Lawsuit: In Session The Forge v. roy405 and PhatCat2200 [2026] DCR 154

Considering there are many objections, we will refer to them the following way

1) Name of the witness
2) Question Number
3) Objection Number (from top to bottom)
4) Objection type
5) Objection Reply

e.g: frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)
jsrkiwi said:

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION – CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Asking the witness to opine on what messages are “implying” is asking the witness to opine on a legal conclusion, which ought to be reserved to Your Honour. Counsel is always able to argue what a message is “implying” in his closing arguments.
Click to expand...
Failure to do so will be grounds for Contempt of Court charges.

@Y8l, you may respond to the objections within 48 hours.
 
Your honor, @Poker

I am requesting a 24-hour extension to finish my draft due to:

I am almost done with the task, but I still have to make it look presentable and finish the last three.

I am still revising for my Exams

I hope the court accepts this request sent by the @Y8l

Date: 22th September 2026
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS

Your Honor, @Poker

Due to the court's order, the plaintiff respectfully submits the following concerning the defendant's objections

I understand that the following may be confusing, so I will provide a key.

For example

In the entry frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION):
  • frodo1005 = Witness Name
  • 2 = Question Number
  • .3 = Objection Number (the 3rd objection under Question 2)
  • (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION) = Objection Type
  • And the reply is underneath


WITNESS: frodo1005

frodo1005, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Overrule: Probing a witness about what they saw in the public chat at a relevant time is a routine foundational question, not a leading question.

frodo1005, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: The words "statements" and "products" clearly refer to the contents of the public chat and armor sales mentioned in the Complaint.

frodo1005, 2.1 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Overrule: This questions asks about the Defendant's characterizations of the Player's items in a continuous public chat observation. If the Court wishes, the Plaintiff would be happy to break it into sub-questions.

frodo1005, 2.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: "Implying" clearly refers to the straightforward interpretation and impression of the text messages published in public chat.

frodo1005, 2.3 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: The question asks for testimony about what messages the witness saw in public chat, not a legal conclusion.

frodo1005, 2.4 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overrule: Examination of a witness provides the means of introducing testimonial evidence.

frodo1005, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: In a defamation and tortious interference matter, the perception of a reasonable third-party reader/listener is a factual issue, not a legal conclusion to be reached by counsel.

frodo1005, 4.2 (LEADING QUESTION)

Overrule: The question asks the witness to compare two different characterizations ("business rather than mere jokes") of the Player and ask them to testify what they actually saw in the chat.

frodo1005, 5.1 (LEADING QUESTION)

Overrule: The question focuses the witness's recollection on the reactions of the people in public chat following the statements at issue.

frodo1005, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Overrule: The question asks only for what the witness actually saw and noted in public chat ("did you note... in chat"), not about what they think someone else might have felt.

frodo1005, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overrule: Question 1 asks whether the witness was in the global chat at the time of the event, which provides the foundation.

frodo1005, 5.4 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: The question asks for the witness's observations about the chat reactions to the event, which is a request for factual testimony.

WITNESS: .august4496

.august4496, 1.1 (LEADING QUESTIONS)

Overrule: Asking if a witness was present during a certain time period in public chat is a foundational preliminary question.

.august4496, 1.2 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: "Allegations" clearly refer to the statements made in public chat about the armor sales mentioned in the Complaint.

.august4496, 2.1 (HEARSAY)

Overrule: The statements of the Defendant Roy405 are party-opponent admissions and are introduced to show the effect on the listeners/market rather than the truth of the matter asserted.

.august4496, 2.2 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overrule: First-hand witness examination is the appropriate method of introducing chat statements into evidence.

.august4496, 2.3 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: The timing and content of the statements are clearly connected to the public chat incident mentioned in the filings.

.august4496, 2.4 (LEADING QUESTION)

Overrule: Asks a yes/no question about whether the witness personally read a published statement in the global chat.

.august4496, 2.5 (COMPOUND QUESTION)

Overrule: This question asks about one subject: about whether the witness read the published statements accusing the Player.

.august4496, 3.1 (AMBIGUOUS)

Overrule: "Claims" clearly refer to the Defendant's public statements that the product was a scam.

.august4496, 4.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: Lay opinion about the effect of public statements on the perception of a merchant are admissible.

.august4496, 4.2 (RELEVANCE)

Overrule: What the statements said and their effect on readers of the global chat are directly relevant to proving commercial harm and reputation damage.

.august4496, 4.3 (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)

Overrule: The fact that the Plaintiff is a merchant selling products in the public chat is a fundamental element of this lawsuit.

.august4496, 5.1 (CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION)

Overrule: The question asks the witness to testify what they know and have seen, i.e., whether there was a disruption in the business.

.august4496, 5.2 (SPECULATION)

Overrule: The question asks only for the observable interactions and occurrences the witness saw in the public chat.

.august4496, 5.3 (FOUNDATION)

Overrule: The fact that the witness was in the public chat at the time of the incident and following it provides the foundation.

.august4496, 5.4 (COMPOUND)

Overrule: Both parts of the question concern the same incident: public chat disruptions as a result of the statements made.

DATED: This 21st day of September 2026
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top