Lawsuit: In Session YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76

[Muggy21]

The Defence is ready to post their questions and will post them after the plaintiff has posted theirs. If they post close to the deadline, the Defence may exceed the deadline due to timezone differences.

These deadlines are not major, as long as you post your questions within a reasonable time near Plaintiff that's fine.

You'll still have 24 hrs to object to opposing counselor's questions.

@Franciscus @End Please do NOT ping the witnesses in your questions. I don't want them answering mid-objection process

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF WITNESS QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff submits the following questions of witnesses:

Dearev​

1. Taking a look at Exhibit P-028, what are the words between and including "Time and date from long, long ago" and "that’s a very good sign that the CMOS battery died"?
   1. Did you believe, as shown in the screenshots contained within Post No. 67, that your system time was incorrect?
2. In Exhibit P-002, a certain "clocktest200" is shown. Who is this "clocktest200"?
   1. If you are this clocktest200:
      1. On 30 July 2025, xEndeavour wrote "Our policy is that the eviction date is actioned at any time in the actioning member’s timezone." Clocktest200 subsequently sent multiple messages in that ticket.
         
         Why did you not volunteer that your timezone was GMT -3 in the ticket shown within Exhibit P-002?
      2. On 31 July 2025 why did you write in quick succession within the ticket depicted in Exhibit P-002 "This ticket was resolved", "You got your question answered", and "Please close it"?
      3. On 31 July 2025, you wrote in the ticket "Players wishing to re-purchase an old evicted plot through an auction must pay a repurchasing fee. This fee is an additional 50% of their winning bid amount." Why did you state this?
3. In your returns posted in Post No. 123, there is a screenshot of you stating "missing c343 cuz yeet wont sell", and in Exhibit P-010 you inquired regarding whether or not yeetglazer was willing to sell the plot back in June. To what extent have you desired to acquire the plot throughout the period between these messages having been sent?
4. At about what time (to the nearest hour, in local time) did you action the eviction of the plots mentioned within Exhibit P-001?
   1. Do you believe that your eviction of these plots at that time was consistent with your duties as a member of the DCT?
5. Why did you choose to action the eviction of the plots depicted in Exhibit P-001 yourself?
   1. Why did you action the eviction of plot c343 after having attempted (and failed) to purchase the plot from Yeetglazer?
   2. Do you believe that the successful eviction of plot c343 would have made it easier, harder, or not affected the difficulty of you acquiring the plot yourself?
   3. To what extent had you attempted to acquire the plot c343 after your actioning of the eviction thereof?
6. To what extent were you aware that Yeetglazer was a member of the Galactic Empire of Redmont (see: Exhibits P-008) at the time that you actioned his evictions?
   1. To what extent did your hostility towards the GER expressed in Exhibit P-009 affect your decision to action the plots shown in Exhibit P-001 yourself?
7. In exhibit P-014, where you display "GlobalCenter's bank acc[ount]" in an image within the auction thread for c343, are the various dyes displayed DNB banknotes?

xEndeavour​

1. To what extent did you evaluate, to take from your phrasing in Exhibit P-002, that the eviction was "actioned at any time in the actioning member’s timezone" on the eviction date before declaring that "[t]he department has acted completely legally, within policy, and how it always carries out evictions"?
   1. What did you take the statement by Sir_Dogeington in Exhibit P-002 that "I can vouch, I saw it" to mean?
2. To what extent, at the time of the evictions in Exhibit P-001, had the DCT created conflict-of-interest rules regarding the eviction process?
3. To what extent, subsequent to the evictions in Exhibit P-001 and during your tenure as DCT Secretary, had the DCT created conflict-of-interest rules regarding the eviction process?

YeetGlazer​

1. How did seeing the evictions in exhibit P-001 make you feel?
2. How did seeing the eviction auction depicted in Exhibit P-014 make you feel?
3. How did seeing the denial of the ticket in exhibit P-002 make you feel?

Sir_Dogeington​

1. In Exhibit P-002, you stated "I can vouch, I saw it". What did you mean by this?

Lawanoesepr​

1. To what extent have you communicated with Dearev regarding the eviction of the plots listed in Exhibit P-001?

MysticPhunky​

1. In exhibit P-018, you stated "Dearev has been doing evictions a bit early, Dearev asked me to auction a plot just for him to bid on it, which was one of the plots he evicted early". What did you mean by this?
2. To what extent had you communicated with Dearev regarding the auction depicted in Exhibit P-014?

AsexualDinosaur​

1. In exhibit P-014, where Dearev displays "GlobalCenter's bank acc[ount]" in an image within the auction thread for c343 - if these were DNB banknotes, what would be their values?

 

[End]

Brief

Apologies for the delay in getting the questions to the court your honour, unfortunately the Plaintiff denied the Defence procedural fairness in submitting their questions one minute prior to the concurrent submission deadline. This coincided with the start of my day at work.

Questions to Witnesses:

Dearev

1. Does DCT eviction policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
   1. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer according to this policy?
2. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions?
   1. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you know what the DCT eviction policy required of you prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports?
   2. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you follow the DCT eviction policy in evicting Yeetglazer?
      1. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, did you tell Secretary Endeavour that you breached a Department policy?
      2. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, when did you first make the Secretary aware?
3. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions?
4. Did the DCT Secretary, at the time, promote a culture of adhering to department policy?
5. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy?
6. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you assess that the Department's culture accepted employees acting in their official duties with a conflict of interest?

YeetGlazer

1. On 30 Jul 25 you made an initial complaint to the DCT in P002. What was the basis for this complaint?
2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
3. What did the DCT tell you in relation to the above initial complaint?
4. At any point during your interaction with the DCT in P002, did you raise any concern as to Dearev's timezone with the Department?
5. When did you first raise concern for the timezone of the evicting officer to the DCT?
6. In Aug you filed this case against the DCT. What was the basis for this case?
7. Did you give the Redmont Government any time to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?
8. Did the DCT seek to continue evicting your properties after they were made aware of the evicting officer being in the wrong timezone?

MysticPhunky

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. How early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you assess that the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?
4. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
5. Were you counselled by Secretary xEndeavour on conflict of interest matters during the Pepecuu administration?
6. As an experienced member of the Inspection Team in the DCT at the time of the incident, do you assess that Dearev followed Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?
7. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
8. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

 

[Franciscus]

@Franciscus @End

Please post questions for all witnesses you wish to examine by 11/23/25 @ 5pm EST.
Objections to said questions are due 11/24/25 @ 5pm EST.

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff requests an extension of 12 hours to provide objections to defense’s questions, as the defense exceeded the deadline by nearly half a day despite prior stating readiness to post questions.

 

[End]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff requests an extension of 12 hours to provide objections to defense’s questions, as the defense exceeded the deadline by nearly half a day despite prior stating readiness to post questions.

The Defence wishes to make a representation to this request, if allowable.

Procedural fairness demands that the Plaintiff posts, followed the Defence in all matters in court. This allows the Defence to respond to the plaintiff's assertions, noting they hold the burden of proof.

The Defence's submission was late due to the Plaintiff posting their questions to witnesses on the deadline, which as I stated, was inconvenient to the Defence's timezone.

While I would normally not move to prevent time extensions, this request is ingenuine and was manufactured by the plaintiff in trying to deny the defence natural justice.

As seen below, the submission was on the last possible minute of the deadline.

The Defence will stay true to the deadline for objections issued by the court and wishes for this deadline extension request to be denied in principle by the court.

 

[Muggy21]

@End @Franciscus

I do not care about the deadline issue. Neither party is prejudiced. Just get the objections in. All other points not considered.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

Apologies for the delay in getting the questions to the court your honour, unfortunately the Plaintiff denied the Defence procedural fairness in submitting their questions one minute prior to the concurrent submission deadline. This coincided with the start of my day at work.

Questions to Witnesses:

Dearev

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions?
4. If so, did you know about this policy prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports?
5. Did you follow this policy?
6. If not, did you tell the Secretary, or offer any information at any point, that you breached a Department policy?
7. What timezone were you in?
8. If so, when did you first make the Secretary aware?
9. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
10. If so, what actions followed when you were found to not be following this policy?
11. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?

YeetGlazer

1. On 30 Jul 25 you made a complaint to the DCT in P002. What was the basis for this complaint?
2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
3. What did the DCT tell you in relation to this complaint?
4. At any point during this interaction with the DCT, did you raise any concern as to Dearev's timezone?
5. When did you first raise concern for the timezone of the evicting officer to the DCT?
6. Did you give the Redmont Government adequate time and or opportunity to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?
7. Did the DCT offer to return the plots and compensate you at approximately 5x the value of the missing property which was already auctioned outside of court?
8. If so, did you deny this offer?

MysticPhunky

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?
4. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
5. Have you ever been counselled by the Secretary on conflict of interest matters?
6. Did Dearev follow Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?
7. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
8. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

These deadlines are not major, as long as you post your questions within a reasonable time near Plaintiff that's fine.

Spoiler: Objection, generally, on procedure

Objection

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

Your Honor:

This objection regards the matter of whether or not the Defense’s questions were submitted timely—that is, “within a reasonable time near the Plaintiff’s”.

Under your rules here, Plaintiff and Defense were asked to concurrently submit questions. A deadline of 5:00 P.M. Eastern Time on 24 November was imposed.

On 23 November, Defense claimed both that their direct examination questions were ready and that they needed to submit after the Plaintiff did. Plaintiff does not understand why this would be the case under the rules for this case—this is a deadline for direct questions, not cross-examination. Regardless, defense informed the Court that they might not meet the deadline if Plaintiff submitted close to the deadline, and the Court allowed the defense to submit “within a reasonable time near the Plaintiff’s”.

The defense submitted their questions 11 hours and 25 minutes after the deadline. Plaintiff asserts that nearly half-a-day delay is not a reasonable time difference in light of full circumstances as outlined as follows:

Defense counsel clearly had the time to publicly comment and make false attacks upon the character of the Plaintiff’s counsel on multiple occasions over several hours, and chose to not use that time to submit questions to witnesses instead.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-RT1

While the attorney general (correctly) understood the reason for the time of submission, and the solicitor general (JuniperFig) scolded xEndeavour for his behavior, he has not stopped.

xEndeavour is clearly operating in bad faith here, and is one again attempting to pseudo-litigate court procedure in a public forum rather than reasonably adhering to court rules and lawyerly decorum. For someone who has openly complained by falsely accusing the Plaintiff’s counsel of willfully engaging in timing tactics, xEndeavour has a lot of chutzpah. xEndeavour commented in #legal that “he is biting into his time to object” and “it’s his time… he is biting into now”, submitted his questions (which he stated under oath were ready well before the deadline) 11 hours and 25 minutes late, and then opposed a request to extend time to object. The above comments by Defense’s counsel, both in #legal and in this thread, belie a clear intent to delay Defense’s filing in order to frustrate Plaintiff’s ability to use more time to object to questions.

---

This constitutes a plainly unreasonable delay by the Defense. Defense counsel’s motives have been made clear by Defense Counsel’s public statements and actions. As the questions were submitted untimely—and beyond a reasonable time difference—the Plaintiff asks that the questions be stricken on procedural grounds.

Moving to objections to questions:

Dearev

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

Present DCT policy is not relevant to this case. If opposing counsel were to refer to evidence-in-case, and ask the witness about it, that would be perfectly fine, but this question inappropriately asks about the present when we are discussing past events.

Dearev

6. If not, did you tell the Secretary, or offer any information at any point, that you breached a Department policy?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — COMPOUND QUESTION

Your Honor,

This question contains multiple inquiries joined by a disjunctive conjunction. This may confuse the witness, and we object as such.

Dearev

8. If so, when did you first make the Secretary aware?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

This question is conditioned on an “if so” statement, but the prior question (asking about timezone) is not plausibly answered with a yes or no. It is not clear to me what question this conditional statement refers to.

As such, the Plaintiff objects to this question as ambiguous.

Dearev

9. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

This is plainly a question of opinion. There is no plausible way that a “culture of adhering to policy” is a matter of concrete fact that can be answered in a simple yes-or-no manner without broaching into the sphere of opinion.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LEADING QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

This question is phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific (affirmative) answer out of a witness regarding the presence of a so-called “culture of adhering to policy”.

If this sort of material may be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions rather than leading ones.

Dearev

10. If so, what actions followed when you were found to not be following this policy?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

It is not clear which specific policy this is referring to—the witness could have broken a number of policies during their time in the DCT. Counsel should specify which policy and which breach of policy they wish to examine to avoid witness confusion.

Dearev

11. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

This appears to ask Dearev’s opinion about department culture prior to institution of a particular policy.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LEADING QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

This question is phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific (affirmative) answer out of a witness regarding the department culture.

If this sort of material may be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions that allow the witness the freedom to give a full answer rather than leading ones that demand a yes or no.

MysticPhunky

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

Present DCT policy is not relevant to this case. If opposing counsel were to refer to evidence-in-case, and ask the witness about it, that would be perfectly fine, but this question inappropriately asks about the present when we are discussing past events.

MysticPhunky

3. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

This appears to ask MysticPhunky’s opinion about department culture prior to institution of a particular policy. We may ask for facts, not for opinions.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LEADING QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

This question is phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific (affirmative) answer out of a witness regarding the department culture.

If this sort of material may be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions that allow the witness the freedom to give a full answer rather than leading ones that demand a yes or no.

MysticPhunky

4. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

This is plainly a question of opinion. There is no plausible way that a “culture of adhering to policy” is a matter of concrete fact that can be answered in a simple yes-or-no manner without broaching into the sphere of opinion.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LEADING QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

This question is phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific (affirmative) answer out of a witness regarding the presence of a so-called “culture of adhering to policy”.

If this sort of material may be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions rather than leading ones.

MysticPhunky

5. Have you ever been counselled by the Secretary on conflict of interest matters?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — AMBIGUOUS

The question is very, very broad. It is asking whether or not “the Secretary” has “counselled” this individual on “conflict of interest matters”.

The question does not specify which Secretary (xEndeavour, or any Secretary) and the phrase “counselled” is quite vague. The question should reduce ambiguity if asked at all.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LEADING QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

This question is phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific (affirmative) answer out of a witness regarding the presence of a so-called “culture of compliance”.

If this sort of material may be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions rather than leading ones.

MysticPhunky

6. Did Dearev follow Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LEADING QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

This question is phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific (affirmative) answer out of a witness regarding the actions of a third person.

Rather than restricting the witness to a “yes” or “no”, the counsel could ask “to what extent” or something similar. The policy of the DCT is quite large, and there are plausibly parts of the policy that Dearev followed and parts that Dearev did not follow.

MysticPhunky

7. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
8. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff fails to see a reason of when MysticPhunky became aware of Dearev’s timezone as being relevant to this case.

MysticPhunky is a DCT employee, but the Secretary was the one who denied the appeal after previously having been made aware of Dearev’s timezone (see: Exhibits P-002, P-026, and Defense’s affirmation on the 44th fact in answer to complaint).

YeetGlazer

2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

Present DCT policy is not relevant to this case. If opposing counsel were to refer to evidence-in-case, and ask the witness about it, that would be perfectly fine, but this question inappropriately asks about the present when we are discussing past events.

YeetGlazer

6. Did you give the Redmont Government adequate time and or opportunity to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

This is plainly a question of opinion. When we begin to broach into “adequate time” questions in a yes-or-no manner, we broach into the sphere of subjective opinion.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LEADING QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

This question is phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific answer out of a witness regarding adequate time and opportunity to resolve out-of-court.

If this sort of material may be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions rather than leading ones.

YeetGlazer

7. Did the DCT offer to return the plots and compensate you at approximately 5x the value of the missing property which was already auctioned outside of court?
8. If so, did you deny this offer?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — RELEVANCE

Your Honor,

These questions do not relate to any of the facts of the case. They are asking about out-of-court settlement negotiations—these have no bearing on liability and should be excluded.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LEADING QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

These questions are phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific answer out of a witness regarding attempts to resolve out-of-court. The first one is particularly loaded, requiring simultaneous affirmation or denial of several facts collapsed into one yes-or-no answer.

If this sort of material may be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions rather than leading ones.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

I request a sidebar to discuss procedure going forward while not clogging up this thread.

 

[Muggy21]

@End I've made a side-bar, please join the Judiciary Discord

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — LEADING QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

This question is phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific (affirmative) answer out of a witness regarding the presence of a so-called “culture of compliance”.

If this sort of material may be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions rather than leading ones.

Motion

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

Your Honor,

Whilst creating the objections on my phone, I erroneously wrote that a question was to coax an answer "regarding the presence of a so-called 'culture of compliance'." The question was about conflict of interest counseling.

I was filing the objections from my phone on lunch due to (perceived) timeline constraints, and that phrase was erroneously included here. I therefore request to amend this objection in order to strike the error.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

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

Your Honor:

This objection regards the matter of whether or not the Defense’s questions were submitted timely—that is, “within a reasonable time near the Plaintiff’s”.

Under your rules here, Plaintiff and Defense were asked to concurrently submit questions. A deadline of 5:00 P.M. Eastern Time on 24 November was imposed.

On 23 November, Defense claimed both that their direct examination questions were ready and that they needed to submit after the Plaintiff did. Plaintiff does not understand why this would be the case under the rules for this case—this is a deadline for direct questions, not cross-examination. Regardless, defense informed the Court that they might not meet the deadline if Plaintiff submitted close to the deadline, and the Court allowed the defense to submit “within a reasonable time near the Plaintiff’s”.

The defense submitted their questions 11 hours and 25 minutes after the deadline. Plaintiff asserts that nearly half-a-day delay is not a reasonable time difference in light of full circumstances as outlined as follows:

Defense counsel clearly had the time to publicly comment and make false attacks upon the character of the Plaintiff’s counsel on multiple occasions over several hours, and chose to not use that time to submit questions to witnesses instead.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-RT1

View attachment 67658
View attachment 67659
View attachment 67660
View attachment 67661
View attachment 67662
View attachment 67663
View attachment 67664
View attachment 67665
View attachment 67666

While the attorney general (correctly) understood the reason for the time of submission, and the solicitor general (JuniperFig) scolded xEndeavour for his behavior, he has not stopped.

xEndeavour is clearly operating in bad faith here, and is one again attempting to pseudo-litigate court procedure in a public forum rather than reasonably adhering to court rules and lawyerly decorum. For someone who has openly complained by falsely accusing the Plaintiff’s counsel of willfully engaging in timing tactics, xEndeavour has a lot of chutzpah. xEndeavour commented in #legal that “he is biting into his time to object” and “it’s his time… he is biting into now”, submitted his questions (which he stated under oath were ready well before the deadline) 11 hours and 25 minutes late, and then opposed a request to extend time to object. The above comments by Defense’s counsel, both in #legal and in this thread, belie a clear intent to delay Defense’s filing in order to frustrate Plaintiff’s ability to use more time to object to questions.

---

This constitutes a plainly unreasonable delay by the Defense. Defense counsel’s motives have been made clear by Defense Counsel’s public statements and actions. As the questions were submitted untimely—and beyond a reasonable time difference—the Plaintiff asks that the questions be stricken on procedural grounds.

ay be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions rather than leading ones.
[/Objection]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection- YeetGlazer #207 -> Strike Questions


OVERRULED.

The Court granted the Commonwealth leave to file within a reasonable time near Plaintiff’s filing. The notion that Defendant was already ready with the questions and deliberately chose not to post them shows a confusion regarding the new rules. As the Court is not a classroom, but is a fair and impartial venue, I see no reason to penalize. Furthermore, striking of witnesses questions is an extreme remedy, only reserved for severe breaches of procedure. Submitting questions a few hours late in a situation not meant to be adversarial is excessive. Furthermore, although the Court recognizes and dignifies Solicitor General juniperfig and Attorney General Kaiserin_, their views are irrelevant and hold no weight, especially considering they represent the Defendant.


So ordered,
Judge Mug

Further, #210 (Motion to Amend) was granted in chambers.

 

[Muggy21]

Objections to Defendant's Questions:

Spoiler: DEFENSE QUESTIONS AMENDED

Dearev

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions?
4. If so, did you know about this policy prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports?
5. Did you follow this policy?
6. If not, did you tell the Secretary, or offer any information at any point, that you breached a Department policy?
7. What timezone were you in?
8. If so, when did you first make the Secretary aware?
9. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
10. If so, what actions followed when you were found to not be following this policy?
11. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?

Mystic

Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?

1. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
2. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?
3. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
4. Have you ever been counselled by the Secretary on conflict of interest matters?
5. Did Dearev follow Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?
6. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
7. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

YeetGlazer

1. On 30 Jul 25 you made a complaint to the DCT in P002. What was the basis for this complaint?
2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
3. What did the DCT tell you in relation to this complaint?
4. At any point during this interaction with the DCT, did you raise any concern as to Dearev's timezone?
5. When did you first raise concern for the timezone of the evicting officer to the DCT?
6. Did you give the Redmont Government adequate time and or opportunity to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?
7. Did the DCT offer to return the plots and compensate you at approximately 5x the value of the missing property which was already auctioned outside of court?
   If so, did you deny this offer?

Question || Objection || Ruling
Dearev 1 & 2 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED - Speaks to Competence of Witness
Dearev 6 || COMPOUND || SUSTAINED -> Multiple inquiries in one question not permitted.
Dearev 8 || AMBIGUOUS || SUSTAINED -> Change question wording.
Dearev 9 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Too opinionated
Deave 10 || AMBIGUOUS || SUSTAINED -> Policy mentioned not specified
Dearev 11 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED, ask open-ended questions.

Mystic 1 & 2 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED -> Speaks to Competence of Witness
Mystic 3 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED, ask open-ended questions.
Mystic 4 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Opiniative
Mystic 5 || AMBIGUOUS, LEADING || OVERRULED -> Broad open ended questions are permissible.
Mystic 6 || LEADING || OVERRULED -> Speaks to Competence of Employee
Mystic 7 & 8 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED -> Foundation for Objection not founded


Yeet 2 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED - Speaks to Competence of Witness
Yeet 6 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED
Yeet 7 || RELEVANCE, LEADING || OVERRULED - Permissible Witness Testimony
Yeet 8 || RELEVANCE, LEADING || SUSTAINED - Settlement purposes not relevant.

 

[End]

This question contains multiple inquiries joined by a disjunctive conjunction. This may confuse the witness, and we object as such.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Dearev 6 || COMPOUND || SUSTAINED -> Multiple inquiries in one question not permitted.

Extremely technical objection. The two components are closely related and refer to the same subject: whether the witness disclosed a policy breach. This is not likely to confuse the witness if they passed grade 5.

For example, do you like peanut butter and jelly on your bread is a compound question, but would be seen as permissible - because it concerns two closely linked concepts. To say that 'telling' and 'offering information' is multiple inquiries is an absurdity and is not what this rule seeks to prevent.

This is plainly a question of opinion. There is no plausible way that a “culture of adhering to policy” is a matter of concrete fact that can be answered in a simple yes-or-no manner without broaching into the sphere of opinion.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Dearev 9 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Too opinionated

This question is phrased in a way that appears to be a transparent attempt to coax a specific (affirmative) answer out of a witness regarding the presence of a so-called “culture of adhering to policy”.

If this sort of material may be asked for, Counsel should ask open-ended questions rather than leading ones.

On conclusions: And the testimony of the witness is relevant. May I remind the court that the plaintiff’s lawyer quite literally asked the plaintiff how an action made them feel in their line of questioning that you have allowed. The department’s expectations and culture concerning adhereing to policy has a direct implication on the Department’s vicarious liability for their employee's actions.

On leading: Its not prejudicial, its not misleading, its easy for the witness to answer accurately - a simple no, even.

Not all leading questions are equal. Some are heavily suggestive. Some frame the topic. The rules against leading questions aim to prevent counsel from putting words in the witness’s mouth on key, disputed facts, and not to paralyse the natural flow of examination.

Soft leading helps move an examination forward and is completely acceptable in most legal jurisdictions to help frame a question.

Again, extremely technical objection and damaging precedent. For example, 'after the meeting ended, did you remain in the building? ' is a soft leading question, which would, in theory, be blocked by this absurdity.

Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Dearev 11 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED, ask open-ended questions.
Mystic 3 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED, ask open-ended questions.
Mystic 4 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Opiniative
Yeet 6 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED

As previously discussed on the topic of these objection types (leading, conluding).

Mystic was an employee at the time Dearev's actions were called into question. His insights may assist the Department in building a picture of the Department's vicarious liability in this instance.

This is his assessment as a first-hand witness to the leadership and culture at the time.

 

[End]

Questions edited, pending motions to reconsider.

 

[End]

Objection​

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

Your Honor:

This objection regards the matter of whether or not the Defense’s questions were submitted timely—that is, “within a reasonable time near the Plaintiff’s”.

Under your rules here, Plaintiff and Defense were asked to concurrently submit questions. A deadline of 5:00 P.M. Eastern Time on 24 November was imposed.

On 23 November, Defense claimed both that their direct examination questions were ready and that they needed to submit after the Plaintiff did. Plaintiff does not understand why this would be the case under the rules for this case—this is a deadline for direct questions, not cross-examination. Regardless, defense informed the Court that they might not meet the deadline if Plaintiff submitted close to the deadline, and the Court allowed the defense to submit “within a reasonable time near the Plaintiff’s”.

The defense submitted their questions 11 hours and 25 minutes after the deadline. Plaintiff asserts that nearly half-a-day delay is not a reasonable time difference in light of full circumstances as outlined as follows:

Defense counsel clearly had the time to publicly comment and make false attacks upon the character of the Plaintiff’s counsel on multiple occasions over several hours, and chose to not use that time to submit questions to witnesses instead.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-RT1

While the attorney general (correctly) understood the reason for the time of submission, and the solicitor general (JuniperFig) scolded xEndeavour for his behavior, he has not stopped.

xEndeavour is clearly operating in bad faith here, and is one again attempting to pseudo-litigate court procedure in a public forum rather than reasonably adhering to court rules and lawyerly decorum. For someone who has openly complained by falsely accusing the Plaintiff’s counsel of willfully engaging in timing tactics, xEndeavour has a lot of chutzpah. xEndeavour commented in #legal that “he is biting into his time to object” and “it’s his time… he is biting into now”, submitted his questions (which he stated under oath were ready well before the deadline) 11 hours and 25 minutes late, and then opposed a request to extend time to object. The above comments by Defense’s counsel, both in #legal and in this thread, belie a clear intent to delay Defense’s filing in order to frustrate Plaintiff’s ability to use more time to object to questions.

---

This constitutes a plainly unreasonable delay by the Defense. Defense counsel’s motives have been made clear by Defense Counsel’s public statements and actions. As the questions were submitted untimely—and beyond a reasonable time difference—the Plaintiff asks that the questions be stricken on procedural grounds.

May I remind the plaintiff that they used 48 hours to post their questions 1 minute prior to the deadline, denying the defence procedural fairness in formulating questions based off the Plaintiff’s questions — as with all court actions, the Plaintiff goes first.

Now, I find it rich that the plaintiff has manufactured a delay by replying at the last minute and then offered that replying after a 10 hour work day is unreasonably late.

The defence pre-empted this delay tactic from the plaintiff and informed the court that they would be late in submitting their questions as a result. The court was well informed.

Perhaps the Plaintiff needs to consider how their actions have second and third order impacts in future.

 

[End]

1. How did seeing the evictions in exhibit P-001 make you feel?
2. How did seeing the eviction auction depicted in Exhibit P-014 make you feel?
3. How did seeing the denial of the ticket in exhibit P-002 make you feel?

Objection

CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Based on the court ruling:

Dearev 9 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Too opinionated

Any form of opinion according to the plaintiff is against court rules, to which the court has supported.

This is plainly a question of opinion. There is no plausible way that a “culture of adhering to policy” is a matter of concrete fact that can be answered in a simple yes-or-no manner without broaching into the sphere of opinion.

This line of questioning asks the witness to provide a subjective assessment about their feelings and not objective policy or evidence.

Now, as you can see this objection is an absurdity. It should be resolved by denying this objection and the former objection to the previous struck questions.

We are delving into extreme technicalities and it’s to the detriment of a free flowing and pragmatic court where knowing victim impact is necessary and where opinions , to a degree, are relevant and necessary.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider



Extremely technical objection. The two components are closely related and refer to the same subject: whether the witness disclosed a policy breach. This is not likely to confuse the witness if they passed grade 5.

For example, do you like peanut butter and jelly on your bread is a compound question, but would be seen as permissible - because it concerns two closely linked concepts. To say that 'telling' and 'offering information' is multiple inquiries is an absurdity and is not what this rule seeks to prevent.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

This is not like asking about a peanut butter & jelly sandwich. The question is asking about two cognitively distinct things: (1) whether the witness told the Secretary; and (2) whether the witness offered information at any point (without similar qualification). The objection should be sustained, and the motion should be denied.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

On conclusions: And the testimony of the witness is relevant. May I remind the court that the plaintiff’s lawyer quite literally asked the plaintiff how an action made them feel in their line of questioning that you have allowed. The department’s expectations and culture concerning adhereing to policy has a direct implication on the Department’s vicarious liability for their employee's actions.

On leading: Its not prejudicial, its not misleading, its easy for the witness to answer accurately - a simple no, even.

Not all leading questions are equal. Some are heavily suggestive. Some frame the topic. The rules against leading questions aim to prevent counsel from putting words in the witness’s mouth on key, disputed facts, and not to paralyse the natural flow of examination.

Soft leading helps move an examination forward and is completely acceptable in most legal jurisdictions to help frame a question.

Again, extremely technical objection and damaging precedent. For example, 'after the meeting ended, did you remain in the building? ' is a soft leading question, which would, in theory, be blocked by this absurdity.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

On Conclusions: The first sentence is a bare assertion unrelated to the substance of the objection. The second sentence is a non-sequitur. The third is irrelevant, both because the Commonwealth has already admitted vicarious liability in response to Plaintiff's interrogatory (see: Post 51) and because it plainly calls for the witness to testify to opinion rather than fact.

On leading: The rule in Redmont is Simple: “questions that suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm” are considered leading questions in Redmont (objections guide).

The question is plainly leading — it explicitly includes information that the defense counsel seeks to confirm. The Defense admits it but tries to move the goalposts, calling it “soft leading” and argues that certain non-Redmontian law systems allow it. But the actions of foreign states are not relevant here—we have a very clear rule, and this is a Redmontian Court.

The objection should be sustained, and the motion to reconsider should be denied.

Motion

As previously discussed on the topic of these objection types (leading, conluding).

Mystic was an employee at the time Dearev's actions were called into question. His insights may assist the Department in building a picture of the Department's vicarious liability in this instance.

This is his assessment as a first-hand witness to the leadership and culture at the time.

Response

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

The defense more or less admits that the purpose of asking these questions is to get a subjective assessment of the Department and the Secretary’s actions. It is not about asking concrete facts here.

And regarding leading—the Defense is surely capably of crafting open-ended questions. If the Defense prefers to lead the witness, that may be their preference, but “questions that suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm” are considered leading questions in Redmont (objections guide) and are objectionable.

The objections should be sustained, and the motion should be denied.

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

CALLS FOR CONCLUSION

Based on the court ruling:



Any form of opinion according to the plaintiff is against court rules, to which the court has supported.



This line of questioning asks the witness to provide a subjective assessment about their feelings and not objective policy or evidence.

Now, as you can see this objection is an absurdity. It should be resolved by denying this objection and the former objection to the previous struck questions.

We are delving into extreme technicalities and it’s to the detriment of a free flowing and pragmatic court where knowing victim impact is necessary and where opinions , to a degree, are relevant and necessary.

Response

Your Honor,

This objection should be denied for both substantial and procedural reasons.

On Procedure:
The objection was not timely filed. As Your Honor Indicated and as defense counsel was doubtlessly aware (c.f. Post No. 200, quoting the Judge’s timeline; Post No. 215, subsequently responding to an objection regarding timeline), the objections were due at 5 pm eastern on 24 November. This objection was lodged at around 3 AM Eastern on 26 November.

The reason given for filing now—over 1 full day after the deadline—appears to be that the defense is unhappy with previous rulings on objections. This is plainly unpersuasive.

On procedural grounds, the objection should be denied.

On Substance:
Regarding the substance, the Defense is erroneously conflating testimony about one’s own emotion and feelings upon seeing an event with subjective opinion about questions involving the actions of a third party.

The Plaintiff can testify to facts regarding their own emotional state at a point in time. This is relevant as it goes to the humiliation claim of action under Legal Damages Act §7(1), which would arise from “situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish”.

This is different than asking a third party to give a subjective opinion regarding whether or not a Secretary chose to “promote” within the department “a culture of adhering to policy”. That is giving a plain subjective opinion about the actions of a third party.

On substantial grounds, the objection should be denied.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

Apologies for the delay in getting the questions to the court your honour, unfortunately the Plaintiff denied the Defence procedural fairness in submitting their questions one minute prior to the concurrent submission deadline. This coincided with the start of my day at work.

Questions to Witnesses:

Dearev

1. Does DCT eviction policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
   1. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer according to this policy?
2. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions?
   1. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you know what the DCT eviction policy required of you prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports?
   2. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you follow the DCT eviction policy in evicting Yeetglazer?
      1. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, did you tell Secretary Endeavour that you breached a Department policy?
      2. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, when did you first make the Secretary aware?
3. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions?
4. Did the DCT Secretary, at the time, promote a culture of adhering to department policy?
5. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy?
6. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you assess that the Department's culture accepted employees acting in their official duties with a conflict of interest?

YeetGlazer
1. On 30 Jul 25 you made an initial complaint to the DCT in P002. What was the basis for this complaint?
2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
3. What did the DCT tell you in relation to the above initial complaint?
4. At any point during your interaction with the DCT in P002, did you raise any concern as to Dearev's timezone with the Department?
5. When did you first raise concern for the timezone of the evicting officer to the DCT?
6. In Aug you filed this case against the DCT. What was the basis for this case?
7. Did you give the Redmont Government any time to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?
8. Did the DCT seek to continue evicting your properties after they were made aware of the evicting officer being in the wrong timezone?

MysticPhunky
1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. How early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you assess that the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?
4. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
5. Were you counselled by Secretary xEndeavour on conflict of interest matters during the Pepecuu administration?
6. As an experienced member of the Inspection Team in the DCT at the time of the incident, do you assess that Dearev followed Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?
7. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
8. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

Objections to Defendant's Questions:

Spoiler: DEFENSE QUESTIONS AMENDED

Dearev

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions?
4. If so, did you know about this policy prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports?
5. Did you follow this policy?
6. If not, did you tell the Secretary, or offer any information at any point, that you breached a Department policy?
7. What timezone were you in?
8. If so, when did you first make the Secretary aware?
9. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
10. If so, what actions followed when you were found to not be following this policy?
11. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?

Mystic

Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?

1. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
2. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?
3. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
4. Have you ever been counselled by the Secretary on conflict of interest matters?
5. Did Dearev follow Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?
6. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
7. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

YeetGlazer

1. On 30 Jul 25 you made a complaint to the DCT in P002. What was the basis for this complaint?
2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
3. What did the DCT tell you in relation to this complaint?
4. At any point during this interaction with the DCT, did you raise any concern as to Dearev's timezone?
5. When did you first raise concern for the timezone of the evicting officer to the DCT?
6. Did you give the Redmont Government adequate time and or opportunity to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?
7. Did the DCT offer to return the plots and compensate you at approximately 5x the value of the missing property which was already auctioned outside of court?
   If so, did you deny this offer?

Question || Objection || Ruling
Dearev 1 & 2 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED - Speaks to Competence of Witness
Dearev 6 || COMPOUND || SUSTAINED -> Multiple inquiries in one question not permitted.
Dearev 8 || AMBIGUOUS || SUSTAINED -> Change question wording.
Dearev 9 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Too opinionated
Deave 10 || AMBIGUOUS || SUSTAINED -> Policy mentioned not specified
Dearev 11 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED, ask open-ended questions.

Mystic 1 & 2 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED -> Speaks to Competence of Witness
Mystic 3 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED, ask open-ended questions.
Mystic 4 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Opiniative
Mystic 5 || AMBIGUOUS, LEADING || OVERRULED -> Broad open ended questions are permissible.
Mystic 6 || LEADING || OVERRULED -> Speaks to Competence of Employee
Mystic 7 & 8 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED -> Foundation for Objection not founded


Yeet 2 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED - Speaks to Competence of Witness
Yeet 6 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED
Yeet 7 || RELEVANCE, LEADING || OVERRULED - Permissible Witness Testimony
Yeet 8 || RELEVANCE, LEADING || SUSTAINED - Settlement purposes not relevant.

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Defense has modified the question list to make amendments to questions that were not stricken and to add new questions outright. This includes, but may not be limited to:

1. Generally, all of the substantial amendments to the previous Dearev 1-5. None of these questions were stricken, but their text was changed (they also were renumbered, which I note for Your Honor's sake).
2. The new Yeetglazer question 8 seemingly appears out of nowhere.

Unilateral undisclosed amendments like this are not granted under the Court Rules, and can prejudice the opposing counsel as we have to actually discover the opposing Counsel's actions in order to address them. Impermissible edits should be stricken as breaching procedure, as questions were required to be submitted in one block.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Leading (Dearev, New Question 4-6; Yeetglazer New 7-8)

Your Honor,

In Redmont, “questions that suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm” are considered leading questions (objections guide).

Each of these questions includes information that the examiner (defense counsel) seeks to confirm. Similar questions have already been stricken in your quoted ruling above, but the changes to not substantially address the issues.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Calls for Conclusion (Dearev, New Question 4 and 6; MysticPhunky 4)

Your Honor,

This is plainly a question of opinion. There is no plausible way that a “culture of adhering to policy” or a personal subjective assessment regarding is a matter of concrete fact that can be answered in a simple yes-or-no manner without broaching into the sphere of opinion.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Relevance, Assumes Facts not in Evidence (MysticPhunky New 5)

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff posits that there is no evidence that the Pepecuu administration is relevant here. There is no basis in evidence for suggesting that Pepecuu was the President at the time of the events relevant to this case, nor to suggest that xEndeavour was Secretary during the Pepecuu administration.

 

[End]

Your Honor,

The Defense has modified the question list to make amendments to questions that were not stricken and to add new questions outright. This includes, but may not be limited to:

1. Generally, all of the substantial amendments to the previous Dearev 1-5. None of these questions were stricken, but their text was changed (they also were renumbered, which I note for Your Honor's sake).
2. The new Yeetglazer question 8 seemingly appears out of nowhere.

Unilateral undisclosed amendments like this are not granted under the Court Rules, and can prejudice the opposing counsel as we have to actually discover the opposing Counsel's actions in order to address them. Impermissible edits should be stricken as breaching procedure, as questions were required to be submitted in one block.

Questioning had not yet commenced. The Plaintiff filed 22 objections, several of which were upheld. This necessitate adjusting proposed lines of questioning. The Court was duly notified of these amendments.

The Plaintiff has not demonstrated any prejudice arising from these changes. The Defence is fully entitled to amend its proposed questions, provided appropriate notice is given before questioning begins, which has occurred here.

 

[End]

Your Honor,

In Redmont, “questions that suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm” are considered leading questions (objections guide).

Each of these questions includes information that the examiner (defense counsel) seeks to confirm. Similar questions have already been stricken in your quoted ruling above, but the changes to not substantially address the issues.

This objection overstates the scope of the leading-question rule. These are permissible soft-leading questions that simply reference established facts and allow the witness to answer freely. Redmont’s standard prohibits improperly suggestive questions, not every question containing context.

If such questions were disallowed, basic and efficient examination would be unworkable. Soft leading is routine, necessary, and well within acceptable bounds. The objection should be overruled.

Much like the rest of the Plaintiff's objections, this is most certainly de minimis.

 

[End]

This is plainly a question of opinion. There is no plausible way that a “culture of adhering to policy” or a personal subjective assessment regarding is a matter of concrete fact that can be answered in a simple yes-or-no manner without broaching into the sphere of opinion.

Asking whether there was a culture of adhering to policy is not calling for speculation or personal philosophy. It seeks the witness’s direct observations of how staff actually behaved, what practices were followed, and what expectations were enforced in the workplace.

It is factual testimony based on what the witness saw and experienced. Courts routinely accept evidence about workplace culture because it is established through observable conduct, not abstract opinion.

 

[End]

The Plaintiff posits that there is no evidence that the Pepecuu administration is relevant here. There is no basis in evidence for suggesting that Pepecuu was the President at the time of the events relevant to this case, nor to suggest that xEndeavour was Secretary during the Pepecuu administration.

To object to ambiguity in the absence of the Secretary being named in one question:

The question is very, very broad. It is asking whether or not “the Secretary” has “counselled” this individual on “conflict of interest matters”.

The question does not specify which Secretary (xEndeavour, or any Secretary)

And then object again when the Secretary is named is both ironic and incoherent:

The Plaintiff posits that there is no evidence that the Pepecuu administration is relevant here. There is no basis in evidence for suggesting that Pepecuu was the President at the time of the events relevant to this case, nor to suggest that xEndeavour was Secretary during the Pepecuu administration.

Your honour, it suggests the goal is obstruction, not clarification.

We are most certainly at the point of repetitive, obstructionist objections that do not advance any legitimate evidentiary concern.

By my count, we are now at the forty-fifth objection. These objections are de minimis, excessively literal and technical - far beyond any reasonable standard. This level of obstruction is tactical and disruptive to the progression of the case.

If the Court accepts this as a proper standard, the Defence will be compelled to reciprocate in kind. We respectfully request - for the second time - that these objection tactics are quelled.

 

[Muggy21]

Spoiler

Motion

Motion to Reconsider



Extremely technical objection. The two components are closely related and refer to the same subject: whether the witness disclosed a policy breach. This is not likely to confuse the witness if they passed grade 5.

For example, do you like peanut butter and jelly on your bread is a compound question, but would be seen as permissible - because it concerns two closely linked concepts. To say that 'telling' and 'offering information' is multiple inquiries is an absurdity and is not what this rule seeks to prevent.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider





On conclusions: And the testimony of the witness is relevant. May I remind the court that the plaintiff’s lawyer quite literally asked the plaintiff how an action made them feel in their line of questioning that you have allowed. The department’s expectations and culture concerning adhereing to policy has a direct implication on the Department’s vicarious liability for their employee's actions.

On leading: Its not prejudicial, its not misleading, its easy for the witness to answer accurately - a simple no, even.

Not all leading questions are equal. Some are heavily suggestive. Some frame the topic. The rules against leading questions aim to prevent counsel from putting words in the witness’s mouth on key, disputed facts, and not to paralyse the natural flow of examination.

Soft leading helps move an examination forward and is completely acceptable in most legal jurisdictions to help frame a question.

Again, extremely technical objection and damaging precedent. For example, 'after the meeting ended, did you remain in the building? ' is a soft leading question, which would, in theory, be blocked by this absurdity.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider



As previously discussed on the topic of these objection types (leading, conluding).

Mystic was an employee at the time Dearev's actions were called into question. His insights may assist the Department in building a picture of the Department's vicarious liability in this instance.

This is his assessment as a first-hand witness to the leadership and culture at the time.

Old Dearev 6 - DENIED. The phrase "if not" is requiring the Witness to answer if 1) the policy was violated, 2) what information was given. That is a compound question. A quality of a condition and informing another party of said condition are not closely related.

Dearev 9 - DENIED. The word "promote" indicates a preference. Bringing up "most legal jurisdictions" confuses the Court as the only other jurisdiction recognized is Alexandria.

Dearev 11- DENIED, the word "accepted" is operative as a preference.

Mystic 3 - DENIED - See Dearev 9

Mystic 4 - GRANTED. No leading element seen on second glance. This is an open ended question and has probative value.

Yeet 6 - DENIED. - The Plaintiff's opinion on the timeliness isn't remotely authoritative. That must come in the form of a legal argument.

#215 struck in its entirety, the Court already Overruled.

#216 Objection -> OVERRULED. Can't have it both ways. Previous filings show that you (End) were aware Plaintiff submitted his questions.


#219 - Objection (Breach of Procedure) -> SUSTAINED. The Court will disregard Defendant's amendments to #203. The Court will proceed under its record found in #212 - Defendant's Questions. All other objections listed in #219 are disregarded.

@End On a Motion to Reconsider, I'd like to know where it allows you to amend questions without leave of the Court.

#221, #222, #223 were disregarded as the Objections to them were disregarded.

 

[Muggy21]

@End @Franciscus

I've spent 35 minutes reviewing 21 posts for Witness Questioning. We have 224 posts on this thread right now. If we want a comprehensive and fair adjudication of these proceedings, the numerous posts will stop. Please see my answer in #224 or in #212 for guidance on how to consolidate.


The Court will issues summonses to Witnesses and the Court will post the question to each individual Witness. Until the Court invites parties to object, neither party shall object to the Witnesses answers until the Court invites them to do so. This will be after the witness summons period.


If there are procedural questions or any remarks for the Court, you may use the sidebar for that communication.


As of Nov 28th, 2025 at 2:48 EST/3:48 PM AWST, neither party shall post in the docket until invited to do so. @End the Court will welcome a Motion to Reconsider to your amended questions. @Franciscus Your response will also be welcome to that motion within the 48h window.

@End Please advise the Court if you will not file a motion to reconsider, so I may issue the summonses. You may advise me in the sidebar.


================================

Counselors, be warned. My patience for the excessive posts is thin. If I see this happen again, I will hold parties in contempt for the maximum permitted under law for each instance. I will issue conduct strikes liberally.

Do not test this Court, do not test me.

 

[End]

Brief

Most up-to-date questions:

Questions to Witnesses:

Dearev

1. Does DCT eviction policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
   1. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer according to this policy?
2. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions?
   1. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you know what the DCT eviction policy required of you prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports?
   2. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you follow the DCT eviction policy in evicting Yeetglazer?
      1. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, did you tell Secretary Endeavour that you breached a Department policy?
      2. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, when did you first make the Secretary aware?
3. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions?
4. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time?
5. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy?
6. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised?

YeetGlazer

1. On 30 Jul 25 you made an initial complaint to the DCT in P002. What was the basis for this complaint?
2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
3. What did the DCT tell you in relation to the above initial complaint?
4. At any point during your interaction with the DCT in P002, did you raise any concern as to Dearev's timezone with the Department?
5. When did you first raise concern for the timezone of the evicting officer to the DCT?
6. In Aug you filed this case against the DCT. What was the basis for this case?
7. Did you give the Redmont Government any time to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?
8. Did the DCT seek to continue evicting your properties after they were made aware of the evicting officer being in the wrong timezone?

MysticPhunky

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. How early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised?
4. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time?
5. Were you counselled by Secretary xEndeavour on conflict of interest matters during the Pepecuu administration?
6. As an experienced member of the Inspection Team in the DCT at the time of the incident, do you assess that Dearev followed Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?
7. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
8. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

 

[End]

#216 Objection -> OVERRULED. Can't have it both ways. Previous filings show that you (End) were aware Plaintiff submitted his questions.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

The court previously sustained objections to questions seeking opinions, specifically ruling that asking an opinion is inadmissible in this court:

Dearev 9 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Too opinionated

Despite this, the court has subsequently allowed questions regarding a litigant’s feelings. These questions are, by their very nature, subjective and emotional, and therefore function as opinions in practice. Allowing them appears inconsistent with the court’s earlier ruling on the inadmissibility of opinion evidence.

The initial ruling on inadmissibility was made after the objection deadline. Now, the court appears to allow evidence that is non-evidentiary only because the objection was submitted after the arbitrary deadline.

This creates a situation where the definition of inadmissibility is applied selectively based on timing rather than substance, which undermines the consistency and fairness of evidentiary rulings.

I respectfully submit that the questions regarding a litigant’s feelings be struck, consistent with the previously stated standard regarding opinion evidence, or the previously stated opinion evidence be allowed.

I was aware the plaintiff submitted their questions; however, I cannot foreshadow the court's rulings on the matter.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

The court previously sustained objections to questions seeking opinions, specifically ruling that asking an opinion is inadmissible in this court:



Despite this, the court has subsequently allowed questions regarding a litigant’s feelings. These questions are, by their very nature, subjective and emotional, and therefore function as opinions in practice. Allowing them appears inconsistent with the court’s earlier ruling on the inadmissibility of opinion evidence.

The initial ruling on inadmissibility was made after the objection deadline. Now, the court appears to allow evidence that is non-evidentiary only because the objection was submitted after the arbitrary deadline.

This creates a situation where the definition of inadmissibility is applied selectively based on timing rather than substance, which undermines the consistency and fairness of evidentiary rulings.

I respectfully submit that the questions regarding a litigant’s feelings be struck, consistent with the previously stated standard regarding opinion evidence, or the previously stated opinion evidence be allowed.

I was aware the plaintiff submitted their questions; however, I cannot foreshadow the court's rulings on the matter.

DENIED. The objection is immensely untimely. Defense counsel was keenly aware that they had 24 Hours to respond to objections and made it a point that his questions wouldn't be submitted prior to Plaintiff's submission. Defense can't claim gamesmanship in the submission of Plaintiff's questions, then attempt to levy objections well outside the window permissible.

Further, calling the Court's deadlines as arbitrary is disingenuous. At some point the Court must move this case along, you've had several days to raise objections. Lastly, you've already informed the Court you wouldn't be making objections to Plaintiff's questions.

 

[Muggy21]

@End @Franciscus

From our sidebar, new questions and objections to those questions will be due on 12/2/25 @ 9am EST. If an extension is required, the Court will grant extensions.

The order in which this is done (Plaintiff-Defendant) or (Defendant-Plaintiff) is irrelevant and will not be heard. Just get the questions to the Court so we can finally call our witnesses.

 

[End]

Brief

Most up-to-date questions:

Questions to Witnesses:

Dearev

1. Does DCT eviction policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
   1. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer according to this policy?
2. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions?
   1. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you know what the DCT eviction policy required of you prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports?
   2. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you follow the DCT eviction policy in evicting Yeetglazer?
      1. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, did you tell Secretary Endeavour that you breached a Department policy?
      2. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, when did you first make the Secretary aware?
3. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions?
4. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time?
5. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy?
6. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised?

YeetGlazer

1. On 30 Jul 25 you made an initial complaint to the DCT in P002. What was the basis for this complaint?
2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
3. What did the DCT tell you in relation to the above initial complaint?
4. At any point during your interaction with the DCT in P002, did you raise any concern as to Dearev's timezone with the Department?
5. When did you first raise concern for the timezone of the evicting officer to the DCT?
6. In Aug you filed this case against the DCT. What was the basis for this case?
7. Did you give the Redmont Government any time to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?
8. Did the DCT seek to continue evicting your properties after they were made aware of the evicting officer being in the wrong timezone?

MysticPhunky

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. How early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised?
4. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time?
5. Were you counselled by Secretary xEndeavour on conflict of interest matters during the Pepecuu administration?
6. As an experienced member of the Inspection Team in the DCT at the time of the incident, do you assess that Dearev followed Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?
7. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
8. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

Questions remain extant

 

[Franciscus]

Objections to Defendant's Questions:

Spoiler: DEFENSE QUESTIONS AMENDED

Dearev

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions?
4. If so, did you know about this policy prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports?
5. Did you follow this policy?
6. If not, did you tell the Secretary, or offer any information at any point, that you breached a Department policy?
7. What timezone were you in?
8. If so, when did you first make the Secretary aware?
9. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
10. If so, what actions followed when you were found to not be following this policy?
11. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?

Mystic

Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?

1. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
2. Prior to the formalisation of the conflict of interest policy, do you think the Department culture accepted employees acting with a conflict of interest?
3. Did the Secretary promote a culture of adhering to policy?
4. Have you ever been counselled by the Secretary on conflict of interest matters?
5. Did Dearev follow Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?
6. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
7. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

YeetGlazer

1. On 30 Jul 25 you made a complaint to the DCT in P002. What was the basis for this complaint?
2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
3. What did the DCT tell you in relation to this complaint?
4. At any point during this interaction with the DCT, did you raise any concern as to Dearev's timezone?
5. When did you first raise concern for the timezone of the evicting officer to the DCT?
6. Did you give the Redmont Government adequate time and or opportunity to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?
7. Did the DCT offer to return the plots and compensate you at approximately 5x the value of the missing property which was already auctioned outside of court?
   If so, did you deny this offer?

Question || Objection || Ruling
Dearev 1 & 2 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED - Speaks to Competence of Witness
Dearev 6 || COMPOUND || SUSTAINED -> Multiple inquiries in one question not permitted.
Dearev 8 || AMBIGUOUS || SUSTAINED -> Change question wording.
Dearev 9 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Too opinionated
Deave 10 || AMBIGUOUS || SUSTAINED -> Policy mentioned not specified
Dearev 11 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED, ask open-ended questions.

Mystic 1 & 2 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED -> Speaks to Competence of Witness
Mystic 3 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED, ask open-ended questions.
Mystic 4 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED -> Opiniative
Mystic 5 || AMBIGUOUS, LEADING || OVERRULED -> Broad open ended questions are permissible.
Mystic 6 || LEADING || OVERRULED -> Speaks to Competence of Employee
Mystic 7 & 8 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED -> Foundation for Objection not founded


Yeet 2 || RELEVANCE || OVERRULED - Speaks to Competence of Witness
Yeet 6 || CONCLUSORY, LEADING || SUSTAINED
Yeet 7 || RELEVANCE, LEADING || OVERRULED - Permissible Witness Testimony
Yeet 8 || RELEVANCE, LEADING || SUSTAINED - Settlement purposes not relevant.

Brief

Most up-to-date questions:

Questions to Witnesses:

Dearev

1. Does DCT eviction policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
   1. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer according to this policy?
2. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions?
   1. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you know what the DCT eviction policy required of you prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports?
   2. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you follow the DCT eviction policy in evicting Yeetglazer?
      1. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, did you tell Secretary Endeavour that you breached a Department policy?
      2. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, when did you first make the Secretary aware?
3. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions?
4. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time?
5. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy?
6. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised?

YeetGlazer

1. On 30 Jul 25 you made an initial complaint to the DCT in P002. What was the basis for this complaint?
2. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
3. What did the DCT tell you in relation to the above initial complaint?
4. At any point during your interaction with the DCT in P002, did you raise any concern as to Dearev's timezone with the Department?
5. When did you first raise concern for the timezone of the evicting officer to the DCT?
6. In Aug you filed this case against the DCT. What was the basis for this case?
7. Did you give the Redmont Government any time to resolve the matter outside of court before you brought this particular issue to court?
8. Did the DCT seek to continue evicting your properties after they were made aware of the evicting officer being in the wrong timezone?

MysticPhunky

1. Does DCT policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement?
2. How early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer?
3. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised?
4. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time?
5. Were you counselled by Secretary xEndeavour on conflict of interest matters during the Pepecuu administration?
6. As an experienced member of the Inspection Team in the DCT at the time of the incident, do you assess that Dearev followed Department policy in carrying out the evictions on Yeetglazer's plots?
7. When did you first become aware of the plaintiff's complaint concerning, specifically, dearev's timezone?
8. When did you make the Secretary aware of the same?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF OBJECTIONS

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE (regarding the removal of old Dearev 7)​

Your Honor,

The Defense appears to have stricken the previous previous question Dearev No. 7, which asked "What timezone were you in?". This was a very straightforward question as it pertains to the facts of this case.

To the best of my knowledge, this question was not objected to. Defense cannot simply strike questions without explicitly declaring such strikes to the opposing party and/or filing a motion to amend; this is not the sort of thing that allowing additional follow-up questions would imply.

To go off of what Your Honor has previously noted, we'd like to know where it allows the defense to delete questions without leave of the Court.

OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTIONS (Dearev, New 5; Yeetglazer New 7)​

Your Honor,

In Redmont, “questions that suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm” are considered leading questions (objections guide).

Each of these questions includes information that the examiner (defense counsel) seeks to confirm. Similar questions have already been stricken in your quoted ruling above, but the changes to not substantially address the issues.

OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTIONS, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, ARGUMENTATIVE (Yeetglazer New 8)​

Your Honor,

In Redmont, “questions that suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm” are considered leading questions (objections guide).

This question includes information that the examiner (defense counsel) seeks to confirm in a "Yes" or "no" format.

The Defense appears to be suggesting in this question that there was indeed a time that the DCT had not been "made aware of the evicting officer being in the wrong timezone". This is a ridiculous assumption not in evidence - surely DCT Inspection Officer Dearev, who answered the ticket in Exhibit P-002, knew his own timezone.

By relying on this erroneous information, this question appears to be suited more as an argument than a legitimate question. It should be stricken.

OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTIONS (Yeetglazer New 4)​

Your Honor,

In Redmont, “questions that suggest the desired answer or include information the examiner seeks to confirm” are considered leading questions (objections guide).

This question includes information that the examiner (defense counsel) seeks to confirm in a "Yes" or "no" format. Defense should ask open-ended questions instead.

OBJECTION - LEADING QUESTIONS, CALLS FOR CONCLUSION (Yeetglazer New 6)​

Your Honor,

The question is extremely similar to the previous Yeetglazer question No. 6, which was struck and against which a motion to reconsider had been denied. The Plaintiff believes that this question should likewise be stricken as leading and calling for conclusion.

OBJECTION - Calls for Conclusion (Dearev New 4 and MysticPhunky New 4)​

Your Honor,

Dearev New 4 and MysticPhunky New 4 each ask for the witness to provide a subjective opinion regarding how they'd describe culture of the department rather than asking what the culture actually was. Under the objections guide, a question calls for conclusion when "a question seeks an opinion rather than factual information"; these do so.

OBJECTION - RELEVANCE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE (MysticPhunky New 5)​

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff questions why actions during the Pepecuu administration would be of any relevance to this case; it is not established in evidence that the evictions happened during the Pepecuu administration.

What's more, there is nothing in the evidence record suggesting that xEndeavour was Secretary of the DCT during the Pepecuu administration. As such, the question assumes facts not in evidence.

OBJECTION - CALLS FOR CONCLUSION (MysticPhunky New 6)​

Your Honor,

The question is asking MysticPhunky's opinion regarding a question of law/policy - this plainly calls for a conclusion.