Lawsuit: Pending Slime_Mario v. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR 92

S

Slime_Mario

Citizen
Slime_Mario
Slime_Mario
Solicitor
Joined
May 27, 2026
Messages
18

Case Filing



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Slime_Mario
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont (Department of Commerce)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

To properly structure his law firm, Slime_Mario attempted to register "S.M. Law LLC" with the Department of Commerce. Despite meeting every statutory requirement of the Legal Entity Act, the Department of Commerce denied his Certificate of Formation. The DoC enforced an executive policy that converts provisions specified as optional by the law into mandatory requirements. Furthermore, the DoC falsely claimed that the name of Slime_Mario's company in the business plugin, “S.M.Law”, was incompatible with the in-game DB. This claim is proven completely false, as he indeed successfully registered the same name in-game. This denial deprives him from the right to practice law under the legal protections of a limited liability company. The Plaintiff brings this action to ensure his statutory rights, compel the registration of his firm, and hold the Executive Branch accountable to Redmont law.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Slime_Mario (Plaintiff)
2. Department of Commerce (Defendant)

II. FACTS
  1. On June 3, 2026, the Plaintiff submitted a Certificate of Formation to register "S.M. Law LLC" [Exhibit P-003], listing the in-game business database name as "S.M.Law."
  2. The Plaintiff successfully registered the business in-game under the name "S.M.Law" using the server's business plugin [Exhibit P-001], which is active in-game and at S.M.Law · DemocracyCraft Economy Explorer, proving the name is fully compatible.
  3. On June 5, 2026, the Department of Commerce denied the Plaintiff's application, citing discrepancies based on the Legal Entity Act and their Business Incorporation Policy [Exhibit P-002].
  4. In its Rejection Notice [Exhibit P-002], the Department of Commerce claimed the business plugin name "S.M.Law" was invalid because "an in-game DB cannot be formatted with symbols like this."
5. The Legal Entity Act, Part V, Section 1, Subsection 2 reads:
(2) The Certificate of Formation shall set forth:

(a) the name of the Limited Liability Company;

(b) the name of the company in the business plugin, if applicable;

(c) the name of the incorporators;

(d) the nature of the business to be conducted or promoted;

(i) It shall be sufficient to state, either alone or with other businesses or purposes, that the purpose of the Limited Liability Company is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which Limited Liability Company may be organized under the Laws of Redmont, and by such statement all lawful acts and activities shall be within the purposes of the Limited Liability Company, except for express limitations, if any
Click to expand...

6. The Legal Entity Act, Part V, Section 1, Subsection 3 reads:
(3) The Certificate of Formation may set forth:

(a) Any provision for the management of the business and for the conduct of the affairs of the LLC;

(b) Any provision creating, defining, limiting and regulating the powers of the LLC, the managers, the third parties, and the members, or any class of the managers or members

(c) Provisions requiring the vote of a larger portion of the members or of any class thereof, or a larger number of the managers or of any class thereof, than is required by this Act;

(d) A provision limiting the LLC's existence otherwise the LLC shall have perpetual existence;

(e) A provision imposing personal liability for the LLC on its members to a specified extent and upon specified conditions;

(f) A provision setting the conditions for admission and removal of members, managers or any class thereof;

(g) A provision setting the member class or agent characteristics; and

(h) A provision setting the first members or managers.
Click to expand...

7. The Department of Commerce "Business Incorporation Policy" (INFORMATION) reads:
These Provisions are subject to current Business formation rules, as detailed within the Legal Entity Act
Click to expand...
8. The Department of Commerce "Business Incorporation Policy" (CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION REQUIREMENTS) reads:
CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION REQUIREMENTS
All LLC operating agreements shall be subject to the restrictions and requirements as described within this section, subject to DOC employee discretion;
Ownership and Management:
(a) The operating agreement should clearly define the rights and ownership of the members, voting rights, and management structure (whether member-managed or manager-managed).
(b) The name of the company in-game should also be clearly stated.

(2) Capital Contributions:
(a) The agreement should specify the initial and (if applicable) additional capital contributions required from members and the consequences of failing to meet these requirements.

(3) Profit and Loss Distribution:
(a) The agreement should outline how profits and losses will be distributed among members.

(4) Transfer of Membership:
(a) The agreement should clarify the process for new members being added to the LLC as well as the process for removing members whether that be due to inactivity requirements or divestiture. LLCs may also outline methods by which membership can be transferred from one entity to another.

(5) Amendments
(a) Detailing provisions in which amendments are to be made to the Certificate of Formation
(i) Amendments must require atleast a 50% majority of voted members according to voting power

(6) Bylaws
(a) Detailing the nature of which bylaws interact with the Incorporating Entity.

(7) Dissolution
(a) Including provisions for the winding up or dissolution of the Incorporating Entity, subject to the default rules provided in legislation.
Click to expand...

9, The Department of Commerce "Business Incorporation Policy" (FOR COMPLIANCE OFFICERS) reads:
Applications will be forwarded to the #incorporations channel on Discord - a Senior Compliance Officer will open a thread and ping Compliance Officers to discuss the merits of an application based on the aforementioned requirements. There is no set structure to the discussion, however the following question must be addressed:
Does the applicant meet all aforementioned requirements, and if not why.
Click to expand...

10. The Executive Standards Act, Section 9, Subsection 1 reads (excerpt):
Section 9: Department of Commerce (1) The Department of Commerce is charged with the following primary responsibilities:

(a) Maintaining a prosperous national economic state.

(b) Advancing employment opportunities and guidelines for occupations.

(c) Administration of government grants and the registration of companies.

(d) Enforcing compliance with national corporate standards.
Click to expand...

11. The Verdict of Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 97 reads (excerpt):
2. It is written in the Constitution that the Executive branch “administers and enforces the law respectively, as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary”.
3. These two statements are written clearly for the intent to outline exactly what each branch may and may not do.
4. Thus, it is the opinion of the court that anything to the contrary of these two statements must pass by a Constitutional amendment.
6. The Executive branch may not interpret laws without a Constitutional amendment giving it the power to. Likewise, the Judicial branch may not enforce or execute laws without a Constitutional amendment providing it with the power to do so.
Click to expand...

12. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part XI, Section 7 reads:
7. Failure to Perform Statutory Duty
Violation Type: Negligent
Remedy: Writ of Mandamus
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) being a government officer or body, fails to perform a duty required by law; and
(b) the failure causes harm to the plaintiff.
This violation shall not occur where:
(c) the failure was due to circumstances beyond the defendant’s control.
Click to expand...

13. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 4 reads:
4. Nominal Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Nominal damages are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages.

(2) Award:
(a) Nominal damages shall not exceed $7,500.

(3) Diminution of Award:
(a) There shall be no diminution of award or defences to nominal damages.
Click to expand...

14. The Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III, Section 7 reads (excerpt):
7. Legal Fees
(1) Definition:
(a) Legal fees are most commonly used to describe the fees paid to the attorney for their time and effort.

(2) Award:
(d) Legal fees shall be awarded at a minimum of $3,000 for any case heard by the District Court.
Click to expand...

15. The Verdict of xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62 reads (excerpt):
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.
The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $2,500 (Nominal Damages) and unfine Co-Plaintiff Krix the same amount.
Click to expand...

16. The Department of Commerce denied the Plaintiff's application because it contained no provisions regarding ownership and management, capital contributions, profit and loss distribution, transfer of membership, amendments, bylaws, and dissolution [Exhibit P-002]. All of these provisions are categorized as optional under the LEA.

17. The Plaintiff did not suffer direct financial damages from this denial, but remains unable to operate his law form under an LLC as sought through the application, and is thereby deprived of the legal benefits associated with an LLC.

18. On June 21, 2026, DOC Compliance Officer Planke32 issued a formal denial of the application, explicitly denying the application for failing to include "recommended amendments".[Exhibit P-005].

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
  1. Violation of Constitutional Rights
    1. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont vests legislative power in the Congress and executive authority in the President.
    2. Under Dartanman v. Commonwealth [2022] FCR 97, the Executive branch may exercise only those powers explicitly granted by law.
    3. The Legal Entity Act explicitly distinguishes between mandatory requirements (what a certificate "shall set forth") and optional provisions (what a certificate "may set forth").
    4. The Department of Commerce's "Business Incorporation Policy" treats optional provisions as mandatory requirements.
    5. The Department's policy explicitly states that its provisions are "subject to current Business formation rules, as detailed within the Legal Entity Act". By its very own terms, the policy is subject to the LEA and cannot override it.
    6. In denying the Plaintiff's application, the Department of Commerce enforced mandatory requirements that Congress explicitly set as optional provisions under the LEA.
    7. By denying the formation of the LLC based on requirements not set by Congress and not found within the LEA, the Department of Commerce exceeded its lawful authority and acted ultra vires.
  2. Failure to Perform Statutory Duty
    1. Part XI, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act establishes a civil violation when a government officer or body fails to perform a duty required by law and that failure causes harm to the plaintiff.
    2. The Department of Commerce is charged under Section 9 of the Executive Standards Act with the registration of companies.
    3. The Plaintiff submitted an application that complied with all of the requirements in the Legal Entity Act.
    4. Because the Plaintiff satisfied every requirement in the LEA, the Department of Commerce was required by law to register the company.
    5. In denying the application exclusively upon requirements not found in the LEA, the Department of Commerce failed to perform its statutory duty. This failure caused harm by depriving the Plaintiff of the legal benefits associated with an LLC.
    6. Under Redmont law, a Writ of Mandamus is the established remedy for a Failure to Perform Statutory Duty.
    7. Since the Department of Commerce has failed to perform its statutory duty, a Writ of Mandamus that compels the DoC to approve the Plaintiff's Certificate of Formation is appropriate.
  3. Denial of Due Process
    1. In denying the Plaintiff's Certificate of Formation, the Department of Commerce claimed that "S.M.Law" was an invalid database name because the database could not format symbols like "." [Exhibit P-002].
    2. This claim is contradicted by Exhibit P-001 and the official public business registry at S.M.Law · DemocracyCraft Economy Explorer, both of which prove that the Plaintiff successfully registered the name in the in-game database.
    3. The Department of Commerce's blatant factual error proves that the DoC failed to perform even a basic verification before issuing their denial.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
  1. A Declaratory Judgment declaring that the Department of Commerce's "Business Incorporation Policy" may not treat provisions designated as optional under the Legal Entity Act as mandatory requirements.
  2. A Writ of Mandamus compelling the Department of Commerce to immediately approve and register the Certificate of Formation for "S.M. Law LLC" as it fully satisfies the requirements of the Legal Entity Act.
  3. $2,500.00 in Nominal Damages to recognize the infringement of the Plaintiff's right to form an LLC.
    1. Part III, Section 4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act establishes nominal damages which recognize the infringement of a right even in the absence of substantial damages.
    2. In xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62, the Federal Court awarded nominal damages of $2,500.00 after ruling in favor of the plaintiff and granting a modified prayer for relief.
    3. The Plaintiff seeks a consistent amount of $2,500.00 in nominal damages.
  4. $3,000.00 in Legal Fees, payable to Slime_Mario, per the mandatory minimum for District Court civil cases under Civil Code Part III, Section 7.

EVIDENCE:
* P-001: Screenshot of the successful in-game business registration of "S.M.Law."
P-001.png
* P-002: Screenshot of the Department of Commerce Rejection Notice sent to the Plaintiff on June 5, 2026.
P-002.png
* P-003: The Plaintiff's original Certificate of Formation for "S.M. Law LLC," submitted on June 3, 2026.
(attached below)

WITNESSES:
* None.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 7th day of June 2026.

 

Attachments

Last edited:

Writ of Summons



@Superwoops is commanded to appear before the District Court in the case of Slime_Mario v. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR XX

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.

 
Muggy21 said:
You have 48 Hours to present an answer.

Furthermore, this is a small claims proceeding and I'd like to keep things more informally and resolve this matter more efficiently.
Click to expand...
Good afternoon your honour,
Respectfully requesting a 24-hour extension. I may not need it but I'm being cautious.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Slime_Mario
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Commerce
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirm.
2. Affirm.
3. Affirm.
4. Affirm.
5. Affirm.
6. Affirm.
7. Affirm.
8. Affirm.
9. Affirm.
10. Affirm.
11. Affirm.
12. Affirm.
13. Affirm.
14. Affirm.
15. Affirm.
16. Deny, noting that the Legal Entity Act bestows the DOC with rulemaking power to regulate registration procedures and requirements, including those disputed by the Plaintiff, rendering these as required under the LEA.
17. Affirm.


II. DEFENCES
1. The DOC is given broad rulemaking power by the Legal Entity Act. It is entirely reasonable for the Department to impose regulations, as these ultimately end up protecting the average citizen. Notably, the DOC is charged with the "Administration of government grants and the registration of companies" and "Maintaining a prosperous national economic state." Should it not be able to create policy, it would be failing these two tasks.
2. Ultra Vires Executive Action is not a recognised claim under the RCCA. The RCCA is the single source of truth for civil violations.
3. Factually Erroneous Denial is not a recognised claim under the RCCA. The RCCA is the single source of truth for civil violations.


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.

 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DISCOVERY SUBMISSION & AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
(Pursuant to Court Rules 3.3 and 4.6)

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff submits the following evidence:

* P-004: Screenshot of reply to the "S.M. Law LLC" application from Deputy Secretary of Commerce EATB, admitting that the database name "S.M.Law" is fully valid in the new Economy plugin, and admitting that his feedback regarding the dissolution clause was a "lazy cut-and-paste response."
P-004.png

* P-005: Screenshot of the formal Denial of the "S.M. Law LLC" application by DOC Compliance Officer Planke32, stating: "Denied. No response. Feel free to apply again with EATB's recommended amendments".
P-005.png


The Plaintiff amends the Complaint as follows:

I. FACTS — AMENDED

The following facts are added to the Complaint:
18. On June 21, 2026, DOC Compliance Officer Planke32 issued a formal denial of the application, explicitly denying the application for failing to include "recommended amendments".[Exhibit P-005].

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF — AMENDED

The headers of the Plaintiff's Claims for Relief are amended to explicitly state the recognized civil violations under the RCCA. This formatting change does not alter the substantive arguments of the Plaintiff's case:
  • Claim 1 is renamed to: Violation of Constitutional Rights.
  • Claim 2 remains as: Failure to Perform Statutory Duty.
  • Claim 3 is renamed to: Denial of Due Process.
Respectfully submitted,

Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure / Relevance

Your Honor, the Plaintiff formally objects to the Defendant's listing of the "Staff Team" as a witness on the following grounds:

  1. Breach of Procedure: Under the established Staff Precedent as applied in DocTheory v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 42, the Court may only call upon the Staff Team to clarify technical/plugin factual issues, not legal roleplay.
  2. Relevance: As the Defendant already Affirmed Facts 1 through 15, conceding that the database name "S.M.Law" is fully compatible with in-game plugin, there are no unresolved technical aspects of the case to clarify. Therefore, any testimony from the Staff Team is completely irrelevant to this case. The only remaining dispute in this case is a legal question over the interpretation of the Legal Entity Act. Witnesses cannot testify to legal interpretation as this would call for a conclusion, which is entirely irrelevant to factual testimony.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this witness listing be struck from the record.

 
Slime_Mario said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure / Relevance

Your Honor, the Plaintiff formally objects to the Defendant's listing of the "Staff Team" as a witness on the following grounds:

  1. Breach of Procedure: Under the established Staff Precedent as applied in DocTheory v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 42, the Court may only call upon the Staff Team to clarify technical/plugin factual issues, not legal roleplay.
  2. Relevance: As the Defendant already Affirmed Facts 1 through 15, conceding that the database name "S.M.Law" is fully compatible with in-game plugin, there are no unresolved technical aspects of the case to clarify. Therefore, any testimony from the Staff Team is completely irrelevant to this case. The only remaining dispute in this case is a legal question over the interpretation of the Legal Entity Act. Witnesses cannot testify to legal interpretation as this would call for a conclusion, which is entirely irrelevant to factual testimony.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this witness listing be struck from the record.

Click to expand...
It has come to the DOC’s attention that the plugin limitations are an issue that must be brought to the Court’s attention as a yet-unresolved matter. This is in relation to in-game /db naming and what has previously been told to the DOC.
We see no reason to strike the witness.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE
The Plaintiff respectfully moves for the recusal of the Presiding Officer, Judge Muggy21, from this case, and in support thereof, alleges:

  1. Actual and Perceived Bias: Under the established grounds for recusal in the Guide - Motions, a Judge must remove themselves from a case due to actual or perceived impartiality or conflict of interest.
  2. Direct Personal Conflict: On June 21, 2026, the Presiding Officer, acting in his private capacity as the owner and operator of The Stock Exchange (TSE), took retaliatory, punitive action against the Plaintiff. The Presiding Officer banned the Plaintiff from the exchange due to personal animosity arising from a public Discord debate.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that a new, impartial Judicial Officer be assigned to preside over these proceedings.

 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
On Recusal - Slime_Mario v. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR 92


A presiding officer must recuse where there exists actual bias, or where the circumstances would cause a reasonable and well-informed observer to perceive a disqualifying partiality or conflict of interest, and the burden rests on the moving party to establish such grounds.


The Plaintiff's theory reduces to the proposition that a single adverse personal interaction renders a judge incapable of impartial service, and that proposition is rejected. Judges are not hermits. They are active members of the same community as the parties who appear before them, they operate businesses, they participate in public discourse, and they will inevitably cross paths with litigants in ordinary community life. If every prior disagreement or unfavorable encounter disqualified a presiding officer, no judge who participated in the life of Redmont could ever sit. The standard requires far more than friction; it requires a conflict of such character that the officer cannot be trusted to decide the matter on its merits, and a mere negative interaction does not meet that threshold. Beyond this, the motion fails for want of any evidence. It rests entirely on bare assertion that the Plaintiff was banned from a private exchange in retaliation and out of personal animosity, yet not one of these allegations is supported by any exhibit or documentation, despite the Plaintiff having shown throughout this proceeding a clear capacity to produce such material. Conclusory characterizations of another person's motives carry no evidentiary weight and cannot satisfy the moving party's burden.

Furthermore, as a secondary reason for denial, the personal dispute at hand was regarding Plaintiff's opinion on a matter wholy disconnected from the matter at hand. This action concerns whether the Department of Commerce lawfully denied a Certificate of Formation under the Legal Entity Act, a question of statutory interpretation.



The motion is DENIED.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
On Recusal of Judge Muggy21 - Slime_Mario v. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR 92

The plaintiff has alleged an actual and perceived bias based on the alligation of a conflict between honorable judge Muggy and themselves outside of court. The allegation is based on a disagreement that lead to the plaintiff being banned from judge Muggy's private business.

It is important to understand that Judicial officers are citizens themselves and may wear many faces. Faces that may include business owners, department employees and private citizens. A judicial officer's ability to act reasonably in these faces or roles should not be impeaded by the fact they are a judicial officer. This type of standard applied by the plaintiff in their motion would force judicial officer's to become hermits. We are people, people interact with other people. Every interaction may not be pleasurable and that does not mean we are forever bias against them. Bias must go much further then private disagreement on unrelated matters.

Bias for the purpose of recusal must illustrate bias as a judical officer, not just as a person. This does not mean the bias must be shown in court by the judicial officer but that there is a reasonable appearance that the bias will extend to the court room if not in court already. The plaintiff has failed to illustrate this.

I must disagree with Judge Muggy on one issue in his reasoning for denial. Judge Muggy states "Beyond this, the motion fails for want of any evidence. It rests entirely on bare assertion......not one of these allegations is supported by any exhibit or documentation" Even though Judge Muggy clearly understand the incident being refered to in the motion by the fact that he addresses it in his last paragraph, he still lists a reason for denial as lack of evidence. This feels like a technical way to skirt around the issue of a fair trial. If true bias was shown, and the presiding officer is aware of such, then the presiding officer is responsible for recusing themselve. I would consider it a breach in the fairness of the trial if a judicial officer knew they were bias and failed to recuse, no matter if it was sucessfully proven by a party to the case.

However, Judge Muggy is correct in bringing up the issue for lack of evidence. For I, as an uninformed party on the incident in question, have nothing to work with. This is a big he said, she said scenerio. Since the motion requested a ruling from a second judical officer, evidence should have been provided to inform them. Even though I stated that Judge Muggy can't deny the motion for lack of evidence as he shows understanding in the circumstances being alleged, I can deny this motion for lack of evidence as I do not share that same level of understanding. But, when taking the plaintiff at their word in their motion, it still does not rise to the level of recusal.


The Motion to Recusal is Denied

So Adjudicated
Judge Ko

 
@Slime_Mario You have until 7/4/26 @ 9pm EDT to present an Opening Statement. An extension to 7/6/26 @ 9pm EDT is automatically granted if you request it in the docket.

@Johnes You have 72 Hours after the submission with an automatic 48 hour deadline extension if advised during the period.
 
Slime_Mario said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure / Relevance

Your Honor, the Plaintiff formally objects to the Defendant's listing of the "Staff Team" as a witness on the following grounds:

  1. Breach of Procedure: Under the established Staff Precedent as applied in DocTheory v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 42, the Court may only call upon the Staff Team to clarify technical/plugin factual issues, not legal roleplay.
  2. Relevance: As the Defendant already Affirmed Facts 1 through 15, conceding that the database name "S.M.Law" is fully compatible with in-game plugin, there are no unresolved technical aspects of the case to clarify. Therefore, any testimony from the Staff Team is completely irrelevant to this case. The only remaining dispute in this case is a legal question over the interpretation of the Legal Entity Act. Witnesses cannot testify to legal interpretation as this would call for a conclusion, which is entirely irrelevant to factual testimony.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this witness listing be struck from the record.

Click to expand...

Overruled, the CW proffers that there may be a plugin issue that is pertinent.
 

Opening Statement



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT

Introduction

Your Honor, the Defendant has affirmed in Fact 2 that the database name "S.M.Law" is fully compatible with in-game plugin. The only remaining dispute in this case is a legal question over the interpretation of the LEA.

While the Defense attempted to "Deny" Fact 16, a close reading of their Answer reveals that they did not actually dispute the factual truth of the rejection. They do not deny that the seven provisions were categorized as optional under the LEA, nor do they deny that the DoC rejected the Plaintiff's application for omitting those seven optional provisions. Instead, the Defense attempted to hide a legal argument inside a factual pleading, claiming the DOC’s "rulemaking power" allows them to overwrite the LEA.

Having conceded the facts, the Defense now relies on a fundamental misinterpretation of administrative law and a formatting complaint that is already obsolete to defend this unconstitutional overreach.

The core issue before this Court is simple: May an Executive Department rewrite an Act of Congress by converting its optional provisions into mandatory requirements? The Constitution and the law say no.

Part I - Ultra Vires Executive Rulemaking

In Defense 1, the Defendant argues that the DoC has "broad rulemaking power" under the Legal Entity Act to impose these regulations. This is factually and legally incorrect.

The DOC's rulemaking power is strictly limited by LEA Part VII, Section 3, which restricts their authority to four administrative areas: (a) procedures and filings in the company docket, (b) The naming of companies, © the format of filings; and, and (d) financial reports of non-profits. It deliberately omits the power to change optional provisions into mandatory requirements for LLCs. The Defendant is asking the Court to invent "broad" powers that the legislature explicitly chose not to grant. The creation of this specific list with only four points makes it clear that Congress did not intend to grant the DOC the power to invent new substantive requirements or have essentially unlimited authority over the LEA, as otherwise there would be no need for the legislature to specify those four narrow areas.

Additionally, there is a difference between procedural rulemaking with substantive lawmaking. An Executive Department cannot use procedural rulemaking to override or rewrite the substantive text of the law. That would allow the Executive Branch to completely nullify the Legislature. The DoC may regulate the format of a filing, but cannot use this power to completely overwrite the substantive elements set by the LEA. For example, the LEA provides explicit default rules for dissolution under Part III, Section 10(1), Congress intentionally created these default rules so that citizens could choose not to write their own dissolution clauses. By creating their own substantive rules that mandate that every LLC must write a dissolution clause, the DoC's policy renders the LEA’s default rules pointless, revoking the entire purpose the legislature designed these default rules for.

The Defense argues that because the DoC is tasked with the "registration of companies," they must have the power to create policies for registration. The Plaintiff agrees the DOC can create policy, but they can only create policy that administers the law as written. The power to register a company does not grant the Executive branch the power to override Congress. Congress explicitly designated these provisions as optional under LEA Part V, Section 1(3). The DOC cannot claim it is "protecting the average citizen" by overriding this choice given to the citizen by the legislature that was specifically designed so they wouldn’t have to write a super long overly complicated document. As affirmed by the Defense in Fact 11, the Executive branch administers the law as written by the legislature and may not interpret laws to grant themselves more power over the citzen.

Furthermore, the DOC's very own Business Incorporation Policy explicitly states: "These Provisions are subject to current Business formation rules, as detailed within the Legal Entity Act." By its very own terms, the policy is subordinate to the LEA and cannot override it.

Part II - Moot Formatting Complaints

In Defenses 2 and 3, the Defense attempts a pedantic, semantic distraction, arguing that "Ultra Vires Executive Action" and "Factually Erroneous Denial" are not recognized claims under the Redmont Civil Code Act. T

The Plaintiff originally used descriptive headers to more precisely describe the exact nature of the DoC's offenses. Regardless, the claims not matching exactly to the RCCA has been resolved by amending the Case Filling during Discovery. The Defense’s formatting complaints are entirely moot.

Part III - Irrelevance of Summoning the Staff Team

The Defense has attempted to frame the DoC's denial as a reasonable administrative action made by experts and necessary to protect the public. The evidence shows otherwise.

Following the initial filing of this lawsuit, Deputy Commerce Secretary EATB contacted the Plantiff in the registration ticket. The Deputy Secretary admitted that denying "S.M.Law" for being incompatible for the database was completely baseless, stating: "your in-game DB filing is completely valid... S.M.Law is, without any doubt, an in-game company permitted". He further admitted that the feedback rejecting the application for a lack of dissolution clauses was a "lazy cut-and-paste response" that applied to corporations, not LLCs.

While the Deputy Secretary attempted to claim that dissolution provisions are still required by law, he ignores the fact that the LEA explicitly provides default rules for dissolution specifically for LLCs that choose not to write their own.

A government department cannot base its administrative decisions on unverified assumptions about its own systems. This renders the DOC's decision-making completely arbitrary.


While the Defense has summoned the Staff Team in an attempt to retroactively validate their database rejection, this does not resolve the violation of rights that has occurred. DoC Compliance Officer Planke32 delivered a formal denial and stated: "Feel free to apply again with EATB's recommended amendments,” clearly indicating that the missing amendments were the main reason for the denial.

Your Honor, the DOC officially denied an application fully compliant with the LEA because it lacked "recommended amendments." The DoC legally cannot treat their recommendations as mandatory requirements and prevent people from exercising their right to register a company. The DoC has clearly exceeded its statutory authority.

Conclusion

The DoC's denial was legally unauthorized, factually baseless, and fundamentally unconstitutional. The Defendant has offered no valid constitutional or statutory defense for overriding the LEA and converting optional provisions into mandatory requirements. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court strike down this overreach, and award nominal damages and legal fees as outlined in the Prayer for Relief.


Respectfully submitted,

Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented

 
May it be known to all members of this court that the judge didn't just have a personal interaction with the defendant, but

1) allegedly broke the law by confiscating property that the defendant can no longer retrieve due to being banned from the server

2) allegedly banned the defendant from the server after an attempted public whistleblowing attempt regarding the judge's prediction markets.

the addition of allegedly is because I personally do not have the time to verify the claims by the defendant.

I politely and respectfully ask that this judge recuse himself from the case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the unauthorized remarks posted by the third-party individual totemundying in Post #29.

This individual is not a party to this case, is not legal counsel, and posted these remarks entirely without the authorization or consent of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is committed to maintaining the utmost respect for this Court.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that these remarks to be struck from the record in their entirety.

Respectfully submitted,

Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented

 
Last edited:
essx said:
May it be known to all members of this court that the judge didn't just have a personal interaction with the defendant, but

1) allegedly broke the law by confiscating property that the defendant can no longer retrieve due to being banned from the server

2) allegedly banned the defendant from the server after an attempted public whistleblowing attempt regarding the judge's prediction markets.

the addition of allegedly is because I personally do not have the time to verify the claims by the defendant.

I politely and respectfully ask that this judge recuse himself from the case.
Click to expand...

Under Rule 1.4.2, the Court finds essx in direct Criminal Contempt. They shall be fined $12,000 and be imprisoned for 10 minutes.

Furthermore, this Solicitor bragged and solicited favour based on this contemptous behaviour. This behaviour must be penalized for the disrepute it brings to the legal profession. I issue a Conduct Strike against the Solicitor for conduct unbecoming an officer of the Court.


Slime_Mario said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the unauthorized remarks posted by the third-party individual totemundying in Post #29.

This individual is not a party to this case, is not legal counsel, and posted these remarks entirely without the authorization or consent of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is committed to maintaining the utmost respect for this Court.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that these remarks to be struck from the record in their entirety.

Respectfully submitted,

Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented

Click to expand...

Sustained.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour,
the Department of Commerce simply exercised its given powers to protect the public.

§ 9(1) of the Executive Standards Act outlines the primary responsibilities of the DOC as follows:

(1) The Department of Commerce is charged with the following primary responsibilities:

(a) Maintaining a prosperous national economic state.

(b) Advancing employment opportunities and guidelines for occupations.

(c) Administration of government grants and the registration of companies.

(d) Enforcing compliance with national corporate standards.
Click to expand...
Part VII §§ 3(1-2) of the Legal Entity Act provide as follows:
(1) The DOC shall have rulemaking power to regulate:

(a) procedures and filings in the company docket;

(b) The naming of companies;

(c) the format of filings; and

(d) financial reports of non-profits.

(2) All rules must suit a legitimate government purpose and be reasonably tailored to achieve such a purpose.
Click to expand...
This gives the DOC rulemaking power to fulfill the responsibilities it has been charged in in § 9(1) of the ESA.

In this case, the DOC applied reasonable rules to protect the public and fulfill their responsibilities. (Id.).

DOC's rules are not "overriding" the legislature, as Plaintiff claims, but are enacting needed rules and regulations to enforce the laws and protect the public. These are reasonable limitations put forth.

 

Writ of Summons



@Staff is requested to appear in the case of Slime_Mario v. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR 92

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.

 
It is bequeathed upon my soul to acquaint Your Venerable Lordship Muggy with the finest conceptual understandings and most earnest deliberations from the Great Banhammerers, who hath signified their desire to answer the summons laid before them. To that noble conclusion, we shall convene the Grand Council and consult the sacred tomes of documentation, examining every matter deemed necessary by Your Lordship, to arrive with all haste to a manner of satisfaction.
 
Staff Team said:
It is bequeathed upon my soul to acquaint Your Venerable Lordship Muggy with the finest conceptual understandings and most earnest deliberations from the Great Banhammerers, who hath signified their desire to answer the summons laid before them. To that noble conclusion, we shall convene the Grand Council and consult the sacred tomes of documentation, examining every matter deemed necessary by Your Lordship, to arrive with all haste to a manner of satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Your Honour, I'd like to file an amicus brief on the admissibility of this response as a response to summons, and how Court Culture has revolved around this. I have no pecuniary outcomes in this case, apart from the fact that I am a DOC Compliance Officer, but my brief would not revolve around those matters nor do I have any regard for the DOC in this matter as I have not been involved at all.

Edited in: Please give me 5 days to do so as it will need alot of research.
 
Staff Team said:
It is bequeathed upon my soul to acquaint Your Venerable Lordship Muggy with the finest conceptual understandings and most earnest deliberations from the Great Banhammerers, who hath signified their desire to answer the summons laid before them. To that noble conclusion, we shall convene the Grand Council and consult the sacred tomes of documentation, examining every matter deemed necessary by Your Lordship, to arrive with all haste to a manner of satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Okay unc,

@Johnes Ask your questions while Tech eats pancakes he's been graciously told to eat.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour, I'd like to file an amicus brief on the admissibility of this response as a response to summons, and how Court Culture has revolved around this. I have no pecuniary outcomes in this case, apart from the fact that I am a DOC Compliance Officer, but my brief would not revolve around those matters nor do I have any regard for the DOC in this matter as I have not been involved at all.

Edited in: Please give me 5 days to do so as it will need alot of research.
Click to expand...

Declined.
 
Staff Team said:
It is bequeathed upon my soul to acquaint Your Venerable Lordship Muggy with the finest conceptual understandings and most earnest deliberations from the Great Banhammerers, who hath signified their desire to answer the summons laid before them. To that noble conclusion, we shall convene the Grand Council and consult the sacred tomes of documentation, examining every matter deemed necessary by Your Lordship, to arrive with all haste to a manner of satisfaction.
Click to expand...
1. Is the name "S.M.Law" permissible to be used as an in-game DB name?
2. Are there any special characters one may not use when registering a DB name?
3. Would the inclusion of aforementioned special characters cause problems with plugins?

Defendant reserves the right to ask follow-ups.
 
Johnes said:
1. Is the name "S.M.Law" permissible to be used as an in-game DB name?
2. Are there any special characters one may not use when registering a DB name?
3. Would the inclusion of aforementioned special characters cause problems with plugins?

Defendant reserves the right to ask follow-ups.
Click to expand...

1. Upon consultation with the Great Wizard Rian, it lieth within our domain to declare, with complete confidence, that this humble notion placed in front of the Grand Council holds standing before us, and shall not be smitten by divine messengers by dawn's rise.

2. To the utmost knowledge possessed by the Grand Council, no symbols, runes, or incantations have been decreed inadvisable, under the great and luxerious intelligence that is known as Hibernia Economy wrought by the Great and Formidable Wizard Rian.

3. The Grand Council believeth this humble petition hath been answered in sufficient measure to satisfy the Most Vernerable Lord Muggy. Accordingly, the remainder of mine breath shall be issued toward the observance of greater things, including the solemn debate between the Honoured Waffle and the Nobel Pancake.

The Grand Council has deemed the following image to be a matter of critical importance, to be cast into the mental state of all those who deem themselves worthy.
1783890361310.png

Thine Defense is requested to action a 'ping' before the Great Manager Angryhamdog, in any instances of a renewed petition towards the Grand Council. @Johnes (@mug)
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

The Plaintiff respectfully moves for judgment as a matter of law against the Defense on all three of its Defenses, and in support thereof, alleges:

Introduction

Your Honor, the Defense has submitted no evidence at all, and the only witness it summoned ended up agreeing with the Plaintiff. There is nothing left for the witness to say, all that remains is a question of law: whether the DOC's Business Incorporation Policy is unlawful for treating optional LEA provisions as mandatory requirements.

Court Rule 9.2 allows a motion for judgment as a matter of law to be made "at any time before closing statements are posted," and closing statements have not been posted.

At the start of this case, Your Honor stated a desire to "resolve this matter more efficiently." This motion will finally resolve this matter, which has taken more than a month.

Part I - Standards Under Rule 9.2

Rule 9.2 allows the Court, once it has fully heard an issue and "finds no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue," to "resolve the issue against the party and grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense."

However, two provisions of the Judicial Standards Act affect how that rule applies as the JSA outranks the Court Rules according to Rule 1.1 and Rule 1.1.1.

JSA Part II, Section 3(1)(a) sets the civil proceeding standard as the balance of probabilities. The question is therefore whether the Defense has placed anything before this Court that a judge could rely on to rule in its favor. It has placed nothing.

JSA Part II, Section 2(2)(a) states that "in affirmative defences, it is on the moving party to show their burden to prove their argument." Defense 1 does not dispute the Plaintiff's facts but instead argues that those facts were lawful. Thus it is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving it belongs to the Defense, who has placed nothing.

Part II - There Are No Disputed Facts

The Defense affirmed Facts 1 through 15 and Fact 17.

Fact 16 was answered with "Deny" yet denies nothing.

Fact 16 states two things: that the DOC rejected the application because it left out seven provisions, and that all seven of those provisions are optional under the LEA.

The Defense's answer to Fact 16 reads: "Deny, noting that the Legal Entity Act bestows the DOC with rulemaking power to regulate registration procedures and requirements, including those disputed by the Plaintiff, rendering these as required under the LEA."

That answer disputes neither of the points: the Defense never says the DOC rejected the application for some other reason, nor does it say that the seven provisions are not optional. It offers no different account of what happened, and no different reading of the LEA. Instead, it only contains a legal argument.

The Defense's own wording gives the point away by saying that the DOC's rulemaking power is "rendering these as required under the LEA." Something that has to be made required was not required to begin with. The Defense has admitted the very fact it claimed to deny; these seven provisions are optional, and they become "required" only when the DOC's own policy says so.

Under Court Rule 3.2, the Court should look past the label on an answer. It requires green text for any answer that affirms or "effectively pleads no contest" to a fact. As the Defense answered the pleading by neither confirming nor denying, it effectively pleads no contest to the fact for the purposes of a Verdict.

Fact 18 was neither affirmed nor denied.

On June 29, 2026, the final day of discovery, the Defense stated: "The Defense neither affirms nor denies fact 18." Neither confirming nor denying is a plea of no contest.

Court Rule 3.6 requires a defendant to affirm or deny every fact before discovery closes, and states that a failure to do so is "grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant on the undefended claims or facts." The Plaintiff requests default judgment on Fact 18.

Part III - The Defenses Fail

Defense 1 claims the DOC holds "broad rulemaking power."

The Defense must prove this and has proved nothing. This is an affirmative defense, so under JSA Part II, Section 2(2)(a) the burden belongs to the Defense. It has filed no evidence. It called one witness, who was irrelevant to this defense. There is no basis on which the Court could rule for the Defense on Defense 1.

Defenses 2 and 3 claim the Plaintiff's claims are not recognized under the Redmont Civil Code Act. On June 21, 2026, during discovery, the Plaintiff amended the Claims for Relief. The claims now included are directly recognized in the RCCA.

The Defense never amended its Answer. Defenses 2 and 3 are completely moot.

Part IV - Right to a Speedy and Fair Trial

This case has already passed through two different defense counsel. Superwoops filed the Answer, then withdrew on June 29, 2026. Johnes took over on July 1, 2026. As of July 13, 2026, the Department of Justice is on strike, and the Commonwealth may now struggle to respond at all.

The Plaintiff does not object to the Commonwealth receiving extra time to reply to this motion. The DOJ Union has encouraged its members to request extensions on court deadlines.

While the strike is a fair reason to allow the Commonwealth a longer time to write a reply, it is not a reason to hold this case open indefinitely. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to a speedy and fair trial, and the Plaintiff has been unable to practice law under the protection of an LLC since June 5, 2026.

Conclusion

Your Honor, the facts are settled, and the Defendant has filed no evidence, and the sole witness it summoned confirmed the Plaintiff's case. Nothing remains that a trial could resolve.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court resolve these issues against the Defendant, grant this Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and award judgment in favor of the Plaintiff as outlined in the Prayer for Relief.

Respectfully submitted,

Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented

DATED: This 14th day of July 2026.

 
Slime_Mario said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

The Plaintiff respectfully moves for judgment as a matter of law against the Defense on all three of its Defenses, and in support thereof, alleges:

Introduction

Your Honor, the Defense has submitted no evidence at all, and the only witness it summoned ended up agreeing with the Plaintiff. There is nothing left for the witness to say, all that remains is a question of law: whether the DOC's Business Incorporation Policy is unlawful for treating optional LEA provisions as mandatory requirements.

Court Rule 9.2 allows a motion for judgment as a matter of law to be made "at any time before closing statements are posted," and closing statements have not been posted.

At the start of this case, Your Honor stated a desire to "resolve this matter more efficiently." This motion will finally resolve this matter, which has taken more than a month.

Part I - Standards Under Rule 9.2

Rule 9.2 allows the Court, once it has fully heard an issue and "finds no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue," to "resolve the issue against the party and grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense."

However, two provisions of the Judicial Standards Act affect how that rule applies as the JSA outranks the Court Rules according to Rule 1.1 and Rule 1.1.1.

JSA Part II, Section 3(1)(a) sets the civil proceeding standard as the balance of probabilities. The question is therefore whether the Defense has placed anything before this Court that a judge could rely on to rule in its favor. It has placed nothing.

JSA Part II, Section 2(2)(a) states that "in affirmative defences, it is on the moving party to show their burden to prove their argument." Defense 1 does not dispute the Plaintiff's facts but instead argues that those facts were lawful. Thus it is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving it belongs to the Defense, who has placed nothing.

Part II - There Are No Disputed Facts

The Defense affirmed Facts 1 through 15 and Fact 17.

Fact 16 was answered with "Deny" yet denies nothing.

Fact 16 states two things: that the DOC rejected the application because it left out seven provisions, and that all seven of those provisions are optional under the LEA.

The Defense's answer to Fact 16 reads: "Deny, noting that the Legal Entity Act bestows the DOC with rulemaking power to regulate registration procedures and requirements, including those disputed by the Plaintiff, rendering these as required under the LEA."

That answer disputes neither of the points: the Defense never says the DOC rejected the application for some other reason, nor does it say that the seven provisions are not optional. It offers no different account of what happened, and no different reading of the LEA. Instead, it only contains a legal argument.

The Defense's own wording gives the point away by saying that the DOC's rulemaking power is "rendering these as required under the LEA." Something that has to be made required was not required to begin with. The Defense has admitted the very fact it claimed to deny; these seven provisions are optional, and they become "required" only when the DOC's own policy says so.

Under Court Rule 3.2, the Court should look past the label on an answer. It requires green text for any answer that affirms or "effectively pleads no contest" to a fact. As the Defense answered the pleading by neither confirming nor denying, it effectively pleads no contest to the fact for the purposes of a Verdict.

Fact 18 was neither affirmed nor denied.

On June 29, 2026, the final day of discovery, the Defense stated: "The Defense neither affirms nor denies fact 18." Neither confirming nor denying is a plea of no contest.

Court Rule 3.6 requires a defendant to affirm or deny every fact before discovery closes, and states that a failure to do so is "grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant on the undefended claims or facts." The Plaintiff requests default judgment on Fact 18.

Part III - The Defenses Fail

Defense 1 claims the DOC holds "broad rulemaking power."

The Defense must prove this and has proved nothing. This is an affirmative defense, so under JSA Part II, Section 2(2)(a) the burden belongs to the Defense. It has filed no evidence. It called one witness, who was irrelevant to this defense. There is no basis on which the Court could rule for the Defense on Defense 1.

Defenses 2 and 3 claim the Plaintiff's claims are not recognized under the Redmont Civil Code Act. On June 21, 2026, during discovery, the Plaintiff amended the Claims for Relief. The claims now included are directly recognized in the RCCA.

The Defense never amended its Answer. Defenses 2 and 3 are completely moot.

Part IV - Right to a Speedy and Fair Trial

This case has already passed through two different defense counsel. Superwoops filed the Answer, then withdrew on June 29, 2026. Johnes took over on July 1, 2026. As of July 13, 2026, the Department of Justice is on strike, and the Commonwealth may now struggle to respond at all.

The Plaintiff does not object to the Commonwealth receiving extra time to reply to this motion. The DOJ Union has encouraged its members to request extensions on court deadlines.

While the strike is a fair reason to allow the Commonwealth a longer time to write a reply, it is not a reason to hold this case open indefinitely. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to a speedy and fair trial, and the Plaintiff has been unable to practice law under the protection of an LLC since June 5, 2026.

Conclusion

Your Honor, the facts are settled, and the Defendant has filed no evidence, and the sole witness it summoned confirmed the Plaintiff's case. Nothing remains that a trial could resolve.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court resolve these issues against the Defendant, grant this Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and award judgment in favor of the Plaintiff as outlined in the Prayer for Relief.

Respectfully submitted,

Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented

DATED: This 14th day of July 2026.

Click to expand...
@Johnes You have 48 hours to respond.
 
Slime_Mario said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

The Plaintiff respectfully moves for judgment as a matter of law against the Defense on all three of its Defenses, and in support thereof, alleges:

Introduction

Your Honor, the Defense has submitted no evidence at all, and the only witness it summoned ended up agreeing with the Plaintiff. There is nothing left for the witness to say, all that remains is a question of law: whether the DOC's Business Incorporation Policy is unlawful for treating optional LEA provisions as mandatory requirements.

Court Rule 9.2 allows a motion for judgment as a matter of law to be made "at any time before closing statements are posted," and closing statements have not been posted.

At the start of this case, Your Honor stated a desire to "resolve this matter more efficiently." This motion will finally resolve this matter, which has taken more than a month.

Part I - Standards Under Rule 9.2

Rule 9.2 allows the Court, once it has fully heard an issue and "finds no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue," to "resolve the issue against the party and grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense."

However, two provisions of the Judicial Standards Act affect how that rule applies as the JSA outranks the Court Rules according to Rule 1.1 and Rule 1.1.1.

JSA Part II, Section 3(1)(a) sets the civil proceeding standard as the balance of probabilities. The question is therefore whether the Defense has placed anything before this Court that a judge could rely on to rule in its favor. It has placed nothing.

JSA Part II, Section 2(2)(a) states that "in affirmative defences, it is on the moving party to show their burden to prove their argument." Defense 1 does not dispute the Plaintiff's facts but instead argues that those facts were lawful. Thus it is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving it belongs to the Defense, who has placed nothing.

Part II - There Are No Disputed Facts

The Defense affirmed Facts 1 through 15 and Fact 17.

Fact 16 was answered with "Deny" yet denies nothing.

Fact 16 states two things: that the DOC rejected the application because it left out seven provisions, and that all seven of those provisions are optional under the LEA.

The Defense's answer to Fact 16 reads: "Deny, noting that the Legal Entity Act bestows the DOC with rulemaking power to regulate registration procedures and requirements, including those disputed by the Plaintiff, rendering these as required under the LEA."

That answer disputes neither of the points: the Defense never says the DOC rejected the application for some other reason, nor does it say that the seven provisions are not optional. It offers no different account of what happened, and no different reading of the LEA. Instead, it only contains a legal argument.

The Defense's own wording gives the point away by saying that the DOC's rulemaking power is "rendering these as required under the LEA." Something that has to be made required was not required to begin with. The Defense has admitted the very fact it claimed to deny; these seven provisions are optional, and they become "required" only when the DOC's own policy says so.

Under Court Rule 3.2, the Court should look past the label on an answer. It requires green text for any answer that affirms or "effectively pleads no contest" to a fact. As the Defense answered the pleading by neither confirming nor denying, it effectively pleads no contest to the fact for the purposes of a Verdict.

Fact 18 was neither affirmed nor denied.

On June 29, 2026, the final day of discovery, the Defense stated: "The Defense neither affirms nor denies fact 18." Neither confirming nor denying is a plea of no contest.

Court Rule 3.6 requires a defendant to affirm or deny every fact before discovery closes, and states that a failure to do so is "grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant on the undefended claims or facts." The Plaintiff requests default judgment on Fact 18.

Part III - The Defenses Fail

Defense 1 claims the DOC holds "broad rulemaking power."

The Defense must prove this and has proved nothing. This is an affirmative defense, so under JSA Part II, Section 2(2)(a) the burden belongs to the Defense. It has filed no evidence. It called one witness, who was irrelevant to this defense. There is no basis on which the Court could rule for the Defense on Defense 1.

Defenses 2 and 3 claim the Plaintiff's claims are not recognized under the Redmont Civil Code Act. On June 21, 2026, during discovery, the Plaintiff amended the Claims for Relief. The claims now included are directly recognized in the RCCA.

The Defense never amended its Answer. Defenses 2 and 3 are completely moot.

Part IV - Right to a Speedy and Fair Trial

This case has already passed through two different defense counsel. Superwoops filed the Answer, then withdrew on June 29, 2026. Johnes took over on July 1, 2026. As of July 13, 2026, the Department of Justice is on strike, and the Commonwealth may now struggle to respond at all.

The Plaintiff does not object to the Commonwealth receiving extra time to reply to this motion. The DOJ Union has encouraged its members to request extensions on court deadlines.

While the strike is a fair reason to allow the Commonwealth a longer time to write a reply, it is not a reason to hold this case open indefinitely. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to a speedy and fair trial, and the Plaintiff has been unable to practice law under the protection of an LLC since June 5, 2026.

Conclusion

Your Honor, the facts are settled, and the Defendant has filed no evidence, and the sole witness it summoned confirmed the Plaintiff's case. Nothing remains that a trial could resolve.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court resolve these issues against the Defendant, grant this Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and award judgment in favor of the Plaintiff as outlined in the Prayer for Relief.

Respectfully submitted,

Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented

DATED: This 14th day of July 2026.

Click to expand...
CW offers no response
 
Hello, Attorney General Juniperfig here with a settlement offer.

I will give everyone in this case (lawyers, parties, judges) $2,500 each if you drop this case with prejudice.

Thank you for your time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top