Lawsuit: In Session MegaMinerM v. Blazora Corporation [2025] FCR 27

Smallfries said:
Despite the Defendant’s impassioned pleas that they totally asked The Exchange to process their payments, they have provided zero evidence or even dates as to when they asked, while the Plaintiff has brought great bushels of evidence and accepted what was supposed to be a Defendant-friendly amicus brief in our own case.
Click to expand...

Objection


PERJURY

We provided the date of February 27, 2025 and this is shown in Exhibit P-008.

 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Introduction
This case is simple, and so shall this Closing Statement be. The Plaintiff requires long drawn-out filings in an effort to warp reality to fit their narrative, but the Facts tell a short and simple story where the Defendant - Blazora Corporation - is an innocent party.

The Facts Review - What Happened
Blazora Corporation, formerly Easy Corporation, created a bond in September of 2024 (Exhibit P-006). The Exchange improperly announced the terms of this bond and took responsibility for this mistake (Exhibit P-003, Exhibit P-008). With the exception of some of the late payments, most or all of the damages (which are also grossly over-inflated, as explained in the Opening Statement) in this case arise from The Exchange's miscommunication - not Blazora Corporation's actions.

As such, Blazora Corporation cannot be held liable for such damages.

On The Plaintiff's Closing Claims:
The Plaintiff has continually asserted that the bond should have paid interest in October, but this is contradicted by Exhibit P-006.

The Plaintiff has asserted that no attempt was made by Nexalin or Blazora Corporation to ask The Exchange to process payments, but this is contradicted by Exhibit P-008.

The Plaintiff has asserted that a new, second contract was formed by the agreement made between the parties to modify the original form of the contract, but this is contradicted by the Contract Act's concept of Implied Terms and the amicable actions between the Plaintiff and Defendant prior to the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff claims that the precedent of lcn's case requires the Court rule in favor of the Plaintiff, however the Plaintiff neglects to bring up that the Defendant did not have counsel in that case and any precedent established is weak at best. Furthermore, this assertion is contradicted by the fact that lcn and MegaMinerM had vastly differing cases, focusing on the fact that MegaMinerM agreed to modify the contract where lcn did not.

The Plaintiff asserts that higher Punitive Damages are valid, because the Defendant allegedly has not learned from his mistakes since the lcn case, however, the Plaintiff also asserts that these two lawsuits have arisen from the very same controversy. While one cannot learn from their mistakes and fix it next time if there is no next time, it's also true that Blazora Corporation is not liable for any damages in this lawsuit.

The Plaintiff claims that Nexalin took "unscrupulous" and "immoral" actions to lower their liability in this lawsuit by requesting (for a second time) the late payments be made, however, this is contradicted by Exhibit P-008, which shows it was requested beforehand.

Lastly, the Plaintiff asserts that "Dishonorable and immoral conduct should not be rewarded, celebrated, or tolerated in Redmont, and it is important to make this known now," and the Defendant wholeheartedly agrees. The Defense asserts that this case was an attempted money-grab from the get-go, and was never intended to pursue justice. Just look at the facts - a miscommunication by a 3rd party and some slightly delayed payments are certainly not worth $1.3 Million in damages. As such, the dishonorable and immoral prayer for relief ought to be denied.

Final Thoughts
The Defense thanks the Court and Dragon Law Firm for their time and effort in this case, and implores the Court to look at the facts and uphold justice, rather than allow the courtroom to become a money-making machine for those who seek to use it as such.

 
Dartanboy said:

Objection


PERJURY

We provided the date of February 27, 2025 and this is shown in Exhibit P-008.

Click to expand...
The evidence the Plaintiff provided does not show what the Defendant says it shows—only that the bond was called and that it should eventually be paid back. That evidence did not show that the Defendant asked the Exchange to pay them back.

To say otherwise is a clear misrepresentation of the facts and Perjury in and of itself, as no evidence is shown that the Defendant asked The Exchange to pay out.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER OF THE COURT

The objection on the basis of perjury filed by the defendant on April 14th is hereby overruled.

The movant has failed to demonstrate to pass the expected bar of evidence that the provided information's alleged falsehood was intentional and knowing. Therefore, this objection fails prima facie. Furthermore, the movant has failed to demonstrate that the alleged falsehood was decisively and conclusively false in the first place.

Dartanboy said:

Objection


PERJURY

We provided the date of February 27, 2025 and this is shown in Exhibit P-008.

Click to expand...

Dated this 17th of April, 2025.
 

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

Case [2025] FCR 27
Between:
MegaMinerM
v
Blazora Corporation

ORDER FOR INTERROGATORIES

The court hereby orders the defendant or their counsel to provide answers to all questions annexed below within 72 hours of the issuing of this order unless otherwise stated within the question. The questions shall be answered by the defendant themselves and not the counsel, though the defendant may have the advice of counsel in their answers. The counsel may submit the affirmed statements of the defendant to the court.

The guide on court orders explicitly states that the list of orders contained within is non-exhaustive. Therefore, the court exercises its rights to issue this order with clear terms as stated above. If an existing order must be found, you may consider this a Subpoena.
1. Please describe the process in which one would list a bond on the Exchange.
2. Is it standard practice for the Exchange be the spokesperson on behalf of the companies listed?
3. Please clarify whether or not the statements made by the exchange in regards to the defendant organisation, excluding those which explicitly attribute authorship to the defendant, were sanctioned by the defendant organisation.

Dated this 17th of April, 2025.

@Dartanboy


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

Case [2025] FCR 27
Between:
MegaMinerM
v
Blazora Corporation

ORDER FOR SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE

The court hereby orders the defendant or their counsel to produce all documents or evidence as specified in the annex below within 72 hours of the issuing of this order unless otherwise stated within the specification.
1. The contract, or the statement on the lack thereof, formed between the defendant and the Exchange either in process of establishing a business relationship that would, in the future, result in the ability to list a bond, or allow the listing of the bond itself.
2. An evidence of, or a statement on the lack thereof, the communication made to the Exchange by the defendant which prompted the Exchange to announce the "calling" of the bond by the defendant.

Dated this 17th of April, 2025.

@Dartanboy
 
ColonelKai said:

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

Case [2025] FCR 27
Between:
MegaMinerM
v
Blazora Corporation

ORDER FOR INTERROGATORIES

The court hereby orders the defendant or their counsel to provide answers to all questions annexed below within 72 hours of the issuing of this order unless otherwise stated within the question. The questions shall be answered by the defendant themselves and not the counsel, though the defendant may have the advice of counsel in their answers. The counsel may submit the affirmed statements of the defendant to the court.

The guide on court orders explicitly states that the list of orders contained within is non-exhaustive. Therefore, the court exercises its rights to issue this order with clear terms as stated above. If an existing order must be found, you may consider this a Subpoena.
1. Please describe the process in which one would list a bond on the Exchange.
2. Is it standard practice for the Exchange be the spokesperson on behalf of the companies listed?
3. Please clarify whether or not the statements made by the exchange in regards to the defendant organisation, excluding those which explicitly attribute authorship to the defendant, were sanctioned by the defendant organisation.

Dated this 17th of April, 2025.

@Dartanboy


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

Case [2025] FCR 27
Between:
MegaMinerM
v
Blazora Corporation

ORDER FOR SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE

The court hereby orders the defendant or their counsel to produce all documents or evidence as specified in the annex below within 72 hours of the issuing of this order unless otherwise stated within the specification.
1. The contract, or the statement on the lack thereof, formed between the defendant and the Exchange either in process of establishing a business relationship that would, in the future, result in the ability to list a bond, or allow the listing of the bond itself.
2. An evidence of, or a statement on the lack thereof, the communication made to the Exchange by the defendant which prompted the Exchange to announce the "calling" of the bond by the defendant.

Dated this 17th of April, 2025.

@Dartanboy
Click to expand...

Objection


BREACH OF PROCEDURE

While it is standard practice for the courts to ask clarifying questions, never has it been done, as far as I am aware, in Redmont's 5-year history that the courts have required new evidence to be submitted.

Furthermore, even if it was, certainly after Closing Statememts is not the time for this.

The Defendant will be answering the questions as soon as feasible, but we ask for the request for documents to be reversed.

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

The objection on the basis of breach of procedure filed by the defendant on April 17th is hereby overruled.
To begin with, objections cannot be filed against court orders. The guide clearly states objections are made to be targeted towards "remark made by the opposing party or to a question posed to a witness" (see Guide - Objections, Introduction, First Paragraph). Additionally, absence of precedence does not mean that there is a ruling against such a practice, most especially of a higher court. The court welcomes the defendant to officially petition the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari if they believe this to be an outrageous violation of the court procedures' spirit.

The court deems it necessary that such information be presented in order to ensure the integrity of the verdict. I am in agreement that this is not a path that has been utilised by other judges in the past, however, I am highly dissatisfied with the state of court proceedings most especially when certain pieces of information are obstructed from the court, and all that the court can do is make do with what they have. This is a change which will hopefully be consistent and continued in my efforts to ensure justice for all. Further details will be released as a Dicta in the final verdict.

The defendant is free to ask for an extension if the nature of dealing with an unprecedented procedure is causing additional hardship which requires additional effort to resolve.

Dartanboy said:

Objection


BREACH OF PROCEDURE

While it is standard practice for the courts to ask clarifying questions, never has it been done, as far as I am aware, in Redmont's 5-year history that the courts have required new evidence to be submitted.

Furthermore, even if it was, certainly after Closing Statememts is not the time for this.

The Defendant will be answering the questions as soon as feasible, but we ask for the request for documents to be reversed.

Click to expand...


Dated this 17th of April, 2025.
 
ColonelKai said:

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

Case [2025] FCR 27
Between:
MegaMinerM
v
Blazora Corporation

ORDER FOR INTERROGATORIES

The court hereby orders the defendant or their counsel to provide answers to all questions annexed below within 72 hours of the issuing of this order unless otherwise stated within the question. The questions shall be answered by the defendant themselves and not the counsel, though the defendant may have the advice of counsel in their answers. The counsel may submit the affirmed statements of the defendant to the court.

The guide on court orders explicitly states that the list of orders contained within is non-exhaustive. Therefore, the court exercises its rights to issue this order with clear terms as stated above. If an existing order must be found, you may consider this a Subpoena.
1. Please describe the process in which one would list a bond on the Exchange.
2. Is it standard practice for the Exchange be the spokesperson on behalf of the companies listed?
3. Please clarify whether or not the statements made by the exchange in regards to the defendant organisation, excluding those which explicitly attribute authorship to the defendant, were sanctioned by the defendant organisation.

Dated this 17th of April, 2025.

@Dartanboy


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

Case [2025] FCR 27
Between:
MegaMinerM
v
Blazora Corporation

ORDER FOR SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCE

The court hereby orders the defendant or their counsel to produce all documents or evidence as specified in the annex below within 72 hours of the issuing of this order unless otherwise stated within the specification.
1. The contract, or the statement on the lack thereof, formed between the defendant and the Exchange either in process of establishing a business relationship that would, in the future, result in the ability to list a bond, or allow the listing of the bond itself.
2. An evidence of, or a statement on the lack thereof, the communication made to the Exchange by the defendant which prompted the Exchange to announce the "calling" of the bond by the defendant.

Dated this 17th of April, 2025.

@Dartanboy
Click to expand...
May we have an extension through the holidays this weekend?
 
48 hours granted from original deadline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top