Lawsuit: Adjourned 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.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

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

The long-deported defendant disrupted this Court by making repeated posts while we were in recess. These posts were deleted by staff. Each instance of this - of which there were 16 - was an instance of contempt of Court. The Federal Court thus convicts the Defendant L4ndaakk on 16 separate charges of Contempt of Court. Each count shall carry a punishment of $10,000 and 10 minutes in jail, for a total of $160,000 and 160 minutes in jail.

Spoiler: Disruptive posts

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Separately - expect a final order in the next 2 days.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
FINAL ORDER - TheStockExchange et. al v. L4ndaakk [2026] FCR 36​

I. Summary​

TheStockExchange LLC, Redmont Trust Services LLC, TSE Risk Analytics LLC, and TSE Investment Bank (collectively "Plaintiffs") approached the Court

Defendant L4ndaakk appeared in Court on his own behalf, was ordered to obtain representation, obtained representation, fired said representation, obtained new representation, fired the new representation, and was assigned a public defender.

The Plaintiffs agreed with the public defender representing the Defendant to settle the case. The Defendant, now long-deported, opposed the settlement prior to his long deportation.

II. Opinion of the Court​

Before the Court is the question of whether or not to accept the settlement agreement that was reached with the consent of the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Defendant's counsel, where the Defendant nonetheless objected to the settlement. The Staff team has instructed the Court to ignore the Defendant's objection (see: attached PDF "Ticket-30488"), as long-deported individuals cannot have their assets distributed per their wishes; we thus proceed completely ignoring the opposition of the Defendant to the settlement.

II.A. On the ability of a Public Defender to Agree to a Settlement Against the Desire of a Defendant​

The Constitution empowers the Judiciary to "establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel" (Const. 14). Through constitutional Judicial Power (Const. 13), the Courts have established Court Rules and Procedures, which the Congress has separately affirmed via statute to "have force of law" (JSA, Part III, Section 5(3)). Among other things, these rules provide the standard to which Public Defenders are to be held:

A player who qualifies and is given a Public Defender to handle their case are only entitled to an attorney who will fulfill the following:

1. Timely respond to cases on their behalf
2. Protect the player’s constitutional rights
3. 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.

(Rule 6.5).

In this case, the Defendant has made clear the Defendant opposes a settlement at this time. But that is of no matter. Rule 6.5 makes clear that "[a] public defender is not required to listen to the demands of a player whom is utilizing the public defender"; rather, a public defender must attempt to move the matter favorably for their assigned Defendant (including the use of settlements), must protect the Defendant's constitutional rights, and must respond timely to cases. Such is the lawful standard of care to which a public defender is held, and such is the authority of a public defender to settle cases on behalf of their client.

The Court here, however, must examine whether the Court rules constitute "a regulation that is too broad or too discretionary" so as to "abridge[] the rights of the citizenry" ([2025] FCR 78 - Appeal, Page 13, Par. 4). Despite the statutory text in the Judicial Standards Act that "any challenge to a Rule's validity must be brought before the Supreme Court" (JSA, Part III, Section 5(3)), the Constitution grants the Federal Court exclusive original jurisdiction over "questions of constitutionality" (Const. 18(1)(a)).

Any application of statute which would remove from the Federal Court cases or controversies which lie in its constitutionally ordained original jurisdiction would be plainly unconstitutional (see: Const. Preamble, "This Constitution is the highest law of the Commonwealth. It binds all institutions, people, and overrides any law or authority that conflicts with it"; In re [2023] SCR 5 | [2026] SCR 4, "improper attempts to modify [the Constitution] with statute must fail because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land"; APPLICATION RaiTheGuy07 [2026] FCR 28, Section III.B.2 "[t]he general principle that powers granted uniquely by the Constitution to one entity or branch cannot be limited by mere statute is at the core of the principle of separation of powers and thus of our Constitutional order"; see also: Toadking v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 18, "A regular statute cannot limit the Senate in exercising a power the Constitution gives exclusively to it").

Because an assessment of whether a Court rule violates the rights of citizens implicates the Charter (see: Const. 35), the question of whether Court rule 6.5 is unduly broad or unduly discretionary is a question of constitutionality that must be answered by the Federal Court, notwithstanding any ordinary statute purportedly directing the Court otherwise. In other words, challenges to "validity" of Court rules cannot be barred from the Federal Court when such challenge implicates the Charter.

Having handled the question of the Federal Court's jurisdiction on this issue, we now turn to an examination of the Charter, finding several rights are facially implicated. This includes the right to fair trial (Const. 35(9)); the right to assistance of legally qualified counsel for one's own defense (ibid.); and the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person, as well as to not be deprived thereof except in accord with fundamental justice (Const. 35(14)). Moreover, these "rights are inalienable" (Const. 35(7)); the criminal misbehavior of the Defendant in this case cannot abridge them (ibid.).

As applied here, the Court finds that the public defender is authorized, through the constitutional authority of the Public Defender program, to settle the instant case. This is not a decision that may be made lightly nor with disregard for the specific circumstances of this case, especially the long deportation; application here heavily depends upon the judgement that this settlement does not violate the competency standard laid out in the Court rules.

II.B. On the ability of a Court to reject the proposed settlement agreement​

The Federal Court articulated that "is a contract between the plaintiff and defendant that ends litigation" (Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6, Post No. 14). A Court need not accept the agreement, but may insert its own verdict; the Supreme Court has declined to overturn the FCR in reaching a verdict different than that which was contemplated in a negotiated settlement agreement ([2025] FCR 6 - Appeal).

When the Court must consider whether or not we may or ought reject a settlement agreement, we begin by reviewing precedent. Upon review, the Court finds nothing controlling from the Supreme Court that handles the question of when a Court may reject a settlement. Upon review of horizontal precedent, however, we do find a test as having been previously articulated by the Federal Court.

II.B.1. On the applicability of MysticPhunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 115​

We examine Post No. 10 of MysticPhunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 115. There, the Federal Court rejected a settlement agreement outright and created a six-prong test against which settlement validity could be tested, with the prongs as follows:

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).

(MysticPhunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 115, Order at Post No. 10).

This Court, upon examining this, is fundamentally confused as to why the Court articulated this six-prong test. The Hon. Judge in [2025] FCR 115, in coming up with the test, cites no precedents, nor statutes, nor constitutional clauses. Upon examining Post No. 15 of that case, the Federal Court stated that the test "is new precedent", citing a "Judicial Duty to Uphold the Law", the "Judiciary Role Under Article 13", and a desire to participate in "Preserving the Court's Integrity".

We must ordinarily give horizontal precedent considerable persuasive weight. But the Court in the instant case is not absolutely horizontally bound by prior decisions of the Federal Court. While the theoretical nature of precedent about precedent may be somewhat paradoxical (see generally: 138 Harv. L. Rev. 797, Section II(a)), the common practice of the Federal Court (what one may even say is the Common Law) has been thus.

In the instant case, the Court is skeptical that we ought reflexively rely upon a test that was created in a quasi-ex nihilo manner without reference to underlying statute, constitutional clauses, and/or Common Law. Abstract principles-based reasoning alone is incapable of yielding a complete answer without underlying reference to our Constitution, relevant statutes, or established Common Law. The Court thus seeks to re-examine the basis for this test by examining the relevant statutes of contracts and the Charter's protections to find whether the test has sufficient basis in statute and/or constitutional principle to be re-affirmed by this Court, especially following the passage of the RCCA and the RCCAA.

II.B.2. In general, settlements are contracts between private parties​

Settlement agreements between private parties are a kind of contract (see: Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6, Post No. 14, "The settlement agreement is a contract between the plaintiff and defendant that ends litigation"). Because they are contracts, we must apply our law of contracts in their examination when determining their validity. The principal statute governing the law of contracts, the Contracts Act, sets out the required terms of Contract Formation as follows:

4 - Contract Formation
(1) A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties that creates an obligation to do or not do a particular thing.
(2) A valid contract is formed when the following legal test is met:
(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.
(c) Consideration. Consideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy. Consideration can be tangible or intanglbie.
(d) Intent. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.
(e) Capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so. Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract.

(Contracts Act, Section 4).

Because contracts must meet all affirmative requirements of the Contracts Act (see: Contracts Act, Section 6(2)), including the legal test in Section 4(2) thereof, settlement agreements are thereby subject to the requirements of Contract Formation under the Contracts Act.

II.B.3. On the first prong of the MysticPhunky test​

The first prong of the test prior to the parenthetical, that "Settlements must be clear and complete" (MysticPhunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 115, Order at Post No. 10), closely mirrors the language in the Contracts Act: an "offer is a clear and unequivocal communication" (id., Section 4(2)(a)) and that acceptance is "a positive and unambiguous response" (id., Section 4(2)(b)). As contract offer and acceptance requires clarity and unambiguity, so too must a settlement agreement.

The Court, however, does not quite see justification for the parenthetical of the first prong "(i.e. they should always include payment amounts, timeline, and conditions)" (MysticPhunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 115, Order at Post No. 10) in this language, at least as it pertains to explicit terms. Contracts also contain implied terms, which "may be derived from law, custom, or the conduct of the parties" (Contracts Act, Section 5(2)); "The terms of a contract are express when expressly stated or implied. Yet, if the terms of a contract are not express, they can be implied through conduct." (Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6, Section III, Par. 2, internal citations omitted). The use of "i.e.", an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "id est" is indicative of a definition of the earlier phrase rather than mere examples which may arise from it (see: Merriam Webster, "The Difference Between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.'"; The Britannica Dictionary, "i.e."; Wex, "i.e."), which is re-emphasized by the use of "always" in the first prong's listing.

While elements core to a settlement agreement must be express terms, certain elements that may be derived from custom or other law needn't be. Certain requirements regarding timelines and other conditions incidental to a settlement agreement that can be thus derived needn't be stated expressly.

As such, this Court does not find justification in statute for the parenthetical, but we do find justification for the part of the first prong prior to the parenthetical. We thus restate a new first prong:

• Revised Prong 1: Ambiguity or Vagueness: Settlements must be clear and reasonably complete.

II.B.4. On the second prong of the MysticPhunky test​

The second prong, mutual consent, is reflected in the Contracts Act's requirement that all contracts have an Offer and an Acceptance with a clear intention towards creating legal relations (see: Contracts Act., Sections 4(2)(a-b),(d))). As such, the second prong, as stated below, is re-affirmed in full:

• Prong 2: Mutual Consent: All relevant named parties must agree to the settlement.

II.B.4.i. On the application of the second prong to cases involving a public defender
On first glance, the Court rules might appear to provide an exception for public defenders, as "[a] public defender is not required to listen to the demands of a player whom is utilizing the public defender" (Rule 6.5). If we applied this at plain meaning, we might conclude that a Public Defender needn't actually care whether the Defendant to which they are assigned agreed to a contract and that a PD can agree anyway. As applied to signing a new contract on the behalf of their client, however, this appearance might be, on second glance, illusory. "Court Rules apply in the absence of congressional law and constitutional provision" (Rule 1.1); the Court has subordinated its rules to congressional statutes. (see also generally: Toadking v The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] SCR 18 "If the Senate had included the disclosure requirement in the standing orders, and then ignored its own rule, that would’ve been an entirely different situation. A chamber is expected to follow procedures that they have formally adopted for itself, and a deliberate failure to follow its own procedural rules may raise a valid question for review.")

We also must look at the Constitution, as "Court Rules apply in the absence of congressional law and constitutional provision" (Rule 1.1). The Judiciary has constitutional authority to "establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel" (Const. 14). While this authority is not invoked in the issuance of the Court Rules (see: Rule 1.1, "Court Rules rely on the Constitution, Section 13 - Judicial Power - as the source of their authority"), such is the authority implicitly invoked in Public Defence Policy's reference to the Save the Public Defender Program Again Act. We thus examine case law to see if this constitutional authority, notwithstanding the text of the Contracts Act, is read to permit public defenders more leeway to grant consent on behalf of their clients.

The Courts have applied special consideration in cases where a Public Defender has not been able to contact their client. Such was the case in: Dr_Eksplosive v. georgelordx [2024] FCR 105, where a Court ordered a settlement agreement be enforced through the DHS; in Musclebound v. HamsterCorp [2026] DCR 2, where the District Court adjudicated as a final verdict a settlement where the Public Defender could not reach his client; in Pepecuu v MattTheSavvy [2025] FCR 100, a Public Defender again agreed to a settlement where their client could not be reached, which the Court ordered to be executed by the Department of Homeland Security. We also see in other cases in which a Federal Court being used to adjudicate settlements. This includes the very MysticPhunky v. Culls [2025] FCR 115 that has caused us to do the prong-by-prong review, as well as Volt Bank v. Sp1d3rr [2025] DCR 25 (while the Public Defender now states that his client in that case was not reachable, such does not appear in the record of that case).

What can we draw from this?

In general, the Court draws as follows: there is a recognized Common Law principle in Redmont that a public defender may negotiate settlements in the absence of their client's activity. Courts have consummated these settlements through verdicts and through the use of the Department of Homeland Security to transfer funds.

Our second prong remains, thus, but with a caveat: in the absence of a defendant who is defendant who is assigned a Public Defender, a Public Defender's agreement on behalf of a defendant may be presumed. This does not mean that a Court must accept such a settlement when a defendant objects against the advice of their public defender, but rather that a Public Defender's consent to settlement can be legally binding upon a defendant when that defendant is being tried in absentia.

II.B.5. On the third prong of the MysticPhunky test​

The third prong of the MysticPhunky test is "Coercion, Fraud, or Duress: Settlements must not be reached through threats, deception, or undue pressure".

Upon review of the Contracts Act, the Court finds a definition of misrepresentation: "[m]isrepresentation happens when a false statement induces another party to enter into a contract" (Contracts Act, Section 8(1)). But this definition of Misrepresentation has been superseded; Part II, Section 5 of the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act removed the ability to seek remedies for this misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is now handled under Part VI of the Redmont Civil Code Act, under which the present civil violation requires a false statement of fact to be made that causes another party to enter into a contract AND cause a loss to that party (RCCA, Part VI, Section 2(a)-(c)). Mere deception, in other words, is not prohibited by the RCCA; it's only prohibited when such deception is both intentional and actually causes a loss of some kind.

As for "threats" and "undue pressure", the Court acknowledges that verbal threats to compel action are illegal (see: CCA, Part V, Section 4) and that certain kinds of threats made to force property to be delivered face higher punishments than other kinds of threats (see: CCA, Part VIII, Section 13). At the same time, the justice system requires certain kinds of threats to be made: lawyers must be able to advocate for clients, even if such advocacy could threaten a counterparty’s monetary or societal standing" (jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90, Post No. 42).

The Court in the instant case does find that certain kinds of threats are prohibited, and certain kinds of deception may be prohibited. But the third prong in MysticPhunky is too vague and sweeping. We thus restate a new third prong:

• Revised Prong 3: Free Consent: Parties giving consent to a settlement must do so freely, without being subject to unlawful threats, and without being prejudicially misled by their counterparty.

II.B.6. On the fourth prong of the MysticPhunky test​

The Fourth prong of the MysticPhunky test is: "Unconscionability or Extreme Unfairness: Settlements cannot be grossly one-sided or would result in injustice."

An examination of legislative history provides a potential roadblock for the fourth prong of "Unconscionability or Extreme Unfairness": the Contracts Act, through its repeal of The Contract Law Foundation Act (Contracts Act, Section 3(2)), repealed the provisions of the Foundations of Contract Law Amendment Act that would have governed unfair terms. That the Congress chose to remove such provisions from statutory law speaks volumes; that the Congress's actions removed statutory protections against unfair terms must be read as removing such as a statute-based reason to find a contract invalid (see: Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6, "It must be noted that the creation of the Contracts Acts does remove Unfair Terms as a defense since it rescinds the Foundation of Contracts Act. It is presently not against the Contracts Act to contract into a bad deal that adversely harms one party for the benefit of the other. Therefore, barring issues of constitutionality, the prior usage of unfair terms in and of themselves cannot be accounted for in the judicial decision making process at this present time", internal citations omitted).

The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms, incorporated as Article 35 of our Constitution, articulates the rights and freedoms that may only be abridged by "reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society" (Const. 35). Among these rights are a right to a fair and speedy trial (Const. 35(9)), a right to share in equal protection and equal benefit of the law (Const. 35(13)), and a "right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" (Const. 35(14)), and a right against unreasonable seizure (Const. 35(15)). All these "rights are inalienable" (Const. 35(7)).

Rights enumerated in the Charter bind government actors and governmental authority. When a Court accepts and orders a settlement agreement to be executed, it does so using the Judicial Power that is vested in the Courts (see: Const. 13). When a Court marshals the Department of Homeland Security to execute a court order to transfer, state power is invoked in seizing those assets. Therefore, even in cases between private parties, a court-enforced settlement cannot order something so grossly unjust or unfair so as to constructively deprive a party of fundamental fairness.

While we have some qualms with the way the Fourth prong is phrased, it seems to be directionally correct. We thus revise the Fourth prong as follows:

• Revised Prong 4: Fundamental fairness: Settlements requiring a Court to order transfers of funds or other property must be conscionable to a reasonable observer.

II.B.7. On the fifth prong of the MysticPhunky test​

The fifth prong of the MysticPhunky test is: "Contrary to Law or Public Policy: Settlements cannot violate statues, regulations, or public policy."

Parts of contracts that are illegal are severed from the remainder of contracts (see: Contracts Act, Section 10(2)). It is obvious, therefore, that a Court cannot order a settlement knowing that such a settlement would rely as principal consideration on a plainly illegal action.

However, we see no reason why a settlement enforced by a Court cannot violate "public policy" or "regulations" when such regulations or public policy either (1) are advisory in nature, rather than binding; or (2) otherwise lack force of law. The fifth prong in MysticPhunky is overspecified, and we thus revise it:

• Revised Fifth Prong: Lawfulness: Settlements may not require any party to engage in illegal activity.

II.B.8. On the sixth prong of the MysticPhunky test​

The sixth prong of the MysticPhunky test is: "Beyond Court's Jurisdiction: All Settlements must be able to be enforced through the court (only after they are already filed)".

The Court in the instant case finds the wording to be suboptimal, but understands the general point: after a case has been filed, all settlements must be enforced through the Court. Our problem is that this general point is inconsistent with our Common Law and appears required neither by statute nor the Constitution.

Throughout Redmont's history and tradition, out-of-court settlements have been widely permitted. This includes cases in front of the Supreme Court (see: The Lovely Law Firm v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 19 and Aladeen v. Redmont Bar Association [2024] SCR 28) and Federal Court (see: Brick and Browse Inc. v. Pepecuu [2026] FCR 8; ToadKing & Omegabiebel v. 12700k [2025] FCR 129; Volt Bank, Inc. v. Alta Group Corporation [2025] FCR 128; Mezimoří Union Bancorporation v. Aesyr_ [2025] FCR 108; Pepecuu v JediAJMan [2025] FCR 99; Dearev v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] FCR NN; Naezaratheus v. lucaaasserole [2025] FCR 35; .Lucky_waq v. YourChillGamer [2025] FCR 15; Luxor Casinos & Resorts v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 57; Blue Diamond Casino v. Steveshat [2024] FCR 48; Blue Diamond Casino v. 5axe [2024] FCR 47; Three Investment V. itsjb293 [2024] FCR 17; ANDREASP15 v. .Thelodgedteam [2024] FCR 14; Henree v. Discover Bank [2023] FCR 100; Bardiya_King v. Dumbyhead1234 [2023] FCR 80; JediAJMan v. Department of Justice [2023] FCR 85; SaintSoren v. Gwaryer [2023] FCR NN; Supersuperking v. bibsfi4a [2023] FCR 55; Onyx Industries v. Town of Klondike [2022] FCR 90; Emerald Co. v MightyMonkey576 [2022] FCR 33; Hamilton City Bank v. Wetc [2022] FCR 10; kailabeann v. Yeet63638 [2022] FCR 3; Spectre Industries v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 87; Chrisorg1 v. Bezzergezzer [2021] FCR 43; Bubbarc v. The Department of Construction and Transport [2021] FCR 9; partypig678 & Uncle_Simon v. Department of Education and Commerce [2020] FCR 20; and TheNewShep v. The_Angels_Wings [2020] FCR 16). Some of these settlements occurred before MysticPhunky's rule was issued, and some occurred after. In any case, what we see is a long tradition of the courts permitting out-of-court settlements after a case was filed that is so baked into our system that we must consider it to be the Common Law norm.

When a single ruling is plainly inconsistent with the Common Law, and the understanding of common practice throughout Redmont's history and tradition, it cannot simply dispose of that Common practice at its own will. Courts at times make errors; the sixth prong of MysticPhunky was clearly one such error. The Court, in the instant case, thus declines to revise the sixth prong. Instead, we will entirely disregard the plain error, and we will use a five-prong test in this case, as follows.

II.B.9. Revised Five-Prong Test​

Having analyzed the prior Court's test, we find ourselves at our revised five-prong test, which is recapitulated below:

1. Ambiguity or Vagueness: Settlements must be clear and reasonably complete.
2. Mutual Consent: All relevant named parties must agree to the settlement.
3. Free Consent: Parties giving consent to a settlement must do so freely, without being subject to unlawful threats, and without having been prejudicially misled by their counterparty.
4. Fundamental fairness: Settlements requiring a Court to order transfers of funds or other property must be conscionable to a reasonable observer.
5. Lawfulness: Settlements may not require any party to engage in illegal activity.

II.C. Application of the Revised Five-Prong Test​

We must now apply the revised five-prong test to this case. As to the first prong, the settlement is clear and reasonably complete: The exact amount of money to be transferred is laid out, and the adjudication of the facts and claims are clearly those in this case. As to the second prong, we find that the Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed through counsel to this case. (As has been previously noted, the Staff team has instructed the Court to ignore the Defendant's opposition to the settlement, so we do not consider it here.) As to the third prong, the Court finds no evidence of unlawful threats or prejudicially misleading behavior that led to the settlement. We conclude that consent here was freely given by both sides. As to the fourth prong: the Court finds the settlement agreement reasonable and plainly conscionable. As to the fifth prong, the Court finds no illegal activity occurring as a result of this settlement agreement.

As such, the settlement comports with each prong of the five-prong test. The Court thus accepts the settlement in full and shall adjudicate it as our final order.

III. Order of the Court​

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.

IV. Dicta​

This Court conducts a review of prior precedent. Without such a review, we would doom the Federal Court with the kinds of inconsistency in rulings that may constructively deny the general citizenry "equal protection and equal benefit of the law" (Const. 35(13)). The Court, in being held to the standard of equal protection, has a constitutional obligation to treat similarly situated individuals equally, regardless of which judge hears the case; random inconsistencies in the Federal Court would plainly undermine the rule of law by denying a "uniform, consistent, and stable platform for citizens and legislators to deal with the law" (In re [2023] SCR 5 | [2026] SCR 4, Justice Smallfries4, Dissenting). This obligation may be narrowed "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society" (Const. 35). Mere disagreement with a prior ruling is not enough to overcome this burden (See generally: In re [2023] SCR 5 | [2026] SCR 4, Justice Smallfries4, Dissenting, "The mere fact of a judicial officer merely disagreeing with a legal question’s previous answer does not immediately grant them the ability to overrule it"); the Courts must have an objectively reasonable and justified reason to do so. The Federal Court here decidedly does not "find little reason other than convention as to why this should be the case" (See: In re [2026] FCR 7 | [2026] SCR 7, Dicta).

While "[j]ust because one federal judge managed to grab a case with a novel issue before others did does not mean that their singular determination (absent an appeal) shall forever control the thoughts and decisions of other federal judges" (ibid.), the absoluteness of this statement borders on a strawman as to how the Federal Court handles and has handled horizontal precedent. The constitution requires that we provide substantial persuasive weight to horizontal precedent and that we must not be haphazard in tossing it aside. As seen in this case, that weight, while requiring strong deference, is not literally absolute.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155