Lawsuit: Pending MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7) v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15

Pepecuu said:
Good evening, Mr. MeneerLolo. Thank you for your presence here today.

1. Can you confirm your tenancy on the willow plot wl-f086 on January 19th, 2025?
2. Was the plaintiff on the willow plot when the defendant entered wl-f086?
3. Could you describe the events leading up to the defendants entry into wl-f086 on that date?
4. Can you detail the events that transpired after the Plaintiff had requested the defendant to leave?
5. How did the defendant's actions affect the farming operations on wl-f086 following the incident?
6. Can you describe the extent of the disruptions caused by the defendant's actions during the incident?
Click to expand...
1: Yes i can i was at the moment harvesting Sugarcane for paper
2:Yes he was he was working on potatoes or wheat
3: No i cant. at the time we had no history with him he entered without any reason
4: The Defendant Got mad and started killing us
5: he stopped our production wich caused us to lose thousands of dollars and all the clues were disrupting our farms Sugarcane couldnt grow anymore causen our firework production to stop almost entirely
6: It caused physical damage, emotional distress, financial loss and public disturbance Meneer_Lolo (me) and the defendant (MrCheeseGuy) Both got affected by all of these reasons
 
Your honor, the Plaintiff's Legal Counsel has no further questions.
 
The defense has 48 hours to cross-examine, followed by 48 hours for the witness to answer.
 
Good evening, Mr. MeneerLolo. The defense has two questions for you:

1. To clarify, were you the one renting plot wl-f086 on January 19th, 2025?
2. What is your relationship with MrCheesGuy?
 
gribble19 said:
Good evening, Mr. MeneerLolo. The defense has two questions for you:

1. To clarify, were you the one renting plot wl-f086 on January 19th, 2025?
2. What is your relationship with MrCheesGuy?
Click to expand...
1 no i wasnt. MrCheeseGuy was the one who currently owned the plot
2 he is my father, boss, and bussiness partner
 
You have 24 hours to ask any follow-up questions.
 
Meneer_Lolo said:
1 no i wasnt. MrCheeseGuy was the one who currently owned the plot
2 he is my father, boss, and bussiness partner
Click to expand...
3. If MrCheesGuy was the one who was renting the plot, what tenancy on the plot did you intend to confirm when answering the Plaintiff's first question?
 
Meneer_Lolo said:
i was his employee
Click to expand...

Objection


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

This does not answer the question that was asked. The personal relationship between the witness and MrCheesGuy was already asked and answered in the defense's second question. The defense's third question asked what tenancy the witness confirmed in their answer to the Plaintiff's first question.

 
I will be striking both the question and answer. Please rephrase it to be more clear.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
I will be striking both the question and answer. Please rephrase it to be more clear.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

The Plaintiff's Legal Counsel was not given a chance to respond to the objection. The plaintiff's legal counsel is allowed up to 24 hours to respond to the objection, according to the Courts Guide to Objections, under "Answer to the Objection".
 
The court has ruled that both the question and answer are out of line, regardless of any objections. If you would like me to reconsider my ruling, please make an appropriate motion.
 
Public Defender, please display appropriate credentials and proof of representation within 24 hours.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
Public Defender, please display appropriate credentials and proof of representation within 24 hours.
Click to expand...
I hope this is sufficient. If the court was instead looking for different credentials, could the court please clarify what credentials they intended to be displayed?


Proof of Representation.jpg


Qualifications.jpg
 
You have 24 hours to provide any more follow-up questions.
 
3. You previously confirmed your tenancy on plot wl-f086 on January 19th 2025, who were you renting this plot from at that date?
 
gribble19 said:
. You previously confirmed your tenancy on plot wl-f086 on January 19th 2025, who were you renting this plot from at that date?
Click to expand...

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Defendant incorrectly stated to the witness in Question 3 that “You previously confirmed your tenancy on plot wl-f086 on January 19th 2025”. However the witness clearly stated that he did not rent the plot, stating “no i wasn't. MrCheeseGuy was the one who currently owned the plot” from the Defendants 1st Question on the 19th of March 10.54am UTC.

 
Pepecuu said:

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Defendant incorrectly stated to the witness in Question 3 that “You previously confirmed your tenancy on plot wl-f086 on January 19th 2025”. However the witness clearly stated that he did not rent the plot, stating “no i wasn't. MrCheeseGuy was the one who currently owned the plot” from the Defendants 1st Question on the 19th of March 10.54am UTC.

Click to expand...
Your Honor, the Plaintiff's first question " Can you confirm your tenancy on the willow plot wl-f086 on January 19th, 2025?" was answered by the witness with "Yes i can". The statement that the witness previously confirmed their tenancy on plot wl-f086 on January 19th 2025 is therefore correct.
 
Witness, are you aware of what tenancy is? Please reply in 24 hours and declare if you have any amendments to your answers on the basis of this.
 
Then why did you answer the questions pertaining to it?
 
Or why did you not research the definition? This is to be answered 24 hours from the original message.
 
The court dismisses the witness from the case and strikes all of their statements from the record. We will be moving onto closing statements, the plaintiff has 72 hours to make theirs.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
The court dismisses the witness from the case and strikes all of their statements from the record. We will be moving onto closing statements, the plaintiff has 72 hours to make theirs.
Click to expand...

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,
You have given no prior warnings to the witness for their actions, not even holding them in contempt for the lack of response from the witness (as demonstrated in GnomeWhisperer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 11, to yourself as witness).

Secondly, you have also decided to strike ALL of the witness's testimony without a relevant motion from the plaintiff, despite the only fault of the witness being a misinterpretation of a definition, which should only strike the witness testimony of the relevant question (Q1 from the Plaintiff).

In light of these facts, the Plaintiff's legal counsel sees no valid reason for the presiding judicial officer to strike ALL of the witness's testimony, and therefore urges you to reconsider your decision.

 

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor,
Given the multiple instances in which you have interrogated the witness with a line of questioning that can only be done by the defendant during their cross-examination, and the fact that you have COMPLETELY and UNILATERALLY struck the witness's testimony without any prior warning to the witness or through a request by the defendant, the Plaintiff's legal counsel believes that you has evidently and demonstrably shown a bias towards the defendant throughout the case, and therefore humbly requests you to recuse yourself from this case.

 
gribble19 said:
Your Honor, the Plaintiff's first question " Can you confirm your tenancy on the willow plot wl-f086 on January 19th, 2025?" was answered by the witness with "Yes i can". The statement that the witness previously confirmed their tenancy on plot wl-f086 on January 19th 2025 is therefore correct.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff's legal counsel would also like to respectfully remind your honor that they have not ruled on the Objection of Perjury made by the Plaintiff against the Defendant 5 calendar days ago, where the Defendant has made their reply to the objection, as seen above.
 
Regarding the stricken material, I will be granting the motion to reconsider and will amend my order to only be striking answers pertaining to tenancy.

Regarding the objection, it is overruled. The court accepts that the witness did not have sufficient knowledge of the meaning of tenancy and therefore did not knowingly provide false information.
 
Pepecuu said:

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor,
Given the multiple instances in which you have interrogated the witness with a line of questioning that can only be done by the defendant during their cross-examination, and the fact that you have COMPLETELY and UNILATERALLY struck the witness's testimony without any prior warning to the witness or through a request by the defendant, the Plaintiff's legal counsel believes that you has evidently and demonstrably shown a bias towards the defendant throughout the case, and therefore humbly requests you to recuse yourself from this case.

Click to expand...
The court asked if the witness knew what tenancy is and why they therefore chose to answer the questions pertaining to it. These are questions pertaining to the orderly administration of my courtroom and are well-within my jurisdiction as presiding judge. Neither the plaintiff nor defense are authorized to ask questions that do not pertain to the facts of the case, as is mistakenly stated in this motion.

Regarding the struck testimony, please refer to the ruling on your previous motion to reconsider, which was the proper forum to address this. I would like to make it clear, however, that the presiding judge does have jurisdiction to unilaterally strike testimony without prompt to keep order in the courtroom.

The motion to recuse is rejected. You have around 54 hours left to file your closing statements.
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
The court asked if the witness knew what tenancy is and why they therefore chose to answer the questions pertaining to it. These are questions pertaining to the orderly administration of my courtroom and are well-within my jurisdiction as presiding judge. Neither the plaintiff nor defense are authorized to ask questions that do not pertain to the facts of the case, as is mistakenly stated in this motion.

Regarding the struck testimony, please refer to the ruling on your previous motion to reconsider, which was the proper forum to address this. I would like to make it clear, however, that the presiding judge does have jurisdiction to unilaterally strike testimony without prompt to keep order in the courtroom.

The motion to recuse is rejected. You have around 54 hours left to file your closing statements.
Click to expand...

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

Given that the Presiding Judicial Officer (Magistrate Mask3D_WOLF) has rejected the motion to recuse, under §16.3 of the 'Judicial Standards Act', it is stated:

(3) Where a judge does not voluntarily recuse, a second Judge will respond to the motion and either accept or deny it. In the instance the judge accepts the motion, that judge will then preside over the case.
Click to expand...
Therefore in accordance with this Act of Congress, the Plaintiff requests that a Judge (A presiding officer from the Federal Court, as defined in §17.1 of the Constitution) repond to the Motion for Mask3D_WOLF's recusal.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top