Lawsuit: Pending MysticPhunky V. Naezaratheus [2025] FCR 26

[Vernicia]

your honor, this evidence was apart of Exhibit P-001

your honor defense requests a response if the Court is inclined to overrule.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection​

Improper Evidence

It appears this picture was never labelled, and is therefore inadmissible

 

[Vernicia]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


MysticPhunky (represented by Justice Compass Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Naezaratheus
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

MysticPhunky was doing construction on his property when Naezaratheus brutally murdered MysticPhunky after being invited to see the property. The crime scene produced by Naezaratheus delayed the construction MysticPhunky was doing – one of the primary ways the Plaintiff enjoys his time in Redmont. This not only made it impossible for MysticPhunky to enjoy activities the way he once did, but it delayed the amount of time before he could release the apartments in the building for rent, thus causing compensatory damages as well.





I. PARTIES
1. MysticPhunky (plaintiff)
2. Naezaratheus (defendant)



II. FACTS
1. MysticPhunky was doing construction on their property.
2. Naezaratheus then killed MysticPhunky while MysticPhunky was doing construction.
3. The crime scene produced delayed MysticPhunky’s construction which delayed/lost MysticPhunky income.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Defendant Naezaratheus committed murder under the Violent Offenses Act, which led to a crime scene on MysticPhunky’s property, delaying construction.
2. This disruption not only deprived MysticPhunky of the enjoyment from his work but also caused significant project delays.
3. As a result, MysticPhunky suffered financial losses due to the postponed construction and delayed rental income.

The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages for these losses, consequential damages for the loss of enjoyment, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and prevent future behavior, and legal fees to cover the costs of the lawsuit.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $30,000 in Compensatory Damages- delayed construction- delayed money-
2. $10,000 in Legal Fees- to cover all legal costs associated with this incident and lawsuit
3. $20,000 in Consequential Damages- loss of enjoyment-
4. $5,000 in Punitive Damages- to deter this behavior in the future

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

(Exhibit P-001)

(Exhibit P-002)

(Exhibit P-003)

Proof of representation:

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 10th day of March 2025

Objection​

Hearsay

The exhibit Exhibit P-003 shows an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. JediAJMan is not here to testify to his remarks and they cannot be cross-examined, therefore this violates my client's Constitutional right to confront the evidence against him (right 9, a commonly held common law interpretation of this right, for the record). The Commonwealth has upheld this interpretation of hearsay before (UnseatedDuke1 v. The Radish), and so this evidence must be struck.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection overruled.

Motion​

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor,

The exhibit P-004 is not relevant. Showing when someone goes and complains to their lawyer about an alleged act proves nothing in this case. All we can conclude from this evidence is when Mystic decided to open a ticket with Dartanman's firm. We have no actual evidence showing when the alleged events took place or when they got resolved by the DHS (that is P-005)

 

[Savannah]

Witness Questions

1. Do multiple clues appear in close proximity to each other when a murder produces a crime scene?
2. When a murder produces a crime scene, is it possible to place blocks where the clues appear?
3. In Exhibit P-003, JediAJMan (a.k.a. Homelander) is seen talking about the murder scene. Was this conversation on-ticket in a staff capacity?

 

[juniperfig]

Objection​

Breach of procedure

The plaintiff has improperly affixed comments in the P-004 submission. I move to strike.

Sustained. The comments in the evidence submissions will be struck.

your honor defense requests a response if the Court is inclined to overrule.

You may respond.

Objection​

Hearsay

The exhibit Exhibit P-003 shows an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. JediAJMan is not here to testify to his remarks and they cannot be cross-examined, therefore this violates my client's Constitutional right to confront the evidence against him (right 9, a commonly held common law interpretation of this right, for the record). The Commonwealth has upheld this interpretation of hearsay before (UnseatedDuke1 v. The Radish), and so this evidence must be struck.

Overruled. Staff has been called as a witness. They can be cross-examined.

Motion​

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor,

The exhibit P-004 is not relevant. Showing when someone goes and complains to their lawyer about an alleged act proves nothing in this case. All we can conclude from this evidence is when Mystic decided to open a ticket with Dartanman's firm. We have no actual evidence showing when the alleged events took place or when they got resolved by the DHS (that is P-005)

Denied. The court is satisfied with the Plaintiff's explanation of P-004's relevance.

 

[Vernicia]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


MysticPhunky (represented by Justice Compass Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Naezaratheus
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

MysticPhunky was doing construction on his property when Naezaratheus brutally murdered MysticPhunky after being invited to see the property. The crime scene produced by Naezaratheus delayed the construction MysticPhunky was doing – one of the primary ways the Plaintiff enjoys his time in Redmont. This not only made it impossible for MysticPhunky to enjoy activities the way he once did, but it delayed the amount of time before he could release the apartments in the building for rent, thus causing compensatory damages as well.





I. PARTIES
1. MysticPhunky (plaintiff)
2. Naezaratheus (defendant)



II. FACTS
1. MysticPhunky was doing construction on their property.
2. Naezaratheus then killed MysticPhunky while MysticPhunky was doing construction.
3. The crime scene produced delayed MysticPhunky’s construction which delayed/lost MysticPhunky income.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Defendant Naezaratheus committed murder under the Violent Offenses Act, which led to a crime scene on MysticPhunky’s property, delaying construction.
2. This disruption not only deprived MysticPhunky of the enjoyment from his work but also caused significant project delays.
3. As a result, MysticPhunky suffered financial losses due to the postponed construction and delayed rental income.

The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages for these losses, consequential damages for the loss of enjoyment, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and prevent future behavior, and legal fees to cover the costs of the lawsuit.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $30,000 in Compensatory Damages- delayed construction- delayed money-
2. $10,000 in Legal Fees- to cover all legal costs associated with this incident and lawsuit
3. $20,000 in Consequential Damages- loss of enjoyment-
4. $5,000 in Punitive Damages- to deter this behavior in the future

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

(Exhibit P-001)

(Exhibit P-002)

(Exhibit P-003)

Proof of representation:

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 10th day of March 2025

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Lawsuit: In Session - Vernicia v.Tonga1 [2025] FCR 24). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

 

[Vernicia]

Good morning, your honor. Savannah is the primary counsel for this case, however I am supervising and assisting. I will be submitting several pieces of evidence for Discovery, including the improperly-labeled screenshot, which I am the source of.

Here is the additional evidence being submitted for Discovery:

Exhibit P-004:

Spoiler: [S

"MysticPhunky Approaches Justice Compass Law Firm With Evidence at 11:44 PM"[/S]]
View attachment 53225

Exhibit P-005:

Spoiler: [S

"DHS Logs Show The Crime Scene Was Not Cleared for At Least 8 Hours & Naezaratheus is the Killer"[/S]]
View attachment 53224

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Vernicia v. Tonga1). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

 

[Vernicia]

Opening Statement



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


May it please the court, Your Honor, opposing counsel, citizens of Redmont,


We are here today to make sure the defendant is held liable for all damages they have caused — compensatory damages (loss and delay of money, extreme construction delays), consequential damages (loss of enjoyment), legal fees (to cover all costs associated with this lawsuit), and punitive damages (to prevent this behavior in the future).


The facts are clear: MysticPhunky was in the middle of doing construction on his property — something he enjoys spending his time doing in Redmont. But this wasn’t just a little hobby — this was supposed to support him financially through renting out apartments and more. While MysticPhunky was doing this, Naezaratheus violently murdered him. Because of that murder, a crime scene was opened. That crime scene delayed the construction, which caused MysticPhunky to lose time and money, leaving him with no income during that period.


Now that we have covered the loss and delay of funds, as well as the extreme construction delays, let's talk more about the impact that the defendant caused MysticPhunky on a more personal level. MysticPhunky enjoys being able to participate in the core mechanic of this world: building an environment only as limited as your imagination. He takes great pride and finds himself constantly doing what he can to improve his skills, his own property, and even more importantly, the aesthetic of Redmont. Naezaratheus’ outrageous action caused MysticPhunky to lose something more than money and time: enjoyment in the small things. Enjoyment in being able to put in an honest day's work to better your surroundings. Enjoyment of being able to go about your business without the fear that someone will come along and deprive you of your basic happiness. It cannot be understated that MysticPhunky has not only been financially deprived, but also deprived of what he enjoys doing.


Given all the evidence and information provided, and the lack of evidence submitted by the defense showing the contrary, the defendant should be held responsible not just for the murder, but for the losses that came from it. To address statements the defense made earlier, these delays were not small or insignificant. As shown in the evidence provided by Dartanboy, there is proof that Naezaratheus murdered MysticPhunky, and the case wasn’t cleared for at least eight hours. That eight-hour period could have been used for major progress. Instead, it caused a chain reaction of delays, lost work time, lost income, a bigger setback for the entire project — something that already takes a lot of time to complete, and loss of enjoyment, as MysticPhunky was unable to enjoy his construction activities in Redmont for at least eight hours.


We respectfully urge the court to deliver a verdict that not only fairly covers the losses MysticPhunky suffered, but also shows that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and won’t be tolerated in the future

Motion

Motion to Strike
Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Vernicia v. Tonga1). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

 

[Vernicia]

Motion

Motion to Dismiss

Anticipating the fact that neither Dartanman nor Savannah will be able to prove with certainty they were barristers when they posted the complaint or any of the following necessary elements of the case, and that those would therefore be struck, the plaintiff is left without a proper case. Under rule 5.5, the defense can request dismissal when the plaintiff lacks a claim, and so the Court has no choice under the procedures but to dismiss this case. Thank you your honor <3.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, I'm able to prove I've been an Attorney since March 5, if you'll permit me to show it.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Your Honor, I'd like to file an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Department of Education as the current Secretary of Education as it relates to the Qualifications of Legal exams as slated our responsibility in Modern Legal Reform Act Section 5.2(d) 'The Department of Education must: -- Maintain records of all qualified legal practitioners', simply to clear matters up on who was qualified and when.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor, I'd like to file an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Department of Education as the current Secretary of Education as it relates to the Qualifications of Legal exams as slated our responsibility in Modern Legal Reform Act Section 5.2(d) 'The Department of Education must: -- Maintain records of all qualified legal practitioners', simply to clear matters up on who was qualified and when.

You may.

Your honor, I'm able to prove I've been an Attorney since March 5, if you'll permit me to show it.

You may.

 

[Dartanboy]

You may.

I trust the Department of Education will handle this appropriately.

 

[asexualdinosaur]

The records we have for the following counsel are:

Vernicia - Attorney - 3/24/2025 4:11:45 WET
.SavannahPrice21 - Solicitor by legal rank squash
Dartanboy - (first) Attorney - 3/5/2025 7:15:01 WET

I would also note for the record; because it relates to the question at hand, that upon the passage of the Modern Legal Reform Act, there were transitional provisions around this topic -- 'during the grace period, anyone possessing a legal license can file cases in any court without reprimand, penalty, or exclusion.'
3/3/2025 was the passage of this Act, and two weeks thereafter would be 3/17/2025

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

Motion to Dismiss

Anticipating the fact that neither Dartanman nor Savannah will be able to prove with certainty they were barristers when they posted the complaint or any of the following necessary elements of the case, and that those would therefore be struck, the plaintiff is left without a proper case. Under rule 5.5, the defense can request dismissal when the plaintiff lacks a claim, and so the Court has no choice under the procedures but to dismiss this case. Thank you your honor <3.

Motion

Motion to Strike
Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Vernicia v. Tonga1). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Vernicia v. Tonga1). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

Motion

Motion to Strike

Your honor, the Court has decided to make its bed by setting the precedent that lawyers, when challenged, have the burden of proof to provide evidence that they have legal qualifications as of the time of posting something (Lawsuit: In Session - Vernicia v.Tonga1 [2025] FCR 24). I motion to strike opposing counsel’s statement as we have no proof they were legally qualified to represent their client when they posted that remark. The Court must compel them to provide such evidence or strike the statement, out of fairness to both parties under the equality clause in the Constitution. Thank you your honor.

In consideration of the Amicus Brief, each motion is denied.

Additionally, I warn the Plaintiff to be wary of Contempt of Court. Spamming motions to each posting is entirely unnecessary and disrupts the proceedings of the court. This is your official warning. Any future stunts will have you held in contempt.

With that settled, the Plaintiff has just under 9 hours to present their questions to the witness.

 

[Dartanboy]

Questions for Staff Team:

1. Do multiple clues appear in close proximity to each other when a murder produces a crime scene?

2. When a murder produces a crime scene, is it possible to place blocks where the clues appear?

3. In Exhibit P-003, JediAJMan (a.k.a. Homelander) is seen talking with MysticPhunky. Was this conversation on-ticket in a staff capacity?

4. Was the conversation in P-003 about the crime scene that is mentioned throughout this lawsuit?

 

[Vernicia]

You may.

You may.

Each piece of evidence must be labeled per the court rules. Two pieces of evidence were provided under one label. Two pieces of evidence constitutes two labels. Otherwise, what stops someone from submitting their entire evidence portfolio as P-001 ? The point is so that we can easily refer to each picture and distinction is a necessary element for that to happen.

 

[Savannah]

Each piece of evidence must be labeled per the court rules. Two pieces of evidence were provided under one label. Two pieces of evidence constitutes two labels. Otherwise, what stops someone from submitting their entire evidence portfolio as P-001 ? The point is so that we can easily refer to each picture and distinction is a necessary element for that to happen.

Your honour, the evidence is labeled the same because they are evidence for the same fact

 

[Dartanboy]

Each piece of evidence must be labeled per the court rules. Two pieces of evidence were provided under one label. Two pieces of evidence constitutes two labels. Otherwise, what stops someone from submitting their entire evidence portfolio as P-001 ? The point is so that we can easily refer to each picture and distinction is a necessary element for that to happen.

Motion

MOTION TO STRIKE

This is neither an Objection nor Motion.

 

[Vernicia]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

I provided a response under permission of the Court, and the plaintiff is not entitled to give further response without permission. I therefore move to strike.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

I provided a response under permission of the Court, and the plaintiff is not entitled to give further response without permission. I therefore move to strike.

I could be missing it, because the Defense's lawyer and their now-banned cronies have flooded the lawsuit with useless objections.

But, I don't see such a permission.

And filing a Motion is certainly not a Breach of Procedure. I suggest that Vernicia read up on the Court Rules and Procedures.

 

[juniperfig]

Questions for Staff Team:

1. Do multiple clues appear in close proximity to each other when a murder produces a crime scene?

2. When a murder produces a crime scene, is it possible to place blocks where the clues appear?

3. In Exhibit P-003, JediAJMan (a.k.a. Homelander) is seen talking with MysticPhunky. Was this conversation on-ticket in a staff capacity?

4. Was the conversation in P-003 about the crime scene that is mentioned throughout this lawsuit?

@Staff Team has 48 hours to answer these questions.

 

[juniperfig]

Motion

MOTION TO STRIKE

This is neither an Objection nor Motion.

This motion is denied. The Defence was granted permission to reply, but simply quoted the wrong permission.

Your honour, the evidence is labeled the same because they are evidence for the same fact

Do not speak out of turn. This is your warning. Any further unprompted comments will have you held in contempt of court.

Objection

Breach of Procedure

I provided a response under permission of the Court, and the plaintiff is not entitled to give further response without permission. I therefore move to strike.

Sustained. The Defence did receive permission to respond. Savannah's response will be struck.

Objection​

Improper Evidence

It appears this picture was never labelled, and is therefore inadmissible

Overruled. Improper evidence is defined as "evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately (e.g., new evidence introduced during closing statements)". The second image in P-001 is none of the above.

The court rules and procedures do not explicitly state that each image must be submitted under a new exhibit, no matter how useful it would be.

The purpose of Discovery "is to allow all material to enter the court prior to the beginning of arguments for the sake of fairness". To be used in legal arguments, material must have been included "within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission". The second image in P-001 was included within the complaint and was labelled according to the appropriate naming convention.

The intent of the Plaintiff to include the second image under P-001 is clear to any reasonable person perusing the complaint. The court is satisfied that all parties should have been aware of this evidence and its intent to be used in legal arguments for the entirety of the proceedings.

However, this ruling should not be interpreted as blanket permission for unclear or ambiguous evidence submission in the future. While the court finds the Plaintiff's intent sufficiently evident in this case, it emphasizes that parties bear the responsibility of ensuring their exhibits are clearly structured and labeled to prevent confusion. Failure to do so in the future may result in evidence being excluded on procedural grounds.

The courts strongly recommend that parties place material within spoiler tags and label each image separately in the future to avoid confusion and to ensure smooth proceedings.

 

[Staff Team]

Questions for Staff Team:

1. Do multiple clues appear in close proximity to each other when a murder produces a crime scene?

2. When a murder produces a crime scene, is it possible to place blocks where the clues appear?

3. In Exhibit P-003, JediAJMan (a.k.a. Homelander) is seen talking with MysticPhunky. Was this conversation on-ticket in a staff capacity?

4. Was the conversation in P-003 about the crime scene that is mentioned throughout this lawsuit?

1. Yes
2. Not in its standard form. However, we are aware that, on occasion, glitches allow for block placement where clues appear.
3. If a staff member is on a ticket during a discussion, they are acting in their official capacity as a staff member.
4. Not sure, we don’t have a reference or scope of when the discussion was had.

 

[Dartanboy]

1. Yes
2. Not in its standard form. However, we are aware that, on occasion, glitches allow for block placement where clues appear.
3. If a staff member is on a ticket during a discussion, they are acting in their official capacity as a staff member.
4. Not sure, we don’t have a reference or scope of when the discussion was had.

To follow up to Q4, since this was in a staff capacity, we are not able to summon JediAJMan/Homelander as a witness, rather we summoned the Staff Team.

Can the staff team please provide Staff Member Homelander's testimony for the original Q4?

 

[Vernicia]

To follow up to Q4, since this was in a staff capacity, we are not able to summon JediAJMan/Homelander as a witness, rather we summoned the Staff Team.

Can the staff team please provide Staff Member Homelander's testimony for the original Q4?

Objection

Hearsay

Your honor, the request calls for hearsay. Regardless of whether or not the witness made the statements, the statements are still out of court and are not admissible. The staff team can answer questions about content in court, but they can't answer questions about conversations that occurred outside of court. This is the definition of hearsay.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Hearsay

Your honor, the request calls for hearsay. Regardless of whether or not the witness made the statements, the statements are still out of court and are not admissible. The staff team can answer questions about content in court, but they can't answer questions about conversations that occurred outside of court. This is the definition of hearsay.

Hearsay is when you talk about what someone else said, not when you talk about what you said yourself.

 

[juniperfig]

Objection

Hearsay

Your honor, the request calls for hearsay. Regardless of whether or not the witness made the statements, the statements are still out of court and are not admissible. The staff team can answer questions about content in court, but they can't answer questions about conversations that occurred outside of court. This is the definition of hearsay.

Overruled. The witness may answer the question.

 

[Staff Team]

To follow up to Q4, since this was in a staff capacity, we are not able to summon JediAJMan/Homelander as a witness, rather we summoned the Staff Team.

Can the staff team please provide Staff Member Homelander's testimony for the original Q4?

" It appears so, yes."

 

[Dartanboy]

No more questions, your honor.

 

[juniperfig]

The defendant may now cross-examine the witness. 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.

 

[Vernicia]

" It appears so, yes."

Objection

Speculation

The witness answered with “it appears so” which has an element of uncertainty associated with it. The answer is speculative and must be struck.

 

[Vernicia]

Overruled. The witness may answer the question.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

It is disappointing that the Court did not provide its reasoning for overruling the hearsay objection, but nonetheless I will assume it is due to the plaintiff counsel’s response. Unfortunately, an out of court statement is an out of court statement no matter who said it. This is hearsay. Let us examine the legal theory around why hearsay actually exists in legal systems across the globe:

1) Out of court statements are not under oath. A statement that goes to prove the truth of the matter asserted said in court is evidence as the statement is sworn to be truthful. No such protections exist for out of court statements.
2) Out of court statements cannot be directly cross examined. If the declarant were able to testify, then this concern would be alleviated.
3) This will set a dangerous precedent for future cases.

In any case, the evidence at hand really shows nothing to the Court. It is not under oath, the declarant is not present to testify. The statements are hearsay and to overrule this motion would be going against the very fabric of widely accepted legal customs, customs that are accepted in the Commonwealth already.

 

[Vernicia]

The defendant may now cross-examine the witness. 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.

1) How many pieces of evidence does each murder leave behind ?

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection

Speculation

The witness answered with “it appears so” which has an element of uncertainty associated with it. The answer is speculative and must be struck.

Speculation is when someone "testifies about something they have not directly observed" (see Objections Guide).

Homelander/the staff team was certainly there.

 

[Dartanboy]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

It is disappointing that the Court did not provide its reasoning for overruling the hearsay objection, but nonetheless I will assume it is due to the plaintiff counsel’s response. Unfortunately, an out of court statement is an out of court statement no matter who said it. This is hearsay. Let us examine the legal theory around why hearsay actually exists in legal systems across the globe:

1) Out of court statements are not under oath. A statement that goes to prove the truth of the matter asserted said in court is evidence as the statement is sworn to be truthful. No such protections exist for out of court statements.
2) Out of court statements cannot be directly cross examined. If the declarant were able to testify, then this concern would be alleviated.
3) This will set a dangerous precedent for future cases.

In any case, the evidence at hand really shows nothing to the Court. It is not under oath, the declarant is not present to testify. The statements are hearsay and to overrule this motion would be going against the very fabric of widely accepted legal customs, customs that are accepted in the Commonwealth already.

May we respond?

 

[juniperfig]

May we respond?

You may.

 

[juniperfig]

Apologies, a response is no longer necessary.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

It is disappointing that the Court did not provide its reasoning for overruling the hearsay objection, but nonetheless I will assume it is due to the plaintiff counsel’s response. Unfortunately, an out of court statement is an out of court statement no matter who said it. This is hearsay. Let us examine the legal theory around why hearsay actually exists in legal systems across the globe:

1) Out of court statements are not under oath. A statement that goes to prove the truth of the matter asserted said in court is evidence as the statement is sworn to be truthful. No such protections exist for out of court statements.
2) Out of court statements cannot be directly cross examined. If the declarant were able to testify, then this concern would be alleviated.
3) This will set a dangerous precedent for future cases.

In any case, the evidence at hand really shows nothing to the Court. It is not under oath, the declarant is not present to testify. The statements are hearsay and to overrule this motion would be going against the very fabric of widely accepted legal customs, customs that are accepted in the Commonwealth already.

Denied. The Staff Team is testifying. Homelander is a part of the Staff Team. You can cross-examine them.

Objection

Speculation

The witness answered with “it appears so” which has an element of uncertainty associated with it. The answer is speculative and must be struck.

Overruled. Uncertainty is not speculation.