Lawsuit: Pending United Justice Party v. Troniq [2026] FCR 90

[NoMoreUno]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

The United Justice Party
Plaintiff
v.

Troniq
Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff comes forward with the following complaint against the Defendant:

As founder of the United Justice Party (formerly the United Jaronite Party), the Defendant Troniq had sole access to the GnomeFundMe that sponsored the UJP's headquarters. Troniq withdrew $124,000 to buy Plot S129, which was expected to become the new UJP headquarters. No such UJP headquarters was ever realized. Troniq then proceeded to dissolve the UJP without consulting any upper leadership, which was in direct violation of the UJP charter.

I. PARTIES​

1. The United Justice Party (Plaintiff)
2. Troniq (Defendant)

II. FACTS​

1. Troniq is the founder of the UJP.
2. As founder, Troniq was responsible for, among other things, the creation of a GnomeFundMe that was intended to fund a UJP headquarters.
3. Troniq withdrew approximately $124,000 of UJP funds from this GnomeFundMe to purchase Plot S129.
4. Troniq may have withdraw additional funds; as the GnomeFundMe was taken down, this is currently undiscernible.
5. Troniq took down this GnomeFundMe
6. Troniq did not build a UJP headquarters on this plot.
7. Following these actions, Troniq "dissolved" the UJP. This constituted archiving the UJP server and removing all members of the Executive Commitee.
8. Troniq was not in a leadership position at the UJP; he was a member.
9. Section 2.5 of the UJP Charter (P-002) specifies what rights a party member has in regards to the party.
10. Unilaterally removing all members of the Executive Commitee and archiving the party's discord is not one of these rights.
11. Based on the UJP's continued presence in the DoS's Political Parties Thread, we can reason that is it not officially dissolved.
12. The UJP thus still maintains the right to pursue a civil suit. (see Socialist Party of the People v. FTGWop, proving political parties maintain the right to civil action)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Under the RCCA, conversion is a tort that occurs when one:

(a) wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and
(b) intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; and
(c) the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by:
(i) stealing property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner; or
(ii) obtaining property through deception, lies, or false statements; or
(iii) embezzlement or obtaining property by false pretences; or
(iv) knowingly acquiring lost property without taking reasonable measures to return it to the owner; or
(v) obtaining property by false promise pursuant to a scheme to defraud; or
(vi) extortion.

Troniq wrongfully took about $124,000 from the UJP, which he used to purchase a property for himself. This $124,000 was obtained via withdrawal from a GnomeFundMe; said GnomeFundMe was intended to fund a headquarters for the UJP. Troniq obtained this $124,000 under the false pretense that he was going to purchase a headquarters for the UJP. While he did purchase a plot, this plot never became the UJP headquarters, and Troniq's choice to dissolve the UJP shows that he never intended for it to be. The actions Troniq took fulfill all requirements to be classified as conversion (a,b,c and iii).


2. The RCCA defines tortious interference with business relations as when one intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s prospective business dealings or economic relationships; and the interference is accomplished through improper means or for improper purposes; and the interference causes economic harm to the plaintiff. By taking down the UJP GnomeFundMe after withdrawing all the funds, Troniq interfered with the UJP's ability to raise donations for their headquarters. Any future GnomeFundMe that the UJP may put up could now be seen as fraudulent or illegitimate, as the average donor may be under the impression that the UJP already raised $124,000 (interfering with prospective business dealings). The GnomeFundme's closure was in itself accomplished illegitimately; closing a party-run fundraiser is not the right of a party member (improper means). The closure caused harm to the UJP; they lost the money they had fundraised as well as the ability to fundraise more money (economic harm).

In addition to this, the unauthorized archival of the UJP discord server ruined any potential future business transactions that may have taken place there.


3. Troniq's actions constitute a Breach of Contract. The UJP Charter is for all intents and purposes legally a contract. It has a clear offer, as membership in the party implies willingness to participate in party actions that the Charter permits. Participating in the UJP and knowing the terms constitutes acceptance. As one side recieves membership and the associated rights in a political party, and one side recieves a new member in their political party- things of equal value- we can prove that the Charter has consideration. By agreeing to the legal requirements to join the UJP, and the obligations that come with said requirements, intent is created. As one of the minimum requirements to join the UJP as laid out by this charter is to have six hours of playtime, we prove that any UJP member has capacity.

This proves that the UJP Charter is a contract. Section 2.5 of the UJP Charter specifies the rights of a full party member as the following:

All Full Members are entitled to:
• Vote in party elections and referendums (subject to Section 2.3)
• Submit party petitions (see Article VII)
• Participate in party meetings and discussions
• Stand for election to party positions, subject to any additional qualifications definedherein
• Join a Party Department (see Article VI)

Notably, Full Members are not allowed to remove executive commitee members from the UJP Discord, archive the UJP Discord server, or close any UJP-sponsored fundraisers. These actions would likely classify as "day-to-day management, strategic direction, and public representation of the UJP", which are all duties of the Chair and Vice Chair. By committing these actions regardless, Troniq violated the UJP Charter, which is a contract, and is thus to be held liable for civil Breach of Contract.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 372,000 dollars as treble damages as allowed for by conversion
2. 3 times x dollars, where x is the total amount of any additional funds that Troniq may have withdrawn, as allowed for by conversion
3. 124,000 dollars for tortious interference with business relations; such a sum reflects the realistic total of what Troniq prevented the UJP from making when he closed the GnomeFundMe
4. Applicable legal fees
5. Any other restitution the court deems just and proper

Spoiler: P-001: UJP Discord Being Archived

Spoiler: P-002: UJP Charter

See attached PDF.

Spoiler: P-003: Troniq's Roles Within the UJP

Spoiler: P-004: Troniq Buying S129 from DCT

Spoiler: P-005: State of S129 as of 8/4/26

Witness List:
Troniq
Mr_Blox


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 4th day of August, 2026

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[NoMoreUno]

Proof of Representation didn't seem to go through.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[NoMoreUno]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant's assets, including Plot S129, be frozen for the duration of this trial. If the Defendant did withdraw more funds from the GnomeFundMe, and is to spend any more of these illegally obtained funds, it will make recovery nearly impossible.

Additionally, freezing Plot S129 will prevent the Defendant from transferring it. The plot itself was purchased with illegally obtained funds; if the Defendant were to be evicted or transfer the plot, the UJP would not be able to recover the property that was purchased with their funds.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant's assets, including Plot S129, be frozen for the duration of this trial. If the Defendant did withdraw more funds from the GnomeFundMe, and is to spend any more of these illegally obtained funds, it will make recovery nearly impossible.

Additionally, freezing Plot S129 will prevent the Defendant from transferring it. The plot itself was purchased with illegally obtained funds; if the Defendant were to be evicted or transfer the plot, the UJP would not be able to recover the property that was purchased with their funds.

For the purposes of the EI, I'll be the PO.

Granted. The Defendant's accounts shall be frozen and S129 shall be transferred to the the care of the Government for safeguarding.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Edited the Complaint to fix a formatting error with spoilers that rendered the Witness List and Proof of Representation invisible. This should not affect any information within the case.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Department of State is attempting to officially dissolve the United Justice Party. The dissolution of the UJP would result in the destruction of a crucial party in this case and would ruin any chance the Plaintiff has at recovering their funds. We are requesting that the UJP's dissolution be postponed until the end of this trial.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

The Plaintiff wishes to amend their Prayer for Relief.

From: "372,000 dollars as treble damages as allowed for by conversion"

To: "Plot S129 and 248,000 dollars as treble damages as allowed for by conversion"

As Plot S129 was purchased for 124,000 dollars, this amended prayer still accurately reflects 372,000 dollars.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Your Honor,

I am once again bringing this case to the attention of the FCR. This emergency injunction is urgent and must be ruled on within the next 2-3 days.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Department of State is attempting to officially dissolve the United Justice Party. The dissolution of the UJP would result in the destruction of a crucial party in this case and would ruin any chance the Plaintiff has at recovering their funds. We are requesting that the UJP's dissolution be postponed until the end of this trial.

Sorry, but you're requesting an emergency application against a government action while suing a private party?

Further, based on the publicly available 8-31-26 announcement from Vennefly, there appear to be non-financial reasons why the UJP is being dissolved. How do you reconcile this?

 

[NoMoreUno]

Yes. This government action ultimately affects how the action against the private party plays out. If the UJP is dissolved, they’ll no longer have the ability to pursue action, since they'll no longer legally exist.

Additionally, Vennefly's reasoning for dissolving the UJP boils down to "lack of activity". Said lack of activity stems primarily from the fact that Troniq archived the UJP Discord without proper authorization. If the UJP still had access to their Discord, it's reasonable to assume that they would still be in action.

However, if the court deems this reasoning insufficient to enact an EI, the Plaintiff would like to amend their complaint to change the party involved from “UJP” to "EJblox476 et. al", and add to their complaint additional relevant facts (related to this switch).

 

[CreeperTD]

I will be your presiding officer.

Yes. This government action ultimately affects how the action against the private party plays out. If the UJP is dissolved, they’ll no longer have the ability to pursue action, since they'll no longer legally exist.

Additionally, Vennefly's reasoning for dissolving the UJP boils down to "lack of activity". Said lack of activity stems primarily from the fact that Troniq archived the UJP Discord without proper authorization. If the UJP still had access to their Discord, it's reasonable to assume that they would still be in action.

However, if the court deems this reasoning insufficient to enact an EI, the Plaintiff would like to amend their complaint to change the party involved from “UJP” to "EJblox476 et. al", and add to their complaint additional relevant facts (related to this switch).

Given that the UJP has been dissolved (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/united-justice-party.38283/#post-172345), the Court asks that the Plaintiff make the changes mentioned in this post.

 

[CreeperTD]

@NoMoreUno the court gives you 54 hours from this post to make the necessary changes to your initial complaint, to be declared in a motion to amend. Failure to meet this deadline will result in this case being dismissed for Want of Prosecution.

 

[NoMoreUno]

Apologies for not alerting you sooner. Following my resignation at Singeheart, Addams, and Associates, I will no longer be representing the Plaintiff.

I ask that you grant SHA+A time to appoint new counsel to this case.

 

[CreeperTD]

Apologies for not alerting you sooner. Following my resignation at Singeheart, Addams, and Associates, I will no longer be representing the Plaintiff.

I ask that you grant SHA+A time to appoint new counsel to this case.

I was unaware that the Plaintiff was being represented by SingeHeart, Addams and Associates. I now recuse myself from this matter.

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

1. Presiding Officer
Judge CreeperTD recused himself on 27 September 2026 (post #14). Under Rule 1.8 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the undersigned will preside over all further proceedings in this case, including the emergency injunction issued on 6 August 2026 (post #4).

2. Warning of 27 September 2026
On 27 September 2026 the Court gave the Plaintiff 54 hours to amend its complaint, failing which the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution (post #12). Plaintiff's counsel withdrew about four hours later (post #13), and the presiding officer then recused. Rule 5.17 allows dismissal for want of prosecution only on a motion to dismiss, where the plaintiff has fewer than six hours of in-game activity in the preceding thirty days, and after a seven-day warning. None of those conditions is met. The warning in post #12 is VACATED.

3. Plaintiff's counsel
The Court notes the withdrawal of NoMoreUno as counsel for the Plaintiff (post #13). A party organisation cannot be represented by a member acting pro se (ThePufferOffical v. xEndeavour [2025] DCR 69), and the Court requires the Plaintiff to be represented under Section 18(3)(b) of the Constitution.

The Plaintiff shall, within two (2) days of this Order, have counsel enter an appearance in this thread. The appearance must include proof that the Plaintiff has authorised that counsel, given by a person or body with authority to act for the United Justice Party. The proof of representation filed with the complaint names NoMoreUno and does not extend to other counsel.

If no counsel appears within that period, the Court may dismiss this case without prejudice under Rule 5.16 and will make orders concerning Plot S129.

4. Motion to Amend and consolidated amendment
The Motion to Amend filed on 3 September 2026 (post #7) is RESERVED. Within seventy-two (72) hours of appearing, Plaintiff's counsel shall file a single consolidated Motion to Amend under Rule 3.3, declaring and explaining every change sought to the parties, facts, claims for relief and prayer for relief, including:
(a) the change to the prayer for relief sought in post #7; and
(b) the capacity in which the Plaintiff sues following the Department of State's dissolution of the party, and any substitution or addition of parties (post #10 and post #11).
The Court will rule on all proposed amendments together.

5. Second Motion for Emergency Injunction
The motion (post #6) asks the Court to postpone the Department of State's dissolution of the Plaintiff. An injunction compels "a litigant in a case" (Judicial Standards Act, Part V, s 1(1)). The Department of State is not a party to this case, and the dissolution has already taken place (post #11). The motion is DENIED. This ruling does not decide whether the Plaintiff retains the capacity to sue, which the Court will address on the consolidated amendment.

6. Emergency Injunction of 6 August 2026
The injunction (post #4) has been in force since 6 August 2026 against a Defendant who has not been summoned. An emergency injunction must be proportionate to the relief it protects (MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive [2026] FCR 14). The injunction is MODIFIED as follows:
(a) Plot S129 shall remain in the care of the Government. It may not be transferred, sold, evicted or otherwise have its titleholder changed, except on leave of this Court or by its final order.
(b) The freeze on the Defendant's accounts is limited to $372,000, the monetary relief claimed besides Plot S129. Funds above that amount shall be released.
(c) The department that executed the injunction shall, within seventy-two (72) hours of this Order, report in this thread which accounts are frozen, the amount frozen, and where Plot S129 is held.
(d) The Defendant may apply to this Court at any time to vary or discharge the injunction.

7. Summons
The Court will summon the Defendant after it rules on the consolidated amendment, so that the Defendant answers the complaint in its final form. If the Defendant does not respond to the summons, the case will proceed to inquest under Rule 3.6.1.

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

 

[S_Starlight]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

1. Presiding Officer
Judge CreeperTD recused himself on 27 September 2026 (post #14). Under Rule 1.8 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the undersigned will preside over all further proceedings in this case, including the emergency injunction issued on 6 August 2026 (post #4).

2. Warning of 27 September 2026
On 27 September 2026 the Court gave the Plaintiff 54 hours to amend its complaint, failing which the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution (post #12). Plaintiff's counsel withdrew about four hours later (post #13), and the presiding officer then recused. Rule 5.17 allows dismissal for want of prosecution only on a motion to dismiss, where the plaintiff has fewer than six hours of in-game activity in the preceding thirty days, and after a seven-day warning. None of those conditions is met. The warning in post #12 is VACATED.

3. Plaintiff's counsel
The Court notes the withdrawal of NoMoreUno as counsel for the Plaintiff (post #13). A party organisation cannot be represented by a member acting pro se (ThePufferOffical v. xEndeavour [2025] DCR 69), and the Court requires the Plaintiff to be represented under Section 18(3)(b) of the Constitution.

The Plaintiff shall, within two (2) days of this Order, have counsel enter an appearance in this thread. The appearance must include proof that the Plaintiff has authorised that counsel, given by a person or body with authority to act for the United Justice Party. The proof of representation filed with the complaint names NoMoreUno and does not extend to other counsel.

If no counsel appears within that period, the Court may dismiss this case without prejudice under Rule 5.16 and will make orders concerning Plot S129.

4. Motion to Amend and consolidated amendment
The Motion to Amend filed on 3 September 2026 (post #7) is RESERVED. Within seventy-two (72) hours of appearing, Plaintiff's counsel shall file a single consolidated Motion to Amend under Rule 3.3, declaring and explaining every change sought to the parties, facts, claims for relief and prayer for relief, including:
(a) the change to the prayer for relief sought in post #7; and
(b) the capacity in which the Plaintiff sues following the Department of State's dissolution of the party, and any substitution or addition of parties (post #10 and post #11).
The Court will rule on all proposed amendments together.

5. Second Motion for Emergency Injunction
The motion (post #6) asks the Court to postpone the Department of State's dissolution of the Plaintiff. An injunction compels "a litigant in a case" (Judicial Standards Act, Part V, s 1(1)). The Department of State is not a party to this case, and the dissolution has already taken place (post #11). The motion is DENIED. This ruling does not decide whether the Plaintiff retains the capacity to sue, which the Court will address on the consolidated amendment.

6. Emergency Injunction of 6 August 2026
The injunction (post #4) has been in force since 6 August 2026 against a Defendant who has not been summoned. An emergency injunction must be proportionate to the relief it protects (MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive [2026] FCR 14). The injunction is MODIFIED as follows:
(a) Plot S129 shall remain in the care of the Government. It may not be transferred, sold, evicted or otherwise have its titleholder changed, except on leave of this Court or by its final order.
(b) The freeze on the Defendant's accounts is limited to $372,000, the monetary relief claimed besides Plot S129. Funds above that amount shall be released.
(c) The department that executed the injunction shall, within seventy-two (72) hours of this Order, report in this thread which accounts are frozen, the amount frozen, and where Plot S129 is held.
(d) The Defendant may apply to this Court at any time to vary or discharge the injunction.

7. Summons
The Court will summon the Defendant after it rules on the consolidated amendment, so that the Defendant answers the complaint in its final form. If the Defendant does not respond to the summons, the case will proceed to inquest under Rule 3.6.1.

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
I, SGT S_Starlight, representing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), reports back that a total of $15920.71 was seized from the defendant and is currently in govsecurity. From what @CreeperTD , then LT of DHS who was in charge of executing that emergency injunction, did not report that the defendant had a bank. As such only a total of $15920.71 was seized.

In addition, the DHS also seize S129 which is currently in govsecurity, being protected by the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[Mr_Blox]

Your honour, I request an extension to find counsel of 48 hours, as I have been unavailable since this order. I am actively looking for counsel now.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

1. Presiding Officer
Judge CreeperTD recused himself on 27 September 2026 (post #14). Under Rule 1.8 of the Court Rules and Procedures, the undersigned will preside over all further proceedings in this case, including the emergency injunction issued on 6 August 2026 (post #4).

2. Warning of 27 September 2026
On 27 September 2026 the Court gave the Plaintiff 54 hours to amend its complaint, failing which the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution (post #12). Plaintiff's counsel withdrew about four hours later (post #13), and the presiding officer then recused. Rule 5.17 allows dismissal for want of prosecution only on a motion to dismiss, where the plaintiff has fewer than six hours of in-game activity in the preceding thirty days, and after a seven-day warning. None of those conditions is met. The warning in post #12 is VACATED.

3. Plaintiff's counsel
The Court notes the withdrawal of NoMoreUno as counsel for the Plaintiff (post #13). A party organisation cannot be represented by a member acting pro se (ThePufferOffical v. xEndeavour [2025] DCR 69), and the Court requires the Plaintiff to be represented under Section 18(3)(b) of the Constitution.

The Plaintiff shall, within two (2) days of this Order, have counsel enter an appearance in this thread. The appearance must include proof that the Plaintiff has authorised that counsel, given by a person or body with authority to act for the United Justice Party. The proof of representation filed with the complaint names NoMoreUno and does not extend to other counsel.

If no counsel appears within that period, the Court may dismiss this case without prejudice under Rule 5.16 and will make orders concerning Plot S129.

4. Motion to Amend and consolidated amendment
The Motion to Amend filed on 3 September 2026 (post #7) is RESERVED. Within seventy-two (72) hours of appearing, Plaintiff's counsel shall file a single consolidated Motion to Amend under Rule 3.3, declaring and explaining every change sought to the parties, facts, claims for relief and prayer for relief, including:
(a) the change to the prayer for relief sought in post #7; and
(b) the capacity in which the Plaintiff sues following the Department of State's dissolution of the party, and any substitution or addition of parties (post #10 and post #11).
The Court will rule on all proposed amendments together.

5. Second Motion for Emergency Injunction
The motion (post #6) asks the Court to postpone the Department of State's dissolution of the Plaintiff. An injunction compels "a litigant in a case" (Judicial Standards Act, Part V, s 1(1)). The Department of State is not a party to this case, and the dissolution has already taken place (post #11). The motion is DENIED. This ruling does not decide whether the Plaintiff retains the capacity to sue, which the Court will address on the consolidated amendment.

6. Emergency Injunction of 6 August 2026
The injunction (post #4) has been in force since 6 August 2026 against a Defendant who has not been summoned. An emergency injunction must be proportionate to the relief it protects (MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive [2026] FCR 14). The injunction is MODIFIED as follows:
(a) Plot S129 shall remain in the care of the Government. It may not be transferred, sold, evicted or otherwise have its titleholder changed, except on leave of this Court or by its final order.
(b) The freeze on the Defendant's accounts is limited to $372,000, the monetary relief claimed besides Plot S129. Funds above that amount shall be released.
(c) The department that executed the injunction shall, within seventy-two (72) hours of this Order, report in this thread which accounts are frozen, the amount frozen, and where Plot S129 is held.
(d) The Defendant may apply to this Court at any time to vary or discharge the injunction.

7. Summons
The Court will summon the Defendant after it rules on the consolidated amendment, so that the Defendant answers the complaint in its final form. If the Defendant does not respond to the summons, the case will proceed to inquest under Rule 3.6.1.

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

 

[xXTheoryXx]

Your honour, I request an extension to find counsel of 48 hours, as I have been unavailable since this order. I am actively looking for counsel now.

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MODIFICATION OF ORDERS

1. On 30 September 2026 Mr_Blox requested forty-eight (48) hours to find counsel for the Plaintiff (post #17). The request was made within the period fixed by paragraph 3 of the Case Management Order of 28 September 2026, which expired at 11:39 UTC on 30 September 2026. Mr_Blox is not a party, is not counsel of record, and is not among the persons who authorised NoMoreUno to represent the Plaintiff (post #2); he is named as a witness in the complaint. The Court nonetheless grants leave under Section 4.5 of the Regulations of the Federal Court and treats the request as made on behalf of the Plaintiff.

2. The request is GRANTED IN PART. Paragraph 3 of the Case Management Order is modified so that the period for counsel to enter an appearance is extended by twenty-four (24) hours, to 11:39 UTC on 1 October 2026. Within that time counsel for the Plaintiff shall enter an appearance in this thread, stating the office Mr_Blox holds under the United Justice Party Charter or the authority he has from the former Executive Committee or Party Tribunal to act for the Plaintiff, and attaching proof of that authority together with the proof of representation required by paragraph 3 of the Case Management Order.

3. Nothing in this Order decides whether Mr_Blox may act for the Plaintiff, be substituted or added as a party, or give evidence, and the question of the Plaintiff's capacity reserved in paragraph 4 of the Case Management Order is unaffected. If no counsel appears within the extended period, the Court may dismiss this case without prejudice under Rule 5.16 and will make orders concerning Plot S129. All other paragraphs of the Case Management Order remain in force, and the seventy-two (72) hour period in paragraph 4 of that Order runs from the appearance of counsel.

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

 

[amah853]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MODIFICATION OF ORDERS

1. On 30 September 2026 Mr_Blox requested forty-eight (48) hours to find counsel for the Plaintiff (post #17). The request was made within the period fixed by paragraph 3 of the Case Management Order of 28 September 2026, which expired at 11:39 UTC on 30 September 2026. Mr_Blox is not a party, is not counsel of record, and is not among the persons who authorised NoMoreUno to represent the Plaintiff (post #2); he is named as a witness in the complaint. The Court nonetheless grants leave under Section 4.5 of the Regulations of the Federal Court and treats the request as made on behalf of the Plaintiff.

2. The request is GRANTED IN PART. Paragraph 3 of the Case Management Order is modified so that the period for counsel to enter an appearance is extended by twenty-four (24) hours, to 11:39 UTC on 1 October 2026. Within that time counsel for the Plaintiff shall enter an appearance in this thread, stating the office Mr_Blox holds under the United Justice Party Charter or the authority he has from the former Executive Committee or Party Tribunal to act for the Plaintiff, and attaching proof of that authority together with the proof of representation required by paragraph 3 of the Case Management Order.

3. Nothing in this Order decides whether Mr_Blox may act for the Plaintiff, be substituted or added as a party, or give evidence, and the question of the Plaintiff's capacity reserved in paragraph 4 of the Case Management Order is unaffected. If no counsel appears within the extended period, the Court may dismiss this case without prejudice under Rule 5.16 and will make orders concerning Plot S129. All other paragraphs of the Case Management Order remain in force, and the seventy-two (72) hour period in paragraph 4 of that Order runs from the appearance of counsel.

So ordered,
Judge Theory Fontaine

Your Honor,

I, amah853, hereby enter my appearance as counsel for the Plaintiff, the United Justice Party, on behalf of KeystoneLaw.

Pursuant to the Court’s Modification of Orders, Mr_Blox held the office of Party Leader of the United Justice Party. The attached Department of State record identifies Mr_Blox as the Party Leader and records an official party name change made at his request.

Spoiler: Proof of Mr_Blox's Authority

Mr_Blox has additionally represented that he served as a member of the UJP Executive Committee and Party Tribunal. Mr_Blox has expressly authorized KeystoneLaw to represent the United Justice Party in this matter. hello1341, another member of the Executive Committee, has separately authorized KeystoneLaw to represent the United Justice Party as well.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

The Plaintiff will address the questions reserved by the Court concerning its capacity, the proper parties to this action, and any necessary amendments to the Complaint in the Motion to Amend within the seventy-two-hour period allotted by the Court.

Signed,
amah853
Counsel for the Plaintiff
KeystoneLaw