Lawsuit: In Session End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31

End

End

Owner
Owner
Senator
Construction & Transport Department
President Order of Redmont Trifecta
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
Senator
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
2,445

Case Filing


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


End
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Executive has failed in it's duties and Judicial intervention is required.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. Commonwealth

II. FACTS
1. On 13 February 2025, the Judicial Standards Amendment Act (JSAA) was proposed to amend the Judicial Standards Act.
2. On or around 25 February 2025, the JSAA was passed by the House of Representatives.
3. On or around 26 February 2025, the JSAA was passed by the Senate.
4. On or around 25 February 2025, the JSAA was erroneously put to public referendum by the Defendant despite the absence of a requirement for such a referendum under the circumstances.
5. The JSAA failed to achieve the necessary supermajority at referendum on 7 March 2025.
6. The New Constitution of the Commonwealth was enacted on 8 March 2025, and became the governing legal framework.
7. On 16 March 2025, the President was informed that the JSAA did not require a referendum, as it did not constitute a complex or constitutional change, but rather sought to remove redundant language from the Judicial Standards Act.
8. The President, despite being duly informed, failed to act on the JSAA within the time frame established by the Constitution, which mandates that assent is presumed to have been given after 14 days.
9. As of the date of filing, the JSAA has passed into law, and the Defendant has failed to take appropriate action to implement the changes mandated by the JSAA, including ensuring compliance with the provisions of the New Constitution.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant wrongly subjected the JSAA to a public referendum, despite the fact that the provisions of the JSAA did not constitute a complex or constitutional change and therefore did not meet the criteria for such a referendum.
2. The President's failure to act on the JSAA within the 14-day period, as outlined in the Constitution (25(3)), constitutes a failure to fulfill an essential constitutional duty. Under the Constitution, assent is presumed after the 14-day period, and the Defendant has acted in contravention of this mandate.
3. The enactment of the New Constitution superseded any pre-existing statutory provisions that conflicted with its terms. The JSAA was intended to address redundant provisions in the Judicial Standards Act, which were in conflict with the newly enacted Constitution. The sections of the Constitution that the JSAA sought to amend carry constitutional weight, while the Judicial Standards Act is only statutory. Herein lies a conflict which annuls the sections the JSAA seeks to remove.
4. The Defendant has neglected its duty to carry out the changes mandated by the Constitution and the JSAA.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Defendant to comply with the provisions of the JSAA, in accordance with the statutory and constitutional obligations, and to take immediate action to remove redundant statutory provisions that conflict with the New Constitution.
2. Declare that the President’s failure to act within the constitutionally prescribed 14-day period has resulted in the automatic assent of the JSAA, and that the Commonwealth is bound to implement the changes as required by law.
3. Declare that the JSAA did not require a public referendum and was not a complex or constitutional change, thus rendering the Defendant's actions in submitting the bill to referendum a violation of the congressional process.

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

DATED: This 30th day of March 2025

 

Writ of Summons


@Freeze_Line is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of End v. Commonwealth [2025] FCR 31

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.

 
Your honor, as a Constitutional Expert and former Chief Justice, may I file an Amicus Curiae Brief regarding the nature and status of the Judicial Standards Amendment Act and Constitution?
 
The Defence has 48 hours to submit their answer to complaint.


Dartanboy said:
Your honor, as a Constitutional Expert and former Chief Justice, may I file an Amicus Curiae Brief regarding the nature and status of the Judicial Standards Amendment Act and Constitution?
Click to expand...
You may.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

End
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS Fact 1.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS Fact 2
3. The Defense AFFIRMS Fact 3
4. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS OR DENIES Fact 4
5. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS OR DENIES Fact 5
6. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS OR DENIES Fact 6
7. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS OR DENIES Fact 7
8. The Defense DENIES Fact 8
9. The Defense NEITHER AFFIRMS OR DENIES Fact 9

II. DEFENCES
1. Fact 4 expresses that The Commonwealth’ Erroneously' put the JSAA up for referendum. However, it’s the commonwealth opinion that the bill did constitute, as defined under the former constitution, a ‘Complex Change.’ This is expressly defined within section 40 as ‘Changes involving significant staff involvement.’ This change would require staff to update the department references within the plugins and the Discord names of the impacted departments.

2. The plaintiff wants the court to forget an obvious legal practice utilized in various defenses: the legal practice of ‘Ex Post Facto.’ Even though the new constitution was passed and is now the governing law, these actions have occurred under the previous constitution. Under the previous constitution, a complex change references the above-mentioned complex change definition.

3. The constitution required an absolute majority (D-001). After tallying the votes, the Department of State determined that the required absolute majority for the referendum to pass was not met.

4. The Fluff Removal Act, an act of Congress that the plaintiff drafted, removed the 14-day time period requiring presidents to sign bills within the allotted time. The act specifies, ‘Vested in the President is the power to assent to or veto legislation passed by Congress.’ This provides clarity that no such timeframe is required by the constitution for the president to provide their assent or veto.

III. WITNESSES
1. Secretary of State
2. President of the Senate xEndeavour


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

DATED: This 2nd day of April 2025

 
The court hereby enters the discovery period for 72 hours, which may be extended upon agreement from both parties.
 
Interrogatories
  • Did you open a Department of State ticket regarding the alleged referendum issue?
  • How did you, as a sitting Senator, vote on the JSAA?

Document Request
  • Voting Record for the JSAA (Who voted for what)

Witnesses for the Defense
  • Electoral Manager - Angryhamdog
  • Senator xEndeavour
Evidence Submission

Your Honor,

The defense moves to enter the following items into the case for evidence for the defense.
 

Attachments

  • d-001.png
    d-001.png
    58.8 KB · Views: 28
  • d-002.png
    d-002.png
    23.9 KB · Views: 31
  • d-003.png
    d-003.png
    78.4 KB · Views: 26
  • d-004.png
    d-004.png
    18.3 KB · Views: 27
  • d-005.png
    d-005.png
    100.4 KB · Views: 31
  • d-008.PNG
    d-008.PNG
    36.8 KB · Views: 27
  • d-007.PNG
    d-007.PNG
    48.4 KB · Views: 23
  • d-006.PNG
    d-006.PNG
    32 KB · Views: 26
Interrogatories
  • Did you open a Department of State ticket regarding the alleged referendum issue?
    I can't recall if I spoke to the DOS. However, I have publicly made my views known.

  • How did you, as a sitting Senator, vote on the JSAA?
    This is public record and is irrelevant to my legal argument.
 
Interrogatories
1. What is the legal concept of Ex-Post Facto?
2. Where a statute conflicts with the Constitution, does the constitution or statute prevail?
3. What steps, if any, did the President take to comply with the 14-day automatic assent requirement under the New Constitution in relation to the Judicial Standards Amendment Act?
4. Specifically, what plugins and discords require staff action to update?
5. What specific criteria or legal basis did the Commonwealth rely on when determining that the Judicial Standards Amendment Act (JSAA) constituted a 'complex change' requiring a referendum?

Witnesses
1. Commonwealth Government
2. President of Redmont
3. Dartanman, contingent to his amicus brief.

Evidence
I have no further evidence to submit beyond what the Defendant has provided.
 
Discovery is now closed.

@Nacho, please respond to the interrogatories within 24 hours. We will proceed to opening statements once all interrogatories have been addressed.
 
End said:
Apologies, I've had an internet outage over the last 48 hours. I will submit my evidence shortly.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The plaintiff failed to submit their inquiries within the allotted time allowed per the discovery guidelines within the court rules and procedure. By our calculations, discovery ended on April 5, 2025, at 11:32 PM EST.

The plaintiff submitted their inquiries to the commonwealth at 3:11 AM 4/6/25 and 3:35 AM 4/6/25 - These two submissions are outside the time allotted to the plaintiff to submit their discovery requests. Furthermore, the plaintiff stated they did not have internet for the past 24 hours. They still had 24 hours to submit an extension or post their submissions before the court.



Motion


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

The defense moves that the complaint, in this case, be dismissed and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Violation Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) - The plaintiff was requested to provide their voting record on the JSAA. The Plaintiff has provided a response that is not a response. This is a blatant disregard for the purpose of discovery. We requested this in two forms: one from the plaintiff directly and one in the form of a document request. Both of these are things the plaintiff is required to provide to us.

2. Rule 5.11 (Immunity Protection) - In this case, the Commonwealth is protected under precedent established under [2021] SCR 16. Justice Matthew100x stated:

"The plaintiffs didn't take any appropriate measures to get the DoJ to do their jobs before suing the department."... "They then charged that the DoJ failed to uphold their constitutional duties. That was simply not a fair accusation because the DoJ did not have any report or ticket to go after the person who murdered the plaintiff. Much of that case holds over here where the plaintiff here is charging the DoJ in not doing anything when they themselves have not given the information to the DoJ in order to allow the department to handle their claims."

The Supreme Court stipulated that a claiming party must allow the Commonwealth to correct an error before being sued. That being through a “report or ticket." - The plaintiff has admitted to not being able to recall opening a support ticket or filing a report. They simply said, “However, I have publicly made my views known.” The Plaintiff has also failed to provide any supporting evidence to support that they opened a ticket to file a report to the Department of State. The department changed by facilitating the public referendum. While this does not stipulate an admission of guilt, it does provide clarity on the state of mind the Plaintiff had while posting this case.

We request the court dismiss this matter with prejudice.



End said:
Dartanman, contingent to his amicus brief.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

The individual failed to provide an amicus brief to the court within a reasonable amount of time. We request that this witness be dismissed.



End said:
1. Commonwealth Government
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE/AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

Let’s be logical: this plaintiff is grasping, and I mean grasping, at straws in attempting to blanket summon the entire Government. This would also include you, as they failed to specify who is within the government within their wording.




We request an extension depending on the outcome of the verdicts on the objections and Motion to file the answers to the questions the Plaintiff has filed toward the Defense.
 
juniperfig said:
You may.
Click to expand...
I apologize for not providing it sooner. On top of massive legal work in Redmont, I was also busy IRL.

Regardless, the points I was going to make have already been brought up by parties in this case. An Amicus Brief would not prove helpful.

I hope you will not be dismayed at my withdrawal of the request.
 
End said:
If I may provide a response to the objections before they are ruled upon?
Click to expand...
You have 24 hours to respond.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour, as someone who frequents this institution, you would understand that it is out-of-character for me to miss a court deadline. My internet issues are outside of my control — this can be corroborated by my notable absence/limited use of Discord during that time.

This Court has, on multiple occasions, made reasonable exceptions in the interest of fairness and justice. I respectfully request the same consideration here. My delay was not due to negligence or disregard for procedure, but rather circumstances outside my control. Denying this request would risk an undue prejudice against my position.

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

Your Honour, I respectfully request the ability to call a witness of my choosing. This does not impede or interfere with the Defence’s witness list and falls well within the standard rights of a party to present relevant testimony in support of their case.

The testimony I intend to seek will be directly relevant to the facts at issue and the interests of justice. I ask the Court to uphold this procedural right.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE/AMBIGUOUS

Your Honour, I would like to respectfully remind the Defence that this case is:

End v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31.

This action is directed against the Commonwealth Government, and the representative appearing in this matter is doing so on behalf of the Commonwealth. As such, I reserve the right to question the Government’s representative on matters directly related to the Defendant’s conduct - this does not imply that I am suing everyone/thing in the Government.

If required, I am happy to clarify that the Commonwealth is represented.

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

JSAA Vote
The Defendant’s request for my vote on the JSAA is irrelevant to the case. This matter concerns the Commonwealth’s constitutional obligations — not my support for the bill, which is already publicly known. There has been no withholding of relevant evidence under Rule 5.13.

A voting record is not relevant in this case unless my vote somehow changes the constitutionality of the JSAA — it doesn’t. The bill passed Congress.

I'm happy to provide my vote if the court sees fit, or the Defence can submit it as evidence noting it is public record. However, I object to the relevance of this evidence. For you consideration.

Immunity
The Defense misapplies the precedent of [2021] SCR 16.

The case concerns the absence of a report in a criminal matter where departmental inaction followed a murder. That case involved a lack of evidence provided to the Department of Justice, preventing them from acting.

This case is categorically different. The Plaintiff is not requesting discretionary action but is seeking judicial enforcement of a clear constitutional obligation. The JSAA passed both houses, the President failed to act within the 14-day constitutional period, and as such, the law came into force. No internal ticket or report is required to trigger compliance with the Constitution. The Defendant’s obligations are automatic and arise from the governing law itself.

The argument that immunity applies due to the absence of a support ticket misunderstands the nature of the claim: the Plaintiff is not alleging a failure of internal discretion but a failure to comply with mandatory statutory and constitutional procedure.

PRAYER
I respectfully request that you deny the Defence's attempts to impede and sink a case they know they can't win, before the ball is even on the field.

I seek a fair opportunity to present opening arguments and submit this matter for judicial review.
 
End said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

JSAA Vote
The Defendant’s request for my vote on the JSAA is irrelevant to the case. This matter concerns the Commonwealth’s constitutional obligations — not my support for the bill, which is already publicly known. There has been no withholding of relevant evidence under Rule 5.13.

A voting record is not relevant in this case unless my vote somehow changes the constitutionality of the JSAA — it doesn’t. The bill passed Congress.

I'm happy to provide my vote if the court sees fit, or the Defence can submit it as evidence noting it is public record. However, I object to the relevance of this evidence. For you consideration.

Immunity
The Defense misapplies the precedent of [2021] SCR 16.

The case concerns the absence of a report in a criminal matter where departmental inaction followed a murder. That case involved a lack of evidence provided to the Department of Justice, preventing them from acting.

This case is categorically different. The Plaintiff is not requesting discretionary action but is seeking judicial enforcement of a clear constitutional obligation. The JSAA passed both houses, the President failed to act within the 14-day constitutional period, and as such, the law came into force. No internal ticket or report is required to trigger compliance with the Constitution. The Defendant’s obligations are automatic and arise from the governing law itself.

The argument that immunity applies due to the absence of a support ticket misunderstands the nature of the claim: the Plaintiff is not alleging a failure of internal discretion but a failure to comply with mandatory statutory and constitutional procedure.

PRAYER
I respectfully request that you deny the Defence's attempts to impede and sink a case they know they can't win, before the ball is even on the field.

I seek a fair opportunity to present opening arguments and submit this matter for judicial review.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has indicated within the very message we are quoting that he frequents these waters and appears how the court operates. However, he seems to have forgotten that he was permitted to respond to the objections before this court, NOT the Motion to dismiss.

We request the court to strike his response and sanction the Plaintiff for his lack of consideration for his request before the court.

 
Excuse me for not specifically requesting the ability to respond to the motion. I respectfully request that my response still be considered, noting it raises points of law and misapplied precedent in an attempt to have the case thrown out prior to opening arguments.
 
Nacho said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The plaintiff failed to submit their inquiries within the allotted time allowed per the discovery guidelines within the court rules and procedure. By our calculations, discovery ended on April 5, 2025, at 11:32 PM EST.

The plaintiff submitted their inquiries to the commonwealth at 3:11 AM 4/6/25 and 3:35 AM 4/6/25 - These two submissions are outside the time allotted to the plaintiff to submit their discovery requests. Furthermore, the plaintiff stated they did not have internet for the past 24 hours. They still had 24 hours to submit an extension or post their submissions before the court.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The Plaintiff had a valid reason for missing the deadline.

Motion


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

The defense moves that the complaint, in this case, be dismissed and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Violation Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) - The plaintiff was requested to provide their voting record on the JSAA. The Plaintiff has provided a response that is not a response. This is a blatant disregard for the purpose of discovery. We requested this in two forms: one from the plaintiff directly and one in the form of a document request. Both of these are things the plaintiff is required to provide to us.

2. Rule 5.11 (Immunity Protection) - In this case, the Commonwealth is protected under precedent established under [2021] SCR 16. Justice Matthew100x stated:

"The plaintiffs didn't take any appropriate measures to get the DoJ to do their jobs before suing the department."... "They then charged that the DoJ failed to uphold their constitutional duties. That was simply not a fair accusation because the DoJ did not have any report or ticket to go after the person who murdered the plaintiff. Much of that case holds over here where the plaintiff here is charging the DoJ in not doing anything when they themselves have not given the information to the DoJ in order to allow the department to handle their claims."

The Supreme Court stipulated that a claiming party must allow the Commonwealth to correct an error before being sued. That being through a “report or ticket." - The plaintiff has admitted to not being able to recall opening a support ticket or filing a report. They simply said, “However, I have publicly made my views known.” The Plaintiff has also failed to provide any supporting evidence to support that they opened a ticket to file a report to the Department of State. The department changed by facilitating the public referendum. While this does not stipulate an admission of guilt, it does provide clarity on the state of mind the Plaintiff had while posting this case.

We request the court dismiss this matter with prejudice.

Click to expand...
Denied. I do not believe the precedent in [2021] SCR 16 applies here. The Plaintiff has alleged a failure to comply with a mandatory constitutional obligation. The Department of State should not need a ticket to comply with a constitutionally mandated timeline.
To be clear, the Court is not at this time making any finding as to whether the Plaintiff’s claims are correct or whether the JSAA did in fact come into force. Rather, the Court finds that these are live questions of fact and law that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.

The Plaintiff must comply with the discovery requests in the next 24 hours. I will reconsider the MTD if discovery is not provided by then.

Objection


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

The individual failed to provide an amicus brief to the court within a reasonable amount of time. We request that this witness be dismissed.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The Plaintiff still wishes for the witness to be called.

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE/AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

Let’s be logical: this plaintiff is grasping, and I mean grasping, at straws in attempting to blanket summon the entire Government. This would also include you, as they failed to specify who is within the government within their wording.

Click to expand...
Sustained. Plaintiff, please clarify who exactly you are summoning as a witness.

Nacho said:

Objection


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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has indicated within the very message we are quoting that he frequents these waters and appears how the court operates. However, he seems to have forgotten that he was permitted to respond to the objections before this court, NOT the Motion to dismiss.

We request the court to strike his response and sanction the Plaintiff for his lack of consideration for his request before the court.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The Court finds that striking the response would serve no meaningful purpose. If I were to do so, the Plaintiff would simply request to reply, the Court would grant it, and the same content would be refiled—wasting time for all parties involved.

That said, the Plaintiff is cautioned to observe procedure more carefully in the future.

We request an extension depending on the outcome of the verdicts on the objections and Motion to file the answers to the questions the Plaintiff has filed toward the Defense.
Click to expand...
Granted. You have 24 hours.
 

Objection


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

The Defendant’s request for my vote on the JSAA is irrelevant to the case. This matter concerns the Commonwealth’s constitutional obligations — not my support for the bill, which is already publicly known.

A voting record is not relevant in this case unless my vote somehow changes the constitutionality of the JSAA — it doesn’t. The bill passed Congress.

I object to the relevance of this evidence. For you consideration.

 
End said:
Interrogatories
1. What is the legal concept of Ex-Post Facto?
2. Where a statute conflicts with the Constitution, does the constitution or statute prevail?
3. What steps, if any, did the President take to comply with the 14-day automatic assent requirement under the New Constitution in relation to the Judicial Standards Amendment Act?
4. Specifically, what plugins and discords require staff action to update?
5. What specific criteria or legal basis did the Commonwealth rely on when determining that the Judicial Standards Amendment Act (JSAA) constituted a 'complex change' requiring a referendum?

Witnesses
1. Commonwealth Government
2. President of Redmont
3. Dartanman, contingent to his amicus brief.

Evidence
I have no further evidence to submit beyond what the Defendant has provided.
Click to expand...
Responses to Plaintiffs questions

1. What is the legal concept of Ex-Post Facto? - Refers to a law that retroactively makes an action legal when committed illegal now and then being held against an individual under the new definition.

2. Where a statute conflicts with the Constitution, does the constitution or statute prevail? The existing statute is enforceable until it is properly amended and or removed.

3. What steps, if any, did the President take to comply with the 14-day automatic assent requirement under the New Constitution in relation to the Judicial Standards Amendment Act? - The 14 day automatic assent requirement is not legal in this sense and non-enforceable for actions pre-dating the new constitution.

4. Specifically, what plugins and discords require staff action to update? - The Commonwealth does not have access to plugin listing. However, any reference within plugin configuration, as well as forum integration, would require staff involvement.

5. What specific criteria or legal basis did the Commonwealth rely on when determining that the Judicial Standards Amendment Act (JSAA) constituted a 'complex change' requiring a referendum? - The JSAA removed the establishment of what a district is, as the JSA at that time defined that "Each‌ ‌town‌ ‌or‌ ‌city‌ ‌shall‌ ‌be‌ ‌considered‌ ‌a‌ ‌district‌", The requirements for Judicial Officers in the old Constitution was only of total playtime, while in the JSAA it is total playtime + playtime in the last 30 days, The JSAA establishes Appeal requirements that I can't find in the old Constitution.
 
As a result of the responses, I will request to update my witness list:

Witnesses
1. Commonwealth's Legal Representative
2. President of Redmont
3. Staff

I have no objections to the responses provided.
 
End said:
As a result of the responses, I will request to update my witness list:

Witnesses
1. Commonwealth's Legal Representative
2. President of Redmont
3. Staff

I have no objections to the responses provided.
Click to expand...

End said:

Objection


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

The Defendant’s request for my vote on the JSAA is irrelevant to the case. This matter concerns the Commonwealth’s constitutional obligations — not my support for the bill, which is already publicly known.

A voting record is not relevant in this case unless my vote somehow changes the constitutionality of the JSAA — it doesn’t. The bill passed Congress.

I object to the relevance of this evidence. For you consideration.

Click to expand...
The Commonwealth wishes to respond to both of these with a response and an objection and intends to do so following myself getting home from work tonight.
 
Nacho said:
The Commonwealth wishes to respond to both of these with a response and an objection and intends to do so following myself getting home from work tonight.
Click to expand...
You may.
 
End said:
As a result of the responses, I will request to update my witness list:

Witnesses
1. Commonwealth's Legal Representative
2. President of Redmont
3. Staff

I have no objections to the responses provided.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

The legal representative serves no purpose, and you cannot summon the defense attorney. I took no action related to the act in question. I am simply doing my job in defending the commonwealth.

The plaintiff has made zero connection to the reason for me to be a witness.



End said:

Objection


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

The Defendant’s request for my vote on the JSAA is irrelevant to the case. This matter concerns the Commonwealth’s constitutional obligations — not my support for the bill, which is already publicly known.

A voting record is not relevant in this case unless my vote somehow changes the constitutionality of the JSAA — it doesn’t. The bill passed Congress.

I object to the relevance of this evidence. For you consideration.

Click to expand...
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your Honor, we asked for the voting record for the entire bill. This can be found within the initial discovery request under the document request submitted by the Commonwealth. This was not objected to within discovery. However, we intended for it to be entered into the record.

The Commonwealth believes that the bill was passed in error and wishes to expand the scope of this lawsuit to include the fact that the bill, in its current form, fails to meet the legal requirements to be passed. We intend to explore this further within our opening statements and further our witness testimony.
 
Your honour, excuse me for speaking out of turn but this is becoming a farse.

I'd like to have the defence testify. If they choose to remain silent then that's their right, however, I am asking someone from whoever represents the commonwealth's interests in this case to answer some questions.

This is semantics and everyone knows who I am asking to take the stand and why.
 
The Commonwealth believes that the bill was passed in error and wishes to expand the scope of this lawsuit to include the fact that the bill, in its current form, fails to meet the legal requirements to be passed. We intend to explore this further within our opening statements and further our witness testimony.
Click to expand...

Well I respectfully request that the court make you enter it into evidence instead of asking the plaintiff to provide evidence which is on the public record and build your case for you.
 
End said:
Your honour, excuse me for speaking out of turn but this is becoming a farse.

I'd like to have the defence testify. If they choose to remain silent then that's their right, however, I am asking someone from whoever represents the commonwealth's interests in this case to answer some questions.

This is semantics and everyone knows who I am asking to take the stand and why.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

The response and comment from the Plaintiff was not permitted by this court. Defense requests that the plaintiff be sanctioned for knowingly and intentionally commenting out of turn. We further request that the comment be struck from the record.



End said:
Well I respectfully request that the court make you enter it into evidence instead of asking the plaintiff to provide evidence which is on the public record and build your case for you.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

The response and comment from the Plaintiff was not permitted by this court. Defense requests that the plaintiff be sanctioned for knowingly and intentionally commenting out of turn. We further request that the comment be struck from the record.

 
juniperfig said:
Denied. I do not believe the precedent in [2021] SCR 16 applies here. The Plaintiff has alleged a failure to comply with a mandatory constitutional obligation. The Department of State should not need a ticket to comply with a constitutionally mandated timeline.
To be clear, the Court is not at this time making any finding as to whether the Plaintiff’s claims are correct or whether the JSAA did in fact come into force. Rather, the Court finds that these are live questions of fact and law that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.

The Plaintiff must comply with the discovery requests in the next 24 hours. I will reconsider the MTD if discovery is not provided by then.
Click to expand...

Motion


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

While I do not like asking the court to reconsider its position, I wish to stress the importance highlighted within our original Motion to Dismiss further. While we took excerpts of the verdict we cited, we also have to note that the verdict comes from the Supreme Court. The court in which its verdicts are binding to the lower courts.

To cite the court directly. Chief Justice Westray stated:

"You cannot expect the Department of Justice to be the seeing eye of all, and to instantaneously have an awareness of all criminal situations. The Plaintiffs effectively withheld evidence from the Department of Justice, and then used it to sue them."
Click to expand...

Associate Justice Matthew100x joined the Chief Justice:
"The plaintiffs didn't take any appropriate measures in trying to get the DoJ to do their jobs before suing the department... That was simply not a fair accusation because the DoJ did not have any report or ticket to go after the person who murdered the plaintiff."
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court further forming it’s official opinion cited:
"It is the opinion of the court that the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs should have been shared with the Department of Justice via a departmental ticket. As established in nnmc v. DoJ, the Plaintiffs should have utilized all exhaustive measures, including reporting the crime via a departmental ticket, before filing a lawsuit."
Click to expand...

To wrap it all together...
The Plaintiff has failed to notify the Department of State of their error through the proper communication channels, as stated in their official statements within discovery. The Plaintiff admits to just making their views known publicly but has not submitted any evidence to support that they did, in fact, notify the Department of State before filing this case.

Your Honor, we know you don’t agree with the court’s previous decision. However, the Supreme Court set the requirement that when an Executive Department mishandles its constitutional duties, it is awarded the ability to be notified by a damaged party before litigation can be brought forward. I urge and highly stress the court to accept this Motion to Reconsider. Ignoring a higher court’s precedent provides grounds for a viable appeal after this case.

I thank the court for their time in considering this motion. Should the motion be denied, We request a status update from the court on where we are in the case. Honestly, I was doing fine, but now I don't know if we are still in discovery or if we are still waiting to answer a complaint. LoL

 
Your honour, may I reply to the motion to dismiss?

This is becoming a frustration on the plaintiff having to reiterate how this argument is misapplied, is legally incorrect, and is preventing progression of the case.

If the court feels it needs further evidence to demonstrate public discourse, which is completely irrelevant to the arguments being made, then I will happily oblige.
 
End said:
Your honour, may I reply to the motion to dismiss?

This is becoming a frustration on the plaintiff having to reiterate how this argument is misapplied, is legally incorrect, and is preventing progression of the case.

If the court feels it needs further evidence to demonstrate public discourse, which is completely irrelevant to the arguments being made, then I will happily oblige.
Click to expand...
You may.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Defence continues to conflate the present case - a matter of constitutional and statutory compliance - with a criminal case concerned with criminal enforcement and evidentiary reporting

In [2021] SCR 16, the Court addressed a murder where the Department of Justice lacked knowledge. The precedent set was inaction due to a lack of internal notice.

This case is not about enforcement of a crime or inaction due to a lack of awareness. This is a constitutional claim, alleging the President violated Section 25(3) by failing to act on a bill within the 14-day timeframe required for automatic assent. This provision is self-executing and does not require the plaintiff to notify the government before seeking review. It is not a matter of investigation or discretion - it is a matter of law.

The Defence has not identified any legal requirement or precedent suggesting that constitutional breaches must be reported via departmental ticket prior to litigation. Applying SCR 16 here stretches that ruling far beyond its intent and risks insulating constitutional violations from judicial review.

If the Defence seeks notice, then let this filing serve as that notice. They may now implement the law as required, and the case will become irrelevant. The reality, however, is that the Defence has no intention of complying with the law - they seek instead to pre-empt judicial scrutiny and avoid accountability by dismissing the case before it can be heard.

For these reasons, the Motion to Reconsider should be denied and for the case to progress.
 
Nacho said:

Motion


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

While I do not like asking the court to reconsider its position, I wish to stress the importance highlighted within our original Motion to Dismiss further. While we took excerpts of the verdict we cited, we also have to note that the verdict comes from the Supreme Court. The court in which its verdicts are binding to the lower courts.

To cite the court directly. Chief Justice Westray stated:


Associate Justice Matthew100x joined the Chief Justice:


The Supreme Court further forming it’s official opinion cited:


To wrap it all together...
The Plaintiff has failed to notify the Department of State of their error through the proper communication channels, as stated in their official statements within discovery. The Plaintiff admits to just making their views known publicly but has not submitted any evidence to support that they did, in fact, notify the Department of State before filing this case.

Your Honor, we know you don’t agree with the court’s previous decision. However, the Supreme Court set the requirement that when an Executive Department mishandles its constitutional duties, it is awarded the ability to be notified by a damaged party before litigation can be brought forward. I urge and highly stress the court to accept this Motion to Reconsider. Ignoring a higher court’s precedent provides grounds for a viable appeal after this case.

I thank the court for their time in considering this motion. Should the motion be denied, We request a status update from the court on where we are in the case. Honestly, I was doing fine, but now I don't know if we are still in discovery or if we are still waiting to answer a complaint. LoL

Click to expand...
The Court has reviewed the Defence’s Motion to Reconsider, along with the response and earlier filings. The Defence argues that the case should have been dismissed because the Plaintiff didn’t notify the Department of State before filing the lawsuit. They cite [2021] SCR 16, a Supreme Court case, as the basis for that argument.

After reviewing the case and the precedent, the Court does not find a reason to change its earlier decision.

I. What [2021] SCR 16 Actually Covers
In [2021] SCR 16, the Supreme Court looked at a situation where the Department of Justice was sued for not acting on a crime that hadn’t been reported to them. The Court found that because the department wasn’t made aware of the situation and had no chance to act on it, it couldn’t fairly be held responsible. They weren’t aware of the crime being committed, so they couldn’t do anything about it.

That ruling was based on the idea that departments need to know about a problem before they can be expected to respond, especially when their role involves investigation or enforcement.

II. Why This Case Is Different
This case isn’t about a department failing to enforce something. It’s about whether the President followed the procedure laid out in the Constitution—specifically, Section 25(3), which says the President has 14 days to assent to or veto a bill before it’s automatically considered passed.

That timeline starts once Parliament passes the bill. There’s no requirement in the Constitution for someone to notify the President or open a ticket for the process to begin. It’s not a matter of discretion or awareness—it’s a fixed rule based on time.

So while [2021] SCR 16 applies to cases where the government needs to be told something before it can act, it doesn’t apply here. The issue in this case comes down to a constitutional deadline, not a lack of information or internal communication.

The JSAA passed both houses of Parliament under the previous Constitution. However, the President had not taken action on the bill at the time the New Constitution was enacted on 8 March 2025. The Constitution contains the following provisions regarding supersession and transition:

This Constitution supersedes the previous Constitution.
Any statute, judicial standard, or constitutional reference established before the enactment of this Act that conflicts with it shall be superseded.
Click to expand...

These clauses make clear that the new constitutional rules apply from the date of enactment and override prior law where conflicts exist. The JSAA, still pending executive action after 8 March, became subject to the new framework at that point. The Court does not find that applying the new constitutional procedure to an unresolved bill constitutes retroactive enforcement, as the relevant inaction occurred after the Constitution came into force.

III. Why Applying That Precedent Here Would Be a Problem
If the Court applied [2021] SCR 16 to this kind of case, it would mean that constitutional deadlines and obligations could be ignored unless someone specifically reminded the government to follow them. That would defeat the purpose of having fixed rules in the Constitution.

Allowing executive officials to avoid constitutional requirements by claiming they weren’t told something happened would risk making those rules meaningless. It would shift responsibility away from government officials and place the burden to enforce the Constitution on individual citizens, which is not how constitutional compliance is meant to work.

IV. Conclusion
Because this case involves a constitutional provision that takes effect on its own, and not a situation where the government needed to be notified, the Court finds that the earlier precedent doesn’t apply.


End said:

Objection


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

The Defendant’s request for my vote on the JSAA is irrelevant to the case. This matter concerns the Commonwealth’s constitutional obligations — not my support for the bill, which is already publicly known.

A voting record is not relevant in this case unless my vote somehow changes the constitutionality of the JSAA — it doesn’t. The bill passed Congress.

I object to the relevance of this evidence. For you consideration.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The Defence has explained why the information is relevant.
However, as the voting record of the JSAA is publicly accessible information, the Commonwealth may simply link to it when they wish to reference it for arguments. I believe both parties are sufficiently notified of their intention to use it in legal arguments. I don’t wish to drag discovery out even longer.

Nacho said:

Objection


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

The legal representative serves no purpose, and you cannot summon the defense attorney. I took no action related to the act in question. I am simply doing my job in defending the commonwealth.

The plaintiff has made zero connection to the reason for me to be a witness.

Click to expand...
Plaintiff: who, exactly, is the "Commonwealth's Legal Representative"? Nacho? The Attorney General? Some other legal representative?

Nacho said:

Objection


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

The response and comment from the Plaintiff was not permitted by this court. Defense requests that the plaintiff be sanctioned for knowingly and intentionally commenting out of turn. We further request that the comment be struck from the record.

Click to expand...
Overruled. You're both permitted to respond to objections without approval from me.

Nacho said:

Objection


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

The response and comment from the Plaintiff was not permitted by this court. Defense requests that the plaintiff be sanctioned for knowingly and intentionally commenting out of turn. We further request that the comment be struck from the record.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The unprompted comment shall be struck.

I’m also a bit lost on the timeline here, lol. We'll move to the Plaintiff's opening statement, which must be submitted in the next 72 hours, unless I've completely missed something. Apologies for the delay to both of you, I didn't want to rush this decision.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

May it please the court,

At the heart of this case is a fundamental constitutional breach - a failure of the Executive to carry out its duty as required by law.

The Judicial Standards Amendment Act was passed by both chambers of the legislature in accordance with every procedural requirement. It did not amend the Constitution. It required no referendum. It awaited only the President’s assent - or veto - within the constitutionally mandated 14-day period. That window came and went without action.

And under the express language of our Constitution, if the President does not act, assent is presumed. By law, the JSAA is in force. And yet the Executive refuses to implement it.

Did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act meet the requirements to become law?

To become law, a non-complex bill must:
1. Pass with a majority in both chambers of Congress
2. Receive Presidential assent.

On 13 February 2025, the Judicial Standards Amendment Act (JSAA) was proposed to amend the Judicial Standards Act.

On or around 25 February 2025, the JSAA was passed by the House of Representatives.

On or around 26 February 2025, the JSAA was passed by the Senate.

The New Constitution of the Commonwealth was enacted on 08 March 2025, and became the governing legal framework.

On 16 March 2025, the President was informed that the JSAA did not require a referendum, as it did not constitute a complex or constitutional change, but rather sought to remove redundant language from the Judicial Standards Act.

The President failed to act on the JSAA within the time frame established by the Constitution, which mandates that assent is automatically presumed to have been given after 14 days.

What type of law was the Judicial Standards Amendment Act?

Prior to 08 March 2025, a complex bill was a bill which met the following:

A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President:
1. Changes to the System of Government.
2. Plugin-related changes.
3. Changes involving significant staff involvement.
4. A Rights & Freedoms change.
Click to expand...
Defining System of Government Changes
Any changes that:
1. Affect the distribution of power between different parts and levels of the state.
2. Changes to Government Departments.
3. Significant changes to the system by which the state is governed in general.
Click to expand...

The Judicial Standards Amendment Act simply did none of these things, it only amended itself to remove sections made redundant by the new Constitution.

The passage of the Judicial Standards Amendment Act was tied to the passage of the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act.
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage and is contingent to the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act's passage.
Click to expand...

Meaning, any and all complex changes were appropriately included, and voted on, in the Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution Act referendum. As a result, the Judicial Standards Amendment Act could never be considered a complex change as all it did was remove duplicate law which was already included in the Constitution.

Did the Judicial Standards Amendment Act amend the Constitution?

No, it did not. So not only was it a non-complex change prior to 08 March 2025, it did no amend the Constitution post 08 March 2025. These are the only two triggers for a referendum - so why was one held?

Why was a referendum was held?

The Defence argues that a referendum was held because:

The JSAA removed the establishment of what a district is, as the JSA at that time defined that "Each‌ ‌town‌ ‌or‌ ‌city‌ ‌shall‌ ‌be‌ ‌considered‌ ‌a‌ ‌district‌",
Click to expand...
Wrong. This does not constitute a referendum or complex change. The new Constitution changed this, not the JSAA.

The requirements for Judicial Officers in the old Constitution was only of total playtime, while in the JSAA it is total playtime + playtime in the last 30 days.
Click to expand...
Wrong. This does not constitute a referendum or complex change. The new Constitution changed this, not the JSAA.

If you are suggesting that there is a clash between the JSAA and the Constitution, then the JSAA is only more redundant as the new Constitution supersedes the requirements of the JSAA.

JSAA/Old ConstitutionNew Constitution
The following requirements exist in order to be nominated to the bench:
Chief Justice - has accrued 150 hours and 12 hours of playtime in the last 30 days
Justice - has accrued 125 hours and 12 hours of playtime in the last 30 days
Judge - has accrued 72 hours and 12 hours of playtime in the last 30 days ‌		(3) Qualifications for nomination:

(a) Chief Justice: 150 hours of total active playtime.

(b) Justice: 125 hours of total active playtime.

(c) Judge: 72 hours of total active playtime.
Makes JSA requirements redundant by superseding them.

The JSAA establishes Appeal requirements that I can't find in the old Constitution.
Click to expand...
Wrong. This does not constitute a referendum or complex change. The JSAA also only removes.

As demonstrated, neither complex change nor constitutional change necessitated a referendum per the new and old Constitution.

1744797883716.png
Click to expand...
Wrong. The executor act here is the new constitution. The JSAA only executes it's sections on the condition that the new constitution passes. It cannot possibly amend a constitutional law, because it cannot execute until the new constitution removes the constitutionality of the JSA. This change is purely administrative to remove a redundant section.

The premise is simple here, ask how can the JSAA possibly have amended the constitution? It couldn't have because it's passage was contingent to the act that amended the constitution and made the sections that the JSAA removes from the JSA redundant.

Is Ex-Post Facto Relevant?

The argument that ex post facto protections allow the Executive to ignore constitutional obligations that arose under the previous constitution is flawed for clear legal and logical reasons.

Ex post facto prevents punishing past conduct under new criminal laws. The law expressly says this and the defence clearly does not understand this legal concept. However, lets just entertain the Defence's logic and say that it does apply.

The new Constitution was already in effect when the President became obligated to act. There is no retroactive application - it’s a failure to comply with a duty in the present, under the law that applied at that time.

Frankly, this argument is a misdirection to mask incompetence and a failure to act.
(4) Ex-Post Facto (Original: Pacman - May 26, 2020)
(a) Individuals cannot be subject to punishments for criminal actions if it was not illegal at the time it was committed.
(b) Any legislation that has passed after a lawsuit has been filed, will not be considered in that lawsuit, nor in the appeal of that lawsuit and the case that takes place if the appeal for that lawsuit has been accepted. Congress may override Ex-Post Facto through a bill, however such a bill will require supermajority in both chambers.
Click to expand...
Lord_Donuticus

Act of Congress Thread 'Standardized Criminal Code Act'

A
BILL
To

Establish a Criminal Code​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the ‘Standardized Criminal Code Act'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by: The_Donuticus
(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by: VanillaChai79

2 - Reasons
Our criminal...

An act passed under the old Constitution doesn’t vanish just because the new Constitution alters procedure.

If a bill was passed, and the new Constitution came into effect before executive action, then the next procedural step must comply with the new Constitution.

As you can see, this is not an ex post facto problem.

Constitutional Authority

I encourage the Defence to review their legal notes - a constitution, as the highest legal document, overrides any law which conflicts with it.

Plaintiff: Where a statute conflicts with the Constitution, does the constitution or statute prevail?
Defence: The existing statute is enforceable until it is properly amended and or removed.
Click to expand...

The court can see the Defence doesn't understand Constitutional authority.

The fluff removal act is completely irrelevant here. The new constitution passed into law on 08 March 2025 and the 14 days after, the JSAA became law on or around 24 March 2025.

The Fluff Removal Act, an act of Congress that the plaintiff drafted, removed the 14-day time period requiring presidents to sign bills within the allotted time. The act specifies, ‘Vested in the President is the power to assent to or veto legislation passed by Congress.’ This provides clarity that no such timeframe is required by the constitution for the president to provide their assent or veto.
Click to expand...

The President had the power to act under either framework - old and new. Choosing inaction is not a neutral act - especially when the new Constitution specifically defines inaction as assent.

The 14 day automatic assent requirement is not legal in this sense and non-enforceable for actions pre-dating the new constitution.
Click to expand...

Saying the 14-day rule doesn’t apply because the bill passed earlier is like saying you can keep driving with an expired license because you started the trip before it expired... it’s absurd.

The reality here is that the duty arose well after the new constitution became the highest legal governing framework. This is a procedural matter.

I invite the Defence to rest their case to save us all the time of trying to defend an illegal action.

I seeks what the law already provides:
– Recognition that the JSAA is now valid law,
– A declaration that the President’s inaction amounted to a failure to discharge a constitutional duty, and
– A writ of mandamus compelling the Executive to implement the JSAA without further delay.

This Court has both the authority and the responsibility to reaffirm that no office is above the constitutional framework that gives it power.

The rule of law demands no less.

If the Executive can ignore constitutional timelines without consequence, then our entire legislative process becomes optional — and the Constitution little more than a suggestion.

If a bill can pass both chambers, meet every legal threshold, and still be ignored by the President - then what is the point of a Constitution?

 
Nacho said:

Objection


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

The legal representative serves no purpose, and you cannot summon the defense attorney. I took no action related to the act in question. I am simply doing my job in defending the commonwealth.

The plaintiff has made zero connection to the reason for me to be a witness.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The Plaintiff is permitted to call the Defence Counsel to testify strictly in their capacity as a legal representative of the Commonwealth.

The Defence has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.
 
While the defense acknowledges that the allocated time has passed, it respectfully requests an additional 24 hours. All Department of Justice employees were celebrating Easter with their families, and as a result, we were unable to post the opening statement.
 
Freeze_Line said:
While the defense acknowledges that the allocated time has passed, it respectfully requests an additional 24 hours. All Department of Justice employees were celebrating Easter with their families, and as a result, we were unable to post the opening statement.
Click to expand...
Granted.
 
As the Defence has had 150 hours to submit their opening statement, we will move to witnesses. Witness summons are to follow.
 

Writ of Summons


@gribble19, @End, @Angryhamdog, @1950Minecrafter, @Nacho, and @Staff Team are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of
End v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 31

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.

 
I am present, your honor.
 
Present, Your Honor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top