Lawsuit: Dismissed MrEntomology v. byleth_irl [2025] FCR 20

[MrEntomology]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MrEntomology
Plaintiff

v.

byleth_irl
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

byleth_irl was hired to do a commission a commission he failed to complete. Leaving the Plaintiff without a painting they commissioned and feeling miserable as a man who just wants a decent painting for his house. MrEntomology is here today, disappointed at what this situation has had to become to simply make everything whole. A contract was broken, and the Plaintiff deserves justice.

I. PARTIES
1. MrEntomology (Plaintiff)
2. byleth_irl (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. A contract was written between byleth_irl and MrEntomology for byleth_irl to paint an exact copy of the painting "Girl with a Hair Ribbon by Roy Licthenstein a 5x5 item frame size for a price of $400 a frame or $10,000 total commission. The contract specified that the artist would have 4 calendar days to complete the painting then the painting was due for delivery.
2. The painting remains incomplete, with the artist being unreponsive to the Plaintiff and the agreed upon contract being breached.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. A legally-binding contract under the Contracts Act where the plaintiff fulfilled all of his obligations was violated by the defendant, who failed to fulfill his obligations. The contract specified that the defendant would create an exact copy of the "Girl with a Hair Ribbon" painting by Roy Lichtenstein in a 5x5 item frame size. He failed to complete the commission and deliver the Plaintiff the commissioned painting by the due date of January 8th, 2025
2. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to a range of damages per the Legal Damages Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The plaintiff requests $10,000 in compensatory damages as this was the grand total of the painting's cost.
2. The plaintiff requests $10,000 in punitive damages as agreeing to a contract and failing to due so is belligerent and outrageous.
3. The plaintiff requests $8,000 in consequential damages - loss of enjoyment in Redmont for the plaintiff was unreasonably deprived of a prized painting for his residence and had to furthermore go out of his way (and still does) to find an artist willing to create the commission.
4. The plaintiff requests $8,000 in consequential damages - worsening of an existing condition for the plaintiff was unreasonably deprived of a prized painting the Plaintiff had been wanting. The plaintiff has had to endure much unneeded stress from the breaching of the contract.

V. EVIDENCE
(Attached Below)


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 6th day of February 2025.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Writ of Summons

@byleth_irl is required to appear before the District Court in the case of MrEntomology v. byleth_irl [2025] DCR 16

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.

 

[MrEntomology]

Your Honour,

It has been over 72 hours since the summons was issued and Defendant has failed to appear before the court.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

@byleth_irl, you are hereby charged with contempt of court. The Department of Homeland Security is ordered to punish this person appropriately.

A Public Defender will be summoned.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

I have been assigned as the public defender for this case.

Thank you.

Proof of representation attached.

Spoiler

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Thank you. You may present an answer to complaint at this time.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your honor,

Apologies, I would request 24 hours to present an answer to the complaint.
I was not prepared to offer one at this moment and got caught up in some personal events.

I will have an answer for you by then, I do not intend to waste this courts time.

Thank you.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, Dragon Law will be representing MrEntomology in this case from now on. I've attached proof of representation below.

Because of this, the Plaintiff would like to amend the complaint to add legal fees as prayer for relief, however, this would push the total value of this case beyond $40,000. With a total value higher than $40,000 this case no longer falls under the jurisdiction of this court. We kindly request you to dismiss this case without prejudice so that we can refile it in the appropriate court.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I will be accepting both messages.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

I will be accepting both messages.

Your honor,

The plaintiff has asked for the case to be dismissed and you've seemingly accepted this dismissal.

How would you like the court to proceed from here?

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your honor,

The plaintiff has asked for the case to be dismissed and you've seemingly accepted this dismissal.

How would you like the court to proceed from here?

I will be dismissing the case from this docket and letting it be moved to the Federal docket.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Answer to Complaint

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

MrEntomology
Plaintiff

v.

byleth_irl
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. The defence AFFIRMS this fact, but NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES the contract was valid.
2. The defence NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that the painting is incomplete, or that the contract was breached.

II. DEFENCES

1. The plaintiff claims that the contract is a legally binding one, they have not proved the defendant had capacity.
2. The defendant's low-playtime indicates that they may not have fully understood the terms set forth.
3. The contract's unfair terms in combination with the players' low-playtime created a situation in which the defendant could not have been prepared to take on.
4. It is not clear that the plaintiff has suffered compensatory damages from this contract.

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 12th day of February 2025

 

[ColonelKai]

I will be taking over this case. The case has hereby been refiled as [2025] FCR 20.

The court shall hereby go into discovery to last a maximum of 72 hours unless explicitly extended.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff hereby submits the following evidence:

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Spoiler: P-011

Spoiler: P-012

Spoiler: P-013

Spoiler: P-014

Spoiler: P-015

Spoiler: P-016

Spoiler: P-017

Spoiler: P-018

Spoiler: P-019

Spoiler: P-020

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, in line with Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint) of our Court rules and procedures, the Plaintiff wishes to amend their Complaint, considering the newly submitted evidence as well as the change of counsel. Due to the initial Complaint being posted by the previous counsel, I will hereby post the amended Complaint in full:

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


MrEntomology (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

byleth_irl
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

byleth_irl was hired to do a commission, a commission he failed to complete, leaving the Plaintiff without a painting they commissioned and feeling miserable as a man who just wants a decent painting for his house. MrEntomology is here today, disappointed at what this situation has had to become to simply make everything whole. A contract was broken, and the damaged victim of this breach deserves justice.

I. PARTIES
1. MrEntomology (Plaintiff)
2. byleth_irl (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. A first contract was written on January fourth, 2025 between byleth_irl and MrEntomology for byleth_irl to paint an exact copy of the painting "Girl with a Hair Ribbon” by Roy Lichtenstein at a 5x5 item frame scale for a price of $400 a frame ($10,000 total commission). The contract specified that the artist would have four [4] calendar days to complete the painting, then the painting was due for delivery.
2. A second contract was written on January sixth, 2025 between byleth_irl and MrEntomology, superseding the first contract.
3. This second contract stated that byleth_irl would create a 5x5 block Artmap painting replicating, to the best of the contractor’s ability, the piece “girl with hair ribbon” by Roy Lichtenstein.
4. This second contract stated that byleth_irl would have 5 full days from the date and time of the signature of both parties of the contract to complete and furnish to MrEntomology the 5x5 Artmap as described in II.3.
5. The second contract was formed with Offer, Acceptance, Consideration and Intent as defined in the Contracts Act.
6. At the date and time of the signing of the second contract, byleth_irl would be considered an active citizen of Redmont as defined in the Activity Act.
7. At the date and time of the signing of the second contract, byleth_irl had enough playtime to be allowed to vote, if an election were to be held at that time, as described in the second right of our Constitution.
8. The second contract was formed with Capacity as defined in the Contracts Act.
9. The second contract is a legally binding and valid contract under the Contracts Act.
10. The second contract stated that byleth_irl was expected to update MrEntomology in a timely manner from time to time regarding the status of the project upon request.
11. byleth_irl has not been online on the DemocracyCraft minecraft server since January seventh, 2025.
12. byleth_irl has been unresponsive to the Plaintiff.
13. The agreed upon 5x5 block Artmap as described in II.3 has to this date not been completed and furnished to MrEntomology.
14. byleth_irl has breached the second contract.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. A legally-binding contract under the Contracts Act where the plaintiff fulfilled all of his obligations was violated by the defendant, who failed to fulfill his obligations. The contract specified that the defendant would create an exact copy of the "Girl with a Hair Ribbon" painting by Roy Lichtenstein in a 5x5 item frame size. He failed to complete the commission and deliver the Plaintiff the commissioned painting by the due date of January 11th, 2025
2. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to a range of damages per the Legal Damages Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 in compensatory damages as this was the grand total of the painting's cost. (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act).
2. $10,000 in punitive damages as agreeing to a contract and failing to do so is belligerent and outrageous. (See above).
3. $8,000 in consequential damages - loss of enjoyment in Redmont for the plaintiff was unreasonably deprived of a prized painting for his residence and had to furthermore go out of his way (and still does) to find an artist willing to create the commission. (See above).
4. $8,000 in consequential damages - worsening of an existing condition for the plaintiff was unreasonably deprived of a prized painting the Plaintiff had been wanting. The plaintiff has had to endure much unneeded stress from the breaching of the contract. (See above).
5. $250 per day between January 11th and the date on which this issue gets resolved in late fees as stipulated within the second contract. This is $6,750 for the days between January 11th, the due date, and February 7th, the date of the filing of this case, as well as a further $250 in late fees for every day between February 7th and the date on which this issue gets resolved and the owed fees are paid.
6. $10,000 default fee as stipulated within the second contract since the commissioned artwork has not been delivered, nor has the artist been responsive, and it has been more than 7 days since the due date.
7. 30% of the total value of this case, as legal fees. (See above).

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

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 6th day of February 2025

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff hereby submits the following evidence and witness list:

Spoiler: P-021

Witnesses:
MrEntomology

 

[ColonelKai]

Apologies for the delay.

The Discovery period is hereby over. The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide the court their opening statement.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, as a representative of Dragon Law Firm, the Plaintiff would respectfully like to request an additional 48 hours to file the opening statements due to conflicts that have arisen. Thank you, your Honor.

 

[ColonelKai]

48 hours is a sizable extension to a 72 hour deadline. I will grant 12 hours from the original deadline, and the second half will only be granted if you give the court a solid reason.

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to grant default judgement against the defendant per Rule 3.6 (Default Judgment, Failure to Submit Defense) of our Court Rules and Procedures. Per Rule 3.7 (Mandatory Time for Amending an Answer) the Defendant had 72 hours immediately following the end of discovery to amend their Answer to Complaint in response to the Plaintiff's amended Complaint. As these 72 hours have passed the Defendant is no longer able to amend their Answer to Complaint. Rule 3.6 states "Defendants must amend any answer to have affirmations or denials on all facts..." as well as "Failure to include the necessary information is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant." Defendant's Answer to Complaint only contains affirmations or denials on the two facts in the initial Complaint, and not to any of the twelve facts that were added in our amended Complaint, which Rule 3.7 clearly states to be necessary, thus giving Plaintiff grounds to make this request.

If the court is not inclined to grant this default judgment, Plaintiff requests the court that all facts which the Defendant has decided not to deny to be considered undisputed and thus agreed upon material facts for the sake of this trial.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff would like to request the deadline for their Opening Statement to be put on hold and potentially redetermined when this issue has been resolved. There is a reason why the Answer to Complaint is intended to be finalized before the Plaintiff should make their Opening Statement and it would be unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to make an Opening Statement while there is no clarity on which facts are and are not disputed.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to grant default judgement against the defendant per Rule 3.6 (Default Judgment, Failure to Submit Defense) of our Court Rules and Procedures. Per Rule 3.7 (Mandatory Time for Amending an Answer) the Defendant had 72 hours immediately following the end of discovery to amend their Answer to Complaint in response to the Plaintiff's amended Complaint. As these 72 hours have passed the Defendant is no longer able to amend their Answer to Complaint. Rule 3.6 states "Defendants must amend any answer to have affirmations or denials on all facts..." as well as "Failure to include the necessary information is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant." Defendant's Answer to Complaint only contains affirmations or denials on the two facts in the initial Complaint, and not to any of the twelve facts that were added in our amended Complaint, which Rule 3.7 clearly states to be necessary, thus giving Plaintiff grounds to make this request.

If the court is not inclined to grant this default judgment, Plaintiff requests the court that all facts which the Defendant has decided not to deny to be considered undisputed and thus agreed upon material facts for the sake of this trial.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff would like to request the deadline for their Opening Statement to be put on hold and potentially redetermined when this issue has been resolved. There is a reason why the Answer to Complaint is intended to be finalized before the Plaintiff should make their Opening Statement and it would be unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to make an Opening Statement while there is no clarity on which facts are and are not disputed.

Objection

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

The plaintiff has not submitted a valid motion to the courts.

Under Rule 6 (Extraneous Court Material) - 6.4 - 'Motions are actionable under the methods provided within the thread “Guide” Motions Guide.'
Motions Guide defined a motion as a formal request to the courts, and outlines the available motions able to be made. The plaintiff has not done so with any of the available motions.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the response struck, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The plaintiff failed to provide a valid motion for the court to rule on, this shouldn't be considered without being properly written and formatted
2. A proper motion will enable a motion for reconsideration if it came to that.

 

[gribble19]

Objection

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

The plaintiff has not submitted a valid motion to the courts.

Under Rule 6 (Extraneous Court Material) - 6.4 - 'Motions are actionable under the methods provided within the thread “Guide” Motions Guide.'
Motions Guide defined a motion as a formal request to the courts, and outlines the available motions able to be made. The plaintiff has not done so with any of the available motions.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the response struck, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The plaintiff failed to provide a valid motion for the court to rule on, this shouldn't be considered without being properly written and formatted
2. A proper motion will enable a motion for reconsideration if it came to that.

Your Honor, Plaintiff would hereby like to make use of their ability to answer to the objection.

Yes, your Honor, it is true that the Plaintiff did not submit a motion to the courts, nor did the Plaintiff ever claim to do so. Rule 6.4 indeed states that Motions are actionable under the methods provided within the thread "Guide" Motions Guide and the Motions Guide indeed defines a motion as a formal request to the court and outlines the available motions able to be made, none of which fit the Plaintiff's request in this case, a request which the Court Rules and Procedures explicitly permits to be made in Rule 3.6. Similarly, the Court Rules and Procedures permit the parties to request extensions, and when a party does so they are similarly requesting something from the court and, similarly, not filing a motion. As, for example, the Defendant's counsel themselves did both in this exact case (see here), as well as in other cases (see here).

Your Honor, our court's guide to objections defines a Breach of Procedure as follows: "Occurs when a party violates court procedures, policies, or prior directions from the presiding judge." Within their objection, the Defendant has failed to show how the Plaintiff has violated any court procedures, policies or prior directions from the presiding judge and the Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests the court to overrule this Objection.

 

[ColonelKai]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to grant default judgement against the defendant per Rule 3.6 (Default Judgment, Failure to Submit Defense) of our Court Rules and Procedures. Per Rule 3.7 (Mandatory Time for Amending an Answer) the Defendant had 72 hours immediately following the end of discovery to amend their Answer to Complaint in response to the Plaintiff's amended Complaint. As these 72 hours have passed the Defendant is no longer able to amend their Answer to Complaint. Rule 3.6 states "Defendants must amend any answer to have affirmations or denials on all facts..." as well as "Failure to include the necessary information is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant." Defendant's Answer to Complaint only contains affirmations or denials on the two facts in the initial Complaint, and not to any of the twelve facts that were added in our amended Complaint, which Rule 3.7 clearly states to be necessary, thus giving Plaintiff grounds to make this request.

If the court is not inclined to grant this default judgment, Plaintiff requests the court that all facts which the Defendant has decided not to deny to be considered undisputed and thus agreed upon material facts for the sake of this trial.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff would like to request the deadline for their Opening Statement to be put on hold and potentially redetermined when this issue has been resolved. There is a reason why the Answer to Complaint is intended to be finalized before the Plaintiff should make their Opening Statement and it would be unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to make an Opening Statement while there is no clarity on which facts are and are not disputed.

Objection

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

The plaintiff has not submitted a valid motion to the courts.

Under Rule 6 (Extraneous Court Material) - 6.4 - 'Motions are actionable under the methods provided within the thread “Guide” Motions Guide.'
Motions Guide defined a motion as a formal request to the courts, and outlines the available motions able to be made. The plaintiff has not done so with any of the available motions.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the response struck, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The plaintiff failed to provide a valid motion for the court to rule on, this shouldn't be considered without being properly written and formatted
2. A proper motion will enable a motion for reconsideration if it came to that.

Your Honor, Plaintiff would hereby like to make use of their ability to answer to the objection.

Yes, your Honor, it is true that the Plaintiff did not submit a motion to the courts, nor did the Plaintiff ever claim to do so. Rule 6.4 indeed states that Motions are actionable under the methods provided within the thread "Guide" Motions Guide and the Motions Guide indeed defines a motion as a formal request to the court and outlines the available motions able to be made, none of which fit the Plaintiff's request in this case, a request which the Court Rules and Procedures explicitly permits to be made in Rule 3.6. Similarly, the Court Rules and Procedures permit the parties to request extensions, and when a party does so they are similarly requesting something from the court and, similarly, not filing a motion. As, for example, the Defendant's counsel themselves did both in this exact case (see here), as well as in other cases (see here).

Your Honor, our court's guide to objections defines a Breach of Procedure as follows: "Occurs when a party violates court procedures, policies, or prior directions from the presiding judge." Within their objection, the Defendant has failed to show how the Plaintiff has violated any court procedures, policies or prior directions from the presiding judge and the Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests the court to overrule this Objection.

Hello, and I apologise for the delay in response. I am still in my US trip until end of March.

Here, I would normally be inclined to accept the motion to strike and breach of procedure objections on the ground that there should indeed be an appropriate venue for a motion to be filed to the courts in order to request summary judgement. And of course, unsurprisingly, there is, however, a movant raising concerns on 3.7 as pursuant to the motions would guide would reasonably find themselves confused as to the exact use cases of a motion for summary judgement, as the definition given within the guide is very specific to cases where no facts are disputed.

Therefore, I will allow the movant to file this impromptu motion for summary judgement, and therefore consequentially overrule the objection and the motion. The particular matter at hand will be raised to the Supreme Court through the appropriate avenues for a potential amendment to the guide.

That being said, as related to the claim brought forward by the movant in regards to rule 3.7, the court upholds this "motion," and hereby moves for a summary judgement, and therefore, the court is in recess until a verdict is given.

The court thanks parties for their time.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Hello, and I apologise for the delay in response. I am still in my US trip until end of March.

Here, I would normally be inclined to accept the motion to strike and breach of procedure objections on the ground that there should indeed be an appropriate venue for a motion to be filed to the courts in order to request summary judgement. And of course, unsurprisingly, there is, however, a movant raising concerns on 3.7 as pursuant to the motions would guide would reasonably find themselves confused as to the exact use cases of a motion for summary judgement, as the definition given within the guide is very specific to cases where no facts are disputed.

Therefore, I will allow the movant to file this impromptu motion for summary judgement, and therefore consequentially overrule the objection and the motion. The particular matter at hand will be raised to the Supreme Court through the appropriate avenues for a potential amendment to the guide.

That being said, as related to the claim brought forward by the movant in regards to rule 3.7, the court upholds this "motion," and hereby moves for a summary judgement, and therefore, the court is in recess until a verdict is given.

The court thanks parties for their time.

Motion

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

The defence moves that the motion in this case be reconsidered, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

If the defences counsel was ineffective in responding to the answer in time in line with Court Procedure, it would be most beneficial to allow the defendant a new defence as to not penalize them for ineffective counsel.

In a recent and still pending case MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7) v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15 the public defender was removed for being ineffective, and the new counsel allowed to step in their place and pick up where the last defender proved ineffective.

In this case, it is clear that defence failed to amend their complaint within the time allotted in the Court Rules and Procedures 6.4.

As such in line with Court Rules and Procedures 6.5 (Bar to Public Defender Competency), the public defender assigned to this case failed to meet stipulation #1 'Timely respond to cases on their behalf', as well as #3 'Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client's situation, even if settling if needed'.

As the public defender failed to meet 2 of the 3 requirement to be considered "Competent" to defend this plaintiff, it is of the upmost importance a new defender is assigned to carry the case forward in a competent manner, again following the precedent set in MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7) v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

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

The defence moves that the motion in this case be reconsidered, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

If the defences counsel was ineffective in responding to the answer in time in line with Court Procedure, it would be most beneficial to allow the defendant a new defence as to not penalize them for ineffective counsel.

In a recent and still pending case MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7) v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15 the public defender was removed for being ineffective, and the new counsel allowed to step in their place and pick up where the last defender proved ineffective.

In this case, it is clear that defence failed to amend their complaint within the time allotted in the Court Rules and Procedures 6.4.

As such in line with Court Rules and Procedures 6.5 (Bar to Public Defender Competency), the public defender assigned to this case failed to meet stipulation #1 'Timely respond to cases on their behalf', as well as #3 'Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client's situation, even if settling if needed'.

As the public defender failed to meet 2 of the 3 requirement to be considered "Competent" to defend this plaintiff, it is of the upmost importance a new defender is assigned to carry the case forward in a competent manner, again following the precedent set in MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7) v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15.

Objection

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

Your Honor, the Defendant has violated both a prior direction from the presiding judge as well as court procedure, which according to this court's guide to objections are both defined as a Breach of Procedure.

The presiding judge has previously stated that this court is in recess until a verdict is given. The Oxford Dictionary (the official dictionary of our commonwealth by the Clarity Act) defines recess as: "a period of time when the proceedings of a parliament, committee, court of law, or other official body are temporarily suspended." This means that we must interpret the aforementioned statement from the presiding judge to mean that the proceedings of this court of law are to be suspended until a verdict is given. By attempting to file a motion the Defendant has attempted to engage in the proceedings of this court, which directly violates the prior direction from the presiding judge that all proceedings are to be suspended until a verdict has been given, and is therefore a Breach of Procedure. Precedent for this can be found in [2024] FCR 63, where a Motion to Reconsider was denied due to the court being in recess.

Furthermore, your Honor, a Motion to Reconsider is defined in this court's guide to motions as "a request to reconsider a previous ruling based on a point of law or new evidence", however, the Motion filed by the Defendant does not introduce any new evidence, nor does it reference any points of law. Filing a motion that does not fulfill its description under this court's guide, is a violation of the court procedure by Rule 6.4 of the Court Rules and Procedures and is therefore a Breach of Procedure.

If the court is not inclined to accept this objection, the Plaintiff wishes to request a response to the motion.

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection

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

Your Honor, the Defendant has violated both a prior direction from the presiding judge as well as court procedure, which according to this court's guide to objections are both defined as a Breach of Procedure.

The presiding judge has previously stated that this court is in recess until a verdict is given. The Oxford Dictionary (the official dictionary of our commonwealth by the Clarity Act) defines recess as: "a period of time when the proceedings of a parliament, committee, court of law, or other official body are temporarily suspended." This means that we must interpret the aforementioned statement from the presiding judge to mean that the proceedings of this court of law are to be suspended until a verdict is given. By attempting to file a motion the Defendant has attempted to engage in the proceedings of this court, which directly violates the prior direction from the presiding judge that all proceedings are to be suspended until a verdict has been given, and is therefore a Breach of Procedure. Precedent for this can be found in [2024] FCR 63, where a Motion to Reconsider was denied due to the court being in recess.

Furthermore, your Honor, a Motion to Reconsider is defined in this court's guide to motions as "a request to reconsider a previous ruling based on a point of law or new evidence", however, the Motion filed by the Defendant does not introduce any new evidence, nor does it reference any points of law. Filing a motion that does not fulfill its description under this court's guide, is a violation of the court procedure by Rule 6.4 of the Court Rules and Procedures and is therefore a Breach of Procedure.

If the court is not inclined to accept this objection, the Plaintiff wishes to request a response to the motion.

This objection is overruled. While the court was in recess, the plaintiff has brought forward important information which does fall under the second clause of the motion to reconsider. Therefore, the court will consider the motion brought forward by the movant.

As requested, the plaintiff may respond to the motion.

 

[MrEntomology]

Your honour permission to approach?

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

I have been assigned to take over this case for the Public defender program. I would like to ask the court for an update on the judicial process. I have tried reading over the case and noticed uncertainty and varying issues within the case overall.

 

[ColonelKai]

Your Honor,

I have been assigned to take over this case for the Public defender program. I would like to ask the court for an update on the judicial process. I have tried reading over the case and noticed uncertainty and varying issues within the case overall.

Hello.

While I was originally inclined to approve the summary judgement request, I am now reconsidering the decision pending the motion above.

That being said, the plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the motion starting now.

 

[gribble19]

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, the Defendant has filed a Motion to Reconsider the court's decision to move for a Summary Judgment, however the Defendant has not brought forward any valid reasoning to do so. The Plaintiffs respectfully request the court to overrule this Motion to Reconsider.

Your Honor, the Defendant first alleges that it would be most beneficial to "allow" the defendant new counsel. It is clear that the Defendant at this time has already changed counsel. Another Public Defender has been appointed to the case, without any ruling from the court needed to do so. If the Defendant through the Public Defender Program was always able to freely switch counsel, then the Public Defender's Program could have done so at any time. Requesting the court to "allow" the Defendant a new counsel is thus clearly unnecessary, as the court does not need to give permission for this in the first place.

Next, the Defendant refers to MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7) v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15. It is true that in this recent District Court case a Public Defender was removed for being ineffective, and that new counsel was allowed to step in their place. However, it is not true that the new counsel was allowed to "pick up where the last defender proved ineffective". The Defendant has requested the court to remove them for ineffective counsel, similarly to what happened in DCR 15. This is seemingly unnecessary at this point, with new counsel already having been appointed. After the new counsel was appointed in [2025] DCR 15, the new counsel was allowed to pick up the case from where it was left off at the time, which they did by filing a motion to dismiss as well as requesting an extension to file the outstanding Answer to Complaint, which the courts notably never granted.

With the Defendant having been appointed new counsel as requested by their former counsel, the only question left for the courts to answer is whether or not the decision to move for a Summary Judgment should be overturned because of this switch of counsel. The time to amend the Answer to Complaint has passed as per this court's rules. A change in identity of the Defendant's counsel does not change this. Reverting the previous ruling from the courts would only make sense if the Defendant would somehow become able to amend their Answer to Complaint again. This would constitute some sort of reverting time and going back into the past of the case, pretending that was has happened never happened to begin with, purely because of a switch of counsel. This, Your Honor, seems completely unreasonable, and the Motion that has been made does not offer any evidence, precedent or points of law that might warrant such an act.

Furthermore, there is clear precedent that shows the opposite. In Dr_Eksplosive v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 17, the defendant failed to appear to the court within the deadline, causing the court to move for Summary Judgment. The defendant in the case then appeared after the deadline had passed and filed a Motion to Reconsider. If granted, this motion would have had a similar effect as the one in this case could potentially have. The court in [2025] FCR 17 overruled the motion, with the reasoning that there has to be a valid excuse to miss a deadline, and that in case a deadline cannot be met, the defendant should have simply asked for an extension. In the case at hand, the Defendant too could have requested an extension if they wanted to amend their Answer to Complaint but were not able to in the time allowed for this under our court's rules and procedures. They however, did not do so. It may be noted that the Defendant's previous counsel did submit an Opening Statement in [2025] DCR 7, as well as a Closing Statement in [2025] FCR 5, both during the time between the Plaintiff's amendment to Complaint and the deadline for Defendant to amend their Answer to Complaint. This suggests that the Defendant's previous counsel was clearly able to request an extension if they had wished to do so, but simply decided not to.

 

[ColonelKai]

The court will enter recess again pending a decision.

 

[ColonelKai]

Motion

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

The defence moves that the motion in this case be reconsidered, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

If the defences counsel was ineffective in responding to the answer in time in line with Court Procedure, it would be most beneficial to allow the defendant a new defence as to not penalize them for ineffective counsel.

In a recent and still pending case MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7) v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15 the public defender was removed for being ineffective, and the new counsel allowed to step in their place and pick up where the last defender proved ineffective.

In this case, it is clear that defence failed to amend their complaint within the time allotted in the Court Rules and Procedures 6.4.

As such in line with Court Rules and Procedures 6.5 (Bar to Public Defender Competency), the public defender assigned to this case failed to meet stipulation #1 'Timely respond to cases on their behalf', as well as #3 'Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client's situation, even if settling if needed'.

As the public defender failed to meet 2 of the 3 requirement to be considered "Competent" to defend this plaintiff, it is of the upmost importance a new defender is assigned to carry the case forward in a competent manner, again following the precedent set in MrCheesGuy (Formerly siebelol7) v. ForeverShadow1 [2025] DCR 15.

Upon reconsideration, this motion is approved.

Further, the court hereby issues a Sua sponte dismissal on the grounds that the public defender issues by the Public Defender Programme has failed to meet their bar for competency, fundamentally disturbing and damaging the integrity of the case in a way that is inconsistent with the rights the defendant has as per the constitution.

The failure of the Public Defender as appointed by the courts to meet their bar of competency violates the right to a fair trial and representation of the defendant, and therefore the case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

The court thanks all parties for their time.