges that the Complaint alleges Wallavan Donovan transferred funds without authorization. At most, that pleads a disputed unauthorized-transfer theory against Wallavan Donovan. It does not plead the remaining offences listed against “the Defendants” collectively.

Fraud fails because the Complaint pleads no misrepresentation, omission, reliance, or harm caused by reliance. Market Manipulation and False Credentials fail because the Complaint alleges no public asset or security-market conduct and no credential-based representation.

Concealment of Criminal Proceeds fails because the Complaint does not plead facts showing that Wallavan Donovan concealed, disguised, or converted funds known to be derived from criminal activity. A transfer alone is not pleaded as concealment, disguise, or conversion of known criminal proceeds.

Conspiracy to Commit a Crime and Accomplice Liability fail because the Complaint pleads no facts showing Wallavan Donovan’s intent to commit any object offence, and no facts showing that he knowingly assisted another person in committing a principal crime. If Plaintiff intended to plead Accessory to a Crime, it was required to say so and plead facts supporting that offence.

To the extent Plaintiff intends to pursue Theft, Aggravated Theft, or Embezzlement against Wallavan Donovan, those are the only theories even arguably connected to the pleaded transfer. Even then, the Complaint does not plead the scope of Wallavan Donovan’s authority, the facts showing the transfer exceeded that authority, or the specific aggravating circumstance relied upon for Aggravated Theft.

Accordingly, any surviving claim against Wallavan Donovan should be limited to the alleged unauthorized-transfer theory actually pleaded.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Because the Complaint pleads no legally supported claim against hadethegod or HL-Bank, the Prayer for Relief states no basis for holding either Defendant liable for Plaintiff’s requested damages.

As to Wallavan Donovan, the Defence does not contend that Plaintiff pleads no damages at all. The defect is that the requested relief is tied to an undifferentiated list of criminal offences rather than properly pleaded claims showing which offence was committed by which Defendant and what damages flow from that specific offence.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks criminal punishment, fines, penalties, incarceration, or any other criminal sanction through this civil action, that relief is unavailable and should be rejected.

VII. CONCLUSION

The Defence respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Dismiss all claims against hadethegod under Rule 5.5;
2. Dismiss HL-Bank from the case for want of any pleaded claim against it;
3. Dismiss all unsupported claims against Wallavan Donovan, including Fraud, Market Manipulation, False Credentials, Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, Conspiracy to Commit a Crime, Accomplice Liability, and Aggravated Theft to the extent Plaintiff relies on any aggravating basis other than the alleged value of the transfer;
4. Limit any surviving claim against Wallavan Donovan to the alleged unauthorized-transfer theory actually pleaded;
5. Reject any request for criminal punishment, fines, penalties, incarceration, or other criminal sanctions in this civil case;
6. Toll the deadline to file an Answer pending resolution of this Motion, or confirm whether an Answer remains due while this Motion is pending;
7. Grant the Defence 48 hours from the Court’s ruling to file an Answer and any counterclaims permitted under Rule 3.9 if the Motion is denied in whole or in part; and
8. Grant any further relief the Court finds just and proper.

 

[3mkTalal]

Your Honor,

The Defence respectfully requests that the Answer deadline be tolled pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss above.

 

[Matthew100x]

No. Please post an answer to the complaint.

 

[Matthew100x]

In the meantime, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[3mkTalal]

Answer to Complaint

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

​

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. Defendants DENY each and every allegation not expressly AFFIRMED or DOES NOT CONTEST herein.
2. Defendants AFFIRM that this civil action was filed by Singeheart, Addams and Associates against hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank.
3. Defendants DENY that the Complaint properly states claims for Fraud, Embezzlement, Aggravated Theft, Conspiracy to Commit a Crime, Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, Accomplice Liability, Market Manipulation, or False Credentials against all Defendants collectively.
4. Defendants DENY that hadethegod took property from Plaintiff, embezzled property from Plaintiff, made any misrepresentation to Plaintiff, concealed criminal proceeds, conspired to commit a crime, acted as an accomplice or accessory, committed Market Manipulation, or committed False Credentials.
5. Defendants DENY that HL-Bank committed any act giving rise to liability in this case. Defendants further DENY that HL-Bank took property, embezzled property, concealed proceeds, conspired, acted as an accomplice or accessory, manipulated a market, claimed false credentials, or made any misrepresentation.
6. As to Wallavan Donovan, Defendants DENY that the Complaint properly pleads Fraud, Market Manipulation, False Credentials, Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, Conspiracy to Commit a Crime, Accomplice Liability, or any criminal sanction against him.
7. Defendants DENY that Plaintiff is entitled to criminal punishment, fines, penalties, incarceration, prosecution, or any criminal sanction through this civil action.
8. Defendants DENY that Plaintiff is entitled to damages from hadethegod or HL-Bank.
9. Defendants DENY that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief not supported by properly pleaded facts and law.

II. DEFENCES

1. Failure to State a Claim: The Complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim against hadethegod and HL-Bank.
2. Group Pleading: The Complaint improperly groups all Defendants together and fails to identify which Defendant allegedly committed which offence.
3. Lack of Causation: Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing that hadethegod or HL-Bank caused Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
4. No Criminal Sanctions in Civil Action: Plaintiff may not seek criminal punishment, fines, penalties, incarceration, prosecution, or any criminal sanction through this civil case.
5. Lack of Misrepresentation or Reliance: Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing any actionable misrepresentation, omission, or reliance as to Defendants.
6. Lack of Knowledge or Intent: Plaintiff has not pleaded facts showing that hadethegod or HL-Bank knew funds were criminal proceeds, intended to commit an offence, or knowingly assisted an offence.
7. Pending Motion to Dismiss: This Answer is filed pursuant to the Court’s direction and without waiving the pending Motion to Dismiss.

Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s requested relief against hadethegod and HL-Bank, narrow any surviving claim against Wallavan Donovan to the alleged unauthorized-transfer theory actually pleaded, reject any request for criminal sanctions in this civil action, and grant any further 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 15th day of June 2026

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honour, I am appointing Attorney Morticia Addams as Second chair in this case, as I am actively at the hospital IRL dealing with my diabetes putting me into DKA. She will be dealing with the case until I am back home

 

[mortishuh]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Good evening, Your Honor. I am Morticia Addams and will be presiding over this case until further notice. Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you for letting me know, though neither of these are amicus briefs and did not need to be formatted as such.

 

[3mkTalal]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure


The Defence objects to the filings styled as “Amicus Briefs” on the grounds of Breach of Procedure.

Under Rule 6.7, an amicus applicant must request permission and affirm that they have no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case.

Morticia Addams is listed as a Plaintiff witness and identifies herself as Head Attorney/Managing Partner for SingeHeart, Addams, and Associates, the Plaintiff firm. She therefore cannot properly appear as amicus.

The Defence does not object to Plaintiff seeking second chair or substitute counsel if properly noticed. However, that is not an amicus brief. The Defence respectfully requests that the Court disregard the “amicus” characterization and require Plaintiff to clarify whether Morticia Addams is appearing as counsel, witness, or both.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure


The Defence objects to the filings styled as “Amicus Briefs” on the grounds of Breach of Procedure.

Under Rule 6.7, an amicus applicant must request permission and affirm that they have no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case.

Morticia Addams is listed as a Plaintiff witness and identifies herself as Head Attorney/Managing Partner for SingeHeart, Addams, and Associates, the Plaintiff firm. She therefore cannot properly appear as amicus.

The Defence does not object to Plaintiff seeking second chair or substitute counsel if properly noticed. However, that is not an amicus brief. The Defence respectfully requests that the Court disregard the “amicus” characterization and require Plaintiff to clarify whether Morticia Addams is appearing as counsel, witness, or both.

This was already addressed. You did not need to object here and the objection will be ignored.

 

[3mkTalal]

This was already addressed. You did not need to object here and the objection will be ignored.

Your Honor,

My apologies. I had sent the objection before seeing that the issue had already been addressed by the Court.

 

[mortishuh]

My apologies for the incorrect formating, Your Honor. I will see to it that it doesn't happen again for the duration of this lawsuit. For further clarification, I am both a witness and the presiding attorney on this lawsuit. Thank you.

 

[mortishuh]

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Singeheart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Singeheart, Addams and Associates respectfully opposes Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and states as follows:

1. INTRODUCTION

Defendants seek dismissal by characterizing Plaintiff’s allegations as unsupported conclusions. However, the Complaint alleges that company funds were transferred without authorization, received by Defendant hadethegod through HL-Bank, retained despite knowledge of their source, and subsequently used for purposes adverse to Plaintiff.
At the Motion to Dismiss stage, the Court must accept Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and determine whether or not those allegations are sufficient to state claims for relief. Defendants’ Motion improperly attempts to resolve factual disputes that are more appropriately addressed through the discovery and trial period.

1. THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES CLAIMS AGAINST HADETHEGOD

Defendants argue that hadethegod was merely a passive recipient of funds. Plaintiff disputes this characterization.
The Complaint alleges that hadethegod knowingly received funds belonging to Singeheart, Addams and Associates and retained possession of those funds after becoming aware of their origin. Plaintiff possesses transaction records, communications, and additional evidence demonstrating that hadethegod knew the funds belonged to the Plaintiff and nevertheless retained and benefited from them.
Furthermore, Plaintiff possesses evidence showing that hadethegod was aware of the ownership of the funds shortly after, and in some instances before, the transfer occurred, Such evidence directly contradicts Defendants’ assertion that no facts exist supporting knowledge or intent.
Whether or not hadethegod knowingly participated in the transfer, knowingly retained misappropriated funds, or cooperated with Defendant Wallavan Donovan are factual questions that cannot properly be resolved or addressed on a Motion to Dismiss.

1. HL-BANK SHOULD REMAIN A PARTY

Defendants argue that HL-Bank was merely the destination of transferred funds. Plaintiff alleges otherwise.
HL-Bank is owned, operated, and controlled by Defendant hadethegod. The transferred funds were received through HL-Bank and subsequently retained within an entity controlled by hadethegod.
Plaintiff alleges that HL-Bank was not a passive third party but instead the vehicle through which the disputed funds were received, controlled, and used. Whether or not HL-Bank functioned as an instrumentality for retaining or benefiting from the transferred funds is a factual matter requiring discovery.
Because Plaintiff alleges that HL-Bank directly received and held the disputed funds while under the control of hadethegod, dismissal at this stage would be premature.

1. THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT IMPROPERLY GROUP DEFENDANTS

Defendants argue that Plaintiff improperly grouped all Defendants together. This is incorrect.
The Complaint specifically alleges that:

1. Defendant Wallavan Donovan transferred company funds without authorization;
2. Defendant hadethegod knowingly received and retained those funds; and
3. HL-Bank received and held those funds under the ownership and control of hadethegod.

These allegations provide each Defendant with clear notice of the conduct attributed to them and the basis for Plaintiff’s claims.

1. DISCOVERY IS NECESSARY

Defendants’ Motion repeatedly argues that Plaintiff has not demonstrated knowledge, intent, participation, or coordination among Defendants.
Those arguments concern disputed factual issues.
Plaintiff possesses evidence, including transaction logs, communications, records regarding ownership and control of HL-Bank, and other documentary evidence supporting its allegations. Discovery will allow the parties to fully develop these facts and permit the Court to evaluate the merits on a complete record.
Dismissal prior to discovery would prevent Plaintiff from presenting evidence directly relevant to the issues presented by Defendants.

1. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT SEEK CRIMINAL SANCTIONS

Defendants repeatedly argue that Plaintiff may not seek criminal punishment, incarceration, prosecution, criminal fines, or other criminal sanctions through this civil action.
Plaintiff agrees.
At no point does the Complaint request incarceration, criminal prosecution, criminal fines, criminal penalties, or any other criminal sanction. Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief seeks civil remedies only, including restitution of transferred funds, compensatory damages, interest, court costs, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Defendants therefore devote the majority of their Motion to addressing relief that Plantiff has never requested.
The Complaint references criminal offenses because the conduct alleged may constitute violations of Redmont law and because those actions form the basis for Plaintiff’s civil damages. Identifying conduct that may violate criminal statutes does not turn this civil action into a criminal prosecution, nor does it constitute a request for criminal punishment.
Plaintiff seeks recovery for financial losses caused by Defendants’ conduct. The fact that the alleged conduct may also violate Redmont law does not prevent Plaintiff from pursuing civil remedies arising from that conduct.
Accordingly, Defendants’ arguments regarding criminal punishment, incarceration, prosecution, or criminal sanctions provide no basis for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims and, therefore, should be rejected.

1. ALTERNATIVELY, PLAINTIFF REQUESTS LEAVE TO AMEND

Should the Court determine that any allegation requires additional factual specificity, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend the Complaint rather than dismissal.
Any perceived pleading deficiencies can be fixed through amendment, and dismissal with prejudice would be inappropriate where Plaintiff possesses evidence supporting the claims asserted.

1. CONCLUSION

For the reasons listed above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
2. Permit discovery to proceed regarding the transfer, receipt, retention, and use of the disputed funds;
3. Allow Plaintiff’s claims against Wallavan Donovan, hadethegod, and HL-Bank to proceed;
4. Reject Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff seeks criminal punishment, as Plaintiff seeks only civil remedies including restitution, damages, interest, costs, and other relief as permitted by Redmont law;
5. Alternatively, grant Plaintiff leave to amend any portion of the Complain the Court finds insufficiently specific; and
6. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems 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 15th day of June, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

Morticia Addams
Counsel for Plaintiff
Singeheart, Addams and Associates.

 

[Matthew100x]

We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 5 days. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.5 (Consent to End Discovery Early)​

If both parties consent to end Discovery early, they may request the presiding Judicial Officer to move to the next phase of the trial.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

Please remember that we are under the old Court Rules & Procedure for this case!

 

[Matthew100x]

I will need a few days to work out the motion to dismiss. For now let's continue.

 

[3mkTalal]

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Singeheart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Singeheart, Addams and Associates respectfully opposes Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and states as follows:

1. INTRODUCTION

Defendants seek dismissal by characterizing Plaintiff’s allegations as unsupported conclusions. However, the Complaint alleges that company funds were transferred without authorization, received by Defendant hadethegod through HL-Bank, retained despite knowledge of their source, and subsequently used for purposes adverse to Plaintiff.
At the Motion to Dismiss stage, the Court must accept Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and determine whether or not those allegations are sufficient to state claims for relief. Defendants’ Motion improperly attempts to resolve factual disputes that are more appropriately addressed through the discovery and trial period.

1. THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES CLAIMS AGAINST HADETHEGOD

Defendants argue that hadethegod was merely a passive recipient of funds. Plaintiff disputes this characterization.
The Complaint alleges that hadethegod knowingly received funds belonging to Singeheart, Addams and Associates and retained possession of those funds after becoming aware of their origin. Plaintiff possesses transaction records, communications, and additional evidence demonstrating that hadethegod knew the funds belonged to the Plaintiff and nevertheless retained and benefited from them.
Furthermore, Plaintiff possesses evidence showing that hadethegod was aware of the ownership of the funds shortly after, and in some instances before, the transfer occurred, Such evidence directly contradicts Defendants’ assertion that no facts exist supporting knowledge or intent.
Whether or not hadethegod knowingly participated in the transfer, knowingly retained misappropriated funds, or cooperated with Defendant Wallavan Donovan are factual questions that cannot properly be resolved or addressed on a Motion to Dismiss.

1. HL-BANK SHOULD REMAIN A PARTY

Defendants argue that HL-Bank was merely the destination of transferred funds. Plaintiff alleges otherwise.
HL-Bank is owned, operated, and controlled by Defendant hadethegod. The transferred funds were received through HL-Bank and subsequently retained within an entity controlled by hadethegod.
Plaintiff alleges that HL-Bank was not a passive third party but instead the vehicle through which the disputed funds were received, controlled, and used. Whether or not HL-Bank functioned as an instrumentality for retaining or benefiting from the transferred funds is a factual matter requiring discovery.
Because Plaintiff alleges that HL-Bank directly received and held the disputed funds while under the control of hadethegod, dismissal at this stage would be premature.

1. THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT IMPROPERLY GROUP DEFENDANTS

Defendants argue that Plaintiff improperly grouped all Defendants together. This is incorrect.
The Complaint specifically alleges that:

1. Defendant Wallavan Donovan transferred company funds without authorization;
2. Defendant hadethegod knowingly received and retained those funds; and
3. HL-Bank received and held those funds under the ownership and control of hadethegod.

These allegations provide each Defendant with clear notice of the conduct attributed to them and the basis for Plaintiff’s claims.

1. DISCOVERY IS NECESSARY

Defendants’ Motion repeatedly argues that Plaintiff has not demonstrated knowledge, intent, participation, or coordination among Defendants.
Those arguments concern disputed factual issues.
Plaintiff possesses evidence, including transaction logs, communications, records regarding ownership and control of HL-Bank, and other documentary evidence supporting its allegations. Discovery will allow the parties to fully develop these facts and permit the Court to evaluate the merits on a complete record.
Dismissal prior to discovery would prevent Plaintiff from presenting evidence directly relevant to the issues presented by Defendants.

1. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT SEEK CRIMINAL SANCTIONS

Defendants repeatedly argue that Plaintiff may not seek criminal punishment, incarceration, prosecution, criminal fines, or other criminal sanctions through this civil action.
Plaintiff agrees.
At no point does the Complaint request incarceration, criminal prosecution, criminal fines, criminal penalties, or any other criminal sanction. Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief seeks civil remedies only, including restitution of transferred funds, compensatory damages, interest, court costs, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Defendants therefore devote the majority of their Motion to addressing relief that Plantiff has never requested.
The Complaint references criminal offenses because the conduct alleged may constitute violations of Redmont law and because those actions form the basis for Plaintiff’s civil damages. Identifying conduct that may violate criminal statutes does not turn this civil action into a criminal prosecution, nor does it constitute a request for criminal punishment.
Plaintiff seeks recovery for financial losses caused by Defendants’ conduct. The fact that the alleged conduct may also violate Redmont law does not prevent Plaintiff from pursuing civil remedies arising from that conduct.
Accordingly, Defendants’ arguments regarding criminal punishment, incarceration, prosecution, or criminal sanctions provide no basis for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims and, therefore, should be rejected.

1. ALTERNATIVELY, PLAINTIFF REQUESTS LEAVE TO AMEND

Should the Court determine that any allegation requires additional factual specificity, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend the Complaint rather than dismissal.
Any perceived pleading deficiencies can be fixed through amendment, and dismissal with prejudice would be inappropriate where Plaintiff possesses evidence supporting the claims asserted.

1. CONCLUSION

For the reasons listed above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
2. Permit discovery to proceed regarding the transfer, receipt, retention, and use of the disputed funds;
3. Allow Plaintiff’s claims against Wallavan Donovan, hadethegod, and HL-Bank to proceed;
4. Reject Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff seeks criminal punishment, as Plaintiff seeks only civil remedies including restitution, damages, interest, costs, and other relief as permitted by Redmont law;
5. Alternatively, grant Plaintiff leave to amend any portion of the Complain the Court finds insufficiently specific; and
6. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems 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 15th day of June, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

Morticia Addams
Counsel for Plaintiff
Singeheart, Addams and Associates.

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Singeheart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank [2026] DCR 68

DEFENCE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor,

The Defence files this limited Reply for the narrow purpose of addressing Plaintiff’s reliance, throughout its Response, on material that is not in the case record. The Defence does not re-argue the Motion and leaves its timing and disposition to the Court’s discretion.

I. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE RESTS ON FACTS THE COMPLAINT DID NOT PLEAD

Plaintiff defends the Complaint by pointing to matters that appear nowhere in it: that hadethegod knew the funds belonged to Plaintiff before the transfer, that Plaintiff holds communications proving knowledge and intent, and that HL-Bank is owned, operated, and controlled by hadethegod.

The Defence does not dispute that Plaintiff may develop evidence in discovery. The point is narrower: a Response that must supply these facts to survive the Motion confirms that the Complaint, as filed, did not plead them.

II. PLAINTIFF MAY NOT USE UNSUBMITTED MATERIAL AS AFFIRMATIVE PROOF THAT ITS CLAIMS ARE SUFFICIENT

Plaintiff does not merely argue that discovery should proceed. It argues that the claims survive because Plaintiff “possesses evidence showing” hadethegod’s knowledge and HL-Bank’s control.

Under Rule 4.2, material not entered into the case is inadmissible, and an argument built on it may be voided. The Defence respectfully requests that, in ruling on the Motion, the Court disregard those portions of the Response that rely on unsubmitted material to assert the elements are met.

Plaintiff remains free to develop that material in discovery. It cannot use it now to cure a pleading.

III. PLAINTIFF’S OWN RESPONSE CONFIRMS THE KNOWLEDGE DEFECT

The Complaint pleads only the bare conclusion that hadethegod “knowingly received and retained” the funds, meaning knowledge at receipt.

Plaintiff’s Response then relocates that knowledge, asserting both that hadethegod became aware “after” receiving the funds and that he was aware “in some instances before the transfer occurred.”

Knowledge is the load-bearing element of every offence alleged against hadethegod. An allegation that moves from receipt, to after receipt, to before the transfer within a single brief does not plead that element against him with any fixed factual content.

IV. THE REMAINING POINTS DO NOT CURE THE DEFECTS

Plaintiff’s clarification that it seeks only civil remedies is accepted and was never in dispute. It does not address the defect, which is that the relief is tied to an undifferentiated list of eight offences rather than claims showing which Defendant committed which offence.

Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is, at a minimum, an acknowledgment that the Complaint may require amendment. The Defence notes only that an amendment cannot supply facts that do not exist, and that any amended Complaint would remain subject to Rule 4.2 and to any proper motion should discovery show the pleaded facts to be unsupported or in error.

V. CONCLUSION

The Defence respectfully requests that, in deciding the Motion, the Court disregard the unsubmitted material relied on in Plaintiff’s Response pursuant to Rule 4.2, and otherwise rule on the Complaint as pleaded.

The Defence does not oppose the discovery proceeding as the Court has ordered.

 

[3mkTalal]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Singeheart, Addams and Associates

v.

hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank [2026] DCR 68



DEFENCE DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND INTERROGATORIES​

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 and Rule 4.8 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the Defence submits the following requests and interrogatories to Plaintiff.

Each request is relevant to an allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint or an assertion in Plaintiff’s Response, and is directed to material Plaintiff has stated it possesses. The Defence requests that the Court compel production of any item below that Plaintiff opposes.

I. REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 4.7

The Defence requests that Plaintiff produce the following:

1. All transaction logs showing the alleged transfer of funds from Singeheart, Addams and Associates to Wallavan Donovan, hadethegod, HL-Bank, or any account or entity allegedly controlled by any Defendant.
2. All records showing the exact amount allegedly transferred, including the source account, destination account, date, time, and recipient.
3. All records Plaintiff relies on to show that HL-Bank is owned, operated, or controlled by hadethegod.
4. All records showing that HL-Bank itself received, held, transferred, spent, concealed, disguised, converted, or otherwise used the disputed funds.
5. All communications, messages, or screenshots Plaintiff relies on to show that hadethegod knew the funds belonged to Plaintiff before the transfer occurred.
6. All communications, messages, or screenshots Plaintiff relies on to show that hadethegod knew the funds belonged to Plaintiff at the time of receipt.
7. All communications, messages, or screenshots Plaintiff relies on to show that hadethegod learned the funds belonged to Plaintiff after the transfer and continued to retain them.
8. All communications, messages, or transaction records Plaintiff relies on to show that funds originating from Plaintiff were used to place bounties against Aelia Singeheart, including any record connecting the alleged bounty funds to the transferred funds.
9. All screenshots, chat logs, or messages Plaintiff contends contain derogatory or misogynistic remarks by either Defendant, identifying for each the speaker and the date.
10. All communications, messages, or screenshots Plaintiff relies on to show that Wallavan Donovan and hadethegod coordinated or acted together regarding the transfer.
11. The complete, unedited message thread or source for each screenshot or image Plaintiff has submitted or intends to rely on, including the surrounding context and timestamps.
12. All documents and records reflecting how Plaintiff calculated the $55,000 in damages, including the amount allegedly transferred and any records supporting each additional component of the total.

II. INTERROGATORIES UNDER RULE 4.8

Plaintiff is requested to answer the following truthfully and to the best of its ability:

1. State the exact point at which Plaintiff alleges hadethegod first knew the funds belonged to Plaintiff, specifying whether that knowledge is alleged to have arisen before the transfer, at the time of receipt, or after receipt.
2. Identify the specific evidence Plaintiff relies on to support its allegation that hadethegod knew the funds belonged to Plaintiff prior to the transfer.
3. State the basis for Plaintiff’s claim that HL-Bank is owned, operated, or controlled by hadethegod, including the source of that information.
4. Identify each specific act Plaintiff alleges HL-Bank itself committed, separate from being the destination of the transferred funds.
5. For each Defendant individually, state which offences alleged in the Complaint Plaintiff continues to pursue against that Defendant, and the principal factual basis for each.

III. WITNESS RESERVATION

Plaintiff has listed Morticia Addams as a witness, and Morticia Addams has also stated she is appearing as counsel for Plaintiff. The Defence reserves all rights to object under Rule 4.9 and Rule 6.3 to any witness testimony, including any attempt to use counsel argument as witness testimony.

 

[Matthew100x]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Singeheart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank [2026] DCR 68

DEFENCE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor,

The Defence files this limited Reply for the narrow purpose of addressing Plaintiff’s reliance, throughout its Response, on material that is not in the case record. The Defence does not re-argue the Motion and leaves its timing and disposition to the Court’s discretion.

I. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE RESTS ON FACTS THE COMPLAINT DID NOT PLEAD

Plaintiff defends the Complaint by pointing to matters that appear nowhere in it: that hadethegod knew the funds belonged to Plaintiff before the transfer, that Plaintiff holds communications proving knowledge and intent, and that HL-Bank is owned, operated, and controlled by hadethegod.

The Defence does not dispute that Plaintiff may develop evidence in discovery. The point is narrower: a Response that must supply these facts to survive the Motion confirms that the Complaint, as filed, did not plead them.

II. PLAINTIFF MAY NOT USE UNSUBMITTED MATERIAL AS AFFIRMATIVE PROOF THAT ITS CLAIMS ARE SUFFICIENT

Plaintiff does not merely argue that discovery should proceed. It argues that the claims survive because Plaintiff “possesses evidence showing” hadethegod’s knowledge and HL-Bank’s control.

Under Rule 4.2, material not entered into the case is inadmissible, and an argument built on it may be voided. The Defence respectfully requests that, in ruling on the Motion, the Court disregard those portions of the Response that rely on unsubmitted material to assert the elements are met.

Plaintiff remains free to develop that material in discovery. It cannot use it now to cure a pleading.

III. PLAINTIFF’S OWN RESPONSE CONFIRMS THE KNOWLEDGE DEFECT

The Complaint pleads only the bare conclusion that hadethegod “knowingly received and retained” the funds, meaning knowledge at receipt.

Plaintiff’s Response then relocates that knowledge, asserting both that hadethegod became aware “after” receiving the funds and that he was aware “in some instances before the transfer occurred.”

Knowledge is the load-bearing element of every offence alleged against hadethegod. An allegation that moves from receipt, to after receipt, to before the transfer within a single brief does not plead that element against him with any fixed factual content.

IV. THE REMAINING POINTS DO NOT CURE THE DEFECTS

Plaintiff’s clarification that it seeks only civil remedies is accepted and was never in dispute. It does not address the defect, which is that the relief is tied to an undifferentiated list of eight offences rather than claims showing which Defendant committed which offence.

Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is, at a minimum, an acknowledgment that the Complaint may require amendment. The Defence notes only that an amendment cannot supply facts that do not exist, and that any amended Complaint would remain subject to Rule 4.2 and to any proper motion should discovery show the pleaded facts to be unsupported or in error.

V. CONCLUSION

The Defence respectfully requests that, in deciding the Motion, the Court disregard the unsubmitted material relied on in Plaintiff’s Response pursuant to Rule 4.2, and otherwise rule on the Complaint as pleaded.

The Defence does not oppose the discovery proceeding as the Court has ordered.

This is not going to be taken into consideration as reply briefs are not a thing in Redmont.

 

[mortishuh]

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

SingeHeart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION


Your Honor, the Plaintiffs would like to label previously submitted evidence screenshots as the following:

P-001:

Spoiler: P-001: SHAA Corporate Account Drained

P-002:

Spoiler: P-002: Payment to HL-Bank from SHAA Corporate Account by Wallavan Donovan

P-003:

Spoiler: P-003: Addmittance by Defendant "hadethegod" to Knowledge of Transfer of Funds

P-004:

Spoiler: P-004: "Defendants' "Wallavan Donovan" and "hadethegod" Admitting to the Taking of the Funds"

P-005:

Spoiler: P-005: Defendant "hadethegod" Mocking Plaintiff and Acknowledging He Knew Where the Funds Came From

P-006:

Spoiler: P-006: Defendant "hadethegod" Making Misogynistic Comments After The Funds Were Transfered

In addition to the evidence previously submitted within the complaint, and in accordance with Rule 4.6 and 4.9, the Plaintiffs would also like to submit the following screenshots and witnesses into evidence:

1. WITNESSES
Unalign
Morticia Addams
Aelia SingeHeart

2. EVIDENCE

P-007:

Spoiler: P-007: Defendant "hadethegod" Creating HL-Bank

P-008:

Spoiler: P-008: Proof of Defandant "hadethegod's" Ownership of HL-Bank

3. RELEVANCE

The evidence submitted by Plaintiff is directly relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this action.

The submitted transaction records demonstrate the transfer of approximately $55,000 from the SHAAssociates business account to the HL-Bank business account. Additional records identify Defendant hadethegod as the owner and controller of HL-Bank. These records are relevant to establishing the destination of the transferred funds, the identity of the individuals and entities involved, and the relationship between Defendant hadethegod and Defendant HL-Bank.

The submitted communications are further relevant because they concern the circumstances surrounding the transfer, the reasons allegedly motivating the transfer, Defendants' knowledge of the ownership of the funds, and statements regarding Plaintiff's woman-owned law firm. Such communications are probative of intent, motive, knowledge, coordination between Defendants, and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.

This evidence directly addresses issues raised in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Answer, including Defendants' assertions that hadethegod lacked knowledge of the funds, that HL-Bank was merely a passive recipient, that no coordination existed between Defendants, and that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting its claims.

Accordingly, the evidence is relevant because it tends to make the existence of Plaintiff's allegations more probable and assists the Court in determining the factual issues underlying the parties' claims and defenses.

 

[Matthew100x]

Response

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

SingeHeart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION


Your Honor, the Plaintiffs would like to label previously submitted evidence screenshots as the following:

P-001:

Spoiler: P-001: SHAA Corporate Account Drained

View attachment 86813

P-002:

Spoiler: P-002: Payment to HL-Bank from SHAA Corporate Account by Wallavan Donovan

View attachment 86814

P-003:

Spoiler: P-003: Addmittance by Defendant "hadethegod" to Knowledge of Transfer of Funds

View attachment 86815

P-004:

Spoiler: P-004: "Defendants' "Wallavan Donovan" and "hadethegod" Admitting to the Taking of the Funds"

View attachment 86819

P-005:

Spoiler: P-005: Defendant "hadethegod" Mocking Plaintiff and Acknowledging He Knew Where the Funds Came From

View attachment 86820

P-006:

Spoiler: P-006: Defendant "hadethegod" Making Misogynistic Comments After The Funds Were Transfered

View attachment 86821

In addition to the evidence previously submitted within the complaint, and in accordance with Rule 4.6 and 4.9, the Plaintiffs would also like to submit the following screenshots and witnesses into evidence:

1. WITNESSES
Unalign
Morticia Addams
Aelia SingeHeart

2. EVIDENCE

P-007:

Spoiler: P-007: Defendant "hadethegod" Creating HL-Bank

View attachment 86816

P-008:

Spoiler: P-008: Proof of Defandant "hadethegod's" Ownership of HL-Bank

View attachment 86818

3. RELEVANCE

The evidence submitted by Plaintiff is directly relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this action.

The submitted transaction records demonstrate the transfer of approximately $55,000 from the SHAAssociates business account to the HL-Bank business account. Additional records identify Defendant hadethegod as the owner and controller of HL-Bank. These records are relevant to establishing the destination of the transferred funds, the identity of the individuals and entities involved, and the relationship between Defendant hadethegod and Defendant HL-Bank.

The submitted communications are further relevant because they concern the circumstances surrounding the transfer, the reasons allegedly motivating the transfer, Defendants' knowledge of the ownership of the funds, and statements regarding Plaintiff's woman-owned law firm. Such communications are probative of intent, motive, knowledge, coordination between Defendants, and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.

This evidence directly addresses issues raised in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Answer, including Defendants' assertions that hadethegod lacked knowledge of the funds, that HL-Bank was merely a passive recipient, that no coordination existed between Defendants, and that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts supporting its claims.

Accordingly, the evidence is relevant because it tends to make the existence of Plaintiff's allegations more probable and assists the Court in determining the factual issues underlying the parties' claims and defenses.

Acknowledged. Plaintiff you need to respond to the interrogatories and discovery requests made of you or object to them.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Singeheart, Addams and Associates
Plaintiff

v.

hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank
Defendants

Singeheart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank [2026] DCR 68

​

I. Background​

This matter comes before the Court. The Plaintiff, Singeheart, Addams and Associates, is a law firm suing the Defendants, hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were owners and operators of a business known as HL-Bank.

The facts alleged are that Wallavan Donovan transferred the Plaintiff's company funds into HL-Bank without authorization. There was dissatisfaction regarding whether Wallavan Donovan received equity or ownership in the firm. Wallavan Donovan is allegedly a former lawyer for the firm. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants retained possession of the funds and did not return them, nor had proper authorization to use take the funds in the first place.

II. Legal Analysis​

A Rule 5.5 motion is a motion for lack of claim. It may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge (Old Court Rules & Procedure, Rule 5.5, Information - Court Rules and Procedures [Deprecated]). Under the developing standard for Rule 5.5, a claim fails where, even accepting the facts alleged, the claim and prayer for relief cannot produce a tangible legal result. (see Lawsuit: In Session - Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 39 ("At the dismissal stage, the question is whether or not the first claim for relief, read in light of these factual allegations, would fail to support that actions were taken under "color of law" even if all facts (and reasonable factual inferences) were resolved in Plaintiff's favor.")).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants’ conduct constitutes fraud, embezzlement, aggravated theft, conspiracy to commit a crime, concealment of criminal proceeds, accomplice liability, market manipulation, and false credentials under DemocracyCraft law.

With the exception of fraud, each of these theories are a criminal offense rather than a civil cause of action. The Redmont Civil Code Act constitutes a non-exhaustive listing of civil violations, but a plaintiff seeking relief for a non-codified harm must show support in common law principles or judicial precedent (see Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 3(1)(a), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act). Existing common law torts remain actionable unless expressly abolished by the Civil Code (see Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 3(1)(b), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

Where a wrong constitutes both a crime under the Criminal Code and a violation under the Civil Code, the plaintiff may pursue civil remedies under the Civil Code, civil damages arising from the crime under the Criminal Code, or both, so long as there is no double recovery (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 67 (citing Redmont Civil Code, Part II, § 4(3)(a)–(c), Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act); see also Lawsuit: Dismissed - Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59 ("The Redmont Civil Code Act ("RCCA") does indeed allow for civil action regarding a criminal violation, but typically only supports that action where both the RCCA and the Criminal Code Act ("CCA") reference the underlying claim")).

Here, all of the charges alleged are under the Redmont Criminal Code, but not the Civil Code. As such, the Plaintiff cannot pursue damages under the Civil Code, which precludes him from all damages. Accordingly, the claims for embezzlement, aggravated theft, conspiracy to commit a crime, concealment of criminal proceeds, accomplice liability, market manipulation, and false credentials are dismissed under Rule 5.5.

The only claim that could plausibly survive under a common law theory is fraud. The Defendants argue that the complaint pleads no misrepresentation, omission, reliance, or harm caused by the Defendants. The Court agrees. Even treating the pleaded facts as true, the Plaintiff must allege facts that could establish a legally cognizable fraud claim. The facts alleged show that funds were transferred into HL-Bank and that the Plaintiff claims those funds should not have been retained. But the complaint does not identify a specific misrepresentation or omission made by the Defendants as part of the transaction. It also does not plead facts showing reliance on that misrepresentation or omission. Without those allegations, the Court cannot find that the Plaintiff has pleaded fraud in a form capable of producing legal relief. Thus, the fraud claim is also dismissed under Rule 5.5.

Discovery was offered and completed without any amendment to the complaint. The defects identified here are not merely technical formatting errors. The complaint fails to identify civil causes of action for most claims and fails to plead the necessary basis for fraud. Because the Plaintiff had the opportunity to develop the record and amend the pleading but did not cure these defects, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.

III. Order​

The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

The claims for embezzlement, aggravated theft, conspiracy to commit a crime, concealment of criminal proceeds, accomplice liability, market manipulation, and false credentials are DISMISSED. The fraud claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff must pay $16,500 dollars in mandatory legal fees to the Defendant. (See Redmont Civil Code, Part III, § 7, Act of Congress - Redmont Civil Code Act).

This case is dismissed with prejudice.

So ordered.

 

[Muggy21]

@Matthew100x The Federal Court has accepted and issued a verdict on appeal.
<Appeal: Accepted - Appeal in re: [2026] DCR 68 | [2026] FCR 59>

1) The dismissal with prejudice decision is void.
2) The order for legal fees as awarded in the June 19th verdict is void.


As clerk I've modified the verdict above and have re-opened the docket.

 

[Matthew100x]

Given the Appellate decision, I am going to reopen discovery for 120 hours from this post.

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

The Plaintiff respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an Order compelling the production of discovery pursuant to the Court Rules and Procedures, and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

1. Discovery is presently open in this matter, and the requested materials are directly relevant to the claims and defences before the Court.

2. Throughout these proceedings, Defendants have asserted that there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that Defendant hadethegod possessed knowledge of the origin of the transferred funds, knowingly retained those funds, or coordinated with Defendant Wallavan Donovan.

3. The Plaintiff seeks production of all transaction logs reflecting transfers between Wallavan Donovan, hadethegod, HL-Bank, or any account under their ownership or control during the period beginning seven (7) days prior to the disputed transfer and ending seven (7) days thereafter.

4. The Plaintiff further seeks production of all communications between hadethegod and Wallavan Donovan during that same period, including but not limited to in-game messages, Discord messages, direct messages, forum messages, or any other written or electronic communications in either Defendant's possession, custody, or control.

5. These materials are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning:
a. whether the transfer was coordinated between the Defendants;
b. whether hadethegod possessed prior or contemporaneous knowledge of the transfer;
c. whether the disputed funds were knowingly received and retained;
d. the disposition and movement of the disputed funds following receipt; and
e. the extent of any damages or restitution owed to the Plaintiff.

6. Defendants have repeatedly placed these factual issues at the centre of their defence. Production of the requested records will permit the parties and the Court to determine these issues on the basis of objective evidence rather than speculation.

7. The requested discovery is narrowly tailored in scope, limited in duration, and proportional to the issues before the Court. It does not impose an unreasonable burden upon the Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:

1. Compelling Defendants to produce all transaction logs pertaining to the stolen funds.
2. Compelling Defendants to produce all communications between hadethegod and Wallavan Donovan during the requested period of May 29th to June 3rd
3. Requiring production within a timeframe established by the Court

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 14th day of July, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

Aelia SingeHeart
Counsel for Plaintiff
SingeHeart, Addams and Associates

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE

Your Honour, The plaintiffs would also like to submit Exhibit G (p-007) into the case. It is a screenshot of hadethegod admitting to the actions committed by Wallavan Donovan

Respectfully Submitted,

 

[Matthew100x]

Any opposition to the motion, I am noting that I am keeping discovery open for the discovery requests.

 

[3mkTalal]

Any opposition to the motion, I am noting that I am keeping discovery open for the discovery requests.

Your Honour,


I have been occupied with work and travelling and respectfully request 48 hours to respond to the Plaintiff’s motion. I do intend to file a response within that timeframe.


Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your Honour,


I have been occupied with work and travelling and respectfully request 48 hours to respond to the Plaintiff’s motion. I do intend to file a response within that timeframe.


Thank you for your consideration.

Granted

 

[Matthew100x]

We're well past the response time to fight the discovery request. I am granting the Plaintiff's discovery request.

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court for the entry of Default Judgment against the Defendants, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Following the Appellate decision in this matter, this Court reopened discovery for a period of 120 hours.
2. During the reopened discovery period, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery seeking relevant transaction logs and communications concerning the disputed transfer of funds between Defendants Wallavan Donovan, hadethegod, and HL-Bank. The requested discovery was directly relevant to the central issues of this case, including whether the Defendants coordinated the transfer, whether Defendant hadethegod possessed knowledge of the source of the funds, and the disposition of the disputed funds.
3. The Defendants were provided an opportunity to oppose Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery.
4. Defendant's counsel requested an additional forty-eight (48) hours to respond to Plaintiff's Motion, citing personal circumstances, and this Court granted that extension.
5. Despite being granted additional time by this Court, Defendants failed to file any opposition, objection, or other response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery.
6. On July 25th, 2026, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and ordered Defendants to produce the requested discovery materials.
7. 5 days have now passed since this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, and Defendants have failed to comply with the Court's Order, produce the requested materials, request additional time, or provide any explanation for their failure to comply.
8. Defendants have repeatedly failed to participate in the discovery process, despite being provided multiple opportunities to do so.
9. Defendants' failure to comply with this Court's Discovery Order demonstrates a disregard for the authority of this Court and has prejudiced Plaintiff's ability to prepare its case for trial.
10. Due to Defendants' continued failure to comply with their discovery obligations, inactivity and this Court's Order, Default Judgment is warranted.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Enter Default Judgment against Defendants hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank;
2. Strike any remaining defenses or pleadings filed by Defendants as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery obligations and this Court's Order;
3. Award any further relief this Court deems 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 30th day of July, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

 

[hadethegod]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Singeheart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank [2026] DCR 68


DEFENDANT HADETHEGOD'S NOTICE OF SELF-REPRESENTATION AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT


Your Honor,


I. NOTICE OF SELF-REPRESENTATION

1. Defendant hadethegod's counsel of record, 3mkTalal, last appeared in this matter on July 16, 2026, when he requested a 48-hour extension to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, which the Court granted the following day. No opposition, compliance, or further filing of any kind has been made on Defendant hadethegod's behalf since that date.
2. No notice of withdrawal has been filed, but counsel's sustained non-participation has left Defendant hadethegod without effective representation through the Court's July 25, 2026 order compelling discovery and the Motion for Default Judgment now before the Court.
3. Defendant hadethegod therefore gives notice that, effective immediately, he appears in this matter pro se for all further purposes, unless and until new counsel enters an appearance on his behalf.
4. This Notice is filed on behalf of Defendant hadethegod individually, including in his capacity as owner and controller of co-Defendant HL-Bank. It does not purport to speak for, waive any right of, or take any position on behalf of co-Defendant Wallavan Donovan, whose representation remains a separate matter.

II. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT


A. No Rule Authorizes Default Judgment on These Facts


Rule 3.6 is the only provision in the Court Rules and Procedures that authorizes default judgment against a defendant, and it applies where a defendant fails to submit an Answer containing the affirmations, denials, and defenses required by Rule 3.2. Defendant hadethegod filed a complete Answer on June 15, 2026, denying the claims against him and asserting seven defenses. Rule 3.6 default is inapplicable on its face — there is no "failure to submit defense" for it to remedy.


Nor does Rule 4 (Discovery) provide for default judgment as a remedy for noncompliance with a discovery order. Rule 5.13 addresses discovery failures through a Motion to Dismiss available to a defendant against a plaintiff, confirming the rules did not contemplate default running the other way. The provision squarely addressed to disobeying a court order is Rule 1.4 (Contempt of Court), which requires a prior warning or a refused directive and carries defined, proportionate penalties — not a case-ending sanction.


B. The Underlying Failure Was Attorney Nonfeasance, Not Personal Disregard of the Court


Plaintiff's Motion frames the absence of a response as "a disregard for the authority of this Court." Defendant hadethegod disagrees with that characterization as applied to him personally. The record shows counsel requested and received an extension and then filed nothing further. Defendant hadethegod is addressing the matter directly now that the gap has come to his attention, and takes full responsibility for ensuring the Court's orders are complied with going forward.


Rule 3.6.3 already reflects this Court's recognition that a default arising from a party's prior failure to respond may be excused on "a showing of good cause." A breakdown in communication with retained counsel, addressed promptly once discovered, is precisely the kind of good cause that rule contemplates, and weighs at least as strongly against entering a default now as it would toward vacating one after the fact.


C. Default and Striking Defendant's Pleadings Are Disproportionate Where a Lesser Remedy Is Available


Entering default judgment and striking Defendant's Answer would end this case on a procedural default rather than the merits Defendant has contested since June. Before resorting to so severe a sanction, Defendant hadethegod respectfully asks the Court to afford him, now appearing personally, the same standard extension this case has already used elsewhere: 72 hours under Rule 4.4, to personally respond to and comply, to the best of his ability, with the discovery compelled on July 25, 2026.


III. REQUESTED RELIEF


Defendant hadethegod respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment;
2. Deny Plaintiff's request to strike Defendant's Answer and defenses;
3. Grant Defendant hadethegod 72 hours to personally respond to and comply with the outstanding discovery compelled on July 25, 2026;
4. In the alternative, impose any lesser sanction the Court finds appropriate short of default judgment; and
5. Grant any further relief the Court deems 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 4th day of August, 2026.


Respectfully submitted,


hadethegod
Defendant, appearing pro se

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF SELF-REPRESENTATION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves to strike Defendant hadethegod's Notice of Self-Representation and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment.

1. Defendant hadethegod is permanently deported from the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. Established precedent has determined that permanently deported individuals do not retain the right to personally participate in proceedings before the Courts of Redmont. See Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin, 2023 FCR 79; UnityMaster v. lcn, 2025 SCR 2.
3. This principle has further been applied to representation in FTL Consulting v. Naezaratheus, 2025 DCR 41, and more recently in RiggoSoft v. Dimitre977, 2026 DCR 25.
4. Defendant cannot acquire a right to appear pro se merely by filing a Notice of Self-Representation. His permanent deportation prevents him from personally representing himself before this Court.
5. Defendant's counsel of record has also not filed a formal withdrawal. Defendant therefore cannot unilaterally substitute himself as counsel where he is prohibited from representing himself.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. STRIKE Defendant's Notice of Self-Representation and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment;
2. Find that Defendant hadethegod may not represent himself or make personal representations before this Court due to his permanent deportation; and
3. Proceed to consider Plaintiff's pending Motion for Default Judgment without treating Defendant's purported pro se filing as a valid opposition.

Respectfully submitted,

 

[asexualdinosaur]

I will be taking this case over from former honourable Justice Matthrew100x. I will review pending motions once the OTC is resolved. Further, if there's any pending actions outside of the Motion For Default Judgement or Motion to Strike- please make the court aware.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to show cause

Failure to amend complaint
Upon review of the initial filing I find myself believing as the former honourable Justice Matthew had, that the claim lacks standing to proceed. Where the former Justice had err'd according to the appellate court (Appeal: Accepted - Appeal in re: [2026] DCR 68 | [2026] FCR 59) - was making the decision prior to the close of discovery. Where discovery is intended indeed to allow the submission of evidence under Rule 4.1 (Information - Court Rules and Procedures [Deprecated]), but also enables counsel to amend their complaint under Rule 3.3.

This court has already made Plaintiff aware of the deficient filing within their initial Verdict. The appellate court remanded the case back "with instructions to permit the Appellant be permitted the opportunity to amend the Complaint pursuant to Rule 3.3."

The honourable Justice had permitted a reopening of discovery for a period of 120 hours, 5 days. Plaintiff's only action seemingly to compel discovery from the defense. While not providing discovery that was compelled is cause for concern- and leaves the defendant liable to contempt and perjury under Rule 4.7 -- This does not absolve the Plaintiff's responsibility to state a valid claim.

As Plaintiff was made aware of this deficiency, first through the dismissal, second through the appellate court- I am highly considering a dismissal similar to the former Justice- as discovery has long passed, which was the primary issue identified by the appellate court's review.


Order
Plaintiff is ordered to explain why this case should not be dismissed under Rules 5.5 for a lack of claim, as the Plaintiffs filings still contain the same deficiencies as before even after a full period of discovery.

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Your honour, may I have a timeframe of when this is to be submitted by? I currently have a few IRL things to sort out.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honour, may I have a timeframe of when this is to be submitted by? I currently have a few IRL things to sort out.

I'll offer a tentative 72 hours, if you require more time please inform the court.

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Plaintiff respectfully submits that this case should not be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

1. Following the appellate decision, discovery was reopened for a period of 120 hours, providing Plaintiff an opportunity to obtain evidence addressing the deficiencies previously identified by the Court.

2. Plaintiff actively used this period to seek evidence directly concerning those deficiencies, specifically evidence regarding hadethegod's knowledge, involvement, communications with Wallavan Donovan, and the movement of the disputed funds.

3. When Defendants failed to provide this evidence, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. Defendant's counsel requested and was granted an additional forty-eight (48) hours to respond, but ultimately filed no response.

4. The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Defendants nevertheless failed to produce the ordered discovery and have provided no explanation for their noncompliance.

5. Pursuant to Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules and Procedures, Court-approved discovery must be provided to the best of the opposing party's ability, under sanction of contempt and perjury.

6. Plaintiff acknowledges that the Complaint was not amended during the reopened discovery period. However, Plaintiff respectfully submits that dismissal would be premature where Plaintiff actively sought discovery intended to address the identified deficiencies, that discovery was ordered produced by this Court, and Defendants failed to comply with that Order.

7. Plaintiff remains prepared to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court through an Amended Complaint should the Court permit Plaintiff to do so.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court decline to dismiss this matter under Rule 5.5.

Respectfully submitted,

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Your Honour,

In light of the Court's Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff respectfully requests permission to amend the Complaint pursuant to Rule 3.3 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Plaintiff acknowledges that the Complaint was not amended during the reopened discovery period. Plaintiff nevertheless sought discovery specifically intended to address the deficiencies previously identified by the Court, which Defendants have since failed to produce despite the Court's Order compelling them to do so.

Plaintiff is prepared to promptly amend the Complaint using the evidence presently available.

Should the Court grant permission to amend, Plaintiff respectfully asks whether the Court would prefer that the original filing be edited to reflect the amendments, or that Plaintiff submit a new Amended Complaint as a separate filing.

Respectfully submitted,

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF SELF-REPRESENTATION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff respectfully moves to strike Defendant hadethegod's Notice of Self-Representation and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment.

1. Defendant hadethegod is permanently deported from the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. Established precedent has determined that permanently deported individuals do not retain the right to personally participate in proceedings before the Courts of Redmont. See Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin, 2023 FCR 79; UnityMaster v. lcn, 2025 SCR 2.
3. This principle has further been applied to representation in FTL Consulting v. Naezaratheus, 2025 DCR 41, and more recently in RiggoSoft v. Dimitre977, 2026 DCR 25.
4. Defendant cannot acquire a right to appear pro se merely by filing a Notice of Self-Representation. His permanent deportation prevents him from personally representing himself before this Court.
5. Defendant's counsel of record has also not filed a formal withdrawal. Defendant therefore cannot unilaterally substitute himself as counsel where he is prohibited from representing himself.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. STRIKE Defendant's Notice of Self-Representation and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment;
2. Find that Defendant hadethegod may not represent himself or make personal representations before this Court due to his permanent deportation; and
3. Proceed to consider Plaintiff's pending Motion for Default Judgment without treating Defendant's purported pro se filing as a valid opposition.

Respectfully submitted,

Motion to Strike
As it stands, defendant hadethegod is now undeported upon review of their /history. Thusly they are at this point in time, able to make representations that normally a deported person could not. I do recognize that the filing was made during a period in which they were deported- and while I could strike the filing, it would be somewhat moot as it could be reposted without issue.

This decision follows the action of the former honourable Judge Juniperfig in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Vanguard & Co v. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 32 where Defendant was deported, the ruling had gone unaddressed, and subsequently the Defendant was undeported- and the motion for Default Judgement denied.

However, Plaintiff is correct in identifying that Defendant hadethegod lacks legal qualifications to make filings. Under the then applicable Repealed - Modern Legal Reform Act § 4.(2).(b) "The Solicitor rank shall: Grant the holder the right to practice law in District Courts" and even under the current law Act of Congress - Bar Association of Redmont Act Part VI § 2.(1).(b) "The Solicitor rank shall: Grant the holder the privilege to practice law in District Courts;"

Conclusion
The Motion to Strike is accepted in-part- that of their legal representations. The court now asks @3mkTalal if they remain counsel for the defendants.

Additionally the court requests @hadethegod and @Wallavan to clarify if they intend to keep counsel on, and if not- who their legal counsel is. Counsel & Defendants (or their legally qualified counsel) shall have 48 hours to provide a response.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court for the entry of Default Judgment against the Defendants, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Following the Appellate decision in this matter, this Court reopened discovery for a period of 120 hours.
2. During the reopened discovery period, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery seeking relevant transaction logs and communications concerning the disputed transfer of funds between Defendants Wallavan Donovan, hadethegod, and HL-Bank. The requested discovery was directly relevant to the central issues of this case, including whether the Defendants coordinated the transfer, whether Defendant hadethegod possessed knowledge of the source of the funds, and the disposition of the disputed funds.
3. The Defendants were provided an opportunity to oppose Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery.
4. Defendant's counsel requested an additional forty-eight (48) hours to respond to Plaintiff's Motion, citing personal circumstances, and this Court granted that extension.
5. Despite being granted additional time by this Court, Defendants failed to file any opposition, objection, or other response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery.
6. On July 25th, 2026, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and ordered Defendants to produce the requested discovery materials.
7. 5 days have now passed since this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, and Defendants have failed to comply with the Court's Order, produce the requested materials, request additional time, or provide any explanation for their failure to comply.
8. Defendants have repeatedly failed to participate in the discovery process, despite being provided multiple opportunities to do so.
9. Defendants' failure to comply with this Court's Discovery Order demonstrates a disregard for the authority of this Court and has prejudiced Plaintiff's ability to prepare its case for trial.
10. Due to Defendants' continued failure to comply with their discovery obligations, inactivity and this Court's Order, Default Judgment is warranted.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Enter Default Judgment against Defendants hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank;
2. Strike any remaining defenses or pleadings filed by Defendants as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery obligations and this Court's Order;
3. Award any further relief this Court deems 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 30th day of July, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

Motion for Default Judgement
At this time I will by denying this motion. I am sympathetic to the fact that Defendant claims that counsel stopped responding and in addition to the aforementioned deficiencies within the Plaintiff's filing- proceeding to Default Judgement would hinder the Plaintiff's ability to have their compelled discovery included.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Plaintiff respectfully submits that this case should not be dismissed under Rule 5.5.

1. Following the appellate decision, discovery was reopened for a period of 120 hours, providing Plaintiff an opportunity to obtain evidence addressing the deficiencies previously identified by the Court.

2. Plaintiff actively used this period to seek evidence directly concerning those deficiencies, specifically evidence regarding hadethegod's knowledge, involvement, communications with Wallavan Donovan, and the movement of the disputed funds.

3. When Defendants failed to provide this evidence, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. Defendant's counsel requested and was granted an additional forty-eight (48) hours to respond, but ultimately filed no response.

4. The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Defendants nevertheless failed to produce the ordered discovery and have provided no explanation for their noncompliance.

5. Pursuant to Rule 4.7 of the Court Rules and Procedures, Court-approved discovery must be provided to the best of the opposing party's ability, under sanction of contempt and perjury.

6. Plaintiff acknowledges that the Complaint was not amended during the reopened discovery period. However, Plaintiff respectfully submits that dismissal would be premature where Plaintiff actively sought discovery intended to address the identified deficiencies, that discovery was ordered produced by this Court, and Defendants failed to comply with that Order.

7. Plaintiff remains prepared to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court through an Amended Complaint should the Court permit Plaintiff to do so.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court decline to dismiss this matter under Rule 5.5.

Respectfully submitted,

Discovery
This case has gone through already one period of discovery, albeit shortened prematurely- and then a second full period of discovery. Yet, as the court notes the filing remains deficient of modifications. Despite this, Plaintiff claims that evidence compelled would've been necessary for their amendments.

I will be clear, I do not find this argument particularly compelling. When you file a lawsuit, you should be filing that suit with all of the relevant details, prayers, and claims applicable. Whilst the court recognizes that the Plaintiff may not have all of the relevant evidence to submit; thus the period of discovery and allowances to compel, and evidence produced may lead to an amendment of the complaint as permitted by the court rules -- This is by no means an excuse in having little to no claims applicable for civil standing.

Having said this, given the state this case is in- with discovery having been compelled and not produced, and the claim of counsel having abandoned clients, and Plaintiff assuring this court that the complaint is ready to be amended with the evidence currently available.

Order
1) The court shall permit the Plaintiff to amend their complaint with the evidence currently provided.
2) The court reaffirms that the Defendants are compelled to provide the requested discovery and shall have 48 hours to do so once the matter of counsel is cleared up or risk sanctions as outlined under Rule 4.7
3) If/Once the compelled discovery is provided to the court, Plaintiff shall have the opportunity to amend their complaint in response.
4) For the purposes of this action, Rule 3.7 stands- and once the Plaintiff amends their complaint, the defendant(s) shall have 72 hours to amend their answer.

Your Honour,

In light of the Court's Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff respectfully requests permission to amend the Complaint pursuant to Rule 3.3 of the Court Rules and Procedures.

Plaintiff acknowledges that the Complaint was not amended during the reopened discovery period. Plaintiff nevertheless sought discovery specifically intended to address the deficiencies previously identified by the Court, which Defendants have since failed to produce despite the Court's Order compelling them to do so.

Plaintiff is prepared to promptly amend the Complaint using the evidence presently available.

Should the Court grant permission to amend, Plaintiff respectfully asks whether the Court would prefer that the original filing be edited to reflect the amendments, or that Plaintiff submit a new Amended Complaint as a separate filing.

Respectfully submitted,

When you make amendments to your complaint, the procedure is outlined under Rule 3.3- "Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge. Afterwards, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may edit the post containing their complaint."

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Is it a 72 hour window for this as well, Your Honour?

 

[hadethegod]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Singeheart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank [2026] DCR 68


DEFENDANT HADETHEGOD'S RESPONSE REGARDING COUNSEL AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME


Your Honor,

1. Defendant hadethegod does not intend to continue with 3mkTalal as counsel of record. Communication with counsel ceased after July 16, 2026, and no further filings, objections, or compliance with the Court's orders have been made on Defendant's behalf since that date despite the extension previously granted.
2. Defendant hadethegod is currently dealing with a serious personal medical situation requiring ongoing treatment, which materially limits his ability to retain new counsel and engage with this matter on a compressed timeline.
3. Defendant hadethegod respectfully requests twelve (12) weeks from this filing to retain new counsel, or such other period as the Court finds appropriate in light of the circumstances, and proposes to provide the Court with a status update at the midpoint of that period. Notwithstanding the requested extension as to counsel, Defendant confirms he understands the Court's order compelling discovery and will make best efforts to begin producing the compelled discovery materials personally within a shorter timeframe, so that the discovery obligation is not held hostage to the search for counsel.

Respectfully submitted,


hadethegod
Defendant

 

[asexualdinosaur]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


Singeheart, Addams and Associates v. hadethegod, Wallavan Donovan, and HL-Bank [2026] DCR 68


DEFENDANT HADETHEGOD'S RESPONSE REGARDING COUNSEL AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME


Your Honor,

1. Defendant hadethegod does not intend to continue with 3mkTalal as counsel of record. Communication with counsel ceased after July 16, 2026, and no further filings, objections, or compliance with the Court's orders have been made on Defendant's behalf since that date despite the extension previously granted.
2. Defendant hadethegod is currently dealing with a serious personal medical situation requiring ongoing treatment, which materially limits his ability to retain new counsel and engage with this matter on a compressed timeline.
3. Defendant hadethegod respectfully requests twelve (12) weeks from this filing to retain new counsel, or such other period as the Court finds appropriate in light of the circumstances, and proposes to provide the Court with a status update at the midpoint of that period. Notwithstanding the requested extension as to counsel, Defendant confirms he understands the Court's order compelling discovery and will make best efforts to begin producing the compelled discovery materials personally within a shorter timeframe, so that the discovery obligation is not held hostage to the search for counsel.

Respectfully submitted,


hadethegod
Defendant

I will reach out to the Public Defender's Office to have a public defender assigned for you. If you find time to find your own counsel please let the court know.

Is it a 72 hour window for this as well, Your Honour?

If it were, you'd have been late by now. I was under the impression you were "prepared to promptly amend the Complaint using the evidence presently available." - If you require a deadline to get it done, you have 48 hours to make it happen or I will hold you in contempt at the maximum penalty and have this case dismissed.

Conclusion
The Motion to Strike is accepted in-part- that of their legal representations. The court now asks @3mkTalal if they remain counsel for the defendants.

Additionally the court requests @hadethegod and @Wallavan to clarify if they intend to keep counsel on, and if not- who their legal counsel is. Counsel & Defendants (or their legally qualified counsel) shall have 48 hours to provide a response.

@3mkTalal has failed to respond to this court. Upon review of their playtime and last seen on the forums, this court is satisfied that counsel has effectively abandoned their clients. As such given the lack of response from @Wallavan as well, this court will seek to have a public defender assigned here as well for them.

 

[Aelia_SingeH3art]

Your Honour, case filing has been amended. If I am late, I do apologise, I had a slight malfunction of diabetes equipment.