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

 

[casinomaster]

MOD EDIT: Removed rule breaking text - Restored Images

 

[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.

 

[Muggy21]

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.

Response

Your Honour,

The Defence's objection mischaracterises the nature of the evidence and the applicable legal standard, and should be denied.

I. DEFENSE MISAPPREHENSION ABOUT TEXT LOGS

The Defence conflates "text logs" as addressed in [2025] SCR 20 with the platform records submitted as P-001. TheStockExchange ("TSE") is a web-based platform. Any record it maintains of transactions, whether drawn from its ledgers, database outputs, or system logs, will necessarily take the form of text. To require "independent corroboration" of platform-native records on the basis that they are presented as text would be to impose an impossible evidentiary standard on any digital platform. The Supreme Court's concern in [2025] SCR 20 was directed at informal chat logs susceptible to fabrication, not structured transactional records produced by the platform itself. P-001 is the latter.

II. ON CORROBORATION

The Defence's own cited authority concedes that in civil proceedings, "perhaps more leniency could be granted as to corroboration." The Plaintiff submits that the contents of P-001 are further corroborated by the Defence's own conduct. In P-002, the Defendant states, "You just stole 200,000$ from me." This is a direct, unambiguous acknowledgment of the amount in dispute. The Defendant did not contest the figure at the time, and offers no evidence now that the amount is incorrect. A party cannot simultaneously acknowledge a sum and move to strike the only record documenting it.

III. ON RELEVANCE

The Defendant's argument that the phrase "You just stole 200,000$ from me" refers to TSE's funds rather than the Plaintiff's personal funds is an assertion without support. At the evidentiary stage, the sole question is whether P-001 is relevant to the claims before this Court. It plainly is: it documents the transaction at the heart of this dispute. Relevance is established.

 

[Franciscus]

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.

The Court intends to overrule the objection and will provide a full order to this effect later. The deadline will not be tolled; please proceed with this in mind.

 

[Franciscus]

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.

Response

Your Honour,

The Defence's objection mischaracterises the nature of the evidence and the applicable legal standard, and should be denied.

I. DEFENSE MISAPPREHENSION ABOUT TEXT LOGS

The Defence conflates "text logs" as addressed in [2025] SCR 20 with the platform records submitted as P-001. TheStockExchange ("TSE") is a web-based platform. Any record it maintains of transactions, whether drawn from its ledgers, database outputs, or system logs, will necessarily take the form of text. To require "independent corroboration" of platform-native records on the basis that they are presented as text would be to impose an impossible evidentiary standard on any digital platform. The Supreme Court's concern in [2025] SCR 20 was directed at informal chat logs susceptible to fabrication, not structured transactional records produced by the platform itself. P-001 is the latter.

II. ON CORROBORATION

The Defence's own cited authority concedes that in civil proceedings, "perhaps more leniency could be granted as to corroboration." The Plaintiff submits that the contents of P-001 are further corroborated by the Defence's own conduct. In P-002, the Defendant states, "You just stole 200,000$ from me." This is a direct, unambiguous acknowledgment of the amount in dispute. The Defendant did not contest the figure at the time, and offers no evidence now that the amount is incorrect. A party cannot simultaneously acknowledge a sum and move to strike the only record documenting it.

III. ON RELEVANCE

The Defendant's argument that the phrase "You just stole 200,000$ from me" refers to TSE's funds rather than the Plaintiff's personal funds is an assertion without support. At the evidentiary stage, the sole question is whether P-001 is relevant to the claims before this Court. It plainly is: it documents the transaction at the heart of this dispute. Relevance is established.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - OBJECTION FOR IMPROPER EVIDENCE AND RELEVANCE (Post No. 35)

Movant-Defendant objects to the Respondent-Plaintiff's submission of Exhibit P-001, on the basis that such is a raw text log. The Movant-Defendant seeks the Court to strike the exhibit, strike factual allegations that refer to the exhibit, and "Order the Plaintiff to provide independent logs whose relevance to TheStockExchange is clear".

The Defendant argues that the submission constitutes a transaction record, which is allegedly generally permissible, rather than the sorts of informal chat logs that the Supreme Court has previously warned against in Criminal cases. The Defendant argues that statements from the Defendant confirm the authenticity of the logs and that such logs are relevant inasmuch as they allegedly point to funds lawfully belonging to TSE that are at the heart of the case.

The Supreme Court has instructed that when it comes to text logs, "care must be taken to ensure their veracity... they must be corroborated independently" (Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, Order at Post No. 29). The Defendant themself has shoved records of communications mentioning these logs in the Court's face (see: Post No. 13). The Plaintiff has substantially provided the substantially same set of surrounding messages (see: Exhibit P-002). Neither party, in the communications provided to the Court, appears to have contested the accuracy of the logs. At face value, the Defendant appears to have acknowledged these logs as truthful (see: Exhibit P-002, "well \ you have slight bug \ so yeah"). (As to potential hearsay concerns, see emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24, Post No. 65, quoting the Objections Guide, "[h]earsay is permissible if it relates to a person's reputation, character, or is an admission by the opposing party".) If the Court were to consider this as the kind of raw text log encompassed by the Supreme Court's prior ruling, the Court is satisfied that the standard set by the Supreme Court be here met, particularly so in the context of a civil case where "perhaps more leniency could be granted as to corroboration" (Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, Order at Post No. 29).

Moreover, this objection is filed prematurely. This case has not so much as progressed to an answer to complaint. The Plaintiff has the whole of discovery to present additional evidence, add witnesses to their witness list that can provide additional corroboration, and otherwise address potential factual defenses that the Defendant may present regarding the veracity of these logs. The Defense has the whole discovery and trial process to discover any evidence or call witnesses whose testimony would cut against the reliability of Exhibit P-001. The Federal Court thus separately finds striking of Exhibit P-001 to be premature at this point in time.

For both of these reasons, the objection is thus overruled. The exhibit will be preserved, the references will not be stricken, and the Court will not order the Plaintiff to take any particular action related to these logs.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[Franciscus]

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.

Sidebar.

 

[Franciscus]

In the sidebar, the Court was informed that Talion & Partners is no longer the Defendant’s counsel and that replacement counsel ( @Johnes ) was subsequently fired by the Defendant.

In light of this occurrence, the Federal Court finds that a public defender is required unless private counsel appears before the Court with authority to represent the Defendant.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — ASSIGNMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM

The Public Defender Program shall assign a public defender to this case in the next 24 hours. Should no assignment be made, the Court will randomly pick a public defender not on LOA and assign them to the case.

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.

Objection overruled as moot, given that the contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and T&P is no longer a relevant question here.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

I have assigned @asexualdinosaur as the Public Defender for this case.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honour,

@Dartanboy has assigned me as the Public Defender for this case.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour,

@Dartanboy has assigned me as the Public Defender for this case.

Please present the answer to complaint within 48 hours.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour, parties are endeavouring (yes, a pun) to come to a settlement agreement.

I humbly request the proceedings be tolled for 72 hours for the sake of judicial economy and to allow discussions to materialize into a settlement.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour, parties are endeavouring (yes, a pun) to come to a settlement agreement.

I humbly request the proceedings be tolled for 72 hours for the sake of judicial economy and to allow discussions to materialize into a settlement.

Deadline is tolled.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Nolle Prosequi

Your Honour,

Parties have come to a settlement agreement. As Defense Counsel is a Public Defender, I request the Court accept our settlement agreement and adjudicate it as a final binding order of this Court.


```
DRAFT ORDER


Defendant L4ndaakk is liable to TSE Risk Analytics in the amount of $10,000
Defendant L4ndaakk is liable to TSE Investment Bank in the amount of $123,000
Defendant L4ndaakk is liable to Redmont Trust Services LLC in the amount of $12,000

Total Liability: $145,000

All facts and claims are settled in favour of the Plaintiff and this Order is the final adjudication
herein of all facts, prayers, and claims between parties.


```

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Nolle Prosequi

Your Honour,

Parties have come to a settlement agreement. As Defense Counsel is a Public Defender, I request the Court accept our settlement agreement and adjudicate it as a final binding order of this Court.


```
DRAFT ORDER


Defendant L4ndaakk is liable to TSE Risk Analytics in the amount of $10,000
Defendant L4ndaakk is liable to TSE Investment Bank in the amount of $123,000
Defendant L4ndaakk is liable to Redmont Trust Services LLC in the amount of $12,000

Total Liability: $145,000

All facts and claims are settled in favour of the Plaintiff and this Order is the final adjudication
herein of all facts, prayers, and claims between parties.


```

@asexualdinosaur does the Public Defender confirm this agreement to be true?

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMARY CONVICTION - EX PARTE COMMUNICATION

Under the Criminal Code Act, the summary offense of Ex Parte Communication occurs when a person "makes direct or indirect communication about a specific case with the presiding officer that is presiding over that case that the violator is either a plaintiff, defendant, or counsel in without the knowledge of all parties (Plaintiff, defendant, counsel) in the case" (CCA, Part III, Section 16).

Several minutes ago, the Defendant sent a DM to the Judicial Officer regarding the case.

The Court places the ex-parte communication here so that all parties may see it. We also convict the Defendant of the crime of Ex Parte Communication and order the Defendant be fined $50,000 and sentenced to 60 minutes in jail for this crime.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

The Court also will address the question of recusal. The relevant recusal standard involving ex parte communication exists at JSA, Part III, Section 1(5)(a), which would warrant recusal in cases of "Ex parte communication from the Judicial Officer" (emphasis mine). Because this is not a communication from the judicial officer, but rather from the Defendant, the Court believes it is not warranted as a result of merely having received this communication.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

@asexualdinosaur does the Public Defender confirm this agreement to be true?

Your honour,

I affirm that I agree to the settlement, on behalf of the defendant.

In past cases, Public Defenders have relied on court orders to the executive to enact transfers of funds; and I seek to have your honour do the same to enact on the liabilities owed.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Volt Bank v. Sp1d3rr [2025] DCR 25

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Dr_Eksplosive v. georgelordx [2024] FCR 105

In these cases the Public Defender was unable to get into contact with their client. I do not wish to deceive your honour. I have been able to get into contact with my client. I had a very lengthy discussion about strategy, review evidence, and understand their intent and goals both of the situation and for their steps forward.

As such, this violates the test set by the former honorable Judge Ameslap in Lawsuit: Dismissed - MysticPhunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 115

“The Court will use a multiple-prong test to determine if a settlement agreement is valid, these tests include:

1. Ambiguity or Vagueness: Settlements must be clear and complete. (i.e. they should always include payment amounts, timeline, and conditions).
2. Mutual Consent: Named parties must agree to the settlement.
3. Coercion, Fraud, or Duress: Settlements must not be reached through threats, deception, or undue pressure.
4. Unconscionability or Extreme Unfairness: Settlements cannot be grossly one-sided or would result in injustice.
5. Contrary to Law or Public Policy: Settlements cannot violate statues, regulations, or public policy.
6. Beyond Court's Jurisdiction: All Settlements must be able to be enforced through the court (only after they are already filed).“

In order to satisfy
1) the court order for the DHS or other entity would determine timelines other such conditions have been met.
2) L4ndaakk is a named party, and I do represent them- but as we see under MysticPhunky v. Culls, this is not necessarily enough to assure that the client’s interests were considered and that they had applied consent.
3-6) I believe there to be no issue.


In the interests of full disclosure I want to make it clear that the defendant does not wish to settle this case, but in my professional legal opinion, as well as the professional opinion of the defendant's prior counsel, all believed that a settlement was the correct decision.

I did not make this decision lightly and I hope your honour will see the value in upholding past precedent of public defenders discretion towards moving the matter favorably for the clients situation as stated in the Court Rules and Procedures, ‘Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client’s situation, even settling if needed.‘ - ‘A public defender is not required to listen to the demands of a player whom is utilizing the public defender, nor is the public defender necessarily required to argue their client’s innocence. ‘


Your honour, I believe that this settlement certainly moves the matter favorably in the defendants' situation in such a manner that to turn it down would be a disservice to the defendant despite their plea’s to fight the case.

Thank you.

Included is a statement from my client should your honour find it relevant, I do not wish to misrepresent my client's wishes.

Spoiler: Defendant's Position on a Settlement

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Nolle Prosequi

Your Honour,

Parties have come to a settlement agreement. As Defense Counsel is a Public Defender, I request the Court accept our settlement agreement and adjudicate it as a final binding order of this Court.


```
DRAFT ORDER


Defendant L4ndaakk is liable to TSE Risk Analytics in the amount of $10,000
Defendant L4ndaakk is liable to TSE Investment Bank in the amount of $123,000
Defendant L4ndaakk is liable to Redmont Trust Services LLC in the amount of $12,000

Total Liability: $145,000

All facts and claims are settled in favour of the Plaintiff and this Order is the final adjudication
herein of all facts, prayers, and claims between parties.


```

Your honour,

I affirm that I agree to the settlement, on behalf of the defendant.

In past cases, Public Defenders have relied on court orders to the executive to enact transfers of funds; and I seek to have your honour do the same to enact on the liabilities owed.

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Volt Bank v. Sp1d3rr [2025] DCR 25

Lawsuit: Dismissed - Dr_Eksplosive v. georgelordx [2024] FCR 105

In these cases the Public Defender was unable to get into contact with their client. I do not wish to deceive your honour. I have been able to get into contact with my client. I had a very lengthy discussion about strategy, review evidence, and understand their intent and goals both of the situation and for their steps forward.

As such, this violates the test set by the former honorable Judge Ameslap in Lawsuit: Dismissed - MysticPhunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 115

In order to satisfy
1) the court order for the DHS or other entity would determine timelines other such conditions have been met.
2) L4ndaakk is a named party, and I do represent them- but as we see under MysticPhunky v. Culls, this is not necessarily enough to assure that the client’s interests were considered and that they had applied consent.
3-6) I believe there to be no issue.


In the interests of full disclosure I want to make it clear that the defendant does not wish to settle this case, but in my professional legal opinion, as well as the professional opinion of the defendant's prior counsel, all believed that a settlement was the correct decision.

I did not make this decision lightly and I hope your honour will see the value in upholding past precedent of public defenders discretion towards moving the matter favorably for the clients situation as stated in the Court Rules and Procedures, ‘Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client’s situation, even settling if needed.‘ - ‘A public defender is not required to listen to the demands of a player whom is utilizing the public defender, nor is the public defender necessarily required to argue their client’s innocence. ‘


Your honour, I believe that this settlement certainly moves the matter favorably in the defendants' situation in such a manner that to turn it down would be a disservice to the defendant despite their plea’s to fight the case.

Thank you.

Included is a statement from my client should your honour find it relevant, I do not wish to misrepresent my client's wishes.

Spoiler: Defendant's Position on a Settlement

View attachment 81814

Court is in recess pending a final order of the Court.

 

[Muggy21]

Court is in recess pending a final order of the Court.

Your Honour, the Defendant has since been long deported.

Although a public defender can't represent a parties interest, its still Plaintiff's view that this settlement agreement is best for the financial system at large.