Lawsuit: Pending TheStockExchange et. al v. L4ndaakk [2026] FCR 36

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

TheStockExchange LLC,
Redmont Trust Services LLC,
TSE RIsk Analytics LLC,
TSE Investment Bank,
Plaintiffs


v.
L4ndaakk
Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of the Defendant, or alternatively, assets up to the value of $1,016,098.20 if the Defendant is found to hold at least that amount, until the resolution of this matter.

A complaint is coming shortly.

 

[casinomaster]

TSE Is AI generated scam website.
100% fee, 100% scam.

 

[casinomaster]

Threatening kids to report to police for finding bug in website.

I am dying laughing.

 

[casinomaster]

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

TheStockExchange LLC,
Redmont Trust Services LLC,
TSE RIsk Analytics LLC,
TSE Investment Bank,
Plaintiffs


v.
L4ndaakk
Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of the Defendant, or alternatively, assets up to the value of $1,016,098.20 if the Defendant is found to hold at least that amount, until the resolution of this matter.

A complaint is coming shortly.

The Federal Court would like to know why we are to issue this injunction. We need some pleaded factual basis, even if a complaint has not yet been filed.

 

[casinomaster]

Mug, the immortal snail is coming, and fast.

 

[casinomaster]

@Franciscus he is a scammer threatening me

 

[dearev]

Your honor, i wish to file a brief regarding defendant's unique legal strategy and its consequences to this court's integrity, furthermore your honor. As a proud TSE user, i belive my brief would be of benefit to this court.

 

[Muggy21]

The Federal Court would like to know why we are to issue this injunction. We need some pleaded factual basis, even if a complaint has not yet been filed.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

TheStockExchange LLC,
Redmont Trust Services LLC,
TSE RIsk Analytics LLC,
TSE Investment Bank,
Plaintiffs


v.
L4ndaakk
Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of the Defendant, or alternatively, assets up to the value of $1,016,098.20 if the Defendant is found to hold at least that amount, until the resolution of this matter.

BASIS FOR INJUNCTION

On the night of May 5, 2026, the Defendant accessed the Plaintiff's account and made five unauthorized cash withdrawals totaling $210,538.00 in rapid succession. Shortly after, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff via Discord and admitted to the withdrawals, claiming they were exploiting a bug. Rather than reporting the vulnerability in good faith, the Defendant conditioned disclosure upon receiving $40,000 in cash, a job, and intervention with a third party to unfreeze $100,000 belonging to the Defendant. The Defendant explicitly threatened further exploitation, stating they could have taken millions. This conduct constitutes deliberate theft followed by extortion. Failing to halt and freeze Defendant's assets throughout the country will cause Plaintiff's assets to never be returned.

Apologies, I've forgot to include the basis paragraph.

 

[casinomaster]

@dearev is paid by TSE to spread misinformation!

 

[casinomaster]

THREATEN?? LOL???

BRO, I SAID I COULD'VE TAKEN MILLIONS SO 100K WASN'T BAD, ARE YOU GOOD BRO?

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMARY CONVICTION - CONTEMPT OF COURT

L4ndaakk, having not been summoned to the case, is not permitted to file pleading until summoned. What's more, the individual has already been convicted earlier today of Contempt of Court.

While the apparent Defendant may be frustrated that this action is pending against them, the Supreme Court has ordered that "[l]itigants must respect decorum in the court. Proper behavior towards both the opposing party and the presiding judge is required in all court filings" (In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8). The Court finds that the Defendant has failed to maintain proper decorum and failed to engage in proper behavior towards the opposing party through the below seven quoted filings:

TSE Is AI generated scam website.
100% fee, 100% scam.

Threatening kids to report to police for finding bug in website.

I am dying laughing.

You are a scumbag loser, obsessing over a block game

Mug, the immortal snail is coming, and fast.

@Franciscus he is a scammer threatening me

@dearev is paid by TSE to spread misinformation!

View attachment 81617THREATEN?? LOL???

BRO, I SAID I COULD'VE TAKEN MILLIONS SO 100K WASN'T BAD, ARE YOU GOOD BRO?

As such, the Court summarily convicts the Defendant (L4ndaakk) of Contempt of Court for 7 violations of CCA, Part III, Section 2(a). Each violation corresponds to one of the messages quoted above. Noting that the Defendant was previously convicted of Contempt of Court just a few hours ago, and was in that conviction warned about escalating punishments, the fines and jail time will be as follows:

1. 10 minutes jail time and a $500 fine.
2. 10 minutes jail time and a $2,500 fine.
3. 10 minutes jail time and a $5,000 fine.
4. 10 minutes jail time and a $7,500 fine.
5. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
6. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
7. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.

Further outbursts will be met with maximum punishments.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

TheStockExchange LLC,
Redmont Trust Services LLC,
TSE RIsk Analytics LLC,
TSE Investment Bank,
Plaintiffs


v.
L4ndaakk
Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an emergency injunction to immediately freeze all assets and property of the Defendant, or alternatively, assets up to the value of $1,016,098.20 if the Defendant is found to hold at least that amount, until the resolution of this matter.

BASIS FOR INJUNCTION

On the night of May 5, 2026, the Defendant accessed the Plaintiff's account and made five unauthorized cash withdrawals totaling $210,538.00 in rapid succession. Shortly after, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff via Discord and admitted to the withdrawals, claiming they were exploiting a bug. Rather than reporting the vulnerability in good faith, the Defendant conditioned disclosure upon receiving $40,000 in cash, a job, and intervention with a third party to unfreeze $100,000 belonging to the Defendant. The Defendant explicitly threatened further exploitation, stating they could have taken millions. This conduct constitutes deliberate theft followed by extortion. Failing to halt and freeze Defendant's assets throughout the country will cause Plaintiff's assets to never be returned.

Apologies, I've forgot to include the basis paragraph.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

On the pleaded basis, all assets and property owned or beneficially owned by the defendant L4ndaakk are frozen until released by the Court. Any transfers made at the time of or subsequent to the issuance of this order are null and void, constitute a violation of this Order, and shall be reversed so as to restore the status quo. Any assets gained by L3ndakk subsequent to the issuance of this Order shall be held in escrow by the Department of Homeland Security until the Court is briefed by the Defendant following a summons.

The Defendant shall be provided an opportunity to contest or seek modifications to this injunction once summoned to this case.

The entire Commonwealth shall be informed of this injunction via the #government-announcements channel.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[casinomaster]

enjoy the $10k i have brotato

 

[casinomaster]

funny how someone writes bad code, you make $200k off it, and you're called:

a hacker
abusive
antisocial

 

[Muggy21]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

TheStockExchange LLC,
Redmont Trust Services LLC,
TSE RIsk Analytics LLC,
TSE Investment Bank,
Plaintiffs


v.
L4ndaakk
Defendant


**COMPLAINT**

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
**WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF**


On the night of May 5, 2026, the Defendant accessed his account on TSE and made five unauthorized cash withdrawals totaling $210,538.00 in rapid succession. Shortly after, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff via Discord and admitted to the withdrawals, claiming they were exploiting a bug. Rather than reporting the vulnerability in good faith, the Defendant conditioned disclosure upon receiving $40,000 in cash, a job, and intervention with a third party to unfreeze $100,000 belonging to the Defendant. The Defendant explicitly threatened further exploitation, stating they could have taken millions. This conduct constitutes deliberate theft followed by extortion.

I. PARTIES
TheStockExchange LLC, (Plaintiff)
Redmont Trust Services LLC, (Subsidiary of Plaintiff)
TSE RIsk Analytics LLC, (Subsidiary of Plaintiff)
TSE Investment Bank, (Subsidiary of Plaintiff)
L4ndaakk (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On May 5, 2026, the Defendant made five unauthorized withdrawals from the Plaintiff's TSE account. (P-001)
2. The withdrawals occurred between 21:56 and 22:03 and totaled $210,538.00. (P-001)
3. The Defendant was not authorized to access or withdraw from the Plaintiff's account at any time.
4. Immediately following the withdrawals, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff via Discord and admitted to exploiting a bug to execute them. (P-002)
5. The Defendant stated they could have taken millions, demonstrating awareness of and intent to exploit the vulnerability. (P-002)
6. The Defendant demanded $40,000 in cash as a condition of reporting the bug. (P-002)
7. When the Plaintiff offered $15,000, the Defendant rejected it and escalated their demands to include employment and third-party account intervention. (P-002)
8. The Defendant conditioned disclosure of what they had done upon receiving these benefits. (P-002)
9. The Defendant has not returned the $210,538.00.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Conversion as defined under Part VII, Section 7(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Redmont Civil Code Act, as the Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's property through deception and false pretenses with intent to permanently deprive the Plaintiff of it
.2. Treble Damages as defined in Part III, Section 8 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, explicitly authorized by the Conversion property tort, entitling the Plaintiff to three times the value of all funds taken.
3. Extortion as defined under Section 10 of the Commercial Standards Act and Part VII, Section 7(c)(vi) of the Redmont Civil Code Act, as the Defendant demanded cash, employment, and third-party intervention as conditions for ceasing their harmful conduct.
4. Unjust Enrichment as defined under Part X, Section 1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, as the Defendant retains $210,538.00 at the Plaintiff's expense with no legal justification.
5. Punitive Damages as defined in Part III, Section 3(b)(i) and (ii) of the Redmont Civil Code Act, as the Defendant intended to cause harm and acted with knowledge that their conduct would disadvantage and harm the Plaintiff.
6. Consequential Damages as defined in Part III, Section 5(1)(a)(i) of the Redmont Civil Code Act, as the Defendant's conduct and subsequent extortionate communications caused the Plaintiff humiliation and distress.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
-$631,614.00 (3 x $210,538.00) in Treble Damages for Conversion
-$100,000.00 in Punitive Damages for intentional and extortionate conduct
-$50,000.00 in Consequential Damages for humiliation and distress
- $234,484.20 in Legal Fees (30% of case value)

**This totals to $1,016,098.20.**

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.

EVIDENCE:

P-001

Spoiler

05-05-2026 22:02:43 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,000.00
05-05-2026 22:02:42 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,000.00
05-05-2026 22:02:42 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,000.00
05-05-2026 22:02:42 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,000.00
05-05-2026 21:56:36 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,538.00

P-002

Spoiler

DATED: This 5th day of May, 2026.

 

[casinomaster]

Sar, this skibidi toilet is all you'll be getting.

 

[casinomaster]

mug be like:

Address AI generated website
Threaten Kids

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

L4ndaakk ( @casinomaster ) is ordered to appear before the Federal Court in the case of TheStockExchange et. al v. L4ndaakk [2026] FCR 36.

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.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Const. 18(3)(b) Mandatory Representation Order

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont permits the Federal Court to "require legal representation for parties appearing before the Court" (Const. 18(3)(b)).

The Court has found the Defendant to be lacking any legal qualifications:

Spoiler: Qualifications of L4ndaakk

In order to protect the Defendant from themself, the Court orders that the Defendant secure representation by a qualified barrister (with correct specialization) or attorney in this case. While the Defendant may enter initial appearance post-summons, the Court exercises its constitutional power to bar the Defendant from self-representation on any pleading in this case.

Should no qualified counsel be found willing to represent the Defendant, the Public Defender Program shall provide qualified defense for the Defendant.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMARY CONVICTION - CONTEMPT OF COURT

L4ndaakk, having not been summoned to the case, is not permitted to file pleading until summoned. What's more, the individual has already been convicted earlier today of Contempt of Court.

While the apparent Defendant may be frustrated that this action is pending against them, the Supreme Court has ordered that "[l]itigants must respect decorum in the court. Proper behavior towards both the opposing party and the presiding judge is required in all court filings" (In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8). The Court finds that the Defendant has failed to maintain proper decorum and failed to engage in proper behavior towards the opposing party through the below seven quoted filings:









As such, the Court summarily convicts the Defendant (L4ndaakk) of Contempt of Court for 7 violations of CCA, Part III, Section 2(a). Each violation corresponds to one of the messages quoted above. Noting that the Defendant was previously convicted of Contempt of Court just a few hours ago, and was in that conviction warned about escalating punishments, the fines and jail time will be as follows:

1. 10 minutes jail time and a $500 fine.
2. 10 minutes jail time and a $2,500 fine.
3. 10 minutes jail time and a $5,000 fine.
4. 10 minutes jail time and a $7,500 fine.
5. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
6. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
7. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.

Further outbursts will be met with maximum punishments.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully acknowledges the Court's summary conviction of the Defendant for seven counts of Contempt of Court and does not oppose the findings made therein. The Defendant's conduct in these proceedings has been disruptive, disrespectful, and entirely inconsistent with the decorum this Court is entitled to expect.

However, the Plaintiff respectfully brings one matter to the Court's attention.

The fines imposed by this Order total $45,500.00. The Plaintiff is the victim of the Defendant's underlying conduct, having suffered a loss of $210,538.00 in stolen funds which have not been returned. The Plaintiff is concerned that the collection of contempt fines by the Government prior to any restitution arising from this civil action may further diminish the Defendant's available assets, to the direct detriment of the Plaintiff's ability to recover the damages sought in this proceeding.

The Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the Court issue an order providing that:

1. The contempt fines imposed by this Order be held in abeyance and collected by the Government only after the Plaintiff has been made whole through the resolution of this civil action; or alternatively,
2. The collection of contempt fines be subordinated in priority to any civil judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff in this matter.

The Plaintiff does not seek to diminish the Court's authority or the legitimacy of the contempt findings. The Plaintiff asks only that the sequencing of enforcement protect the interests of the injured party before those of the Government, given that the Defendant's contemptuous conduct arose directly from their attempt to escape accountability for the harm they caused the Plaintiff.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour, an honourable citizen has returned $10,000 illegally obtained by Defendant pursuant to this Court's emergency injunction. The money will be transferred into TSE's in-game db for tracking purposes.

 

[casinomaster]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Announcement


All parties be advised:


L4ndaakk is hereby appointed as the new presiding judge of this matter effective immediately.


Proceedings will continue under their authority. Previous procedural directions remain in effect unless explicitly amended by the new presiding judge.


Court is now in session.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMARY CONVICTION - CONTEMPT OF COURT

L4ndaakk, was previously held in contempt above and was warned that further outbursts would be met with maximum punishment.

The Court reiterates that Supreme Court has ordered that "[l]itigants must respect decorum in the court. Proper behavior towards both the opposing party and the presiding judge is required in all court filings" (In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8). The Court finds that the Defendant has failed to maintain proper decorum and failed to engage in proper behavior towards the opposing party through the below seven quoted filings:

View attachment 81618View attachment 81619The mug files, worse than epstein?

Mug, threatening kids isn't a good look, next time put down the ai, maybe you have ai girlfriend bro also?

enjoy the $10k i have brotato

funny how someone writes bad code, you make $200k off it, and you're called:

a hacker
abusive
antisocial

View attachment 81621

View attachment 81625
Sar, this skibidi toilet is all you'll be getting.

mug be like:

Address AI generated website
Threaten Kids

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Announcement


All parties be advised:


L4ndaakk is hereby appointed as the new presiding judge of this matter effective immediately.


Proceedings will continue under their authority. Previous procedural directions remain in effect unless explicitly amended by the new presiding judge.


Court is now in session.

As such, the Court summarily convicts the Defendant (L4ndaakk) of Contempt of Court for 7 violations of CCA, Part III, Section 2(a). Each violation corresponds to one of the messages quoted above. Noting that the Defendant was previously warned that such would incur maximum punishments, each conviction is given as follows:

1. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
2. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
3. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
4. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
5. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
6. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.
7. 10 minutes jail time and a $10,000 fine.

Further outbursts will be met with maximum punishments.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully acknowledges the Court's summary conviction of the Defendant for seven counts of Contempt of Court and does not oppose the findings made therein. The Defendant's conduct in these proceedings has been disruptive, disrespectful, and entirely inconsistent with the decorum this Court is entitled to expect.

However, the Plaintiff respectfully brings one matter to the Court's attention.

The fines imposed by this Order total $45,500.00. The Plaintiff is the victim of the Defendant's underlying conduct, having suffered a loss of $210,538.00 in stolen funds which have not been returned. The Plaintiff is concerned that the collection of contempt fines by the Government prior to any restitution arising from this civil action may further diminish the Defendant's available assets, to the direct detriment of the Plaintiff's ability to recover the damages sought in this proceeding.

The Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the Court issue an order providing that:

1. The contempt fines imposed by this Order be held in abeyance and collected by the Government only after the Plaintiff has been made whole through the resolution of this civil action; or alternatively,
2. The collection of contempt fines be subordinated in priority to any civil judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff in this matter.

The Plaintiff does not seek to diminish the Court's authority or the legitimacy of the contempt findings. The Plaintiff asks only that the sequencing of enforcement protect the interests of the injured party before those of the Government, given that the Defendant's contemptuous conduct arose directly from their attempt to escape accountability for the harm they caused the Plaintiff.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - MOTION TO RECONSIDER (Post No. 23)

The Court finds that the balance of equities requires that compensatory damages be paid before criminal fines to the Commonwealth. As such, contempt fines imposed by this Court in this case be held in abeyance and collected by the Government only after the resolution of this civil action.

If the Court finds for the Plaintiff, and if the Court were to award compensatory and/or consequential damages, those damages shall take priority to the collection of fines for crimes committed by the Defendant in Court. (For avoidance of doubt, treble damages are considered to be a kind of compensatory damages for this action.)

The Court does not find the same for punitive damages. As these are intended to punish a Defendant for misconduct, rather than to make one whole, the Court will treat these damages on equal priority with criminal fines.

So Ordered,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Franciscus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Announcement


All parties be advised:


L4ndaakk is hereby appointed as the new presiding judge of this matter effective immediately.


Proceedings will continue under their authority. Previous procedural directions remain in effect unless explicitly amended by the new presiding judge.


Court is now in session.

The Court notes your presence and warns you against impersonating a judicial officer. You have 48 hours to find legal counsel or a public defender will be assigned.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour,

Talion & Partners INC. has an existing retainer agreement which covers this suit.

The binding legal agreement covers civil representation until 22 May 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Retainer Agreement

If the Court finds such proof enough of a proof of consent to represent we will be obliged under the agreement to take this case.

 

[casinomaster]

Your Honour,

Talion & Partners INC. has an existing retainer agreement which covers this suit.

The binding legal agreement covers civil representation until 22 May 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Retainer Agreement

View attachment 81628

If the Court finds such proof enough of a proof of consent to represent we will be obliged under the agreement to take this case.

shout out my lawyer

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

The Defendant hereby informs the Court that they will be representing themselves pro se for the remainder of these proceedings, and will not be retaining external legal counsel at this time.


The Defendant acknowledges the responsibilities and risks associated with self-representation and requests that the Court proceed accordingly.View attachment 81630

Your Honour, I did not see this.
Talion & Partners INC. will retract if the Court allows the Defendant to represent pro-se.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour,

Talion & Partners INC. has an existing retainer agreement which covers this suit.

The binding legal agreement covers civil representation until 22 May 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Retainer Agreement

View attachment 81628

If the Court finds such proof enough of a proof of consent to represent we will be obliged under the agreement to take this case.

Please file an answer to complaint within 48 hours.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour, I did not see this.
Talion & Partners INC. will retract if the Court allows the Defendant to represent pro-se.

Writ of Summons

L4ndaakk ( @casinomaster ) is ordered to appear before the Federal Court in the case of TheStockExchange et. al v. L4ndaakk [2026] FCR 36.

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.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Const. 18(3)(b) Mandatory Representation Order

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont permits the Federal Court to "require legal representation for parties appearing before the Court" (Const. 18(3)(b)).

The Court has found the Defendant to be lacking any legal qualifications:

Spoiler: Qualifications of L4ndaakk

View attachment 81626

In order to protect the Defendant from themself, the Court orders that the Defendant secure representation by a qualified barrister (with correct specialization) or attorney in this case. While the Defendant may enter initial appearance post-summons, the Court exercises its constitutional power to bar the Defendant from self-representation on any pleading in this case.

Should no qualified counsel be found willing to represent the Defendant, the Public Defender Program shall provide qualified defense for the Defendant.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

The Court is requiring the Defendant to obtain legal representation, in line with Const. 18(3)(b). The Court will not permit this individual to represent themself, and sees the outburst "shout out my lawyer" (Post No. 27) as confirming that the Defendant wishes for you to represent them. As the retainer contract appears valid in front of the court, you shall continue to represent the Defendant.

 

[Muggy21]

The Court is requiring the Defendant to obtain legal representation, in line with Const. 18(3)(b). The Court will not permit this individual to represent themself, and sees the outburst "shout out my lawyer" (Post No. 27) as confirming that the Defendant wishes for you to represent them. As the retainer contract appears valid in front of the court, you shall continue to represent the Defendant.

Your Honour, this would be a conflict of interest for T&P to act as Defense counsel, within the context of the Criminal Code Act.

The image is a retainer between TSE and T&P

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMARY CONVICTION - CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ILLEGAL ADVERTISING

L4ndaakk, was previously held in contempt above and was warned that further outbursts would be met with maximum punishment.

The Court reiterates that Supreme Court has ordered that "[l]itigants must respect decorum in the court. Proper behavior towards both the opposing party and the presiding judge is required in all court filings" (In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8). The Court finds that the Defendant has failed to maintain proper decorum and failed to engage in proper behavior towards the opposing party through the below two quoted filings:

The Defendant hereby informs the Court that they will be representing themselves pro se for the remainder of these proceedings, and will not be retaining external legal counsel at this time.


The Defendant acknowledges the responsibilities and risks associated with self-representation and requests that the Court proceed accordingly.View attachment 81630

shout out my lawyer

View attachment 81630

What's more, "Judicial Officers may impose punishments for any Summary Offense committed during proceedings" (Criminal Code Act, Part I, Section 6(2)(c)). The Court, upon reviewing the Criminal Code Act, finds that the summary offense of illegal advertising occurs when a person:

(a) advertises a business or political campaign in a public chat not designated for advertising.
(b) advertises a gaming institution or gambling in a public chat designated for advertising.

(CCA, Part X, Section 7(a)-(b))

The Court finds that the above quoted posts were made in this Court Thread, that this Court thread is a public chat (in other words, a channel that the public has access to) not designated for advertising, and that the above quoted posts constitute advertising of a business and a gaming institution. Because these advertisements were made in the proceeding by being posted in this Court thread, a judicial officer may impose punishments for these illegal advertisements.

In jsrkiwi v Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 93, the District Court found that "[e]scalating penalties apply only to prior established offences". The Federal Court disagrees. When a first offense is committed, subsequent offenses may occur prior to charging and conviction of the first offense. When multiple offenses are charged, the escalating penalties may apply based on the number of offenses charged, not merely based on prior conviction.

As such, the Federal Court summarily convicts the Defendant of the following crimes, corresponding to each above quoted post:

1. For Post No. 25, the Defendant (L4ndaakk) is convicted of Contempt of Court and Illegal Advertising (first offense). The defendant shall be jailed for 10 minutes for the Contempt Charge and fined $10,500 ($10,000 for contempt, plus $500 for illegal advertising).
2. For Post No. 27, the Defendant (L4ndaakk) is convicted of Contempt of Court and Illegal Advertising (second offense). The Defendant shall be jailed for 10 minutes for the Contempt charge and fined $11,000 ($10,000 for contempt, plus $1,000 for illegal advertising).

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

View attachment 81687

Your Honour, this would be a conflict of interest for T&P to act as Defense counsel, within the context of the Criminal Code Act.

The image is a retainer between TSE and T&P

Objection

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

Your Honour, the Defence cannot respond to the statement made by Plaintiff if it isn't formally an item recognized by the Court. If the Plaintiff believes that procedure has been breached, the Court should require them to file an objection that the Defence can respond to.

We ask that the Court strike the Plaintiff's message from the record.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - APPLICATION TO SUBMIT AMICUS BRIEF (Post No. 8)

Your honor, i wish to file a brief regarding defendant's unique legal strategy and its consequences to this court's integrity, furthermore your honor. As a proud TSE user, i belive my brief would be of benefit to this court.

The amicus request is considered. However, the Regulations of the Federal Court require specific content to be in an application to file an amicus brief:

3.2. An application under this section shall state:
(a) the interest of the movant in the subject matter of the case;
(b) an affirmative statement attesting that the movant has no personal, pecuniary, or outcome-based interest in the disposition of the case; and
(c) that the proposed brief concerns a legal argument arising from constitutional principles, historical development of law, overturned or modified precedent, or a uniquely situated legal issue.
3.3. The Court may issue Contempt of Court charges where an amicus application is materially deficient, misleading, or causes the Court to be misapprehended.

(RFC, Section 3(2)-(3)).

The Court is not satisfied that the application to submit the amicus brief satisfies each requirement under Section 3(2), and the Court is thus contemplating denial of the request.

That being said, I will allow 48 hours for the Dearev (@dearev) to submit a revised application that responds to the deficiencies identified above. I will not be holding you in contempt for the initial application; despite the apparent deficiencies in the application, this has not been materially disruptive to an extent where sanctions would be warranted.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Separately, the Court notes that certain posts may have been deleted by staff. As such, numbered references in older posts may be inaccurate, though links should correctly be preserved.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE, RELEVANCE

Your Honour, the Plaintiff submitted the Complaint with P-001 as an exhibit, (see below).

P-001

Spoiler

05-05-2026 22:02:43 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,000.00
05-05-2026 22:02:42 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,000.00
05-05-2026 22:02:42 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,000.00
05-05-2026 22:02:42 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,000.00
05-05-2026 21:56:36 dert withdrawal CASH -$42,538.00

The exhibit contains texts logs of apparent transactions. However, in [2025] SCR 20 the Hnble. Supreme Court ruled "[t]ext logs as a form of evidence are naturally suspect and must be corroborated by independent evidence", and "the difficulty on first look of verifying [text logs], means care must be taken to ensure their veracity."

There is no independent evidence corroborating exhibit P-001.

While this Hnble. Court may note that the Hnble. Supreme Court also ruled, "In a civil case, perhaps more leniency could be granted as to corroboration", however, due to the sheer amount that the Plaintiff prays from this Court, and additionally no further evidence supporting the existence and the truth of these logs within the TheStockExchange, the Defence objects to their sole usage in this lawsuit.

On the point of relevance, the Plaintiff fails to establish where these logs were derived from and what relevance it bears to this case. TheStockExchange is notably the main party of this case, yet, in P-002 Mug can be seen saying "You just stole 200,000$ from me." [Emphasis Mine]

As such, until we can determine that this exhibit is independendly corroborated and we can determine where these logs are from we ask that the Court:

1. Strike P-001 from the record.
2. Strike all references to P-001, including Facts 1 and 2.
3. Order the Plaintiff to provide independent logs whose relevance to TheStockExchange is clear.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE, RELEVANCE

Your Honour, the Plaintiff submitted the Complaint with P-001 as an exhibit, (see below).



The exhibit contains texts logs of apparent transactions. However, in [2025] SCR 20 the Hnble. Supreme Court ruled "[t]ext logs as a form of evidence are naturally suspect and must be corroborated by independent evidence", and "the difficulty on first look of verifying [text logs], means care must be taken to ensure their veracity."

There is no independent evidence corroborating exhibit P-001.

While this Hnble. Court may note that the Hnble. Supreme Court also ruled, "In a civil case, perhaps more leniency could be granted as to corroboration", however, due to the sheer amount that the Plaintiff prays from this Court, and additionally no further evidence supporting the existence and the truth of these logs within the TheStockExchange, the Defence objects to their sole usage in this lawsuit.

On the point of relevance, the Plaintiff fails to establish where these logs were derived from and what relevance it bears to this case. TheStockExchange is notably the main party of this case, yet, in P-002 Mug can be seen saying "You just stole 200,000$ from me." [Emphasis Mine]

As such, until we can determine that this exhibit is independendly corroborated and we can determine where these logs are from we ask that the Court:

1. Strike P-001 from the record.
2. Strike all references to P-001, including Facts 1 and 2.
3. Order the Plaintiff to provide independent logs whose relevance to TheStockExchange is clear.

Your Honour @Franciscus ,

We ask that our deadline for answer to complaint be tolled until the above objection is ruled on.