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 Kaiserin or Juniperfig administrations?
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.

 

[End]

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.

I make the following general comments in relation to all objections:

1. The court was notified of changes to questions, and questions were reframed along with all of the other questions to be in-line with what the court expects based off the Plaintiffs 22+ objections. The question on Dearev’s timezone still exists, albeit reworded.

2. The plaintiff argues that any question containing context or capable of being answered yes or no is leading.

If accepted, cross-examination would be reduced to open-ended essay prompts. This will blow questions out of context and create unnecessary narrative.

Redmont practice expressly allows soft leading questions, as shown here in many instances in our legal history:

[2023] FCR 109
‘Is it true that only $4,456,743.11 has been recovered by the government at this point? If so, where did the remaining $543,256.89 go?’

[2021] SCR 18
‘Isn’t it true’ prefixing multiple questions.

[2023] FCR 97
'With this information I will ask one more time, Would you consider it a safe thing to assume that no major course of action was taken by End to solve this problem?'

[2025] FCR 11
Did you ever receive an apology or acknowledgment from Mask3D_Wolf that your sentence was excessive?
The Plaintiff’s rule would prohibit nearly every question asked in any adversarial system.

[2025] FCR 31
How can the JSAA amend the old constitution if it can't pass unless the new constitution passes?

There are but five examples of the use of soft leading in questioning, which has been used for years across all levels of the court system. Your honour, you are applying a higher standard in this case than common law provides for, effectively ruling out confirmatory questioning - even when the witness can easily answer the question for the affirmative or negative easily.

3. Repeated objections from the plaintiff again, even when:

a. The evidence may be the absence of evidence.

b. The question expressly asks the witness to clarify or confirm the fact.

c. The purpose of the question disputed is to determine whether the plaintiff did make the DCT aware of the timezone issues at all.

The Plaintiff objects to asking whether the DCT continued evictions after they were made aware of the wrong timezone while simultaneously claiming that the existence of awareness is not in evidence.

The Plaintiff is simply just trying to:

a. Prevent questions establishing the fact

b. Prevent questions probing contradictory statements about the fact

4. Questions concerning culture that are not leading, don't suggest any answer, and don't ask for a legal conclusion - they ask for a first-hand observation about how the department operated. This is something that an employee could speak to, because describing culture is no different than describing workload or ordinary work processes.

If the Plaintiff’s logic were accepted, no questions involving describe, explain, or how did things work could ever be asked. This objection creates a standard that defeats ordinary fact-finding in testimony.

5. I accept the pepecuu administration object, and have amended it to the Kaiserin and Juniperfig administrations.

 

[Muggy21]

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.

Question || Objection || Ruling
NEW DEAREV 5 || LEADING || OVERRULED - Witness Development
NEW YEET 7 || LEADING || SUSTAINED - Too subjective.
NEW YEET 8 || LEADING/ASSUMPTION/ARGUMENTATIVE || SUSTAINED - Too subjective, CW should know when it stopped attempting to evict.

NEW YEET 4 || LEADING || OVERRULED - No outcome-charged language.
NEW YEET 6 || LEADING || SUSTAINED - Read the complaint.
NEW DEAREV 4, NEW MYSTIC 4 || CONLUSORY, LEADING || OVERRULED - Neutral open-ended question on dept policy
NEW MYSTIC 5 || RELEVANCE , FNIE || OVERRULED as modified
NEW MYSTIC 6 || CONCLUSORY || OVERRULED

 

[Muggy21]

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.

Sustained.

There are 2 different versions of these questions with differing formats and one question was inexplicably deleted. The Court didn't strike this question, this is akin to sneaky attempt to amend without leave.

@End I find you in Contempt of Court, you shall pay $1,000 and spend 10 minutes in jail. This case is already difficult enough in terms of the posts, don't add to it.

 

[Muggy21]

Spoiler: DEFENSE QUESTIONS 2

1. Does DCT eviction 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 according to this policy?
3. 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?
4. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions?
5. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time?
6. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy?
7. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised?
8. What timezone are you in?

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?

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 Kaiserin/Juniper 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?

Spoiler: PLAINTIFF QUESTIONS

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?

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?

[/Brief]

 

[Muggy21]

@Franciscus @End I will be sipping tea on Bondi for the next week (writing an exam). While I'm "gone", this is what I'm going to do:

1) @End You have until 12/10/25 @ 9AM EST to file a motion to reconsider on the questions I've struck. You may offer a new question within your motion. I won't hear a new question if not in a motion. If you edit anything without an approved motion, I'm issuing a contempt strike.


2) Witness summonses will occur on 12/11/25 @ 9AM EST. I will provide them your questions and ping them directly.

3) Witnesses will (ideally) answer within the 72 hours window. At which point, you have until 12/16/25 @ 9am EST to object.

Cross Examination will be started after 12/16/25.

 

[End]

@Franciscus @End I will be sipping tea on Bondi for the next week (writing an exam). While I'm "gone", this is what I'm going to do:

1) @End You have until 12/10/25 @ 9AM EST to file a motion to reconsider on the questions I've struck. You may offer a new question within your motion. I won't hear a new question if not in a motion. If you edit anything without an approved motion, I'm issuing a contempt strike.


2) Witness summonses will occur on 12/11/25 @ 9AM EST. I will provide them your questions and ping them directly.

3) Witnesses will (ideally) answer within the 72 hours window. At which point, you have until 12/16/25 @ 9am EST to object.

Cross Examination will be started after 12/16/25.

Waiving my time to reconsider, request we progress to witness summons and I will ask in cross examination.

 

[End]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Court was duly informed, contrary to what the Plaintiff made out that they were not informed.

The Plaintiff made 22 objections, what did they expect us to do to our questions? We rewrote them.

Questions edited, pending motions to reconsider.

Sustained.

There are 2 different versions of these questions with differing formats and one question was inexplicably deleted. The Court didn't strike this question, this is akin to sneaky attempt to amend without leave.

@End I find you in Contempt of Court, you shall pay $1,000 and spend 10 minutes in jail. This case is already difficult enough in terms of the posts, don't add to it.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@dearev @End @YeetGlazer @lawanoesepr @MysticPhunky @asexualdinosaur @Dogeington
is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

See below your questions, please reply to your post with answers to your questions.

 

[Muggy21]

@dearev

PLAINTIFF

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?

DEFENSE

1. Does DCT eviction 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 according to this policy?
3. 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?
4. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions?
5. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time?
6. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy?
7. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised?
8. What timezone are you in?

 

[Muggy21]

@End

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?

 

[Muggy21]

@YeetGlazer
PLAINTIFF

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?

DEFENSE

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?

 

[Muggy21]

@MysticPhunky

PLAINTIFF

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?

DEFENSE

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 Kaiserin/Juniper 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?

 

[Muggy21]

@lawanoesepr

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

 

[Muggy21]

@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?

 

[Muggy21]

@Dogeington

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

 

[Dogeington]

@Dogeington

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

1. I meant that I had seen that the players playtime had gone above 6 hours

 

[Dogeington]

Also present, your honor

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Brief

Your honour,
Multiman,
The Commonwealth,

I, AsexualDinosaur, affirm my presence and respectfully offer my testimony

Thank you for this opportunity.
I wish to begin by stating my qualifications for this interpretation of the evidence before us.

I have served as an FRB board member for a few months helping push forward monetary policy for the Commonwealth.
I own and operate Dino Nuggie Bank (DNB) - An in-game bank-note bank that uses custom 'dyes' as 'banknotes'
I was former DOE Secretary serving under 1950Minecraft and Kaiserin_
I am a current professor with the DOE
I also have the accountants license, which I find may be the most useful for this particular exercise.


I don't wish to overly confuse the matter so I will attempt to keep it brief while explaining the process I'm taking so the court hopefully has no further questions, as such I will - as they say, get on with it.


HOW MANY DYES ARE THERE

Exhibit P-014 contains a number of images, but the referenced image of 'GlobalCenter's bank acc' contains 147 units of Green dyes (This is 64 + 64 + 19), as well as 6 Red dyes, and 4 Cyan dyes.

147 Green Dye
6 Red Dye
4 Cyan Dye


DYE VALUES

For this assessment I will be using the translated monetary values listed here.

Lawsuit: In Session Post in thread 'YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76'

Aug 9, 2025

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Your Honor,

Pursuant to Rule 3.3, the Plaintiff files this brief to notify you of amendment to the Complaint. Following your acknowledgement of this message, the Plaintiff will amend the brief as follows:

1. Between facts 25 and 26 in the initial complaint, the following facts in italics shall be inserted and subsequent facts renumbered:
   • 26. After plot c343 was placed at auction by MysticPhunky, Dearev placed multiple bids on the property with source of funds as "bank" (see...

• Franciscus

As we can see from this image kindly provided by 'Zodd.kt' (Myself), and submitted by Multiman155;

Cyan translates to `$100 Bill - DNB`
Red translates to `$5000 Bill - DNB`
Green translates to `$1000 Bill - DNB`


Now, this is the tricky part so read carefully!
If we assign the monetary values and multiply them by the quantity of the dyes presented, we can find the total value of the dyes.

We'll start simple with the Cyan dyes.


CYAN DYE VALUE

1x Cyan = $100
so
4x Cyan = $400

This is because 4 * $100 = $400

We can do the same process with our other dyes too!

RED DYE VALUE

1x Red = $5,000
so
6x Red = $30,000

(6 * $5,000 = $30,000)

Okay now we're onto the big numbers! Do not fret though, this is was the accounting license was for!


GREEN DYE VALUE

1x Green = $1,000
so
147x Green = $147,000

(147 * $1,000 = $147,000)


TOTAL VALUE

To make this easier to read for the court I will present it together:
Green Dyes = $147,000
Red Dyes = $30,000
Cyan = $400

If it would pleasure the court for me to do some quick addition (another handy skill from my accounting license) I will add these values together in my professional capacity.

Total = $177,400

DATED: This 9th day of December, 2025

 

[MysticPhunky]

@Muggy21 i will not Testify in this case as i have previously stated i have issues with nate in this or the same case before this.

 

[MysticPhunky]

i do not want to be pinged about a case like this again

 

[Franciscus]

@Muggy21 i will not Testify in this case as i have previously stated i have issues with nate in this or the same case before this.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

Your Honor,

The witness has not answered the questions, citing "i have issues with nate" (i.e. YeetGlazer). This statement does not answer the questions asked of the witness.

It is well-established both in the statement quoted above and through various exhibits (e.g. P-011 and P-022, showing actions of MysticPhunky's related to the evictions and the witness's contemporaneous employment by the Commonwealth) that MysticPhunky's interests are and have been adverse to those of the Plaintiff for the duration of this case. As such, if MysticPhunky does not answer the questions, we ask that the Court draw adverse inference to the Commonwealth - his employer - from every question asked to MysticPhunky.

 

[Muggy21]

@Muggy21 i will not Testify in this case as i have previously stated i have issues with nate in this or the same case before this.

The questions are from Multiman155, YeetGlazer's attorney. I've reviewed the questions pending for you and see no issue with them in terms of attempting to harass you.

Considering your followup post, you have no interest in following the orders of this Court. Therefore, I find you in Contempt of Court x2. (Refusing to testify, and willful disregard for this Court's orders).

You shall be fined $4,000, $2,000 for both offenses.

If you do not respond to the questions before 12/12/2025 at 5pm EST, I'll issue more Contempt charges and a Conduct* Strike.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Disbarment of Attorney MysticPhunky

On December 9th, 2025 at 2:52PM EST, MysticPhunky was summoned to the Federal Court to testify in YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth. At 4:48PM, he responded "i will not Testify in this case as i have previously stated i have issues with nate in this or the same case before this." Shortly thereafter, he followed up stating "i do not want to be pinged about a case like this again". The Court, in response, stated that the witness is compelled to answer the questions and found MysticPhunky in Contempt of Court twice. At 5:07 PM EST, YeetGlazer's attorney, Multiman155, objected to Witness' refusal to testify and MysticPhunky responded in part telling Multiman155 to "stfu your not tuff, As previously stated in other cases related to this i have not been required to answer questions and will continue to not answer any questions." This contemptous behaviour is grossly inappropriate and is a stain on the legal profession, thus the Court issued its first Conduct Strike. After continued distainful behaviour, the Court issued a second conduct strike in addition to new contempt charges. In his last post, MysticPhunky stated "no, i dare you to find me in contempt of court again p$$y boy." The Court fulfills his wish.

This Court, empowered under the Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act § 4(1) orders MysticPhunky DISBARRED and suspended from the practice of law until January 9th, 2026 at 7:00pm EST. Furthermore, for his continued badgering, the Court finds him in Contempt of Court. He shall be fined $5,000 and held imprisoned for 10 minutes.


The chat history involving MysticPhunky and the Court is deleted and shall be memorialized in the attached pdf.

So ordered,
Judge Mug

Original order said Jan 9th, 2025, I clearly meant January 9th, 2026.

 

[dearev]

Your honor, as ordered by the summons i make myself known to this court and i am present.

 

[Technofied]

May it pleasure the Court and Your Honour,

MysticPhunky has been permanently deported. Noting this, the Homeland Security Department may be unable to effect imprisonment.

 

[End]

@End

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?

1. The concern raised with the department was that the Department evicted the plaintiff prior to exactly 7 days prior to the eviction date.

The defence explained to the plaintiff that they could be evicted by an evicting officer on the date of the eviction in their own timezone.

They were evicted on the 31st in my timezone.

Therefore, I came to the reasonable conclusion that:

1. The plots were evicted on the correct date.
2. That the plaintiff was misinformed of department policy concerning not getting exactly seven days.
3. That the plot was evicted appropriately.

In which case, the department would have acted legally.

No further concerns were raised concerning the evicting officer's timezone.

However, this case brought new information to light concerning the evicting officer's conduct which would represent that they did not act within department policy and evicted the plot several hours early.

1.1. That Sir_Dogeington saw them with above the minimum playtime after the plots were evicted.

2/3. The DCT has always practiced separating it's actions from potential conflicts of interest. A policy was formalised under my term as part of an edit to the Evictions Policy but I cannot recall a date. It formalised what was already practiced at the time.

This included counselling employees who had breached conflict of interest expectations prior to the policy being codified.

 

[Franciscus]

@End

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?

1. The concern raised with the department was that the Department evicted the plaintiff prior to exactly 7 days prior to the eviction date.

View attachment 68600

The defence explained to the plaintiff that they could be evicted by an evicting officer on the date of the eviction in their own timezone.

View attachment 68601

They were evicted on the 31st in my timezone.

View attachment 68602

Therefore, I came to the reasonable conclusion that:

1. The plots were evicted on the correct date.
2. That the plaintiff was misinformed of department policy concerning not getting exactly seven days.
3. That the plot was evicted appropriately.

In which case, the department would have acted legally.

No further concerns were raised concerning the evicting officer's timezone.

However, this case brought new information to light concerning the evicting officer's conduct which would represent that they did not act within department policy and evicted the plot several hours early.

1.1. That Sir_Dogeington saw them with above the minimum playtime after the plots were evicted.

View attachment 68603

2/3. The DCT has always practiced separating it's actions from potential conflicts of interest. A policy was formalised under my term as part of an edit to the Evictions Policy but I cannot recall a date. It formalised what was already practiced at the time.

This included counselling employees who had breached conflict of interest expectations prior to the policy being codified.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION TO WITNESS RESPONSES - xENDEAVOUR

Witness Response to Question 1​

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE and NARRATIVE​

Your Honor,

xEndeavour, in answering these questions, is a witness. The witness was asked to what extent they considered that the eviction had occurred in the actioning member's timezone before declaring that the department had acted legally. While xEndeavour is also opposing counsel, it is important for fairness that he provides testimony rather than legal arguments in his responses to these questions.

What we have received instead of an answer to that question is a long argumentative rant as if we were getting an argument from opposing counsel instead of factual testimony from a witness. The witness talks about his own timezone, but doesn't actually address the question directly - the answer is non-responsive. It's also unnecessarily narrative - the question does not ask about events subsequent to xEndeavour's determination, and reference to actions in the filing of this case itself are both non-responsive to the question and unnecessary.

Witness joint response to questions 2 and 3​

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE, BREACH OF PROCEDURE​

Your Honor,

We asked individual questions of the witness. The point of the separating the questions relates to the probative value - namely, the extent to which conflict-of-interest standards were formalized at the time of the eviction and then separately how the department handled them subsequently. The witness should be instructed to answer each question individually; the current response does not answer either question directly, and the questions are separate.

Generally, regarding the submission of images by the witness across multiple answers​

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE​

Your Honor,

Witnesses are not entitled to submit marked up images as evidence in the case; the time for defense counsel to submit images was during discovery (c.f. Rule 4.1 and Rule 4.2), which has long-since elapsed. Witnesses are to provide testimony - words - in their answers to questions, not to proffer exhibits of images to the Court as if they were a counsel in discovery. The images should be stricken as such, and testimony referring to such images should be stricken and re-phrased without reference to such images.

 

[Muggy21]

Your honor, as ordered by the summons i make myself known to this court and i am present.

When able, please answer the questions when able

 

[End]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION TO WITNESS RESPONSES - xENDEAVOUR

Witness Response to Question 1​

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE and NARRATIVE​

Your Honor,

xEndeavour, in answering these questions, is a witness. The witness was asked to what extent they considered that the eviction had occurred in the actioning member's timezone before declaring that the department had acted legally. While xEndeavour is also opposing counsel, it is important for fairness that he provides testimony rather than legal arguments in his responses to these questions.

What we have received instead of an answer to that question is a long argumentative rant as if we were getting an argument from opposing counsel instead of factual testimony from a witness. The witness talks about his own timezone, but doesn't actually address the question directly - the answer is non-responsive. It's also unnecessarily narrative - the question does not ask about events subsequent to xEndeavour's determination, and reference to actions in the filing of this case itself are both non-responsive to the question and unnecessary.

Witness joint response to questions 2 and 3​

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE, BREACH OF PROCEDURE​

Your Honor,

We asked individual questions of the witness. The point of the separating the questions relates to the probative value - namely, the extent to which conflict-of-interest standards were formalized at the time of the eviction and then separately how the department handled them subsequently. The witness should be instructed to answer each question individually; the current response does not answer either question directly, and the questions are separate.

Generally, regarding the submission of images by the witness across multiple answers​

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE​

Your Honor,

Witnesses are not entitled to submit marked up images as evidence in the case; the time for defense counsel to submit images was during discovery (c.f. Rule 4.1 and Rule 4.2), which has long-since elapsed. Witnesses are to provide testimony - words - in their answers to questions, not to proffer exhibits of images to the Court as if they were a counsel in discovery. The images should be stricken as such, and testimony referring to such images should be stricken and re-phrased without reference to such images.

1. I’m not submitting evidence, I’m referring to already submitted evidence. Highlighting is admissible as per strongly established and tested precedent.

2. I can copy the same answer to questions 2 and 3 if you wish, the effect is that both questions were addresses in one response.

3. I answered the question reasonably and provided a full rationale for my decision making.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION TO WITNESS RESPONSES - xENDEAVOUR

Witness Response to Question 1​

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE and NARRATIVE​

Your Honor,

xEndeavour, in answering these questions, is a witness. The witness was asked to what extent they considered that the eviction had occurred in the actioning member's timezone before declaring that the department had acted legally. While xEndeavour is also opposing counsel, it is important for fairness that he provides testimony rather than legal arguments in his responses to these questions.

What we have received instead of an answer to that question is a long argumentative rant as if we were getting an argument from opposing counsel instead of factual testimony from a witness. The witness talks about his own timezone, but doesn't actually address the question directly - the answer is non-responsive. It's also unnecessarily narrative - the question does not ask about events subsequent to xEndeavour's determination, and reference to actions in the filing of this case itself are both non-responsive to the question and unnecessary.

Witness joint response to questions 2 and 3​

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE, BREACH OF PROCEDURE​

Your Honor,

We asked individual questions of the witness. The point of the separating the questions relates to the probative value - namely, the extent to which conflict-of-interest standards were formalized at the time of the eviction and then separately how the department handled them subsequently. The witness should be instructed to answer each question individually; the current response does not answer either question directly, and the questions are separate.

Generally, regarding the submission of images by the witness across multiple answers​

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE​

Your Honor,

Witnesses are not entitled to submit marked up images as evidence in the case; the time for defense counsel to submit images was during discovery (c.f. Rule 4.1 and Rule 4.2), which has long-since elapsed. Witnesses are to provide testimony - words - in their answers to questions, not to proffer exhibits of images to the Court as if they were a counsel in discovery. The images should be stricken as such, and testimony referring to such images should be stricken and re-phrased without reference to such images.

Objection #1 || NON-RESPONSIVE || OVERRULED - Witness xEndeavour answered an open-ended question by giving a narrative of his thought process. I don't see new arguments here from Attorney End.
Objection #2 || NON-RESPONSIVE || SUSTAINED - @End (In a new post, please answer the questions seperately).
Objection #3 || BREACH OF PROC || OVERRULED. - Images are in evidence, witness may testify using evidence already in record as reference.

 

[End]

2. The DCT has always practiced separating it's actions from potential conflicts of interest. A policy was formalised under my term as part of an edit to the Evictions Policy but I cannot recall a date. It formalised what was already practiced at the time.

This included counselling employees who had breached conflict of interest expectations prior to the policy being codified.

3. The DCT has always practiced separating it's actions from potential conflicts of interest. A policy was formalised under my term as part of an edit to the Evictions Policy but I cannot recall a date. It formalised what was already practiced at the time.

This included counselling employees who had breached conflict of interest expectations prior to the policy being codified.

 

[YeetGlazer]

Present, your honor.

 

[Muggy21]

Present, your honor.

Your honor, as ordered by the summons i make myself known to this court and i am present.

Answer the questions as provided below your summons, thanks!

 

[YeetGlazer]

PLANTIFF

1. Seeing these evictions made me feel as if I had been taken advantage of, disrespected, and overall made me upset due to the fact I did not think that the evictions were done in good faith.

2. Seeing these eviction auctions made me feel as if the government had no care for me and had no care to make the situation right. It upset me as I had lost hope on being able to get the plots that were rightfully mine back.

3. Seeing the denial of the ticket made me feel as if the government did not care for the citizens like they had acted like they had. It made me feel as if my problems were being disregarded and the DCT had no care to make it right.

DEFENSE

1. The basis of the complaint when first opening the ticket was that my plots had been evicted before seven days had passed and I questioned the legality of this.

2. The DCT allows evictions prior to exactly seven days according to the evicting officers timezone.

3. I was told by the department that the eviction time had been set for July 31st, which is true, and that they were evicted completely legally on the date July 31st which is untrue.

4. I did not raise any concern with dearev’s timezone in the initial ticket because I wasn’t sure his exact timezone, and that information isn’t mine to provide or know.

5. I am unsure when I initially raised the complain of Dearev’s timezone.

 

[End]

PLANTIFF

1. Seeing these evictions made me feel as if I had been taken advantage of, disrespected, and overall made me upset due to the fact I did not think that the evictions were done in good faith.

2. Seeing these eviction auctions made me feel as if the government had no care for me and had no care to make the situation right. It upset me as I had lost hope on being able to get the plots that were rightfully mine back.

3. Seeing the denial of the ticket made me feel as if the government did not care for the citizens like they had acted like they had. It made me feel as if my problems were being disregarded and the DCT had no care to make it right.

DEFENSE

1. The basis of the complaint when first opening the ticket was that my plots had been evicted before seven days had passed and I questioned the legality of this.

2. The DCT allows evictions prior to exactly seven days according to the evicting officers timezone.

3. I was told by the department that the eviction time had been set for July 31st, which is true, and that they were evicted completely legally on the date July 31st which is untrue.

4. I did not raise any concern with dearev’s timezone in the initial ticket because I wasn’t sure his exact timezone, and that information isn’t mine to provide or know.

5. I am unsure when I initially raised the complain of Dearev’s timezone.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Court was duly informed, contrary to what the Plaintiff made out that they were not informed.

The Plaintiff made 22 objections, what did they expect us to do to our questions? We rewrote them.

Request a response to this motion

 

[Muggy21]

@lawanoesepr @dearev

You have 24 Hours to respond to questions posed to you.

 

[End]

PLANTIFF

1. Seeing these evictions made me feel as if I had been taken advantage of, disrespected, and overall made me upset due to the fact I did not think that the evictions were done in good faith.

2. Seeing these eviction auctions made me feel as if the government had no care for me and had no care to make the situation right. It upset me as I had lost hope on being able to get the plots that were rightfully mine back.

3. Seeing the denial of the ticket made me feel as if the government did not care for the citizens like they had acted like they had. It made me feel as if my problems were being disregarded and the DCT had no care to make it right.

DEFENSE

1. The basis of the complaint when first opening the ticket was that my plots had been evicted before seven days had passed and I questioned the legality of this.

2. The DCT allows evictions prior to exactly seven days according to the evicting officers timezone.

3. I was told by the department that the eviction time had been set for July 31st, which is true, and that they were evicted completely legally on the date July 31st which is untrue.

4. I did not raise any concern with dearev’s timezone in the initial ticket because I wasn’t sure his exact timezone, and that information isn’t mine to provide or know.

5. I am unsure when I initially raised the complain of Dearev’s timezone.

3.1. To the best of your knowledge, what date was it for the Secretary when they responded to you saying that the department acted legally?

5.1. Did you raise the complaint of Dearev’s timezone outside of filing this case in court?

5.2. If the DCT only responded to your complaint about being evicted prior to 7 days, how did they make a misrepresentation to you — as you claim fraud — about the issue of timezones?

@YeetGlazer

 

[dearev]

@lawanoesepr @dearev

You have 24 Hours to respond to questions posed to you.

Your honor, i request an extra 24 hours due to irl matters

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

Court was duly informed, contrary to what the Plaintiff made out that they were not informed.

The Plaintiff made 22 objections, what did they expect us to do to our questions? We rewrote them.

GRANTED. In future, you don't edit docket entries, you add a new one to always maintain a record of changes. I shouldn't have to rely on History or archive.

 

[Muggy21]

Your honor, i request an extra 24 hours due to irl matters

Response due 12/16/25 @ 5pm

 

[Franciscus]

PLANTIFF

1. Seeing these evictions made me feel as if I had been taken advantage of, disrespected, and overall made me upset due to the fact I did not think that the evictions were done in good faith.

2. Seeing these eviction auctions made me feel as if the government had no care for me and had no care to make the situation right. It upset me as I had lost hope on being able to get the plots that were rightfully mine back.

3. Seeing the denial of the ticket made me feel as if the government did not care for the citizens like they had acted like they had. It made me feel as if my problems were being disregarded and the DCT had no care to make it right.

DEFENSE

1. The basis of the complaint when first opening the ticket was that my plots had been evicted before seven days had passed and I questioned the legality of this.

2. The DCT allows evictions prior to exactly seven days according to the evicting officers timezone.

3. I was told by the department that the eviction time had been set for July 31st, which is true, and that they were evicted completely legally on the date July 31st which is untrue.

4. I did not raise any concern with dearev’s timezone in the initial ticket because I wasn’t sure his exact timezone, and that information isn’t mine to provide or know.

5. I am unsure when I initially raised the complain of Dearev’s timezone.

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS (YeetGlazer, Plaintiff)

1. As of July 24, 2025, you owned multiple Redmont plots including c477, i025, rh017, r018, r073, rh047, r054, and c343, correct?
2. You used at least some of those plots for active purposes (building, storage, commerce, residence, and/or planned projects), correct?
3. On July 24, 2025, you saw that those plots were the subject of DCT eviction reports/notices for “inactivity,” correct?
4. The eviction notice you received on July 24, 2025 stated you would “have seven days to meet the minimum 6-hour playtime requirement,” correct?
5. That notice set an “eviction date” of July 31, 2025, correct?
6. Reading the notice at the time, you understood you had until July 31, 2025 (as shown on the notice) before an eviction should be actioned, correct?
7. You understood that the July 31 “eviction date” meant your plots were not supposed to be evicted before July 31, correct?
8. By July 30, 2025, you believed you had met the six-hour playtime requirement for July, correct?
9. Despite that, on the afternoon of July 30, 2025, you discovered your plots were already set to Government ownership, correct?
10. As you experienced it, that Government-ownership change meant your plots were treated as evicted before the July 31 date shown on the notice, correct?
11. You later learned that Dearev posted notices indicating the Government had been set as owner and that an auction would be required, correct?
12. You understand the Defendant has affirmed those “Government set as owner” notices were issued at or before 2:42 PM EDT on July 30, 2025, correct?
13. On July 30, 2025, as soon as you realized your plots were set to Government ownership ahead of the posted date, you opened a DCT support ticket on Discord to contest the eviction, correct?
14. In that ticket, you told DCT that seven days had not passed and that you had met the playtime requirement, correct?
15. In that ticket interaction, you were told the plots had already been evicted, correct?
16. In response, you asked for your plots to be returned because you believed the eviction was premature and you had met the playtime requirement, correct?
17. The DCT refused to return your plots at that time, correct?
18. In that ticket, the DCT Secretary, xEndeavour, told you your properties “had been evicted on July 31,” correct?
19. So the DCT’s official response to you during the ticket was that the eviction occurred on the proper date and was therefore lawful, correct?
20. When xEndeavour told you the eviction happened on “July 31,” you had no reason to doubt him at the time, and you relied on what he told you, correct?
21. At the time of that Discord ticket, you did not actually know the timezone or location of the officer who processed the eviction, correct?
22. The DCT did not inform you during the ticket conversation that Officer Dearev was located in Brazil (UTC-3), or otherwise explain his timezone, correct?
23. You did not learn Dearev’s exact timezone until later, while gathering information for this lawsuit, correct?
24. Before filing this lawsuit, you did not specifically raise a “timezone” issue with the DCT because you did not know there was a timezone issue, correct?
25. Before suing, you did not accuse the DCT of evicting you on July 30 in the officer’s local time because you reasonably relied on the DCT’s representation that the eviction was on July 31, correct?
26. You only later came to understand that DCT was relying on a policy statement to the effect that staff may process an eviction “at any time on or after the eviction date, based on their own timezone,” correct?
27. When you first realized DCT was treating the dispute as a timezone-based question, you raised concerns that this could permit an eviction that—on your screen and in your timezone—occurred before July 31, correct?
28. Being evicted early meant you lost access to the plots immediately, correct?
29. Some of the evicted plots included your residence and/or business properties, so you were suddenly cut off from using your own home or conducting business on those lands, correct?
30. After the evictions on July 30, 2025 and until after the filing of this suit, you could no longer use, build on, or trade those plots, correct?
31. You had to spend time trying to get your property back, correct?
32. One reason you treated the matter as urgent is that evicted plots can be auctioned and transferred, making simple “undoing” difficult, correct?
33. To your knowledge, after your original complaint was made known, DCT did not “pause” things in a way that protected you from downstream auction/transfer risk, correct?
34. In particular, you understood that r054 was swiftly auctioned and sold to a third party after eviction, correct?
35. You understood that DCT auction rules at the time included a repurchasing fee for former owners trying to re-purchase an evicted plot, correct?
36. Under the auction rules then in effect, as the former owner you were required to pay an additional 50% repurchasing fee on top of your winning bid to buy back your own evicted plot, correct?
37. You also understood that some form of “fairness fee” could apply to bidders depending on how many plots they owned, correct?
38. Under the DCT’s “fairness fee” system as you understood it, because you owned several plots your bids carried a 50% fee, while Dearev’s bids carried only a 25% fee, correct?
39. So for the same bid amount on plot c343, you would have had to pay significantly more than Dearev would have paid, correct?
40. Before the eviction, Dearev approached you about purchasing plot c343, correct?
41. You refused to sell plot c343 to Dearev, who was acting on behalf of his company, GlobalCenter, correct?
42. After you were evicted, plot c343 was put up for eviction auction by the DCT, correct?
43. You attempted to bid in that auction to reclaim plot c343 for yourself, correct?
44. You are aware that Dearev also bid on plot c343 during the auction, attempting to acquire it for his own company, correct?
45. Regardless of the exact bid mechanics, you perceived it as unfair that an official involved in eviction activity could end up bidding on (or benefiting from) the auctioning of the same property, correct?
46. Ultimately, you did not succeed in re-purchasing plot c343 at that auction, correct?
47. Instead, the Commonwealth invalidated your bids and absent the emergency injunction in this case would have sold plot c343 to a third party, and you permanently lost that property as a result, correct?
48. Dearev had expressed interest in acquiring plot c343 before the eviction, and then after the eviction he sought to acquire it through the auction process, correct?
49. Dearev also disparaged your group as “a paramilitary extremist group” at one point, correct?
50. Given the early eviction, the DCT’s denial, and Dearev’s interest in your plot, you believe the DCT’s handling was unfair and that Dearev stood to benefit from your eviction, correct?
51. Being labeled “inactive” and evicted made it appear you had neglected your holdings even though you had complied with the activity requirement before eviction should have taken place, correct?
52. The eviction notices were publicly posted, and your DCT support ticket occurred in a public Discord channel, so other community members could see you were evicted for inactivity, correct?
53. When the DCT denied any error and stood by the eviction in that public ticket, it suggested you were in the wrong, and you found that humiliating, correct?
54. This incident diminished your enjoyment of the server because normal gameplay turned into a dispute just to regain your own property, correct?
55. This incident caused you substantial frustration and distress, correct?
56. You felt belittled and powerless because you had done what was required yet were treated as if you had not, correct?
57. While this case has an emotional component, you also suffered practical impacts including loss of access, interruption of projects, and time spent trying to recover what you lost, correct?
58. You can identify at least one plot where you lost meaningful use or value during the period you were deprived of ownership or control, correct?

 

[dearev]

PLAINTIFF

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"? the words are exactly as written.
   1. Did you believe, as shown in the screenshots contained within Post No. 67, that your system time was incorrect? yes
2. In Exhibit P-002, a certain "clocktest200" is shown. Who is this "clocktest200"? that is my discord username
   
   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? I do not recall
      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"? I do not recall
      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? I do not recall
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? it was a plot in the original construction project
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? 14:00 (2pm) GMT-3
   1. Do you believe that your eviction of these plots at that time was consistent with your duties as a member of the DCT? at the time i belived it was.
5. Why did you choose to action the eviction of the plots depicted in Exhibit P-001 yourself? it was my duty as a employee of the DCT to action evictions
   1. Why did you action the eviction of plot c343 after having attempted (and failed) to purchase the plot from Yeetglazer? At the time if i correctly remember, i was checking the evictions that were ready to auction and i belived that yeetglazer's were ready to be actioned, so i did.
   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? i do not belive it would have affected the "difficulty of acquiring the plot myself"
   3. To what extent had you attempted to acquire the plot c343 after your actioning of the eviction thereof? i bidded on the auction
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? it did not cross my mind of that fact
   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? none
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? yes

DEFENSE

1. Does DCT eviction policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement? the current DCT policy states that "*Time is approximate and depends on the evicting officer's time zone."
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer according to this policy? it would depend on the reason behind the report.
3. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions? yes
   1. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you know what the DCT eviction policy required of you prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports? yes
   2. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you follow the DCT eviction policy in evicting Yeetglazer? when i evicted him, i belived i was following policy as written, however that was later confirmed to be false.
      1. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, did you tell Secretary Endeavour that you breached a Department policy? i do not recall
      2. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, when did you first make the Secretary aware? i do not recall
4. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions? GMT-3
5. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time? I do not remember the "department culture", im not sure of what is being asked by "department culture"
6. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy? I do not recall
7. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised? I do not remember the "department culture", im not sure of what is being asked by "department culture"
8. What timezone are you in? GMT-3

 

[Franciscus]

PLAINTIFF

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"? the words are exactly as written.
   1. Did you believe, as shown in the screenshots contained within Post No. 67, that your system time was incorrect? yes
2. In Exhibit P-002, a certain "clocktest200" is shown. Who is this "clocktest200"? that is my discord usernameView attachment 69471
   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? I do not recall
      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"? I do not recall
      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? I do not recall
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? it was a plot in the original construction project
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? 14:00 (2pm) GMT-3
   1. Do you believe that your eviction of these plots at that time was consistent with your duties as a member of the DCT? at the time i belived it was.
5. Why did you choose to action the eviction of the plots depicted in Exhibit P-001 yourself? it was my duty as a employee of the DCT to action evictions
   1. Why did you action the eviction of plot c343 after having attempted (and failed) to purchase the plot from Yeetglazer? At the time if i correctly remember, i was checking the evictions that were ready to auction and i belived that yeetglazer's were ready to be actioned, so i did.
   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? i do not belive it would have affected the "difficulty of acquiring the plot myself"
   3. To what extent had you attempted to acquire the plot c343 after your actioning of the eviction thereof? i bidded on the auction
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? it did not cross my mind of that fact
   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? none
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? yes

DEFENSE

1. Does DCT eviction policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement? the current DCT policy states that "*Time is approximate and depends on the evicting officer's time zone."
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer according to this policy? it would depend on the reason behind the report.
3. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions? yes
   1. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you know what the DCT eviction policy required of you prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports? yes
   2. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you follow the DCT eviction policy in evicting Yeetglazer? when i evicted him, i belived i was following policy as written, however that was later confirmed to be false.
      1. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, did you tell Secretary Endeavour that you breached a Department policy? i do not recall
      2. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, when did you first make the Secretary aware? i do not recall
4. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions? GMT-3
5. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time? I do not remember the "department culture", im not sure of what is being asked by "department culture"
6. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy? I do not recall
7. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised? I do not remember the "department culture", im not sure of what is being asked by "department culture"
8. What timezone are you in? GMT-3

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION TO WITNESS ANSWERS

Plaintiff 1​

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE​

Your Honor,

The question was "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'?"

The response was "the words are exactly as written".

The witness did not answer the question whatsoever. The witness surely can state these words.

Plaintiff 2.1.3​

OBJECTION - PERJURY​

Your Honor,

Dearev know at some level why he said this. If he actually were to have read Exhibit P-002, which is directly referenced in question 2.1.2, he would recall at least that the quote is from DCT auction policy. There's not really an excuse for not recalling anything here.

The Plaintiff finds his lack of recollection of this witness plainly non-credible; he quotes from DCT policy in his answer to Defense 1, but is unable to recall this simple fact about DCT auction policy when it's directly in the referenced exhibit. This lack of credibility is bolstered by several of the witness's other answers (Plaintiff 2.1.1, 2.1.3; Defense 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 6) that claim a pattern of lack of recollection. For this reason, we object.

Plaintiff 3​

OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE​

Your Honor,

The question was "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? ".

The answer was "it was a plot in the original construction project".

This does not say anything about Dearev's desire to aquire the plot between the messages. The witness has not answered the question.

 

[End]

PLAINTIFF

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"? the words are exactly as written.
   1. Did you believe, as shown in the screenshots contained within Post No. 67, that your system time was incorrect? yes
2. In Exhibit P-002, a certain "clocktest200" is shown. Who is this "clocktest200"? that is my discord usernameView attachment 69471
   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? I do not recall
      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"? I do not recall
      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? I do not recall
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? it was a plot in the original construction project
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? 14:00 (2pm) GMT-3
   1. Do you believe that your eviction of these plots at that time was consistent with your duties as a member of the DCT? at the time i belived it was.
5. Why did you choose to action the eviction of the plots depicted in Exhibit P-001 yourself? it was my duty as a employee of the DCT to action evictions
   1. Why did you action the eviction of plot c343 after having attempted (and failed) to purchase the plot from Yeetglazer? At the time if i correctly remember, i was checking the evictions that were ready to auction and i belived that yeetglazer's were ready to be actioned, so i did.
   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? i do not belive it would have affected the "difficulty of acquiring the plot myself"
   3. To what extent had you attempted to acquire the plot c343 after your actioning of the eviction thereof? i bidded on the auction
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? it did not cross my mind of that fact
   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? none
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? yes

DEFENSE

1. Does DCT eviction policy allow evictions prior to exactly seven days from report lodgement? the current DCT policy states that "*Time is approximate and depends on the evicting officer's time zone."
2. If so, how early can a plot be evicted by an evicting officer according to this policy? it would depend on the reason behind the report.
3. Did you action Yeetglazers evictions? yes
   1. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you know what the DCT eviction policy required of you prior to actioning Yeetglazer's reports? yes
   2. If you evicted Yeetglazer, did you follow the DCT eviction policy in evicting Yeetglazer? when i evicted him, i belived i was following policy as written, however that was later confirmed to be false.
      1. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, did you tell Secretary Endeavour that you breached a Department policy? i do not recall
      2. If you didn't follow the eviction policy, when did you first make the Secretary aware? i do not recall
4. If you evicted Yeetglazer, what timezone were you in when you actioned the evictions? GMT-3
5. How would you describe the culture within the Department regarding adherence to policy at that time? I do not remember the "department culture", im not sure of what is being asked by "department culture"
6. Did the Secretary have any conversations with you around the period [of the evictions disputed in this case] concerning you not following DCT policy? I do not recall
7. What was the Department’s culture regarding employees acting in situations involving potential conflicts of interest before the policy was formalised? I do not remember the "department culture", im not sure of what is being asked by "department culture"
8. What timezone are you in? GMT-3

Department culture (in relation to policy adherence) refers to the norms and attitudes that shape how seriously policies are understood, applied, and enforced.

Please attempt to answer the relevant questions based on this information.

 

[End]

@dearev

 

[YeetGlazer]

3.1. To the best of your knowledge, what date was it for the Secretary when they responded to you saying that the department acted legally?

5.1. Did you raise the complaint of Dearev’s timezone outside of filing this case in court?

5.2. If the DCT only responded to your complaint about being evicted prior to 7 days, how did they make a misrepresentation to you — as you claim fraud — about the issue of timezones?

@YeetGlazer

3.1 - I’m unsure of the timezone the secretary would be in and therefore cannot answer to the best of my ability

5.1 - I did not as it was not brought to my attention and Is not my duty to ensure and enforce

5.2 - I was told by the department that they acted legally due to the fact it was actioned according to the evicting officers timezone, thus being told fraudulent information whilst every member of the DCT states their timezone when applying for the department.

 

[YeetGlazer]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS (YeetGlazer, Plaintiff)

1. As of July 24, 2025, you owned multiple Redmont plots including c477, i025, rh017, r018, r073, rh047, r054, and c343, correct?
2. You used at least some of those plots for active purposes (building, storage, commerce, residence, and/or planned projects), correct?
3. On July 24, 2025, you saw that those plots were the subject of DCT eviction reports/notices for “inactivity,” correct?
4. The eviction notice you received on July 24, 2025 stated you would “have seven days to meet the minimum 6-hour playtime requirement,” correct?
5. That notice set an “eviction date” of July 31, 2025, correct?
6. Reading the notice at the time, you understood you had until July 31, 2025 (as shown on the notice) before an eviction should be actioned, correct?
7. You understood that the July 31 “eviction date” meant your plots were not supposed to be evicted before July 31, correct?
8. By July 30, 2025, you believed you had met the six-hour playtime requirement for July, correct?
9. Despite that, on the afternoon of July 30, 2025, you discovered your plots were already set to Government ownership, correct?
10. As you experienced it, that Government-ownership change meant your plots were treated as evicted before the July 31 date shown on the notice, correct?
11. You later learned that Dearev posted notices indicating the Government had been set as owner and that an auction would be required, correct?
12. You understand the Defendant has affirmed those “Government set as owner” notices were issued at or before 2:42 PM EDT on July 30, 2025, correct?
13. On July 30, 2025, as soon as you realized your plots were set to Government ownership ahead of the posted date, you opened a DCT support ticket on Discord to contest the eviction, correct?
14. In that ticket, you told DCT that seven days had not passed and that you had met the playtime requirement, correct?
15. In that ticket interaction, you were told the plots had already been evicted, correct?
16. In response, you asked for your plots to be returned because you believed the eviction was premature and you had met the playtime requirement, correct?
17. The DCT refused to return your plots at that time, correct?
18. In that ticket, the DCT Secretary, xEndeavour, told you your properties “had been evicted on July 31,” correct?
19. So the DCT’s official response to you during the ticket was that the eviction occurred on the proper date and was therefore lawful, correct?
20. When xEndeavour told you the eviction happened on “July 31,” you had no reason to doubt him at the time, and you relied on what he told you, correct?
21. At the time of that Discord ticket, you did not actually know the timezone or location of the officer who processed the eviction, correct?
22. The DCT did not inform you during the ticket conversation that Officer Dearev was located in Brazil (UTC-3), or otherwise explain his timezone, correct?
23. You did not learn Dearev’s exact timezone until later, while gathering information for this lawsuit, correct?
24. Before filing this lawsuit, you did not specifically raise a “timezone” issue with the DCT because you did not know there was a timezone issue, correct?
25. Before suing, you did not accuse the DCT of evicting you on July 30 in the officer’s local time because you reasonably relied on the DCT’s representation that the eviction was on July 31, correct?
26. You only later came to understand that DCT was relying on a policy statement to the effect that staff may process an eviction “at any time on or after the eviction date, based on their own timezone,” correct?
27. When you first realized DCT was treating the dispute as a timezone-based question, you raised concerns that this could permit an eviction that—on your screen and in your timezone—occurred before July 31, correct?
28. Being evicted early meant you lost access to the plots immediately, correct?
29. Some of the evicted plots included your residence and/or business properties, so you were suddenly cut off from using your own home or conducting business on those lands, correct?
30. After the evictions on July 30, 2025 and until after the filing of this suit, you could no longer use, build on, or trade those plots, correct?
31. You had to spend time trying to get your property back, correct?
32. One reason you treated the matter as urgent is that evicted plots can be auctioned and transferred, making simple “undoing” difficult, correct?
33. To your knowledge, after your original complaint was made known, DCT did not “pause” things in a way that protected you from downstream auction/transfer risk, correct?
34. In particular, you understood that r054 was swiftly auctioned and sold to a third party after eviction, correct?
35. You understood that DCT auction rules at the time included a repurchasing fee for former owners trying to re-purchase an evicted plot, correct?
36. Under the auction rules then in effect, as the former owner you were required to pay an additional 50% repurchasing fee on top of your winning bid to buy back your own evicted plot, correct?
37. You also understood that some form of “fairness fee” could apply to bidders depending on how many plots they owned, correct?
38. Under the DCT’s “fairness fee” system as you understood it, because you owned several plots your bids carried a 50% fee, while Dearev’s bids carried only a 25% fee, correct?
39. So for the same bid amount on plot c343, you would have had to pay significantly more than Dearev would have paid, correct?
40. Before the eviction, Dearev approached you about purchasing plot c343, correct?
41. You refused to sell plot c343 to Dearev, who was acting on behalf of his company, GlobalCenter, correct?
42. After you were evicted, plot c343 was put up for eviction auction by the DCT, correct?
43. You attempted to bid in that auction to reclaim plot c343 for yourself, correct?
44. You are aware that Dearev also bid on plot c343 during the auction, attempting to acquire it for his own company, correct?
45. Regardless of the exact bid mechanics, you perceived it as unfair that an official involved in eviction activity could end up bidding on (or benefiting from) the auctioning of the same property, correct?
46. Ultimately, you did not succeed in re-purchasing plot c343 at that auction, correct?
47. Instead, the Commonwealth invalidated your bids and absent the emergency injunction in this case would have sold plot c343 to a third party, and you permanently lost that property as a result, correct?
48. Dearev had expressed interest in acquiring plot c343 before the eviction, and then after the eviction he sought to acquire it through the auction process, correct?
49. Dearev also disparaged your group as “a paramilitary extremist group” at one point, correct?
50. Given the early eviction, the DCT’s denial, and Dearev’s interest in your plot, you believe the DCT’s handling was unfair and that Dearev stood to benefit from your eviction, correct?
51. Being labeled “inactive” and evicted made it appear you had neglected your holdings even though you had complied with the activity requirement before eviction should have taken place, correct?
52. The eviction notices were publicly posted, and your DCT support ticket occurred in a public Discord channel, so other community members could see you were evicted for inactivity, correct?
53. When the DCT denied any error and stood by the eviction in that public ticket, it suggested you were in the wrong, and you found that humiliating, correct?
54. This incident diminished your enjoyment of the server because normal gameplay turned into a dispute just to regain your own property, correct?
55. This incident caused you substantial frustration and distress, correct?
56. You felt belittled and powerless because you had done what was required yet were treated as if you had not, correct?
57. While this case has an emotional component, you also suffered practical impacts including loss of access, interruption of projects, and time spent trying to recover what you lost, correct?
58. You can identify at least one plot where you lost meaningful use or value during the period you were deprived of ownership or control, correct?

/

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS (YeetGlazer, Plaintiff)

1. As of July 24, 2025, you owned multiple Redmont plots including c477, i025, rh017, r018, r073, rh047, r054, and c343, correct?
2. You used at least some of those plots for active purposes (building, storage, commerce, residence, and/or planned projects), correct?
3. On July 24, 2025, you saw that those plots were the subject of DCT eviction reports/notices for “inactivity,” correct?
4. The eviction notice you received on July 24, 2025 stated you would “have seven days to meet the minimum 6-hour playtime requirement,” correct?
5. That notice set an “eviction date” of July 31, 2025, correct?
6. Reading the notice at the time, you understood you had until July 31, 2025 (as shown on the notice) before an eviction should be actioned, correct?
7. You understood that the July 31 “eviction date” meant your plots were not supposed to be evicted before July 31, correct?
8. By July 30, 2025, you believed you had met the six-hour playtime requirement for July, correct?
9. Despite that, on the afternoon of July 30, 2025, you discovered your plots were already set to Government ownership, correct?
10. As you experienced it, that Government-ownership change meant your plots were treated as evicted before the July 31 date shown on the notice, correct?
11. You later learned that Dearev posted notices indicating the Government had been set as owner and that an auction would be required, correct?
12. You understand the Defendant has affirmed those “Government set as owner” notices were issued at or before 2:42 PM EDT on July 30, 2025, correct?
13. On July 30, 2025, as soon as you realized your plots were set to Government ownership ahead of the posted date, you opened a DCT support ticket on Discord to contest the eviction, correct?
14. In that ticket, you told DCT that seven days had not passed and that you had met the playtime requirement, correct?
15. In that ticket interaction, you were told the plots had already been evicted, correct?
16. In response, you asked for your plots to be returned because you believed the eviction was premature and you had met the playtime requirement, correct?
17. The DCT refused to return your plots at that time, correct?
18. In that ticket, the DCT Secretary, xEndeavour, told you your properties “had been evicted on July 31,” correct?
19. So the DCT’s official response to you during the ticket was that the eviction occurred on the proper date and was therefore lawful, correct?
20. When xEndeavour told you the eviction happened on “July 31,” you had no reason to doubt him at the time, and you relied on what he told you, correct?
21. At the time of that Discord ticket, you did not actually know the timezone or location of the officer who processed the eviction, correct?
22. The DCT did not inform you during the ticket conversation that Officer Dearev was located in Brazil (UTC-3), or otherwise explain his timezone, correct?
23. You did not learn Dearev’s exact timezone until later, while gathering information for this lawsuit, correct?
24. Before filing this lawsuit, you did not specifically raise a “timezone” issue with the DCT because you did not know there was a timezone issue, correct?
25. Before suing, you did not accuse the DCT of evicting you on July 30 in the officer’s local time because you reasonably relied on the DCT’s representation that the eviction was on July 31, correct?
26. You only later came to understand that DCT was relying on a policy statement to the effect that staff may process an eviction “at any time on or after the eviction date, based on their own timezone,” correct?
27. When you first realized DCT was treating the dispute as a timezone-based question, you raised concerns that this could permit an eviction that—on your screen and in your timezone—occurred before July 31, correct?
28. Being evicted early meant you lost access to the plots immediately, correct?
29. Some of the evicted plots included your residence and/or business properties, so you were suddenly cut off from using your own home or conducting business on those lands, correct?
30. After the evictions on July 30, 2025 and until after the filing of this suit, you could no longer use, build on, or trade those plots, correct?
31. You had to spend time trying to get your property back, correct?
32. One reason you treated the matter as urgent is that evicted plots can be auctioned and transferred, making simple “undoing” difficult, correct?
33. To your knowledge, after your original complaint was made known, DCT did not “pause” things in a way that protected you from downstream auction/transfer risk, correct?
34. In particular, you understood that r054 was swiftly auctioned and sold to a third party after eviction, correct?
35. You understood that DCT auction rules at the time included a repurchasing fee for former owners trying to re-purchase an evicted plot, correct?
36. Under the auction rules then in effect, as the former owner you were required to pay an additional 50% repurchasing fee on top of your winning bid to buy back your own evicted plot, correct?
37. You also understood that some form of “fairness fee” could apply to bidders depending on how many plots they owned, correct?
38. Under the DCT’s “fairness fee” system as you understood it, because you owned several plots your bids carried a 50% fee, while Dearev’s bids carried only a 25% fee, correct?
39. So for the same bid amount on plot c343, you would have had to pay significantly more than Dearev would have paid, correct?
40. Before the eviction, Dearev approached you about purchasing plot c343, correct?
41. You refused to sell plot c343 to Dearev, who was acting on behalf of his company, GlobalCenter, correct?
42. After you were evicted, plot c343 was put up for eviction auction by the DCT, correct?
43. You attempted to bid in that auction to reclaim plot c343 for yourself, correct?
44. You are aware that Dearev also bid on plot c343 during the auction, attempting to acquire it for his own company, correct?
45. Regardless of the exact bid mechanics, you perceived it as unfair that an official involved in eviction activity could end up bidding on (or benefiting from) the auctioning of the same property, correct?
46. Ultimately, you did not succeed in re-purchasing plot c343 at that auction, correct?
47. Instead, the Commonwealth invalidated your bids and absent the emergency injunction in this case would have sold plot c343 to a third party, and you permanently lost that property as a result, correct?
48. Dearev had expressed interest in acquiring plot c343 before the eviction, and then after the eviction he sought to acquire it through the auction process, correct?
49. Dearev also disparaged your group as “a paramilitary extremist group” at one point, correct?
50. Given the early eviction, the DCT’s denial, and Dearev’s interest in your plot, you believe the DCT’s handling was unfair and that Dearev stood to benefit from your eviction, correct?
51. Being labeled “inactive” and evicted made it appear you had neglected your holdings even though you had complied with the activity requirement before eviction should have taken place, correct?
52. The eviction notices were publicly posted, and your DCT support ticket occurred in a public Discord channel, so other community members could see you were evicted for inactivity, correct?
53. When the DCT denied any error and stood by the eviction in that public ticket, it suggested you were in the wrong, and you found that humiliating, correct?
54. This incident diminished your enjoyment of the server because normal gameplay turned into a dispute just to regain your own property, correct?
55. This incident caused you substantial frustration and distress, correct?
56. You felt belittled and powerless because you had done what was required yet were treated as if you had not, correct?
57. While this case has an emotional component, you also suffered practical impacts including loss of access, interruption of projects, and time spent trying to recover what you lost, correct?
58. You can identify at least one plot where you lost meaningful use or value during the period you were deprived of ownership or control, correct?

1. This is correct.
2. This is correct.
3. This is correct.
4. This is correct.
5. This is correct.
6. This is correct.
7. This is correct.
8. This is correct.
9. This is correct.
10. This is correct.
11. This is correct.
12. This is correct.
13. Semi-correct, once I had realized that my plots were evicted ahead of the posted date, I raised this concern in an already open ticket.
14. This is correct.
15. This is correct.
16. This is correct.
17. Correct, I was told they would be auctions anyway and this was confirmed many times throughout the ticket.
18. This is correct.
19. This is correct.
20. This is correct.
21. This is correct as it is not my duty to do so.
22. This is correct, I was not informed of such information.
23. This is correct.
24. This is correct— I was unaware.
25. This is correct.
26. This is correct.
27. This is correct.
28. This is correct.
29. This is correct.
30. This is correct.
31. This is correct.
32. This is correct.
33. This is correct.
34. This is correct.
35. This is correct.
36. This is correct.
37. This is correct.
38. This is correct.
39. This is correct.
40. This is correct— through a private form of communication in my direct messages in discord.
41. This is correct.
42. This is correct.
43. This is correct.
44. This is correct.
45. This is correct.
46. This is correct.
47. This is correct.
48. This is correct.
49. This is correct.
50. This is correct.
51. This is correct.
52. This is correct— many community members had access to the page and could see the evictions in which I had gone through.
53. This is correct.
54. This is correct.
55. This is correct.
56. This is correct.
57. This is correct.
58. This is correct.

 

[End]

3.1 - I’m unsure of the timezone the secretary would be in and therefore cannot answer to the best of my ability

5.1 - I did not as it was not brought to my attention and Is not my duty to ensure and enforce

5.2 - I was told by the department that they acted legally due to the fact it was actioned according to the evicting officers timezone, thus being told fraudulent information whilst every member of the DCT states their timezone when applying for the department.

5.2.1. So you say that:

1. your initial complaint is that you were evicted prior to exactly seven days.

2. In response to your complaint, the DCT says that it acted legally by evicting you prior to 7 days because it was done in the evicting officers timezone.

How does the DCT knowingly or recklessly misrepresent or omit a material fact to you, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm — noting the complaint and response is solely about whether evictions can occur prior to exactly 7 days?

3.1.1. You are unsure of my timezone, so how can the Secretary be sure of the timezone that all of their employees are in?

3.1.2 People move between timezones. The timezone on my application is 1 hour offset due to daylight savings. However, I’m currently 15 hours behind my regular timezone.

How can you expect the Secretary to know this for all of their employees, particularly when no specific issue is raised concerning what timezone the evicting officers was in?

 

[YeetGlazer]

5.2.1. So you say that:

1. your initial complaint is that you were evicted prior to exactly seven days.

2. In response to your complaint, the DCT says that it acted legally by evicting you prior to 7 days because it was done in the evicting officers timezone.

How does the DCT knowingly or recklessly misrepresent or omit a material fact to you, causing the other party to rely on that misrepresentation, resulting in actual, quantifiable harm — noting the complaint and response is solely about whether evictions can occur prior to exactly 7 days?

3.1.1. You are unsure of my timezone, so how can the Secretary be sure of the timezone that all of their employees are in?

3.1.2 People move between timezones. The timezone on my application is 1 hour offset due to daylight savings. However, I’m currently 15 hours behind my regular timezone.

How can you expect the Secretary to know this for all of their employees, particularly when no specific issue is raised concerning what timezone the evicting officers was in?

5.2.1.

The DCT knowingly misrepresented material to me by stating that the evictions were done legally as the evicting officers time zone was within the date. This is falsified information, and the Secretary of the department stated this, unknowing of if its true and not giving true facts.

3.1.1.

The Secretary is given the employees time zone when the employee applies to the department. Thus, the secretary should be sure of what their employees time zones are and has the applications for reference to do so. I am not the secretary and I am not at liberty to make sure my department is doing it's job completely legally.

3.1.2

Whether the secretary wants to keep a time zone log of all their employees, or the secretary wants to do all evictions themselves, of if the secretary wants to check his facts before saying something that is falsified is not my problem to deal with. I expect the secretary to make sure things are being handled legally and then telling me they are legal whilst they are not and I'm in the midst of questioning the legality is not something that I, not being the secretary, am obligated to do.