Lawsuit: Pending Themoneylord v. Coslos [2026] DCR 152

[TheREALWINner]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION





Themoneylord

Plaintiff



v.



Coslos

Defendant



COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On or about the 24th of June, 2026, the Plaintiff in this case, Themoneylord, made a valid gambling transaction at the Defendant’ casino. Unfortunately, the slot machine that the Plaintiff had selected failed to render him his winnings. The Defendant, seemingly apologetic for the mishap, promised to pay The Plaintiff the aforementioned winnings, but soon afterwards failed to render payment. In an attempt to acquire his winnings, the Plaintiff reached out several times to the Defendant, who dodged his inquiries and eventually attempted to mislead the Plaintiff by acting as if the Plaintiff had the wrong person. With the promised goods not being delivered at the time of this filing, the Plaintiff has chosen to appeal to this honorable court.

I. PARTIES

1. Themoneylord (Plaintiff)

2. Coslos (Defendant)



II. FACTS

1. On or about the 24th of June, the Plaintiff paid one thousand ($1000) to play one of the Defendant’ slot machines.

2. Said slot machine was out of winning tickets, as testified to by The Defendant, when he said, “I figured out,” “what h[a]ppened to that machine,” and “the dispensers were empty”

3. The Plaintiff asks the Defendant “Will {I} ever be paid,” to which the Defendant responded, “when the bank owner gets the money back.”

4. The Plaintiff alleges this statement to be a tactic of delay, for logs show that “coslos's balance” was “$2,520.79,” enough to fully reimburse the Plaintiff for their lost funds.

4. The Defendant’s statement of “when the bank owner gets the money back,” additionally implies that the Defendant promised to restore Plaintiff’s lost funds.

5. Several days later, on the 29th of June, 2026, the Plaintiff gave the Defendant twenty-four (24) hours to reimburse the Plaintiff the lost funds, before the prosecution planned on taking legal action.

6. The Defendant, instead of responding to The Plaintiff’s request of payment, attempted to ghost The Plaintiff by stating “wrong person,” despite earlier discussions showing that the Defendant recognized The Plaintiff’s Discord messages.



III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. FAILURE TO DELIVER GOODS OR SERVICES (RCCA Part VI §3)

Failure to deliver goods or services is committed when a person “fails without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract.” It is clear that the actions of the Defendant fall under this law for the following reasons:

(a) A valid transaction was made. The defendant’s creation of a casino that is presented as offering winnings to lucky players, and the subsequent failure on the part of the Defendant to upkeep said machines or offer warnings that said machines may be out of stock following an exchange of money as a result of the use of said machines constitutes a failure to provide promised goods under a valid transaction and/or contract.

(b) This failure is compounded by the Defendant’s offer and subsequent failure to reimburse the goods, as is described in the case facts.

(c) The Defendant had no lawful excuse to not reimburse the goods, for the facts show that the Defendant had enough goods to reimburse the Plaintiff’s losses.



IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF



The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:



1. Specific performance to reimburse the Plaintiff his $1,000 that was spent on the faulty casino transition.

2. $20,000 in Civil Penalty Units.

3. $6,300 in legal fees.


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 4 day of July, 2026.

 

[TheREALWINner]

Additional Proof

 

[Muggy21]

Additional Proof

Submit the text directly, not as screenshots from what clearly appears to be a private channel on a law firm's discord.

 

[TheREALWINner]

Submit the text directly, not as screenshots from what clearly appears to be a private channel on a law firm's discord.

Spoiler: P-001 Chat Text Between Plaintiff and Defendant

[16:22:44] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » hi
[16:22:55] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » I figured out
[16:23:04] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » what heppened to that machine
[16:23:17] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » use what?
[16:23:30] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » thats the wrong place
[16:23:42] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Armourer Themoneylord » Coslos what was wrong?
[16:23:52] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » the dispensers were empty
[16:24:14] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » thats the moment when I would pay you
[16:24:33] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » but I lost 7k becouse of a bank heist
[16:24:46] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » 7k
[16:24:57] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » Now I personally have only 2
[16:25:07] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] TREASURY » coslos's balance: $2,520.79
[16:25:01] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Armourer Themoneylord » Will i ever be paid?
[16:25:20] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Jeweller coslos » when the bank owner gets the money back

Spoiler: P-002 Discord Messages Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

Themoneylord: I have been waiting to long for the 2k
Themoneylord: I need it for amth
Themoneylord: smth*
Themoneylord: And i rlly dont want to do this,
Themoneylord: But in 24 hours, I will be taking legal action.
Coslos: and the ss is evidence of hiding evidence.
Themoneylord: I do not have to send it to you.
Themoneylord: It is up to me to give you evidence when we are against eachother in court.
Coslos: Wrong person.

Spoiler: P-003: Plaintiff Consent to Representation

I, Themoneylord, am willing to have SniperElite508 represent my interests in court.

Spoiler: P-004: Screenshot of Defendant's Slot Machine

Spoiler: P-005: .zip File Containing Conversation Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

See attached .zip file.

 

[Superwoops]

@TheREALWINner Is this case still being pursued? Also pinging @Muggy21 for good measure

 

[TheREALWINner]

@TheREALWINner Is this case still being pursued? Also pinging @Muggy21 for good measure

Your Honor,

Yes, this case is still being pursued.
Thank you.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@coslos is commanded to appear in the District Court in the case of themoneylord v. coslos [2026] DCR 152

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.

 

[coslos]

Answer to Complaint

 

[coslos]

Answer to Complaint

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

themoneylord
Plaintiff

v.

coslos
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that the plaintiff paid one thousand dollars(1000$)
2. The defense AFFIRMS that the defendant's slot machine was out of winning tickets
3. The defense AFFIRMS that the Plaintiff asked the Defendant “Will {I} ever be paid,” to which the Defendant responded, “when the bank owner gets the money back.”
4. The defense DECLINES that the defendant's statement was a tactic of delay
4. The defense AFFIRMS that the Defendant’s statement of “when the bank owner gets the money back,” additionally implies that the Defendant promised to restore Plaintiff’s lost funds
5. The defense AFFIRMS that Several days later, on the 29th of June, 2026, the Plaintiff gave the Defendant twenty-four (24) hours to reimburse the Plaintiff the lost funds, before the prosecution planned on taking legal action.
6. The defense DECLINES that The Defendant, instead of responding to The Plaintiff’s request of payment, attempted to ghost The Plaintiff by stating “wrong person,” despite earlier discussions showing that the Defendant recognized The Plaintiff’s Discord messages.


II. DEFENCES
1. The defense declines that the defendant's statement was a tactic of delay, the defendant was at that time in a difficult financial situation, in a twenty-five thousand(25k) debt. The defendant wasn't also able to access most of his balance from a suspended bank account. Therefore a delay was reasonable action to take.
2. The defense admits that the defendant's statement implies that the defendant promised to restore plaintiff's lost funds, therefore creating a contract that would replace the good of the reward from the machine to which the plaintiff has agreed to since he is using it as an argument in court.
3. The defense admits that the plaintiff gave the defendant twenty-four (24) hours to reimburse the lost funds, in the message the plaintiff used legal action as a threat in many ways. (example threat is shown in the evidence)
4. The defendant tried reaching out to a lawyer after he found the lawsuit pending, after hiring him he attempted to send the evidence to him but confused the users, in effect sending it to the plaintiff. After the incident the defendant closed the platform, after coming back he saw a (now deleted) message "lol" from the plaintiff. When realising his mistake he deleted the evidence and said "wrong person". The plaintiff was fully aware of this mistake and still decided to use it as a false fact in the case.
5. The plaintiff has messaged the defendant many times trying to persuade him to pay the money faster by using law action as a threat.(as shown in the evidence)
6. On the 29th of June the defendant was asked for money. At that moment he couldn't remember all his debts, in an act of good will and geniue attempt to try and pay he asked for evidence to which the defendant did not agree to share.
7. The defense believes the plaintiff has filed the case out of malice, proven by numerous attempts at trying to persuade the defendant to pay trough threats of law action, lying in court to put the defendant in a bad light in front of a jury and many more.

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 25th day of August 2026

 

[Muggy21]

Discovery is now open and shall be available until 8/30/26 at 9pm EDT.

 

[TheREALWINner]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Point 1 of the Defenses assumes facts not in evidence. Without proper documentation of the alleged bank freeze being submitted to this court, there is no way to tell if such a freeze actually existed.

 

[TheREALWINner]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Point 4 of the Defenses assumes facts not in evidence. Without proper documentation of the alleged deleted messages, there is no way to tell if said messages actually existed.

 

[TheREALWINner]

Objection

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

Point 7 of the Defenses is Speculation. The Defense does not have direct experience with or insight into the thoughts of the Plaintiff. The terminology "believes" additionally demonstrates that this point is not based in fact but is rather speculation.

 

[coslos]

Your Honour,
Due to not having acess to the device with evidence I would like to request a 48 hour extenstion to submit my responses to:

Objection

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

Point 7 of the Defenses is Speculation. The Defense does not have direct experience with or insight into the thoughts of the Plaintiff. The terminology "believes" additionally demonstrates that this point is not based in fact but is rather speculation.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Point 4 of the Defenses assumes facts not in evidence. Without proper documentation of the alleged deleted messages, there is no way to tell if said messages actually existed.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Point 1 of the Defenses assumes facts not in evidence. Without proper documentation of the alleged bank freeze being submitted to this court, there is no way to tell if such a freeze actually existed.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[coslos]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Point 1 of the complaint assumes facts not in evidence. There is no way of telling if the failed transaction has been made on 24th of June 2026 without proper evidence.

 

[TheREALWINner]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Point 1 of the complaint assumes facts not in evidence. There is no way of telling if the failed transaction has been made on 24th of June 2026 without proper evidence.

Your Honor,

The Defense has already affirmed point 1 in their response to this case.

If the Defense wished to object to this point, they should have done so by denying it's validity in their answer to the complaint.

But since both sides have affirmed the truth of the point in question, the point is not up for objection during the proceedings of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this objection be overruled.

 

[coslos]

Additional evidence

 

[coslos]

Motion

MOTION TO DISMISS — RULE 5.5
The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Court Rule 5.5 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Plaintiff's claim is premised upon an alleged failure by the Defendant to fulfill the obligation of delivering a good/service at issue. However, the money was already fully paid, as demonstrated by D-001.

Because the obligation was fulfilled, there is no outstanding breach for which the Plaintiff may obtain relief. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to establish a cognizable claim against the Defendant, and dismissal is appropriate under Rule 5.5.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

 

[TheREALWINner]

Additional evidenceView attachment 97061View attachment 97062View attachment 97063

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Improper Evidence

The evidence in post #17 has been presented inappropriately. It should therefore not be submitted to this court unless corrected, at which point further objections may be raised.

 

[coslos]

D-001 transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
4641875, 2321725, 58082, -1500.00 Payment from coslos to Themoneylord 2026-06-19 20:36:18, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 1620aeac-f8c5-41e9-91c5-e8c04b90f678,,
4641677, 2321618, 58082, -400.00, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 2026-06-19 20:33:17, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 1620aeac-f8c5-41e9-91c5-e8c04b90f678,,
4641661, 2321618, 58082, -100.00, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 2026-06-19 20:32:28, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 1620aeac-f8c5-41e9-91c5-e8c04b90f678,,


D-002 The defendant's message in the bank account,
PC&B
PORTAL LOCKED DOWN
Maintenance In Progress
The banking portal is undergoing core network upgrades.
Standard player access is temporarily offline.
Auditor Notice: Our accounting complience auditors are currently working on ledger migrations. The system will return to operational status shortly.


[Themoneylord] [You] Just pay me the 2k, my lawyer has agreed to take the case.

 

[TheREALWINner]

D-001 transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
4641875, 2321725, 58082, -1500.00 Payment from coslos to Themoneylord 2026-06-19 20:36:18, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 1620aeac-f8c5-41e9-91c5-e8c04b90f678,,
4641677, 2321618, 58082, -400.00, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 2026-06-19 20:33:17, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 1620aeac-f8c5-41e9-91c5-e8c04b90f678,,
4641661, 2321618, 58082, -100.00, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 2026-06-19 20:32:28, Payment from coslos to Themoneylord, 1620aeac-f8c5-41e9-91c5-e8c04b90f678,,

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Relevance

D-001 is irrelevant to this case. Without greater context, there is no way to tell what these payments were for. For all this court knows, the payments listed could have been for a product, a service, or any sort of transaction other than the transaction related to this case. Thus, the evidence cannot be submitted to this court.

 

[TheREALWINner]

D-002 The defendant's message in the bank account,
PC&B
PORTAL LOCKED DOWN
Maintenance In Progress
The banking portal is undergoing core network upgrades.
Standard player access is temporarily offline.
Auditor Notice: Our accounting complience auditors are currently working on ledger migrations. The system will return to operational status shortly.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
Objection - Relevance

The screenshot of D-002 seems to depict an error message for "PC&B" Bank denying access to the bank's interface. Nevertheless, this evidence fails to show if the Defendant:

1. Had an account with this bank,
2. Had money in an account with this bank, and
3. If this error message was present at the time the defendant claims, assuming on the good faith basis that the defendant plans on stating that this message prevented him from accessing his account if he in fact does hold an account with this bank.

Thus, this evidence should not be submitted to this court.

 

[coslos]

Your honour, while in process of writing more defences and gathering evidence the defence has unfortunately been notified of an power outage that will happen in their place of residence, therefore the defence would like to respectfully request a 24 hour discovery extension as well as a 24 hour extension on all messages that require the defense to answer before the date of 31/08/2026.
Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Muggy21]

Your honour, while in process of writing more defences and gathering evidence the defence has unfortunately been notified of an power outage that will happen in their place of residence, therefore the defence would like to respectfully request a 24 hour discovery extension as well as a 24 hour extension on all messages that require the defense to answer before the date of 31/08/2026.
Thank you for your consideration.

Granted, an extra 24 hrs is given.

 

[coslos]

The defence would like to use their rights from rule 3.4 of court rules and procedures Information - Court Rules and Procedures [Deprecated]
The previous answer to complaint had a few fact errors therefore
in exchange for the current answer and defences the defence posts a remade and fact checked answer to complaint
and would like to respectfully ask the court to not take the first answer into consideration

Answer to Complaint

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence DENIES point one of the complaint.
2. The defence DENIES point two of the complaint.
3. The defence AFFIRMS point three of the complaint.
4. The defence DENIES point four of the complaint.
5. The defence AFFIRMS point five of the complaint.
6. The defence DENIES point six of the complaint.

II. DEFENCES
1. first(1st) fact in the complaint is denied because while the plaintiff has played in the defendant's casino countless times there is no evidence of the plaintiff playing on that specific date.
2. second(2nd) fact in the complaint is denied because no evidence was provided, the defendant has stated a reason why the machine could have malfunctioned, the plaintiff didn't show any evidence of it failing to reder their winnings.
3. The defendant has stated that they wasn't shown any evidence of a malfunction therefore a contract to pay two thousand(2k) dollars for a malfunction caused losses was not legally binding since there wasn't any proven malfunction.
4. The plaintiff can not show why the defendant sent message from fact 6 as an attempt to ghost instead of an answer to a now deleted message.
5. No malfunction was proved to the defendant or court.
6. The plaintiff takes the defendant's words however they desire, no context or clear intent is shown, the casino owner's only motivation in that case would be to provide the best playing expirience since satisfied clients bring money.
7. Point 1 (a) of claims for relief is a speculation, no evidence was provided.
8. Point 1 (b) of claims for relief states that: "This failure to compounded by the Defendant's offer (...)" A valid contract was not obligating the defendant.


Dated thirty-first(31st) of August 2026

 

[coslos]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - RULE 5.5

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The plaintiff has insufficient evidence to prove any of his claims

DATED: thirty-first(31st) of August 2026

 

[TheREALWINner]

The defence would like to use their rights from rule 3.4 of court rules and procedures Information - Court Rules and Procedures [Deprecated]
The previous answer to complaint had a few fact errors therefore
in exchange for the current answer and defences the defence posts a remade and fact checked answer to complaint
and would like to respectfully ask the court to not take the first answer into consideration

Answer to Complaint

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defence DENIES point one of the complaint.
2. The defence DENIES point two of the complaint.
3. The defence AFFIRMS point three of the complaint.
4. The defence DENIES point four of the complaint.
5. The defence AFFIRMS point five of the complaint.
6. The defence DENIES point six of the complaint.

II. DEFENCES
1. first(1st) fact in the complaint is denied because while the plaintiff has played in the defendant's casino countless times there is no evidence of the plaintiff playing on that specific date.
2. second(2nd) fact in the complaint is denied because no evidence was provided, the defendant has stated a reason why the machine could have malfunctioned, the plaintiff didn't show any evidence of it failing to reder their winnings.
3. The defendant has stated that they wasn't shown any evidence of a malfunction therefore a contract to pay two thousand(2k) dollars for a malfunction caused losses was not legally binding since there wasn't any proven malfunction.
4. The plaintiff can not show why the defendant sent message from fact 6 as an attempt to ghost instead of an answer to a now deleted message.
5. No malfunction was proved to the defendant or court.
6. The plaintiff takes the defendant's words however they desire, no context or clear intent is shown, the casino owner's only motivation in that case would be to provide the best playing expirience since satisfied clients bring money.
7. Point 1 (a) of claims for relief is a speculation, no evidence was provided.
8. Point 1 (b) of claims for relief states that: "This failure to compounded by the Defendant's offer (...)" A valid contract was not obligating the defendant.


Dated thirty-first(31st) of August 2026

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor,

It is not with a light hand that the Plaintiff raises this objection, but when such conduct requires it, it is the duty of the just to speak against blatant falsehoods being presented in this court, that the integrity of the court may be preserved.

Perjury is committed when counsel "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law," according to the CCA Part III § I and the Court Rules page.

Due to the above amendments, The Plaintiff has reason to believe that the Defendant in this case is guilty of perjury before this court on the following grounds:

1. As can be seen in post #9, the Defendant initially responded to this case by stating that the transaction that is in question in this case occurred between the Defendant and the Plaintiff.

2. After admitting that the transaction took place, Defense then proceeded to object in post #15 that the transaction "...assumes facts not in evidence. There is no way of telling if the failed transaction has been made on 24th of June 2026 without proper evidence."

This was done in spite of the fact that the Defense already agreed with the plaintiff, which issue was raised in the Plaintiff's response to the objection in post #16.

3. At this point, the Defense attempted to switch tactics, by again admitting that the transaction took place and attempting to prove that payment was made, thereby completing the requirements of the transaction that the Defense agreed existed. In post #18, the Defendant submitted to this court a Motion for dismissal on the following grounds:

"The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Court Rule 5.5 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Plaintiff's claim is premised upon an alleged failure by the Defendant to fulfill the obligation of delivering a good/service at issue. However, the money was already fully paid, as demonstrated by D-001.

Because the obligation was fulfilled, there is no outstanding breach for which the Plaintiff may obtain relief. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to establish a cognizable claim against the Defendant, and dismissal is appropriate under Rule 5.5." (Empasis added)

4. After arguing that the transaction took place, the Defense then proceeded to present evidence in post #20 in support of the argument in post #18 stating particularly that D-001 was evidence of "transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant" to which the plaintiff had it on a good faith basis that such evidence would be used to prove that payment for the transaction was made as was argued in post #21. In addition, the said evidence was explicitly claimed to be proof of the payment of the transaction in the motion to dismiss made by the Defendant in post #18.

5. Now, in an attempt to have this case removed from before this court, the Defense has changed their story yet again, by amending the answer to the complaint in post #25 and stating that, in fact, no transaction ever occurred. These changes have been submitted on the grounds that the initial submission had just "a few fact errors." This has been done irrespective of the fact that the Defense tried to support the now supposedly erroneous claims.

Your honor, it is the duty of the Defense to get their story straight before any submission is presented before this court. The Plaintiff would like to bring to mind that both sides in this case have taken a vow that we "understand the penalties of lying in court" and the fact that we are subject to perjury should we knowingly make a false statement before this court. This vow is not something to be taken lightly, for to do so would throw into jeopardy all the principles that allow our society to function.

The transaction, which either did happen or did not, may, in the eyes of the Defense, be a point of contention, but for the Defense to try to repeatedly change their story in way that has been described above goes beyond the basic understanding that both sides are to abide by a principle of honesty. Since the Defense has tried to claim during this discovery that the transaction both did and did not happen, their testimony must be called into question, for basic logic requires that a fact cannot be both true and false at the same time, and in the same sense.

Therefore, based on the above facts, as well as the general context of the preceding discovery, the Plaintiff believes that the Defense is guilty of perjury before this court and asks that the Defense should be remanded for such.

The Plaintiff also requests that the above amended answer and the proceeding motion to dismiss be overruled that the proceedings may continue in a manner honoring to this court.

So submitted,
SniperElite508

 

[coslos]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor,

It is not with a light hand that the Plaintiff raises this objection, but when such conduct requires it, it is the duty of the just to speak against blatant falsehoods being presented in this court, that the integrity of the court may be preserved.

Perjury is committed when counsel "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law," according to the CCA Part III § I and the Court Rules page.

Due to the above amendments, The Plaintiff has reason to believe that the Defendant in this case is guilty of perjury before this court on the following grounds:

1. As can be seen in post #9, the Defendant initially responded to this case by stating that the transaction that is in question in this case occurred between the Defendant and the Plaintiff.

2. After admitting that the transaction took place, Defense then proceeded to object in post #15 that the transaction "...assumes facts not in evidence. There is no way of telling if the failed transaction has been made on 24th of June 2026 without proper evidence."

This was done in spite of the fact that the Defense already agreed with the plaintiff, which issue was raised in the Plaintiff's response to the objection in post #16.

3. At this point, the Defense attempted to switch tactics, by again admitting that the transaction took place and attempting to prove that payment was made, thereby completing the requirements of the transaction that the Defense agreed existed. In post #18, the Defendant submitted to this court a Motion for dismissal on the following grounds:

"The Defendant respectfully moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Court Rule 5.5 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Plaintiff's claim is premised upon an alleged failure by the Defendant to fulfill the obligation of delivering a good/service at issue. However, the money was already fully paid, as demonstrated by D-001.

Because the obligation was fulfilled, there is no outstanding breach for which the Plaintiff may obtain relief. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to establish a cognizable claim against the Defendant, and dismissal is appropriate under Rule 5.5." (Empasis added)

4. After arguing that the transaction took place, the Defense then proceeded to present evidence in post #20 in support of the argument in post #18 stating particularly that D-001 was evidence of "transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant" to which the plaintiff had it on a good faith basis that such evidence would be used to prove that payment for the transaction was made as was argued in post #21. In addition, the said evidence was explicitly claimed to be proof of the payment of the transaction in the motion to dismiss made by the Defendant in post #18.

5. Now, in an attempt to have this case removed from before this court, the Defense has changed their story yet again, by amending the answer to the complaint in post #25 and stating that, in fact, no transaction ever occurred. These changes have been submitted on the grounds that the initial submission had just "a few fact errors." This has been done irrespective of the fact that the Defense tried to support the now supposedly erroneous claims.

Your honor, it is the duty of the Defense to get their story straight before any submission is presented before this court. The Plaintiff would like to bring to mind that both sides in this case have taken a vow that we "understand the penalties of lying in court" and the fact that we are subject to perjury should we knowingly make a false statement before this court. This vow is not something to be taken lightly, for to do so would throw into jeopardy all the principles that allow our society to function.

The transaction, which either did happen or did not, may, in the eyes of the Defense, be a point of contention, but for the Defense to try to repeatedly change their story in way that has been described above goes beyond the basic understanding that both sides are to abide by a principle of honesty. Since the Defense has tried to claim during this discovery that the transaction both did and did not happen, their testimony must be called into question, for basic logic requires that a fact cannot be both true and false at the same time, and in the same sense.

Therefore, based on the above facts, as well as the general context of the preceding discovery, the Plaintiff believes that the Defense is guilty of perjury before this court and asks that the Defense should be remanded for such.

The Plaintiff also requests that the above amended answer and the proceeding motion to dismiss be overruled that the proceedings may continue in a manner honoring to this court.

So submitted,
SniperElite508

1. the defence has the right to change their denial or affirm of the fact under the rule 3.4 of courts rules and procedures
2. again, this behaviour is allowed under rule 3.4 of courts rules and procedures
3. the motion was not granted. The evidence was objected and as the defendant said "The previous answer to complaint had a few fact errors" the defence in facts does agree that the payment was not relevant to the case.
4. evidence objected. motion not granted.
the defence is allowed to change their affirmation of facts as well as defences, no bad faith was or is in the defendant's mind. The defence just admits to making a lot of speculations as proved by the plaintiff himself, the defence is sorry to make such mistakes but their re-answer is a way to fix. speculations and factual errors made.
No laws were broken and the plaintiff has no evidence of prejury.
Discovery is the time for the defence to correct their mistakes too.
The defence would like to respectully ask the court for this objection to be overruled.